Apocalypse Wow! (Part 24)
Bible burnout. Every time I get to this point in my study of Revelation I hit a wall. My passion in life is the word of God, but I am not interested in gaining information as an end in itself. I want the Lord to grip my heart and mind through His word, and then I want Him to get a hold of you too. Groping my way through the maze of figures, symbols, and characters in the Apocalypse is labor intensive and exhausting mentally, but it is worth it if your appetite for this great book has been piqued.
Good news. chapter fourteen is an easy chapter exegetically speaking, and I hope you really get as blessed as I have.
The chapter begins with the reappearance of the 144,000 from chapter seven; but why are they mentioned again at this juncture? Let me try and use an analogy, albeit feeble, to explain it. You remember the desolation after the twin towers were hit back on 9-11-2001. The smoldering ruins were called ground zero, a grim reminder of that fateful day. Many who survived that day because they providentially missed work or somehow got out before the structures collapsed went back to visit the site.
The Jewish remnant had been sealed by God for protection. When the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem, they heeded the warning given by Jesus decades earlier to flee. Now they return to Mount Zion–ground zero, if you will. The city has been reduced to rubble. The Lamb is there with them–bearing the marks of slaughter yet standing–and they follow him wherever He leads. They are safe and secure in Him. They have kept themselves pure from spiritual fornication–that is, they have not worshipped the beast or his image. (Sex per se is nowhere forbidden in scripture, so that the meaning here must be symbolic.) Their presence here introduces the stern warning against worshipping the beast and serves as an encouragement to the saints to persevere in the faith no matter what; and in the end they too will stand triumphant over the enemy.
Notice that they are called the firstfruits. This expression is used elsewhere to describe the first converts to Jesus in a given place.
Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ (Romans 16:5).
I urge you, brethren–you know know the household of Stephanas, that is, the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints (1 Corinthians 16:15).
The gospel harvest started in Jerusalem, and then spread to all Judea, Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the known world (Acts 1:8). The church was exclusively Jewish in the years of its infancy. Thus this Jewish remnant is here called the firstfruits. Here is another clue that points to the soundness of a preterist position. If the 144,000 were really Jewish Billy Grahams yet to appear in a future great tribulation, they would more fittingly be referred to as the lastfruits. But I digress.
Imagery from the world of agriculture is found throughout the chapter in the form of three harvests. The firstfruits harvest has already been mentioned. The second harvest (vv. 14-16) is a depiction of Christ reaping the harvest of His elect through the spread of the gospel. In the gospels the Lord had described the growth of the kingdom in terms of a harvest:
The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest (Matthew 9:37-38).
Do you not say, “there are still four months, and then comes the harvest?” Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are already white for harvest (John 4:35).
The third harvest (vv. 17-20) is the gathering and crushing of the earth dwellers who worshipped the beast and received his mark. The order here is significant. In the ancient Near East the firstfruits of the grain harvest were gathered in early spring, followed by the harvest of ripe grain in the summer months. The grape harvest began in late summer and ran through the fall. Also of note is that the grape harvest is used in the Old Testament as a metaphor of judgment because the grapes are trampled and crushed, producing juice reminiscent of blood.
Why is your apparel red and your garments like one who treads in the winepress? I have trodden the winepress alone, and from the peoples no one was with me. I have trodden them in my anger and trampled them in my fury. Their blood is sprinkled upon my garments, and I have stained all my robes (Isaiah 63:2-3, c.f., Lamentations 1:15; Joel 3:13).
The warnings of vv. 6-13 are indeed sobering, but they are tempered with the promise of eternal life. A committed witness for Christ in the Days of the Apocalypse was not without cost. And yet the danger factor did not impede the progress of the gospel in the least. In fact those who died in the Lord were counted to be specially blessed.
All this makes me wonder if the freedoms we enjoy in this country are important to me just because they allow me to enjoy my comfort zone. Would I be willing to stand firm in the faith in the face of the kind of persecution the early believers faced? Well, I suppose those folks were really no different from me. What was different was the measure of grace given to them by God in their hour of need. It’s all about Him, and He gets all the glory.
I remember the days of the Jesus Movement when there was a great harvest of young souls. I pray for another in-gathering in this generation. Maybe for this to happen God will need to take us out of our comfort zone. If that’s His plan I want to be right in the middle of it.
Great thought, Pastor Pete. I’ve never really pondered that term, “firstfruits.” I love that term. It indicates how patient God is. It is amazing to me that the Creator of all that exists decided to reveal His truth and salvation through a plan that was so seemingly vulnerable to evil. From the very start, to come as a new born who was completely vulnerable to Herod. Then, to submit to death at the hands of evil (I always wonder if Satan thought he’d won for three days?) And to pick just 12, fairly uneducated, men to carry the message forward. Now to read of the remnant, I’m sure the Beast thought he could wipe the believers off the face of the earth and end Christianity right then and there. God is amazing. If this religion were set-up by man it would be much more organized, with well defined outcomes and contingency plans.
Amen!
Hi Pete,
You mention the firstfruits are the first converts in a given place. So in Jerusalem, they would certainly have been Jews. But in other places, like Samaria–already in Acts 8–they were not Jews. You noted Epaenetus in Achaia; that name is Greek, and he was probably a Gentile. So the term firstfruits could be expanded to include Samaritans or Gentiles in various places where the gospel produces fruit.
The contrast in Rev. 7 between the numbered “Jews” (firstfruits) and the innumerable “multitudes” from all tribes and peoples (including literal Jews) is also in Rev. 14, where after the 144,000 comes mention of the gospel being proclaimed to every nation and people (14:6). I think this distinction between firstfruits in a given place and those hearing the gospel in every place could apply through church history, including today. The firstfruits are those who receive and help spearhead the gospel in a certain place, while the rest around them who hear and receive the gospel would be the “lastfruits.”
When Revelation was written, the gospel had spread around a fraction of the Mediterranean Sea world, so there was plenty of room for more firstfruits, and there still is.
I can’t see anything you have written that I disagree with. The term firstfruits is a figure taken from agriculture to denote the fiirst of the produce harvested. Of course Epaenetus was a gentile. Firstfuits could be any of the first converts anywhere and this would be determined by the context. For example the early Jesus People back when I was saved could have been called the firstfruits of the hippies. The 144,000 represent the firstfruits of the gospel in the early church–and these converts happened to be Jews at the beginning. As the gospel spread these early Jewish believers seemed small in number, which is why their limited number is contrasted with the innumerable multitude from every nation, etc. There are obviously ethnic Jews included in the church today, although they are in the minority, and these would not be included in the 144,000. My belief is that the 144,000 is a reference to the early converts of Palelstine who escaped the great tribulation of 66-70 AD. I probably did not make this as clear as I could have.
By the way, I have downloaded your ebook on Revelation, and I started looking at it last night. I think it is good to expose oneself to various interpretations, and I have read just about everything in print over the years. Preterist is not the best label for my approach because I really handle Revelation as I would exegete any other book of the Bible. I look for what the writer was trying to say to the original recipients. Then once I have done the work of interpretation I look for applications to my present life situation. There are transferable universal truths in every book of the Bible that we believers today can take to the bank.
Thanks, Lucas, for your response and your hard work of studying this great book of the bible. At the end of the day I do not disagree with anything you saiid above.
Thanks for your response(s).
Just to clarify about the 144,000 and firstfruits. I understand you see this group as Jewish converts fleeing Roman armies in the mid-first century. My view is that they are the symbolic total of all early converts in every place throughout church history who spearheaded (as “major prophets”) the expansion of the gospel in that place.
Besides the implications of the word firstfruits, other contextual factors in Rev. include the question of who are true Jews, and when is the full number of 144,000 completed? In 2:9 and 3:9 a “synagogue of Satan” claims to be Jews but “are not.” 3:9 adds that “they lie” and in the end they will bow down before the feet (of the Philadelphia church) and learn that “I have loved you” (not them). This suggests Christ, through John, redefines Jews from literal Jews in synagogues to this church (similar to other N.T. passages like Rom. 2:29). This church in Philadelphia has “kept my word” (3:8,10), like true prophets (that don’t lie), and in the end will have the name of God written on them (as in 14:1 for the 144,000), and be pillars in the (heavenly) temple as part of the new Jerusalem (3:12).
The context of Rev. 7 follows the sixth seal (about the final great day of the wrath of the Lamb, the final judgment). Before that great gale blows over all the earth (6:13; 7:1), the 144,000 must first be sealed. This suggests to me that the full number of firstfruits continues to fill up until the very end (see also 6:11).
That’s my two cents worth, but it’s yours for free.
Well, you are not alone in suggesting that the 144,000 are not ethnic Jews. I remember that one of the books I read ages ago in Bible college (mid 1970′s–I was born in 1952 and will be 60 in November) was George E. Ladd’s The Blessed Hope, which is a refutation of pre-trib and a defense of historic pre-mil. He says these are simply Christians. I happen to hold to replacement theology as do many of my fellow Reformed Baptists. That is that the church replaces Israel. There is no more significance to a man being a Jew than a Norwegian like me. But there still are Norwegians and Jews ethnically–it just doesn’t matter in terms of one’s spiritual standing before God–Gal. 3:28. I cannot expect you to read all the entries in this series, but at the beginning I did discuss the issue of the false Jews in 2:9 and 3:9.
One reason I emphasize approaching this subject with graciousness is that in my first church it was assumed that everyone was a futurist dispy pre-tribber. I was fresh out of Bible college and over the course of my studies I came to reject that position. One of the deacons actually broke fellowship with me and said all non-dispensational understandings of eschatology are heresy. I could never figure out why he thought that people who had the gospel straight and agreed on just about everything else would divide over eschatology. I made up my mind early on that I would agree to disagree with others over these things and never treat another brother the way he treated me. I would say the same thing with regard to the doctrines of so-called Calvinism (even though some use the label of Calvinism to describe me). There is plenty of genuine heresy to go around.
Incidentally, your framework for understanding Revelation is unique, or should I say different from anything I have seen. I have read nearly every commentaryon Revelation in print, and I don’t remember anything that comes close to what you have written.
Yes, it is sad how small specks (of interpretation) become occasions for condemning a fellow brother or sister. And it is very dangerous for the one condemning, as Jesus warned in Mt. 5:22 and 7:1-5.
As for my unique framework, at least I can’t be accused of plagiarism.