Revealing Revelation – Double Trouble


As we continue our more in depth and passage related discussions of the outline and themes of the Book of Revelation, we turn to a proposed position that the book is, in fact, two separate prophecies. The two have the same function per se, but the second expands the judgments and the recipients of those judgment. The above also impacts the flow of the events and the interpretation of particular images presented in the text.

Most would recognize the first prophecy as starting with the unsealing of the scroll of the Lamb of God.

Rev 6:1 Now I watched when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures say with a voice like thunder,

This action on the part of the Lamb (Jesus Christ) sets in motion the events that are described. Whether actual events occur as the result of the unsealing is a discussion for a later post, but for now note that the unsealing causes or predicts future events or results of events. This scroll would contain through the unsealing and the following seven trumpets the first prophecy.

But where would one find the possibility of a second prophecy?


In Chapter 10 we see a vision of Jesus Christ descending and placing one foot on the land and one foot on the sea. This initial picture paints the idea that what is to come relates to both the Jews and the Gentiles as Christ, by placing his feet on the two different locations referring to Israel and the gentile nations respectively. shows His dominion over both.

John is then given instructions in regards to a small book that is in the hand of Christ.

Rev 10:8 Then the voice that I had heard from heaven spoke to me again, saying, “Go, take the scroll that is open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land.” 9So I went to the angel and told him to give me the little scroll. And he said to me, “Take and eat it; it will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as honey.” 10And I took the little scroll from the hand of the angel and ate it. It was sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it my stomach was made bitter. 11And I was told, “You must again prophesy about many people and nations and languages and kings.”

The part about the eating of the book relates Isaiah and is not a topic of discussion here, but rather the final verse of this passage. John is instructed to prophesy again, but this time the prophecy would be related to many people, nations and kings. This would make one to believe that the first prophecy may have been exclusively related to one people and nation.

This does make sense as many have argued that the first scroll is actually a divorce document and only the apostate nation of Israel could receive a judgment of divorce or covenantal dissolution , where the remaining nations would suffer under a different judgment for their actions in relation to the persecution of the saints.

This also corresponds to the increase of the judgement results. By that I mean the bowls that arise from the second prophecy contain much more expansive devastation. Results expand from 1/4 to 1/3 to 1/2 of the population impacted as the prophesies continue. This would make sense in light of the expanded recipients of the judgments.

There also appears to be a geographical shift in the book as well following this vision. We are introduced to the beast that comes from the sea which we later discover is Rome, the city that sits on seven hills.

This does not eliminate the recipient of the first judgment, it simply expands the judgment to include the second persecutors of the Church. In a real historical setting this also corresponds with the events surrounding the fall of the city of Jerusalem and the turmoil following that in the nation of Rome.

The author here has shifted from previosuly viewing the book as exclusively related to a judgment against Israel to now accepting the above given proposal. The covenantal shift from a judgment of divorce against the Harlot to one that emphasizes Rome’s role in the death of Christ and persecution of the saints seems to best fit the form and theme of the book.


4 Responses to “Revealing Revelation – Double Trouble”

  1. 1 Yeshua the Lord of Glory

    Hi David

    Divorce document,hence the broken off branches.Judgment against Rome for its role in the death of Christ:and for persecution of the church… Not to mention David, that God always judges the Nation whom he uses in judgment against unbelieving Israel… I am with you all the way on this one… All the way!

  2. 2 Yeshua the Lord of Glory

    Hi again David…

    I wondered if you might consider reviewing again another matter as well… The first time that i had i visited your blog.My comment was concerning Daniel 9:27…I remember that we were in agreement that this passage speaks of the Christ confirming God’s New Covenant with [believing] Israel… And not of some future anti-christ or beast making a treaty with National Israel,and of course breaking it at mid-point of the supposed 7 year tribulation…

    Here is the point: that at the first i did not see that a new or another character was introduced in Daniel 9:25-27… I saw only Christ in Daniel 9:25-27…However i think that someone else was introduced in Daniel 9:26…

    Still though,it is not some FUTURE anti-christ or beast…But it may be whoever was the head[s] or the prince[s] [lower case p] of Rome at the beginning or the middle or the end of the three and a half years,that it took to accomplish the desolation of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple…

    I had remembered from one of your 19 presentations on sermonaudio,that you metioned that the war lasted for three and a half years…

    So David,i wanted to know do you think that it is possible that the “prince” in Daniel 9:26 is not Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9:25 [capital P] but is possibly the prince or head of the Roman armies [people] who incamped/invaded and finally brought the temple to the state of desolation that it remains in today?

    Now of course this in no way changes the fact that it was Jesus who confirmed the New Covenant with [believing] Israel… Nor does it change the fact what he spoked did indeed happen, just the way he said it would…Neither does it change the fact that He did rule the Nations with a rod of Iron…

    Only that it seems to me that God judges men based on what is already in their hearts to do…That it is true was that the temple was left spiritually desolate,because of Israels unbelief.That i was His will that the temple itself be left physically desolate: without one stone left upon another…I do not believe that God would change the wills of men in order accomplish the physical destruction/desolation: I believe He used those who were already bent on doing this thing:no matter what their own reason or desire was…

    This way when God brought his judgment against Rome for their role in Jesus’ death and for [anti-christ/the beast/Rome:for the persecution of the saints/ church and of course for Romes own reasons for wanting to go to war with Israel in the first place,which lead to the ultimate destruction of the temple…I believe that God judged them based on the desires of their own hearts…For he cannot [by his own standard] judge righteously if it is that he had caused them to do this thing by changing their will…

    David here are the passages to consider concerning the Prince/prince…

    Know therefore and understand,that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the [Prince] shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.Daniel 9:25

    And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the [prince] that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.Daniel 9:26

    BTW:Polycarp has a new post. It is based on John Wesleys view of Daniel 9:27. I already posted my comment on Friday: but had to repost after realizing i had not answered the question that it was asked [what else is new,right?]…Any way i posted my real/second answer based on the question:and my thinking that the prince and the Prince are not the same person…

    So if you are interested in posting a comment:based on the QUESTION.The post is called ” Debating Prophecy: Daniel 9:27 – Is Christ the Prince?

    Ps. You can get back to me anytime with what you think about what i have asked in you in my comments above…

    So if we do not agree that is ok …We are both partial Preterist: We share the same hope as Postmills…Though i think we are both actually Amillennarians? So with that said: if someone wanted to sincerely try understand what and why we believe as we do…They will first know that we are not some off the wall Partial Preterist cult members: walking aimlessly in lock step with one another: incapable of having differences of opinions based on the interpretation of the scriptures…

    Have a Great weekend David… 🙂

  3. 3 Yeshua the Lord of Glory


    Just an after thought:

    Perhaps the three and a half years need not be divided into sections after all [beginning,middle and end]… Since Titus was the Roman general at the time of the destruction,who was the prince or head of Rome? And who at that time would have been his spiritual advisor or false prophet?

    Ps. sorry about all the typos in the second comment…

  4. 4 Mike

    Just passing by.Btw, your website have great content!

    Making Money $150 An Hour

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: