Sermon Tone Analysis

summary

The major focus of Rev 19:1-10 is the marriage supper of the Lamb (vv.

6-10).

This meal, a celebration of the victory over the Beast and his followers, is the climax of an ancient Old Testament motif: the “meal with God” or communal meal in God’s house where the Lord is present with his people.

Old Testament examples include Genesis 18; Exod 24:9-11, while New Testament instances run from the feeding of the 5,000, the Last Supper, and celebration of the Lord’s Table.

The marriage supper of the Lamb is the final eschatological, messianic banquet, an event that includes believers from every tribe and nation

Introduction

So I decided after thinking about it, looking through the content, this is probably going to be easiest just to break it up into two parts.

Because there’s really something discrete in each half of the chapter that I want to spend some time on.

So this is the easiest way to go to make sure I don’t sort of short shrift something.

So the focus today is really going to be the first 10 verses.

So Revelation 19:1-10, and even within that, especially verses 6-10.

So I'm going to read the first 10 verses.

We’ll just leave it there.

And this is ESV.

So beginning in verse 1, we read:

Now obviously the major element you get here is the marriage supper of the Lamb.

That’s verses 6-10.

And we’re going to spend the bulk of our time in this episode on that.

But when you start at the beginning, we get the 24 elders mentioned.

We’ve already dealt at length with that subject matter (the classes that we did covering Revelation 4-5).

You can go back and listen to those if you have not already.

What is Hell

There is one other item before we hit the marriage supper, though, that I think is worth mentioning because this has come up.

And it specifically concerns the debate over, “What is hell?” (“What is the final punishment?” is probably a better way to put it.)

Is it some sort of everlasting, ongoing torment, or is it annihilation?

So the traditional view (which is this ongoing punishment idea) and annihilation are both textually defensible.

For me the debate turns on how to answer the question of the death of death, and specifically this is Revelation 20:14.

So I’m going to just go down there real quickly, so you know what I’m talking about.

This is the Great White Throne judgment.

And in verse 14 we read:

And elsewhere, you’re going to get language (in 1 Corinthians) about the death of death.

And so this raises a question.

It raises a logical question, and of course a question of interpretation.

Should we take this metaphorically, or is death really destroyed?

And if it’s the latter, if death is destroyed, then there can be no more death once death is destroyed.

So if that’s the case, it makes no sense to have ongoing death, ongoing eternal death—eternal punishment.

Because if death is destroyed (there is no more death), then how can you have more death if it’s ongoing?

Again, there’s this logical (and it relates to interpretation), this sort of problem or conundrum.

And again, it’s very easy to argue that you have the death of death (you can take the passage that way) and say, “Well, that means annihilation is the view we should hold.”

Honestly, they’re both permanent.

They’re both everlasting punishment in that sense.

One is just ongoing, and you have people continuing to die even though you have the death of death.

And so you have to figure out, “How do we take this language so that that makes sense?”

That’s one side.

And then the other side would say, “Well, we’re just going to take it at face value and say that it’s annihilation.

Because once you’re annihilated, that’s permanent too.”

So this is why I say they’re both on the table interpretively.

And this is really for me what the whole discussion hinges on: “How do we take this language?”

I will add that the annihilation view to me seems to conform more to the original Edenic vision.

And what I mean by that is, in Eden, originally, there was only life.

There was no death.

Death gets introduced.

It’s an alien.

It’s a foreigner.

And so in the new Eden, you would think… Again, we’re just extrapolating here.

But in the new Eden, you would think, “There’s no more death.

There’s only life, just like the original Eden.”

And so, again, that would favor the annihilation perspective.

Now the traditional view, to be honest with you, typically does not focus on this set of questions that I’ve just put out here.

Typically, the defense of the traditional view is verses like Revelation 14:11 and here in Revelation 19:3.

There’s a phrase about “the smoke of their torment (in Revelation 19 it’s “her torment”— Babylon’s) goes up (the Greek term is anabainō) forever and ever.”

“See, that’s eternal punishment.

It’s eternal suffering.

Because their smoke keeps going up forever and ever.”

Now that sounds like a clear reference to ongoing, neverending punishment.

But it could be argued that Revelation 19:3 kind of muddies the picture.

So if we go back to Revelation 19 (which we just read, just to pick up this one point before we get to the marriage supper), you read this.

So it’s the judgment of the beast and Babylon and the great prostitute and all this stuff.

And specifically it says, “the smoke from her (her punishment) goes up forever and ever.”

So here’s the question (and this is a legitimate interpretive question): “Is God’s vengeance against Babylon and the beast going to be forever ongoing?

Like even in the new Eden, God is still taking revenge against Babylon and the beast?

Or does the language just mean it was permanent and irreversible?”

So again, this whole notion… Again, we’re back to the same question.

Does the language favor annihilation (it’s permanent and irreversible) or is it this ongoing vengeance—ongoing dying (and again, the issue being the death of death)?

Now interestingly enough, when you get into verses 6-10 (which we’re going to do for the bulk of the episode today), when you get to the marriage supper of the Lamb, that passage (and the whole concept of the great End Times banquet— the messianic banquet, the eschatological banquet) is going to draw on Isaiah 25.

And in Isaiah 25:8, even there you have a reference to the death of death.

So the marriage supper is sort of either tied to or maybe post- the death of death.

So even the marriage supper in the way it’s presented in the Old Testament, contains this question—this idea.

How do we take the language of the death of death?

But I just wanted to throw that out there, because you get this phrase, and the assumption is that the phrase itself sort of settles something, but it actually doesn’t.

Because you have to ask interpretive questions like this.

If we’re 10,000 years into the new global Eden, is God still taking revenge on the beast?

Is it ongoing?

Well… Or was it, “Oh, that was a long time ago.

And it’s permanent.

We’re done with that.

It has no part in the new Eden.”

So that’s your interpretive crossroads.

And you have to struggle with it so that you can defend you position.

Marriage Supper of the Lamb

Now for the rest of our time today, we do want to focus on verses 6-10 and the marriage supper of the Lamb, which we read.

And actually, this scene—this whole concept of the marriage supper of the Lamb… It’s a messianic banquet, obviously, because the Lamb is Jesus.

This is the climax to a motif found throughout Scripture.

And the motif is the meal with God—a divine banquet.

And before we get into some of the technical details, just to sort of stimulate your thinking a little bit here, think of all the meals with God or meals that people have in God’s house that there are in the Bible.

Now this is broader than sacrifices.

And some of the sacrifices do have the priests participating by eating part of the sacrifice.

It’s not all of them.

It’s a minority.

But sometimes the priests do get to eat and partake part of the sacrifice.