Really Right

Author: William

  • The Times of the Gentiles

    The Times of the Gentiles

    Folks, I just can’t catch a break. I was minding my own business, as best I can at the church Bible study last night and presto, yet another time when we as modern Christians can’t let the Bible define terms but have to project stuff into the text that it plainly never says.

    The study lead brought up the time of the Gentiles. Before speaking, I actually looked up the verse before opening my mouth, not that it helped, but …

    Oh, said passage is Revelation 11:2

    2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

    So, there it is in black and white but as usual, nobody cared. It didn’t agree with Scofield so of course I had to be wrong. A parallel passage is found in Luke 21:24

    24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

    The leader tried to say that the time of the Gentiles began with the vision of Daniel of the statue representing four kingdoms. And continues until the return of Christ to establish the millennium. Somehow his understanding of the vision always leaves out the fact that the rock (Christ) destroys the statue and that the rock grows into a mountain that fills the whole earth. The rock clearly represents the growth and success of the Gospel which will eventually fill the whole earth.

    Here’s the text from Daniel.

    31 Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. 32 This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, 33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. 34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out fwithout hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. 35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

    Daniel 2:31–35.

    Daniel then interprets the dream.

    36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. 37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. 38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. 39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. 40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. 41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. 43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. 44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. 45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

    Daniel 2:36–45.

    The four kingdoms are understood as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece (Alexander the Great), and Rome. Rome initially protected Christians (see Paul and the book of Acts) but eventually turned on them and became an enemy of God’s people. If you don’t believe me, look up Nero and Roman candles.

    Dispensational Premillennialism Wrong Again

    Below is the Dispensational Premillennial position on the “Time of the Gentiles” per Logos software.

    Jesus speaks of Jerusalem being trampled by Gentiles “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled,” (Luke 21:24) a phrase that has generated considerable theological discussion about its scope and endpoint.

    The term refers to God’s use of Gentile nations as instruments of discipline upon Israel1, functioning as a prolonged period of subjugation rather than a brief episode. This era commenced with Israel’s initial oppression in Egypt and will conclude when Christ returns to deliver Israel from Gentile domination and establish their prominence among nations in the millennial kingdom.1

    The chronological boundaries remain debated. One interpretation places the beginning at Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, when Judah was exiled to Babylon, with the conclusion arriving through the Lord’s intervention from heaven.2 Another view suggests the era extends from Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70 through the end of history.3 Throughout this period, four successive Gentile empires dominate world affairs, as depicted in Daniel’s visions.2

    A common interpretive framework calculates the times of the Gentiles as 2,520 years based on calculations derived from Leviticus 26, yet no specific ending date appears explicitly in Scripture, despite numerous scholarly attempts to identify one.1 The phrase concerns political dominion over the Jewish people rather than the salvation of Gentiles—a distinction important for understanding what “fulfillment” actually entails.1

    1 Finis Jennings Dake, in Dake’s Topics (WORDsearch, 1991). [See here, here, here, here.]

    2 F. W. Grant, Leaves From The Book (Galaxie Software, 2004), 82.

    3 Timothy A. Gabrielson, “Times of the Gentiles,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016). [See here.]

    Please note that nowhere in the above discussion does anybody cite the actual biblical reference to the times of the Gentiles mentioned in the Bible. Using a term and purposely skipping its definition is clearly sloppy scholarship if not outright dishonesty.

    Oh, in fairness, I did look up the notes for Luke 21:24 and Revelation 11:2 in my Scofield Reference Bible and Scofield claims that the time of the Gentiles began when Babylon captured Jerusalem and destroyed the first temple but as usual he never cites any actual evidence in the Bible to back up his claim.

    Here’s a Contrary View

    The following question was put to me. What follows is my response:

    In Luke 21:24, after the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, it says, “and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” The man on the street reading this without a theological bias and the person reading this with a literal interpretation would clearly think there is a time gap involved here.

    The “gap” this person is referring to is the time between the destruction of Jerusalem that took place in AD 70 and some yet future time when the Gentiles—the nations—ravage Israel again. Supposedly we are living in that “in-between time” that’s nearly 2000 years long.

    He is assuming a distant future fulfillment when none is implied. It’s certainly in the future for those who heard Jesus’ prophecy around AD 30, but not necessarily in the distant future. The fulfillment of the “times of the Gentiles” occurred when the Gentiles—represented by the Roman armies that made up “the nations” at the time (Rom: 16:25-26; 1 Tim. 3:16; Acts 2:5) and depicted as four kingdoms in Daniel 2–3—acted as God’s agent(1:1–2) in the destruction of the temple and the judgment on the city of Jerusalem.

    Until the Times of the Gentiles are Fulfilled by Gary DeMar 02/09/2021

    DeMar continues:

    Milton Terry wrote the classic work Biblical Hermeneutics, a standard study on biblical interpretation that has been around for more than 135 years. Here’s what he wrote about the time of the Gentiles:

    “The statement of Luke xxi, 24, that “Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled,” is supposed to involve events which did not take place in that generation. The “times of the Gentiles” (kairoi ethnown [nations from the Greek word ethnos from which we get the word “ethnic”]) are assumed to be the times of the opportunities of grace afforded to the Gentiles under the Gospel. But to understand the words in this sense would be, as Van Oosterzee observes, to interpolate a thought entirely foreign to the context. “The times of the Gentiles,” says Bengel, “are the times allotted to the Gentiles to tread down the city;” but there is nothing in the passage or context to authorize his further remark that “these times shall be ended when the Gentiles’ conversion shall be fully consummated,” and that the treading down by Romans, Persians, Saracens, Franks, and Turks is to be understood. These kairoi [times] are manifestly times of judgment upon Jerusalem, not times of salvation to the Gentiles.”

    “The most natural and obvious parallel is Rev. xi. 2, where the outer court of the temple is said to be “given to the Gentiles,” by whom the holy city shall be trodden down forty-two months, a period equivalent to the “time and times and half a time” of Rev. xii, 14, and of Dan. vii, 25; xii, 7. This is a symbolical period of judgment (see above, p. 384 [in Biblical Hermeneutics], but does not denote ages and generations. It is three and a half—a divided seven, a short but signal period of woe. The “times of the Gentiles,” therefore, are the three and a half times (approximating three and a half years) during which the Gentile armies besieged and trampled down Jerusalem. (Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, unabridged ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, n.d.), 445.)”

    Terry is not alone in his interpretation. Heinrich Meyer in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Mark-Luke (Trans. Peter Christie (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 530–531.) argues in a similar way that “till the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled” refer to “the time that the periods which are appointed to the Gentile nations for the completion of divine judgments (not the period of grace for the Gentiles, as Ebrard foists into the passage) shall have run out. Comp. Rev. xi. 2. Such times of the Gentiles are ended in the case in question by the Parousia ([Luke 21:] 25f., 27), which is to occur during the lifetime of the hearers (ver. 28); … hence those καιροί [times]are in no way to be regarded as of longer duration.”

    Closing Comments

    As usual, the Premillennial Dispensationalist position cannot be found in the Bible, only imposed upon it as an interpretive grid. When something agrees, quote it, when it doesn’t, ignore it. When someone cherry-picks texts instead of looking at all the relevant data and then drawing a conclusion, then you know they have their thumb on the scales and are pushing something other than the truth.

    As you can tell, such sloppiness gets me riled up, but I usually manage to keep myself in check. I find that picking my battles in this group is better than insisting on winning the war by bayonetting all the wounded. Instead, I vent on my blog.

  • The Myth of the Antichrist

    The Myth of the Antichrist

    As I touched on in my last installment, the word “antichrist” never appears in the book of Revelation. Yep, it’s a doctrine to many folks but like most of the B.S. propagated by C.I. Scofield, it cannot be found in the actual text of the Bible.

    The Antichrist, of popular culture, is a composite of several different symbols and images that are not related but simply linked together in much the same way as a child would link a few random Legos and then declare it a flower or a spaceship. Abstraction and imagination are more essential to see the Antichrist than sound analysis and fidelity to the biblical text.

    One of the key building blocks for this composite is the Beast of Revelation. Actually, there are two beasts—found in the account in Revelation chapter 13. The sea beast and the land beast. The sea beast is related to the Roman Empire. The sea is a reference to the Gentile nations. The land is a reference to the Jews that live in the “Promised Land”.

    The second thing to point out about the beast is the number given in the latter part of the chapter. Contrary to popular belief, lots of that going around, the number is not six, six, six. It is six hundred, threescore and six. Like all symbols in Revelation, the reference to this number is from the Old Testament.

    Secondly, the text of Revelation 13 states that it was possible for the original hearers and readers of this book to know who the beast was. Yep, like his actual name. That is because Revelation was a prophecy about things about to take place during the lives of the original audience of John’s book. Jesus states that he was coming quickly to the readers of the First Century.

    Six Hundred, Threescore and Six

    Rules for Rulers

    The Old Testament background of this number is rooted in two passages.

    16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

    Deuteronomy 17:16–17

    Per my Logos software:

    Deuteronomy 17:16–17 establishes three restrictions on Israel’s king: he must not accumulate horses, multiply wives, or amass silver and gold.

    These prohibitions operate on multiple levels. The restriction on horses prevents the king from building a professional standing army and limits foreign military alliances1, while requiring the monarch to trust Yahweh rather than military strength.2 The prohibition on multiple wives guards against foreign entanglements and the religious compromise that accompanies marriages outside Israel’s covenant community.1 Limiting wealth prevents the king from dominating other Israelites through commercial power and status accumulation.1

    Beyond these specific prohibitions, the rules reflect a broader theological vision. Israel’s king operates under a fundamentally different model than the monarchs of surrounding nations—not conforming to typical ancient Near Eastern expectations of kingship.3 Since Yahweh is Israel’s supreme King, no human monarch may claim absolute power; these limitations force the king to acknowledge his dependence on God.2 The king’s restricted role reflects Deuteronomy’s core theology that Israel functions as a covenant community and brotherhood.3

    1 Patricia Dutcher-Walls, “The Circumscription of the King: Deuteronomy 17: 16–17 in Its Ancient Social Context,” Journal of Biblical Literature (2002), 121:604.

    2 Paul R. Gilchrist, “Deuteronomy,” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995), 3:121.

    3 Andreas J. Köstenberger and Gregory Goswell, Biblical Theology: A Canonical, Thematic, and Ethical Approach (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023), 141–143.

    Oh, please note these rules for kings were written by Moses before anyone ever conquered the Promised Land and hundreds of years before Saul was anointed the first king.

    Rulers Breaking the Rules

    Now that you know what the rules were, it’s time to introduce the guy that broke them all. As is often the case, it didn’t take long for Solomon, Israel’s third king, to violate them all in spades.

    Rule 1 Broken: Multiply Horses

    26 And Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen: and he had a thousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, whom he bestowed in the cities for chariots, and with the king at Jerusalem.

    1 Kings 10:26.

    28 And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn: the king’s merchants received the linen yarn at a price. 29 And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and an horse for an hundred and fifty: and so for all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Syria, did they bring them out by their means.

    1 Kings 10:28–29.

    Rule 2 Broken: Multiply Wives

    1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; 2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

    1 Kings 11:1–3.

    Rule 3 Broken: Multiply Silver and Gold

    27 And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones,

    1 Ki 10:27a.

    14 Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold,

    1 Kings 10:14.

    A ruler that breaks the God’s rules is a wicked and rebellious leader. All of what I just explained, and more is packed into the idea that the number of the guy in Revelation 13 is six hundred threescore and six.

    So, who was six hundred threescore and six?

    It was Nero Ceasar. The number of his name written in Hebrew was 666. The textual variant of this verse in Revelation is 616. This is Nero Ceasar written in Greek. Thus, when John wrote:

    Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

    Revelation 13:18.

    He expected that folks reading or hearing Revelation in his day would be capable of solving the riddle.

    The Man of Sin

    Another New Testament character often shoehorned into being part of the composite antichrist is called “the man of sin”.

    This passage is long but here goes:

     3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

    2 Thessalonians 2:2–12.

    No, I am not going to go line-by-line through this passage. The words everyone keys on in this passage are as follows from verse 3: “that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.”

    Verse 4 says this guy sits in the temple “shewing himself that he is God”.

    Verses 6 and 7 speak of him being held back until it’s time to be revealed.

    From verse 6, “ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.”

    Verse 7 states that whatever was holding this man of sin back will eventually be removed; “only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way”.

    Here is the same passage from a different translation. It is easier to follow than the King James Version quoted above.

    6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.

    ESV  2 Thessalonians 2:6–8.

    Folks, there are two main reasons that this passage gets used when making a composite of the antichrist. First, nobody can agree who this guy is or the name of the guy who is restraining him. This makes the passage more malleable. Secondly, and as usual, this time indicators must be ignored to use these verses as part of the composite.

    Folks, who was the original audience?

    If the guy being discussed was alive and contemporary with the Apostle Paul, then he is dead and has been for at least 19 centuries.  Given this important but frequently discarded fact, the only coming where he could have been destroyed was when Jesus came in judgment in AD 70.

    Lastly, this man of sin, whoever he may have been, was a religious leader and not a political figure. The person is clearly and predominantly associated with worship in the Temple, and thus, was alive and active prior to its destruction.

    Daniel 9

    The last place where folks look to mine nuggets to be used in their composite construct, commonly known as “Antichrist,” is in the book of Daniel. None of what is claimed as the modern understanding of antichrist is actually in the text; instead, it is injected there in the form of presuppositions which are added to the text prior to anyone actually reading said texts.

    Daniel chapter 9 begins with this:

    2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

    Daniel 9:2.

    Daniel takes Jeremiah literally when Jeremiah predicted that the Babylonian captivity would be a period of 70 years. This point will be important later in this discussion. Daniel’s response was repenting of his personal sins and also for the sins committed by his nation; something that I would argue we need to do more of in our day and age.

    As Daniel is praying, the angel Gabriel appears (verse 21). This is important for at least two reasons, first, angels are rarely ever mentioned by name in the Bible and Gabriel is the same angel that announces the pregnancy of the Virgin Mary in the Gospel accounts.

    Gabriel says, “O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.” Daniel 9:22.

    Gabriel then tells Daniel of a vision. This is the famous seventy weeks of seven years. Yep, seven times seventy; which, not so coincidentally also shows up in the words of Jesus when he is asked how often one should forgive his brother (Matthew 18:21-22).

    Here is the prophecy given to Daniel:

    24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 25 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. 26 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. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

    Daniel 9:24–27.

    Please note that Daniel is told that from when the seventy years of captivity is ended and the reconstruction of Jerusalem begins to the time Messiah is cutoff is seven weeks plus threescore and two weeks. Doing the math, you get 69 (7+60+2) weeks of seven years or 483 (69*7) years. This math is why Simeon and Anna, in the Gospel of Luke (2:22-38) were looking for Messiah before their deaths. Their faith was in the word given to Daniel in this passage.

    After Messiah is cutoff in verse 26, a prince will come and destroy the city and sanctuary. Said war will result in a flood that brings desolation. This vaguely echos Jesus in Matthew 24 invoking the flood of Noah (Matthew 24:38-42) and speaking of abomination that brings desolation (Matthew 24:15).

    Please note that in Daniel 9:27 that this invader will “cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease…”

    When Roman legions attacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple, in a war that lasted 42 months or 3 and one half years, the city was destroyed, the temple was razed to the ground as Jesus predicted in Matthew 24:2b “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” This destruction was accomplished within one generation of Jesus making the prediction. Furthermore, the Jewish Historian Josephus says that Roman soldiers plowed the dirt upon which the temple had once sat after it was completely destroyed.

    As John records in Revelation, Rome turned on the Jews and destroyed Jerusalem. This was the prediction of Daniel 9 being fulfilled.

    There is no time when the 490 years of the prophecy was stopped or paused. It was completed just as Gabriel told Daniel. No such delay is indicated by the text or context. Yet modern prophecy pimps claim that there is a hidden 2,000 plus year gap being introduced as a parentheses, pause, or unforeseen delay found somewhere in this passage between the 69th and 70th week. They also claim it contains the Rapture doctrine and the C.I. Scofield/Hal Lindsey version of the Antichrist somewhere in all this; plus, a rebuilt 3rd or 4th temple in Jerusalem.

    Again, none of this is found in the text of Scripture, it must be added via an external template or interpretive grid that is read into the text.

    Closing Thoughts

    As I am fond of quoting, “A text without a context is a pretext; usually, for error” Walter Martin.

    If you look at the Scriptures from the point of view of the original hearers and respect the context, then none of the things that you are reading have application for the future. They were all concerned with God’s people living in those times not ours. To claim otherwise, is to make them irrelevant for the last 2,000 plus years.

    However, all Scripture is given for our instruction. We are expected to learn from our history and apply the lessons to our age. This means that history is relevant for us to learn from, not that we are the focus of imminent and unfulfilled prophecy. It’s not about us; it’s about Him and His faithfulness. Because God demonstrated His faithfulness in the past, we know that He will be faithful to us in the present and guide us in the future.

    Scripture was not written to us but for us.

    The idea of antichrist being a ruler of a one-world government and murdering billions of people in a futile attempt to defy God is science fiction. Yes, this type of sensationalism sells millions of books to gullible Christians with itching ears, but it has no sound biblical warrant.

    The biblical warrant is that this world belongs to Jesus Christ and He is ruling now and He will make, and is making, all his enemies his footstool. Our job is to make every area of life subject to His lordship and rule. The kingdom of God is now, and the Kingdom of God is Christian Civilization.

    Burying your God given talents and waiting for the fictional Rapture instead of using them, has resulted in shallow Christianity and paralysis of the faithful. Satan has gained only what God’s people have willingly ceded to him through unbelief, which sadly is quite a lot.

  • Futurism: Seven Years and Other Thoughts

    Futurism: Seven Years and Other Thoughts

    Folks, the short version is this: the phrase “seven years” is never mentioned in the New Testament. Not ever. Never once. But somehow, it’s a doctrine in the minds of most modern evangelicals. Ditto for lots of other proclaimed doctrines. Amongst these are:

    A rebuilt temple in Jerusalem—never mentioned in the New Testament. Jesus said the existing temple would be torn down during the generation that heard his voice. “And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”  Matthew 24:2.

    A pig sacrificed in the temple—never mentioned in the New Testament. Folks, if you take a look at the book of Hebrews, I would argue that every animal sacrifice done in the temple after the Resurrection of Jesus was an abomination—a denial of His once and for all sacrifice. In the years following the Resurrection, the temple itself became an idol for the Jews. Whatever the correct understanding of the abomination of desolation was in the prophecy, it occurred between the Resurrection and the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. there is no gap of 2,000 plus years between the 69th and seventieth week of Daniel. This is injected into the text by Scofield, not derived from Scripture.

    The Rapture—never mentioned in the New Testament. Appealing to the days of Noah, Jesus says that one is taken and on left, but who was taken in the days of Noah? Sorry kids, the bad guys, not the righteous. The good guys remained on the earth, the wicked perished. This is true throughout the Bible, the wicked are taken in judgment and the righteous remain. The “meek inherit the world”, not heaven.

    A worldwide tribulation—never mentioned in the New Testament. The great tribulation was a local judgement that could be escaped on foot. “Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains.” Matthew 24:16. There is zero biblical warrant for belief in a worldwide, seven-year, tribulation. Oh, I know it’s a doctrine, just not a biblical one.

    The Antichrist—only mentioned in the New Testament by one author. (“Antichrist” is only mentioned four times in the Bible. All four are in the epistles of John, never once in Revelation.) Antichrist is clearly religious by definition—denying that Jesus is the Christ—and the Bible never once described him (or them) as a political figures.

    18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

    1 John 2:18–19

    22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

    1 John 2:22

    3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

    1 John 4:3

    7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

    2 John 7

    The modern idea of ‘Antichrist” is a composite of several different and unrelated people and symbols mentioned in the Bible. Once these verses are separated from their historical context, they can be shaped to say whatever someone can imagine. However, people alive in the first century were expected to know what and who these people and their symbols were. Anyone offering something other than a first century explanation is lying, mistaken, or misled.

    Broken Sevens

    There are lots of broken sevens (three and a half year periods) in Revelation—at least five—but never are they constructed in a way to give you an overall period of seven years. A broken seven is a different symbol.

    “Forty-two months (which equals 1,260 days and three and a half years) is taken from Daniel 7:25, where it symbolizes a limited period during which the wicked are triumphant; it also speaks of a period of wrath and judgment due to apostacy, a reminder of the three and a half years of drought between Elijah’s first appearance and the defeat of Baal on Mount Carmel (I Kings 17-18; cf, James 5:17). Whereas seven is used to represent wholeness and completion, three and a half appears to be a broken seven: sadness, death, and destruction (cf. dan. 9:24; 12:7; Rev. 12:6, 14; 13:5).”

    David Chilton Days of Vengeance p. 274.

    Four Groups of Seven Judgments in the Bible

    David Chilton also points out that Revelation is four groups of seven judgments. This is because the Holy Land is portrayed as God’s Footstool. There are lots of occurrences of the numbers “four” and “seven” in Revelation and other Scriptures. Think, four directions of the compass, the four winds, four rivers in Eden, etc. Thus, four sets of seven judgments are a complete judgment upon Jerusalem and the temple. Chilton’s comments can be found here.

    Chilton’s Old Testament citation, in tape one of the above link, is Leviticus 26. In this passage, you will find four occurrences of seven judgments on Israel due to apostacy. See verses 18, 21, 24, and 28. Chilton asserts that John is using this pattern as the template found in Revelation. Most symbols in Revelation have strong roots in the Old Testament. John may have put them together in a different form than the OT, but the symbols have a long history with God’s Covenant people in the Scriptures.

    The book of Revelation, at least in part, is the execution of Israel for spiritual adultery. Chilton, on another tape, cites the law of executing a priest’s daughter with fire for committing adultery.

     9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

    Leviticus 21:9.

    As Chilton states many times, you can’t understand Revelation if you don’t know the Old Testament. There are at least 600 allusions, references, and citations, of the Old Testament in Revelation.

    World, Land, or Civilized World

    Part of the confusion with understanding the New Testament, especially passages touching on prophecy, is purposely sloppy translating. Here is one such example.

    Just because a word is translated “world” in English does not mean it is in Greek. It could really be world, civilized world—think boundaries of Roman Empire—known world, or it could be the land in and around Israel. Without looking at the original languages, you can’t tell which is the case.

    Here’s two examples. Which Greek word is translated “world”?

    14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

    Matthew 24:14.

    21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be

    Matthew 24:21.

    Verse 21 is cosmos which is understood as the whole planet

    Verse 14 in not planet but oikoumenē meaning civilized world—or Roman Empire.

    Here is another verse that is ignored by most who claim to take the Bible literally but really don’t.

    23b for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

    Matthew 10:23b.

    Jesus said he would return before his disciples finished going through the cities of Israel. Do you believe him or not? He came in judgment in 70 AD and that was his proof that he was sitting at the right hand of the Father.

    Look at this passage during his trial.

    63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

    Matthew 26:63–66.

    This is a direct reference to Daniel where one like the Son of Man is going UP to the Ancient of Days. Jesus said that the generation that heard his voice would not pass away until his words were fulfilled. Modern Christians just dismiss the words of Jesus because they don’t believe him any more than the high priest did.

    Closing Thought

    Sorry, the Old Covenant age is over. Like it or not, you live in the early part of the Kingdom age. As Gary X Paxton used to sing, “You gotta take a little turf for Jesus.” The Kingdom of God is Christian Civilization. If you think waiting for the Rapture is the hope of Christians, then your theology and eschatology are fatally broken. You are suffering from unbelief and paralysis.

  • Whose World is This Anyway?

    Whose World is This Anyway?

    Last night, the Thursday night Bible study was yet another doozie. Folks, this group is so hung up on Premillennial Dispensationalism that it’s disgusting.

    First, they know that I disagree with them on eschatology; therefore, lots of prayers were offered that the Holy Spirit reveal the Truth to them by fiat. Intense study of the Bible is not an option for them because they already think they know it so well. This is kind of weird to me, but they really dig the milk of the Word and like spending time in the theological Kiddie pool. (Cue music to Servant playing Shallow Water.) Also, they cannot see the text except in terms of Scofieldism as a preexisting template that they impose onto the Bible.

    I managed to get in a few well-placed barbs last night. This is my goal every time that I attend. I don’t fight every battle but hit a topic or two each meeting.

    They insist on an artificial division of the Church and national Israel as per Scofield, but I did ask if that meant that Jesus has two Brides—the Church and Israel? Nobody really responded to that question. It didn’t compute.

    There was a whole screed about Jesus is preparing a place for us—as if that is all he can do until the Rapture. Yep, he can create the world in seven days by speaking it into existence, but it takes him 2,000 plus years to prepare a place for us? How is that even logical? What is he doing now?

    This portion of the discussion presupposes another tenant of Scofield, that Jesus offered the Kingdom of God then the Jews used free will to thwart the plan of God and then God rolled-out Plan B—the Church—until such time as national Israel will listen to Jesus.

    Oh, a corollary of said Scofield doctrine is that 2/3 of all Jews on the planet will have to die before being so grateful of their mass slaughter that they will turn to Jesus in gratitude. This is a farcical idea, but for them it’s a doctrine.

    So as this topic was being discussed, I asked, “Whose world is this?”

    Without missing a beat, the person sitting next to me said, “Satan’s.”

    My reply was, “Then what did Jesus accomplish at the Crucifixion?”

    Several folks mumbled and finally one guy replied, “He defeated Satan.”

    To which I quickly agreed. This threw the room into confusion because under Scofield, the world is still Satan’s not Christ’s. A few folks then said, “But, blah, blah, blah …”

    At this point they have no answer because it’s not one that Scofield has a response to. Therefore, the point I was making simply bounces harmlessly off of them because their presuppositions don’t include a reply to the question. It does not compute, so it becomes discarded information.

    Oh, but the Spirit is supposed to lead them into Truth when they are not open to it! Go figure!

    My argument is we are in the process of seeing Jesus make all his enemies his footstool now. (See Psalm 2 and 110 amongst others.) This happens not through the mass slaughter of people, but through their mass conversion.

    In a previous meeting of this esteemed group, it was stated without much dissent that God would kill all unbelievers during a worldwide, seven-year tribulation and only believers would be left on the earth. We would not convert the masses; they would be slaughtered. God will separate the sheep from the goats at the point of the sword. Thus, only the saints will inherit the millennial Kingdom once it finally gets here.

    In fairness, I don’t think Scofield ever taught this idea, but the members of this Bible study were certainly ok with it.

    Oh, the text last night was Micah 5 for the second week in a row. Another nugget of nonsense was the explanation of the word “stand” in verse 4. Per the leader of the group, this part of the prophecy had a quadruple fulfillment. Yep, double prophetic fulfillments are common in Dispensationalism but fulfilled four different times? That’s about a record.

    Verses 2-5a are clearly a prophecy of the first coming of Christ and the incarnation but nope, not good enough. It has to somehow also involve the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming too. Scofield must futurize everything.

    “The Assyrian” introduced in verse 5 also was proclaimed to be the Antichrist according to members of the Bible study. The fact that Isaiah chapters 36-37 talk all about the defeat of the Assyrian King Sennacherib and the death of 185,000 of his warriors was just coincidental and had little, if anything, to do with an historic explanation of the prophecy and its fulfillment.

    In this group never left facts, especially historical ones, get in the way of a good conspiracy theory involving some future cataclysm.

    I know that such people can be frustrating. I get that. Thankfully, the church’s pastor has denounced Premillennial Dispensationalism from the pulpit. However, he has yet to say what should take its place. Leading sheep like this must be frustrating for him. God has put me in this congregation for a reason. If nothing else, it gets me looking harder at the Bible to have a reason for the hope that is in me.

    If there is a “silver bullet” that can lift the veil of Scofieldism, I have yet to find it, but I feel called for now to try and expose it in my own humble way.

    Folks, I don’t see any way forward for Christianity until the Church repents of its unbelief and realizes that Christian civilization is the Kingdom of God in action. The West once believed this and changed the world, but we have forgotten God and reduced our faith to simply the salvation of souls and not the discipling of nations. A task that we need to start doing again.

  • The Beekeeper meets AI

    The Beekeeper meets AI

    I had a talk with my father-in-law yesterday and this topic came up. The following happened to him.

    You get a call from your bank informing you that you are the victim of a fraudulent charge. The person on the phone has a caller ID stating that it’s your bank calling. They have your account number and a whole host of personal information about you which comes out as you speak with them. During the course of the call, you also get a text message from them identified as being from your bank. The bank even connects you to a police officer that is helping with a police report. Talk about service. After a while, you are instructed to log into your bank account and make charges to stop the fraudulent charges. If you keep going, then the next thing you know, your bank account is emptied.

    When it came time to make changes to your bank account, my father-in-law terminated the phone call.

    Today, there is a story about this very scam on Fox News.

    Imagine getting a phone call from your bank. The bank’s name is listed on the caller ID with the correct phone number. They know key details about you — your name, your account numbers, maybe even your Social Security number or mother’s maiden name.

    They warn you that you have fallen victim to a financial scam. But the plot twist is that they are the scammers!

    This is happening across the country at an alarming rate.

    Technology can help increase our productivity, but it can also boost scammers by enabling increasingly sophisticated tactics that allow them to impersonate companies, access sensitive information and create a panic that causes even the savviest people to unwittingly help them complete their scams.

    Scammers are coming for your money. Here’s the one thing you must never do

    Scammers are “spoofing” phone numbers so that the phone number shows up on your phone with the name of a big company even though they are not affiliated with it. Sometimes, it even shows the correct phone number even though they are calling from another number.

    If you don’t answer your phone, you take away a huge tool for scammers: their ability to create urgency and panic. When you are told that you are the subject of fraud, that your money is at risk, or something similar, and you need to take action, you panic.

    In a state of panic, you do not think clearly, and this can lead you to take actions that you would never undertake in a calm state.

    Fox has some suggestions and a few more gems about such scams. I’ve copied much of the relevant sections below.

    Don’t Answer Any Calls You Aren’t Expecting

    If you see your bank, credit card company, Amazon, Microsoft or any other company with whom you do business calling, and you aren’t immediately expecting that call, do not answer your phone.

    Scammers are “spoofing” phone numbers so that the phone number shows up on your phone with the name of a big company even though they are not affiliated with it. Sometimes, it even shows the correct phone number even though they are calling from another number.

    Only Contact Companies Using a Trusted Phone Number or Touchpoint

    For banks, credit card companies and other financial providers, find their phone number on the back of your bank card or on an old paper statement that you know is legitimate.

    You can also go to their website and look for a phone number or customer service email address.

    Don’t Give Out Sensitive Information

    If you do let a text or phone call break through (and you shouldn’t, but I know it happens), do not respond or give out sensitive information in response to their requests.

    For example, they may send you a text and ask for a security code sent to your phone.

    Again, this is them trying to scam you, not help you. Giving up codes like this could help them drain your bank account.

    Don’t Fall for Urgency

    Creating urgency is key for scammers. They make you worried. As noted above, you get into a state of panic, and you take action without thinking.

    If you are asked to take any urgent action, such as going to a bank immediately, withdrawing or moving funds, buying gift cards, immediately giving out information or anything else, stop and take a beat.

    The same goes for secrecy. If they tell you not to contact the police or not to tell the bank teller what is going on because they might be in on it, do not listen. You are not James Bond, and you are not caught up in an international stakeout — you are simply a person whom a fraudster is trying to trick.

    Have a Family Code Phrase

    Finally, with AI technology, even voices are being spoofed. Have a family code phrase among your family members that isn’t published anywhere. Then, if someone calls using your loved one’s voice as part of a scam, you can ask for the code phrase. If it isn’t given, you will know it is not your family member.

  • Attorney Mario Finally Delivers

    Attorney Mario Finally Delivers

    Yep, 13 months after our first payment to him, attorney Mario has finally secured a court date for November 10th. Folks, this has been a long and slow process, but the trial is finally happening. Based on my previous Internet search, once the trial happens, we will then be three to seven weeks from completion of the annulment process. Thus, my girl will likely get her wish of freedom coinciding with the end of this year.

    Given this timeline, it looks like the only route available for us to be together will be the Fiancé Visa (K-1). Since we started this process, the time for processing has gone from 8 months to one year. At the same time, the processing time for a spousal visa has gone from 16 months to over two years. Other steps in the process probably require additional time.

    It will be good to get the paperwork from the Philippine government behind us. I look forward to beginning the process of getting her to the United States.

  • “La La La I Can’t Hear You”

    “La La La I Can’t Hear You”

    Yep. It’s about unanimous that my immediate family (and a few others) are unsupportive of me. Somehow, I’m expected to be miserable for the rest of my life and must continue to pine over my deceased wife until I too wind up in the grave.

    I’ve gone from irritated to just plain done with the lot of them. This characterization is an understatement. If I’m guilty of anything, it is being too forthcoming with people. My conclusion is that folks don’t really care what I’m up to just as long as they can find fault with me. Why I must be put down to lift others up seems perverse to me.

    Before going further, you must know that my mom has repeatedly told me that she does not want to hear anything about me and my girlfriend. It is a forbidden subject when I’m at her house; however, she keeps bringing it up, both at her home and via random phone calls. In recent months I’ve gotten two rather weird phone calls from her.

    The first call was about how I had no right to make her a grandmother again. That doing so would be unfair to my parents and somehow a burden which they did not want. Folks, if you can explain this behavior then have at it in the comments. Last I heard, bringing children into the world was supposed to be a blessing, well except for them anyway. My folks have repeatedly said that if they had a chance to do life over again, that they would never under any circumstances have any children. Zero is the best number. As the oldest child, that comment clearly says that they were not happy with the way that I turned out and thus, why have the other two after me? Oh, this was said multiple times to us during family lectures.

    Then there was the whole thing about the necessity of me needing to divorce my wife because she was a terrible mother and surely, I could do better than her.

    The more recent phone call was just as out of left field. She wanted to know about my upcoming trip to see my girl. Since she is on record as not wanting to know, I told her only what day my flight leaves and when I think I will return.

    I could bring a few other things into the discussion but what for?

    Gary North famously said that you can’t beat something with nothing, but my family thinks nothing is a far superior ambition.

    The number of people that don’t think I have a right to make my own decisions and live my own life is apparently legion. Nobody wants to walk a mile in my shoes, they just want to know why I even have any shoes, where I got them, and how much they cost.

    Folks, I’m torn between blasting certain facts all over Facebook and just going radio silent. Radio silent seems a better strategy. I will not be around for Thanksgiving, and I just might boycott Christmas with any family as well. I also think future trips to see my girl will be off the record, as well. I’ve just had enough abuse, condescension, and bullshit.

  • Same Complaints Different Day

    Same Complaints Different Day

    This post is about willful ignorance and my frustration with it.

    Folks, over the last year, I have been crystal clear about the intricacies of navigating the legal and ethical dilemmas that I have encountered in my relationship with my special friend. The basic frustration that I have is that Americans tend to think that the whole world works by the same rules, laws, and rights as our own country. This is clearly not the case.

     The old adage of my parent’s generation has often been stated as, “My house, my rules.” Somehow though, many people don’t think that this saying is relevant to countries other than our own. Every political entity has its own unique laws, regulations, customs, assumptions, etc. Our country may have common borders with both Mexico and Canada but trust me, both places have different laws, customs, languages, food, etc. than our own.

    The common assumptions that undergird our country are things like English Common Law, Protestantism, religious liberty, freedom, and rights proceeding from God, etc. But what happens when you are forced to interact in a country that never based their culture and society on these things? Is it reasonable that they will see the world just as we do? My answer is “NO.”

    President George W Bush

    Why was George W. Bush’s idea of nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan folly? Establishing democracy in an area that had no concept of individual rights was ridiculous. It had to fail. Folks, at least one lesson here is that imposing our culture and attaching expectations upon someone with no concept or appreciation of our values is stupid and can’t work, yet we continue to do it.

    Ronald Reagan talked often about men yearning to be free but if that is true then why are so many in our country yearning to be led and enslaved by socialism and communism? Like Orwell’s 1984, they are screaming that “slavery is freedom.”

    The answer to the above is that Reagan presupposes that the society is Christian while the Communist presupposes that humanism, evolution, and atheism are true. Different folks have different worldviews and assumptions that undergird their view of society, culture, and nation.

    The problem that I face when talking to people about my situation with my girl is that they have no frame of reference to understand the situation but the one they are living in. Frankly, it’s a lot like talking to someone who is immersed in Premillennial Dispensationalism. You can show them a verse that disproves their worldview, but they can’t see it because they filter it through their presuppositions and can’t read the text on its own merits. As mama used to say, “It’s like talking to the wall.”

    When I explain that my girl is eligible to marry me, folks can’t grasp the concept. The church in her country has declared that her marriage is over, she is the innocent party, and she can marry me. This should be the end of the discussion, but it doesn’t compute to people here. “How can the church declare anything about marriage?” they any ask.

    The presupposition is that the State is in charge of marriage. My question is, “Where in the Bible do you find such an idea?” It clearly says in the traditional marriage ceremony, “Whom God has joined together, let no man pull asunder.” God makes marriages not governments.

    Governments claimed the right to regulate marriage—at least in this country—about 120 years ago as a scheme for generating tax revenue for local governments not because God changed His mind. Yes, if you like then you can go back to the Supreme Court cases about polygamy in the late 1870’s but my point still stands; government claimed the power and churches were silent on the power grab. This silence by churches does not make the government overreach a legitimate act. Later government decided to allow tax benefits based on marital status. Further strengthening their hold on matrimony and thus its dissolution.

    If government owns the power to create marriages, then it only makes sense that they remove the church’s power to end such unions as well. Naturally, the power to dissolve marriages also fell to the government and their brethren in the legal profession.

    I think most folks will agree with my basic thesis about marriage in the United States, but what happens when you interact with a country that knows no such thing as divorce? Their presupposition is that marriage is in fact created by God and divorce is anathema in their society?

    This question, boys and girls, is the hinge that takes you to a place that you can’t comprehend. A place with no divorce. The only way out of a marriage is to prove that one partner is defective and incapable of making a forever vow before God. Such a finding must be made, not in civil court, but before a trial judge with a full-blown court proceeding. This place is not a parallel dimension or gateway to the Twilight Zone but another country. Here you need to act in accordance with someone else’s laws, culture, and way of doing business. This ladies and gentlemen is what you encounter once you leave the borders of your home country; the good ole US of A. Welcome to the world of my girlfriend, the Philippines.

    • In the Philippines, divorce is illegal.
    • In the Philippines, a husband and wife agreeing to dissolve their marriage is illegal.
    • In the Philippines, adultery is not grounds to end a marriage.
    • In the Philippines, abandonment is not grounds to end a marriage. (Technically, the Philippine Supreme Court, via legislating from the bench, added abandonment as grounds for ending a marriage but no one has actually litigated a case on these grounds due to expected pushback by the legislative branch of the government. No lawyer wants to be the first to try such a case.)
    • In the Philippines, abuse is not grounds to end a marriage.

    The Philippines is one of only two countries in the world where divorce is illegal. Vatican City being the other. (FYI the United States did not recognize Vatican City as a country until 1984.) Instead, the legal process to end a marriage in the Philippines is annulment. As stated above, a court trial is mandatory. The process for a simple annulment is six to twenty-four months. A complex annulment—meaning children, properties, and acrimony between parties—can take as long as five years.

    Annulments are very expensive. Based on average wages earned per month in that country, we have thus far spent about 28 months’ worth of wages to get where we are in the process. Our next stop should be the trial court. Depending on which Internet search you wish to believe, we are two to five months away from completion of the process. Oh, thus far, we have been at this for a good eleven months.

    Due to the cost—financial and in time—most people in the Philippines cannot afford the annulment process. This is why there are only about ten to twelve thousand annulment cases per year out of a population of 80 million or so souls.

    Folks the only other routes for ending a marriage in the Philippines are a declaration of annulment by the Roman Catholic Church or divorce via Sharia Law. Both these alternatives cost more than the legally prescribed route for annulment, and neither is available for my girl as she is a Protestant.

    If I chose to live there, I could simply marry her in her church and then live together without the expense of an annulment. However, I want to bring her to the United States. Since our government regulates immigration rather stringently, they demand that my girl present either a marriage certificate issued by the Philippine government or proof that she is eligible to remarry.

    While I dispute the government’s claim to regulate marriage, I do acknowledge their right to regulate immigration. (Yes, biblically immigration should not work like it does now but that is a topic for another day.) Since the power of the sword is being used to ship people home for violating US law, I must recon with the current rules whether I like them or not. Thus, I am paying for the annulment process to clear the way to initialize the US immigration process.

    The situation is this, per the church located in the Philippines, I am allowed to get married. Said marriage will not be recorded with the government but with the church. Said church has acknowledged the innocence of my girl as well as her eligibility for marriage. Once we exchange vows, we may live together, have children, and be members of the church in good standing.

    Folks, there are a few different things in play here. First, Protestants only have limited recognition of their beliefs in the Philippines. Second, the Bible is only partially acknowledged as authoritative by the Philippine government. Clearly divorce is biblically allowed in some circumstances even if not allowed by the government. (See Ray Sutton’s Second Chance.) Poor people are more adversely impacted by the annulment laws than rich folks. Since justice cannot be had without money, the people there have found ways to skirt the system.

    I’ve previously blogged about income and inaccessibility for women stuck in a bad marriage. If the husband is hell bent on fornicating with every wench at the local watering hole, the reality is that the wife can’t do anything about it but raise her voice and hope he doesn’t raise his fist in retaliation.

    So, the bottom line is that I can get married in the Philippines but until government paperwork catches up with reality, I am unable to bring my spouse to the United States.

    Folks, I’m to the point now that I am willing to record said marriage with the Philippine government as soon as I can just to get all the self-righteous folks here in the United States off my back about this whole deal. I was hoping to have a legally recorded wedding here just because it is a shorter wait to get a fiancé visa, but now I don’t care. I’m ok to let all the paperwork happen overseas just to get it over with.

    Closing remarks

    When I visit another country, I am expected to go by their rules. I think that concept should be easy to understand. That being said, my actions should always conform to Scripture. What should our response be as Christians when biblical law is illegal or ignored in a country?

    Church and State are separate institutions created by God. Part of the issue being discussed here is what our response should be when the State gets itself involved in the affairs of the Church? Does the Church just roll over like it did for Covid-19 or does it fight to keep charge of what has been entrusted to her by God? Truthfully, the American Church is very willing to abdicate its role; especially in deference to the civil authorities.

    Most Christians were wrong about Romans 13 and Covid lockdowns. Sadly, too many folks are in agreement that Caesar is really Lord of everything except your soul, and you ought to consider giving that to Jesus. Somehow the supposed shepherds of our souls like to keep singing “Have thine own way Lord” to the State instead of Christ.

    Folks, yes, I’m just one guy, but the issues at play here are macro worldview issues. If you would just quit imposing your American cultural presuppositions onto me then maybe you can see there is more going on here than at first glance. It’s just easier for folks to throw me under the bus than to look at the issues.

    It’s simple to me. When I am in the Philippines, I play by their rules, when I’m in the USA, I play by the rules here. Ignorant people want to project their presuppositions onto the whole planet because they are intellectually lazy. The bottom line is that both countries have areas where they fall short of biblical standards. I’m stuck in between them and eventually I will have to satisfy both to get my lady friend here one day.

    I promised my former pastor that if he would give me the grace to get through this process that he would be happy with the end result. We parted ways because he didn’t like watching the sausage getting made. It’s his loss and perhaps yours too.

  • Goals Update—August 31 2026

    Goals Update—August 31 2026

    Trigger Warning: the following post discusses mature issues such as body parts, reproduction, family relations, and other stuff. If you are thin skinned, narcissistic, or easily offended then stop reading now. You have been warned.

    I will give you a countdown to change to another article.

    5

    4

    3

    2

    1

    Ok, thanks for sticking with me on this one. This post is about my vasectomy reversal. Again, if the topic offends you then turn back now.

    First some history.

    My wife and I were married in 2003. She spent almost all of the first two years of our marriage pregnant. Yep, three months into our marriage, she was pregnant for the first time. We had just started to tell people in our circle of friends, mostly at church, that she was with child and then she lost the baby.

    I remember the drive home from work in the middle of the afternoon. Trying to drive and bawling my eyes out is difficult but I made it to the hospital. My wife was in the emergency room at Kaiser South Sacramento. She was sitting in the emergency room for way too long and nobody was in a hurry to see us. Once I got there, she pulled out her trusty cell phone and called Carolyn. Carolyn was a friend and a doctor on staff at that hospital. She came immediately to the ER to help her friend, my wife. She walked us from the ER to see an OBGYN doctor. No paperwork, no waiting, just service. Ten minutes after calling Carolyn my wife was finally being helped.

    A few months later, my wife’s ex, her children from the previous marriage, and her former in-laws all took a trip to Mexico. It was Valentine’s Day week in 2004. It was during this period of no children in the house that my wife became pregnant again. Our son James was born in November of that year.

    In the spring of 2005, pregnancy number three happened. Again, just as we were prepared to tell people, she lost the baby.

    At this point, my wife took a trip to the OBGYN. After that fateful visit, we had a talk. During her pregnancy, she had gained a lot of weight and never lost it after our son was born. The verdict of the OBGYN was that my wife was too overweight to successfully have any more children. Thus, a proposal was put before me, either I had to have a vasectomy, or she had to have her lady parts “fixed”.

    Since it was easier for me to have a vasectomy than for her to get her tubes tied, she pushed me to get the vasectomy. I reluctantly agreed. In exchange for me getting the surgery, she promised me more frequent sexual relations since we wouldn’t need to worry about any more children.

    Editor’s Note: never do anything for a women based on a promise of more and better sex in the future. Such promises are hollow and unenforceable.

    Reluctantly, I agreed. Folks I never wanted to do this, but it was the only time she played the “if you love me…” card during our marriage. I wanted to please her and who says no to more sex with their wife?

    About ten years later, she had her ovaries removed as a preventative, in an effort to avoid getting cancer. Ironically, she later died of cancer, just a different one.

    Following her death, I received a small insurance payment. With that money, I had promised to take a trip that we would have enjoyed going on together. That was my trip to Ireland last year.

    At the same time, I was booking the Ireland trip, I decided to right a wrong that I still regretted from our marriage. I wanted to be whole again. Thus, I made an appointment to get a vasectomy reversal. I researched the topic and landed on a place in Ogden Utah that specialized in the reversal procedure. I paid for the surgery and got on the waiting list. The surgery was scheduled for September 9, 2025.

    FYI As it turned out, Charlie Kirk was assassinated the day following my surgery. Charlie died about two miles from my hotel room on the day I checked out of the hotel.

    Folks, by the time I booked the vasectomy reversal, I had been doing enough online dating that I knew that I wanted someone younger than me. I have stated before on this blog that I didn’t want to be dating someone that looks like my grandmother. I had decided that I wanted to find a woman about 40 years old. I knew that women in that age group still desire the possibility of children but a guy that can’t offer that is handicapped when they are sterile.

    After booking the surgery, I met my girlfriend, fiancé, wife, or whatever the correct title is. We discussed the issue of children. And, yes, she would like a few kiddos in her world. However, she said if God will give us children, then that will be good, if not, we can try other ways of having a family. Being with me was more important than children but she would like both.

    Seven weeks after the vasectomy reversal, I flew out to see her for a month.

    The surgery place in Ogden provided me with four test kits. Periodically, I was expected to send in samples for testing. The test prior to my trip was negative. The test after my trip (December) was negative as well. Spending a large sum of money only to be shooting blanks was painful and discouraging.

    Following the surgery, I told some friends that knew about me getting a reversal that all my private parts were black, but not bigger. Folks, the amount of bruising was remarkable. It took over six months for the dissolvable sutures to go away. The healing of my scrotum was uneven and slow. The horizontal cut was substantial. I later found out that even though the reversal utilizes microsurgery that the testicle is fully removed from the scrotum so the doctor can do the operation. Oh, the vas tube they attach is almost the diameter of a human hair. In my case, the vas tube had to be directly attached to each testicle. Sorry, I didn’t get a splice job, I got the deluxe reversal surgery.

    This brings us to the present.

    I am going to see my lady for two months at the end of September. I tentatively plan to return around November 30. On this trip, we will be participating in a “blessing ceremony.” (Something that didn’t happen on the previous trip.) Whether said ceremony is recorded with the government is unknown at present. It is mathematically possible that the annulment will be completed during my stay, which makes recording a possibility.

    Anyway, prior to my trip, I wanted to pull out the old test kit and see what the lab in Ogden said. I mailed sample number 3 on Monday of last week. The package was delivered on Thursday. Since I didn’t hear from them on Friday, I was expecting the results on Monday. When the results were zero, they were always followed up by a phone call saying to hang tough, it’s not the end of the road yet, so don’t be discouraged.

    Last Sunday night, I got an email from the place in Ogden. Yep, at 8:20 PM on a Sunday night, the test results rolled in.

    My first thought was, what the #!@%?

    Folks, for the last few weeks, I have been planning when would be the best time to redo the surgery after this report came back with bad news too. Oh, BTW, my answer was January. I even told my girl that redoing the reversal is cheaper than the other alternatives that I’ve seen on the internet. Believe me, I’ve been researching this for a few weeks now. Folks, everyone screams do IVF, but it has some serious ethical issues that I wish to avoid.

    Anyway, I got up the nerve to read my reject letter. Most of the first paragraph was even in red letters. This turned out to be boilerplate language about verifying my contact information.  As I continued to scroll down, I saw my name and date of birth. Yep, that’s me and that’s my birthday. Then I kept scrolling. Date of analysis was August 28th. Yep, Friday. Then was “Total sperm concentration: 7 million/ml.”

    BINGO.

    Yep, 7 million is a great number for a vasectomy reversal. I reread it. I was shocked. I texted my girlfriend and then select members of the blog staff to share the news.

    This guarantees nothing as far a children goes, but it means I can do my part in the process. The reversal I wanted has happened. Folks, a lot more things have to align on the female side before invoking words like “family” but it’s a start. I wanted to promise the possibility of offspring and now I can do that.

    God has answered yet another prayer for us. Boy, am I a happy camper.

    Final Thoughts

    Folks, I know there are a lot of naysayers out there that think I should crawl under a rock somewhere and wait to die of loneliness or old age. For them the thought of someone my age getting into another relationship is preposterous. To them I say, “Go pound sand.”

    God put us on this earth to convert the world and exercise dominion over this planet until every square inch acknowledges Christ as King. This was the message of Charlie Kirk. Biblical faith is the long game. Those people waiting around doing nothing as they wait for the Rapture are the useless people wrecking it for the rest of us. Their disbelief is the biggest problem in our society not Democrats, Islam, or socialism.

    Charlie Kirk was right and I’d rather go down like him, instead of sitting on my butt watching Fox News and contributing nothing. Family, faith, and hard work are the way out.

    My grandfather lived to be 96. My dad is almost 90 and in great health. If I make it as long as either of them, then starting another family is a no-brainer to me.

    My last comment is that there is no such thing in the Bible as retirement. We are to work until God takes us home. I choose faith and family over frivolity.

  • Matthew 24: Gary DeMar vs Kenneth Gentry, et al.

    Matthew 24: Gary DeMar vs Kenneth Gentry, et al.

    Kenneth Gentry, and some others that he uses as proxies, have been attacking Gary DeMar publicly (much of it on Facebook) since 2023 about the three questions controversy. Gentry and others have been alleging that DeMar is a closet full preterist. (More on full Preterism later.) In their minds, that makes DeMar a heretic and thus guilty of unorthodox eschatology.

    Kenneth Gentry

    In response, DeMar has simply pitted one supporter of the three questions against another to show that none of them agree with each other, so why should he respond directly. As a debate tactic, this is brilliant.

    Gary DeMar

    Furthermore, the original three questions lacked any citation of Scriptures to defend their claims. The originators of the three-question letter controversy base the whole thing on church tradition and not Scripture. This is why they are divided on their understandings. It is this hole in their logic that I would like to comment upon.

    As DeMar likes to point out, when it comes to the historic Creeds of Christendom, nobody decided to “show their homework.” The Creeds make claims about the Christian faith but never cite any verses as proof texts; neither do they have any minutes of the meetings to explain the logic of why statements were included. In short, all that is preserved for us are the conclusions and not anything to back them up.

    For the purposes of this blog, I am limiting discussion to the Nicene Creed. FYI the Nicene Creed was drafted in 325 AD and updated slightly into its final form in 381 AD.

    I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

    I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.

    God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made.

    For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

    For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.

    He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

    I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son,* who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

    I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

    Two comments on the above version. First, this is from a Roman Catholic website and a word or two might be different in another English translation. Second, in the paragraph on the Holy Spirit, “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” is the difference between Eastern and Western Christianity. Yep, “and the Son” highlights the difference in the understanding of the Trinity between Churches; although there is much history behind this division.

    Preterism

    Preterism, in its simplest form is believing that some parts of the Bible are in the past. If you believe Jesus is the prophesized Messiah and fulfilled related Old Testament prophecies, then you are a preterist. If you believe that some prophecies were fulfilled in the destruction of the Second Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD, but others are still future to us then you are a partial preterist. If you believe everything in the Bible including the last few chapters of Revelation are fulfilled in some way, then you are a full preterist.

    Sadly, the difference between full and partial Preterism is really more nuanced than what I just stated. There are people that are in between full and partial preterists. Some folks believe that some things began in the past, continue to be true today, and will not know complete fulfillment until sometime in the future.

    The two sections of the Creed getting the most attention in the controversy are these:

    He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

    and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

    I could dissect these parts in much detail but not too many folks would care so I’ll try to keep this simple.

    The type of questions being asked are like this:

    • Where are these statements found in the Bible (Proof texts)?
    • How did the original audience understand these statements?
    • Were the statements based on Scripture, future or past when written into the Creed in 325 AD?
    • When is or will be the resurrection of the dead?
    • When is or will the Kingdom begin?
    • What and when is the world to come?
    • If Jesus is on the Throne now, what is he doing or waiting for?
    • When is the resurrection of the dead?

    Again, we have to reverse engineer the Creed to figure out such questions.

    Folks, this sounds simple at first blush but once you start looking at this, it is evident that you are treading into deep theological waters trying to fully grasp the concepts tossed out by the writers of the Creed.

    The Creed speaks of a future coming of Jesus, presumably at the end of the world but where is that in the Bible? Most of the coming passages are understood by the signers of the three questions letter as coming in judgment in the First Century, but “The Church” has historically believed in a final and consummating coming at the end of history.

    This leaves a theological mess. Were the coming passages fulfilled (full Preterism)? Mostly fulfilled (partial Preterism)? Mostly in the future (Premillennial)? Requiring double fulfillment? Or something else?

    Here’s an example from Paul to illustrate the complexity of the issue. He writes that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. This verse is often quoted to give comfort to grieving families. It was quoted at my wife’s funeral. But how do you get to be “present with the Lord” without being judged in some fashion so God permits you to enter his presence? This implies that judgment is not at the end of the world but upon death. So, if you are judged at death then why not also be given your resurrected body at the same time? We spend eternity in bodies not as spirits floating around on clouds playing harps.

    Gentry and his friends presuppose that the Creeds and Church tradition are correct about much of this being future and then interpret the Bible with these presuppositions trying to discern which bucket that a particular verse belongs in. If you agree with him then he calls you “orthodox” and if you disagree—especially about the timing—then I guess you get a letter calling you “un-orthodox.”

    Matthew 24

    Generally, Matthew chapters 23-25 are all one dialogue by Jesus frequently called the Olivet Discourse. Chapters 24 & 25 are said in response to questions asked of Jesus by his disciples. Some folks like DeMar believe that chapters 24 and 25 are a single unit speaking of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Others split chapter 24—some like Gentry at very odd points—into part being fulfilled in 70 AD and part of the prophecy being future.

    J. Marcellus Kik and many others split Matthew 24 between about verse 34 to 36 so that the first part of the chapter is about 70 AD and the rest is the traditional Second Coming.

    Kenneth Gentry does this too, plus he pulls Matthew 24: 27 as a stand-alone verse concerning the Second Coming even though it comes in the midst of the part which most think applies to AD 70.

    “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

    I don’t want to get into the weeds about this except to say that Gentry didn’t always hold this position but has adopted it in more recent times. It makes no sense, but he is hell-bent in accommodating the Creed into his post millennial position. He needs verses to support both AD 70 and the traditional Second Coming. Gentry is a lone gunman on verse 27 but holds this unique position.

    If you look at the Olivet discourse, what many such as Kik try to do is book end the statements about “this generation” to fit an AD 70 application (Matthew 23:36 to Matthew 24:34) and then futurize the rest of chapter 24. Gentry randomly cherry picks verse 24:27 that he is compelled to futurize in the midst of the “this generation” passage.

    Gentry is obliged to shoehorn verses into the future because of the Creed and Church tradition; not the context.

    Were Matthew the only account of what shall be the signs of the end and coming of Jesus, then maybe Kik could have a point, but this bifurcation of Matthew is destroyed by looking at the same account in the other synaptic Gospels.

    Conflicting Versions

    Once you compare Matthew 24 & 25 with the parallel accounts in Luke 21 and Mark 13, then the structure forced onto the account in Matthew collapses. It is clear that all three accounts in their entirety are about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. It was a local judgment that could literally be escaped on foot by fleeing to the mountains. As proof that this was so, there are zero historical records of a single Christian being killed in the siege of Jerusalem. Secondly, Christians knew it would happen all the way back to the beginning chapters of Acts. Why was the Church in Jerusalem the only place where property was sold and the proceeds held in common by and for the Church? It was not socialism in the Bible; it was a testimony that the city would be lost within a generation as Jesus prophesized.

    The problem that Gentry and other signatories of the three-question letter have is that there is not a single verse in the Bible that all parties signing the three questions letter agree apply to the end of the world. At least some of the signers believe verses should be applied to the AD 70 judgment.

    On the one hand they want the traditional view that Jesus returns at the end of everything and at the same time they know that most verses apply better to an AD 70 fulfillment.

    Folks the truth is that Jesus doesn’t really tell us how it all ends. Neither does he tell us what heaven will be like. In the end, we will have a body like his. We will not marry nor be given in marriage. We will have jobs of some sort and worship God. There is no more death or sin. Anything beyond this is speculation.

    Between now and then, the Gospel will spread across the world. Most people will be believers at some point in the future. So many folks will be saved that when it is all over, it can truly be said that Jesus is the savior of the world. The end, whatever form or time it happens, is thousands of years from now. You are still living in the early church so buckle up and get to work.