I’ve probably mentioned this before but felt like writing on it again.
Supposedly, Matthew 24 contains a rock-solid proof of the Rapture of the Church. First, here’s the passage in question.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Matthew 24:36–42.
Jesus says that something is coming and only the Father knows when. (We are actually given more context and time related information by Matthew but I’m strictly sticking to the quoted passage.) He then gives this analogy. People will be eating and drinking. Whoa. That’s evil? They will be marrying and giving in marriage. Whoa. That’s evil?
Seriously? Hey folks, life goes on, as normal but then Noah entered the Ark. Life still went on for another week.
“And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.”
Genesis 7:10.
Then the flood waters came. Guess what happened next?
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: Genesis 7:21.
Yep, all the bad guys died. The righteous folks, i.e. Noah’s family were safe in the Ark. The wicked were taken.
Ok, now look at verse 39 in Matthew 24. It actually says the exact opposite of when premillennial dispensationalists claim it does.
“39 And [they] knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”
So, the bad guys knew not until the flood came and took them all away. Yep, the people taken are the wicked not the righteous.
Now look at verse 40 & 41 in Matthew 24.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
So, who is taken? The bad guys not the Christians.
FYI zero Christians were killed in the siege of Jerusalem. This was the reason that the church in Jerusalem sold their property and held it in common all the way at the beginning of the Book of Acts. They were told to flee when they see the signs and they did. Obey and live. In fact, you didn’t even need to be a Christian to avoid the coming judgment, just flee when the predicted signs appeared.
Jump back to the Sermon on the Mount; “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.” Matthew 5:5.
So, class, who inherits the world? The righteous. We don’t inherit Heaven, but the earth.
Need more proof?
The righteous shall never be removed:
But the wicked shall not inhabit the earth.
Proverbs 10: 30
For evildoers shall be cut off:
But those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be:
Yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
But the meek shall inherit the earth;
And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
Psalm 37:9–11.
Jesus is promising that the wicked, those that oppose the Christians of the First Century, will be removed from the earth. This allows the meek to inherit the world.
The problem is not the Bible; it’s the false understanding that we have when we impose our presuppositions on the text instead of letting the text speak for itself.
In Matthew 24, Israel and more specifically, Jerusalem and its Temple, are about to be judged. The wicked Jews of the First Century are about to be judged for “all the righteous blood from Abel through Zechariah.”
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Matthew 23:29–38
47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. 49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
Luke 11:47–51.
The blood of all the righteous prophets ever killed in the history of the Bible would be required of this generation—those that heard the voice of Jesus just days before he was crucified. Folks, this promise is airtight. There is no deferring it or waiting until some future event thousands of years hence, it was going to happen to them, and it did. Jesus said the judgment would be so terrible that unless it was cut short, no flesh would be saved. Over one million people died in the siege of Jerusalem that ended in 70 A.D.
Folks, at the trial of Jesus, the crowd screamed let his blood be upon us and it was.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.”
Matthew 27:25.
Within a generation of his crucifixion, the Jewish nation was wiped off the map. The Old Covenant era was ended forever. Jesus said I will take it from you and give it to a nation bearing the fruit thereof and he did. That new nation began with a remnant of Jews on Pentecost. Eventually, this righteous remnant began grafting non-Jews (Gentiles) into its assembly. This nation will encompass the entire world not just a small patch of land in Palestine. The Bible says that the Gospel was spread to all the civilized world before the New Testament’s writing was even completed. The Gospel was preached to every creature under heaven.
In the early church, there was apostacy in the form of Judaizers and gnostic teaching. Many fell away from the true faith. There was also persecution instigated by Jews jealous of the freedom found in Christ. Up until the end of Nero’s reign, Rome protected Christians from the Jews. Under Nero, persecution against the church began. The Apostle Paul and Jesus via Revelation both promised the church relief if they would stay faithful just a little longer. Relief came when Israel was judged for its sin. The apostate whore was burned by her lovers and destroyed just as John had recorded in Revelation 17.
The Olivet Discourse was a prophecy in 33 A.D. but history by 70 A.D. The Apostle John lived to see his prophetic work come to pass during his lifetime just as Jesus had promised on a beach in Galilee many years before.
Sorry kids. No Rapture in your future, just God’s promises … if you’d only believe them.
I don’t know if the passage which I quote below ever made it into print. I have very few books by Doug Wilson, maybe three. However, I think it has application on the Abolitionists movement so I wanted to place it on the record. As usual, I quote more than a sound bite or sentence fragment to insure that readers will understand the context; especially since verifying my transcript will prove difficult for most folks.. The source of my quotation is from a four lecture presentation on Eschatology. This is from Lecture 3 “The Power of the Cross”. I think it was recorded in the early 1990’s. This quotation is not about Abolitionists (since they didn’t exist at the time of the recording) but is applicable to them. Lastly, the transcript was made using voice recognition in Microsoft Word and then edited by me. Thus paragraph breaks and punctuation were created by me.
— Transcript begins now: —
Romans 4:13
“13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. “
Now, a very simple, straight forward thing, what was Abraham promised? Not just lots of descendants, he was promised descendants like the stars in the sky, he was promised descendants like the grains of sand on the seashore. But how does Paul put that promise here? What was Abraham promised? The world. All right? And who is promised the world along with Abraham? “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed …”, OK, in other words, the promise to Abraham is fulfilled not just in what is given to Abraham, but what is given to Abraham through his seed. So, what was Abraham promised and what was Abraham’s seed promised? The world.
Let’s put another, let’s throw another verse here that you are very familiar with, but nobody believes. “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit heaven when they die.” (laughter) “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5), not heaven, the earth. Abraham and his seed were promised the world.
Now this is a very important distinction, by what instrument were they were they to be given the world? Not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith; not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Now let me, let me, throw a parenthetical comment in here, and I’m going to throw some turns out, you probably had a very similar experience with them. I don’t call myself a Reconstructionist but other people do, and when these other people say that you know Wilson’s a Reconstructionist, what do they mean?
They generally mean that I want to, and others like me, others of my ilk, want to march on Washington, institute biblical law, and impose it on everybody; wrapping it around their neck all the way down. Alright? Some sort of top-down thing. Well, that whole idea appalled me. It just, it just appalls me. There are Christians who do it and they’re called Dispensationalists. They’re the ones with Christian Coalition. They’re the ones with religious lobbying organizations. They’re the ones who are doing their big thing in Washington D.C.
The promise, and everybody thinks that because the politics is such an idol in our in our era, everybody thinks that if you if you believe that that the Christian faith is going to exercise universal dominion, everybody thinks that you’re running for Congress
It’s one of those bizarre things… I do believe that we are going to inherit the world. How? Through the righteousness of faith. Through the proclamation of the Gospel. The most important thing we can do for the recovery of godly order and civil decency is to bring about a reformation in the church. We don’t, we don’t need umm, we don’t need any more godly people going to Washington. H.L. Manchin, the erudite unbeliever said, “Trying to reform Washington by sending good people there is like trying to reform prostitution by staffing brothels with virgins.”
We just don’t fix things that way. Alright. You can send a good man to Washington, and the first thing that happens, is he grows in office. That’s the first thing that happens. He starts compromising. He starts going along to get along. We don’t, that’s not where the action is. The, Abraham, Abraham was promised the world. Abraham and his seed were promised the world; and it says not through law, but through the righteousness of faith. What does the righteousness of faith mean? It’s justification. It’s a response to the gospel. As we hear the gospel proclaimed, we believe the gospel, through that instrumentality; cultures, nations, peoples will be transformed and it will eventually be reflected in the political realm.
All right, but we don’t, we don’t go for the political realm, and try and reform the church. We reform the church, and through the Reformation of the church, will see the Reformation of families, towns, counties, entire nation, That’s, that’s what God calls us to but we don’t minimize the goal. You know, a lot of the people who are in Washington doing their thing, they want, they want our voice to be heard. They want as the saying goes, they want a place at the table. And I don’t, I don’t wanna place at the table. I wanna know who’s the cook. I just don’t want to place at the table, I want the table. I want the whole table and I want the Lord Jesus Christ seated at the head of it and I’m not gonna have anything to do with it until he’s honored and and honored at that position of headship. Now how is that gonna happen? It’s not gonna happen through me writing letter a letter to a congressman. It’s gonna happen through the work of reformation in the Church.
As the church has become sound and biblical that is, that is, what God tells us to do and there’s a promise attached to it. We know that this work of reformation that we’ve undertaken will not be unsuccessful, we know in the long haul, it will necessarily be successful because God’s promised He made a promise to Abraham. He made a promise to Abraham and to his seed. Every time someone’s converted, comes into the kingdom of God, there is God being faithful again, still to Abraham.
— End of Transcription —
My point in quoting Wilson is that he is saying the exact opposite of Abolitionists. Abolitionists want to reform the Church by passing laws in the States that will then enforce biblical law on the citizens with the hope that this will then lead to reformation of our culture. The biblical pattern is just the opposite; namely, start with the church and the revival of the church will lead to cultural and societal transformation. This was the pattern of the Reformation and it worked as long as the faithful were faithful.
The other question that begs asking is why not implement all biblical civil laws, why single out abortion as opposed to adultery, divorce, homosexuality, Sabbath breaking or disobedient children? Abortion, adultery, and divorce are just as common in the church as in world at large.
In the next few days, I plan on posting a transcript from David Chilton that answers my question about whom should we really start with if we want to reform our society and culture.
The following discusses “Preterism.” Preterism is the belief that certain passages in the Bible were predicted and then fulfilled. To some degree, all Christians are preterists. They believe the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament is Jesus Christ of the New Testament. The issue is which biblical prophecies are fulfilled, and which are future. Within a subset of Protestants, a debate is raging over which prophecies of the coming of Jesus are future and which were fulfilled by the events of 70 A.D.—the destruction of the Second Temple and Jerusalem.
Three Questions
In 2023, a letter was sent to Gary DeMar with three questions. The letter demanded that Gary affirm three statements as true. The statements were about biblical doctrines, but no supporting verses were included.
The three questions asked of Gary DeMar in 2023 were:
Do you believe in a future, bodily glorious return of Christ?
Do you believe in a future physical, general resurrection of the dead?
Do you believe history will end with the Final Judgment of all men?
The letter then goes on to state:
To refuse to affirm the future, physical resurrection, the final judgment of the righteous and the unrighteous, and the tactile reality of the eternal state is to refuse to affirm critical elements of the Christian faith. To contradict these doctrines is not merely to contradict a few specific biblical texts, it is to contradict indispensable aspects of the Christian faith and the biblical worldview.
The letter was leaked onto Facebook because DeMar didn’t respond. Public pressure was brought to bear on DeMar, and a website was even set up to solicit signatures of people that affirmed the questions. On the website, the three questions were expanded to seven weirdly worded questions; supporting verses were also added. The weirdly worded questions employed the type of verbal gymnastics that California voters are frequently confronted with where “no” means “yes” and “yes” means “no.”
The letter’s author, and agreeing signatories, were trying to position DeMar as a heretic—in their mind DeMar is a closeted full preterist—while they are Orthodox because they are partial preterists which affirm the Historic Creeds. (More on that shortly.)
Before being aware of the website, Gary DeMar responded by saying, which verses apply to these questions? Tell me that and then I will respond.
Once the verses were attached, DeMar was presented with a target rich environment. The signatories were at odds with each other as to which verses applied to A.D. 70 and which to the final return of Christ at the end of history.
The Historic Creeds
In the circles that DeMar runs in, folks are Presbyterian. They acknowledge the Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and Westminster Confession of Faith. The controversy before people contemplating the Three Questions are mostly related to the return of Christ as mentioned in the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds.
“… he ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.” — Apostle’s Creed
“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.” — Nicene Creed
“… and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.” — Nicene Creed
DeMar’s Response
DeMar spent many hours on subsequent podcasts pointing out that the signatories did not agree as to which verses listed as supporting the Three Questions applied to the coming of Christ in judgment in 70 A.D. and which applied to a return of Christ at the end of history. Gary’s response was essentially, what am I affirming if y’all can’t even agree amongst yourselves on the position of Orthodox Christianity.
Some of the signatories have changed their positions over the years, one of which is Kenneth Gentry. Gentry has changed his mind on his interpretation of parts of Matthew 24. His current view seems to be nonsense to me and unsupportable. Either Matthew 24 is past or future, but Gentry has decided without any textual support to split it so one verse is fulfilled and the next verse is future and then the next verse is fulfilled again. I don’t agree with splitting past and future at Matthew 24:35 or thereabouts but at least that way keeps verses one to the split together, so the first half is history and the remainder is future. However, Gentry does not do that either.
Part of the issue is that the Creeds have no biblical citations to show where the various clauses come from.
Here is an example of the problems that this creates.
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Matthew 16:27.
Again, the Apostle’s Creed “he will come to judge the living and the dead”
These sound a lot alike but read the next verse.
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Matthew 16:28.
Read verses 27 & 28 together. Jesus said the Son will come with angels and reward (judge) every man and some of his First Century listeners would not die before they see this fulfilled. They would live to see him coming into his Kingdom!
Folks, many texts create similar problems. They were future to the people to whom Jesus spoke but fulfilled before the Creeds were even written. DeMar’s point was that the authors of the Creed ignored the time texts and just assumed it was speaking of a future event. As DeMar often says, “They [authors of the Creeds] didn’t show their homework.”
Per this verse, the judgment of all men is not a future expectation as the Creeds imply because some men were already judged—unless you want to say Jesus was a liar—which no signatories or DeMar would allow as a possibility. I think DeMar’s friend, Kim Burgess, would answer that the judgment of men according to their works (Matthew 16:27) was completed when the Old Testament Saints were released from Sheol and allowed to enter Heaven. This would have been between the Ascension and 70 A.D. Thus, Jesus literally opened the way into Heaven and before that time, nobody went there when they died. On this point, the Westminster Confessions are wrong. Only after this First Century judgment was “absent from the body, present with the Lord” a reality.
The problem that Gentry and others have is that they are wedded to the traditions of the Church. Sola Scriptura is not really a thing for them when considering this topic, they assume the tradition is right and then try to shoehorn everything into it. This is why Gentry changed his position on Matthew.
If you took every verse cited by one or more signatories of the Three Questions as applying to A.D. 70, you would end up with no verses applying to what is traditionally regarded as “The Second Coming”. This is why they regard Full Preterism as heresy. The underlying assumption of the signatories is that something must remain to support the position of the Creeds and the Church. DeMar points out that they have no agreement on the topic, but they assume the truth of the proposition because Church tradition and the Creeds demand it.
Jason Bradfield
Jason Bradfield
Kenneth Gentry has been putting forth Jason Bradfield as his attack dog on Facebook to counter Gary DeMar. I have two issues with this. First Bradfield comes across as holier than thou and smug in his attacks on DeMar and second, Gentry reposts Bradfield in a way that completely blocks comments on any of Bradfield articles. Thus, Bradfield does not have to defend his attacks on DeMar. To me it’s gutless if you are unwilling to defend your position.
The most recent volley between the two was on the topic of Acts 1: 9-11. Posts by both men on this topic went up on the Internet on March 22, 2026.
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Acts 1:9–11.
First, here is what DeMar posted.
Most futurists use this verse to show that Jesus will return in His physical body because that would be necessary in order to fulfill “just in the same way” He went away. The problem is that this Greek phrase is translated differently in other parts of the NT [New Testament].
The above quote from DeMar is not an exhaustive dissertation but from a teaser for a podcast episode on the passage.
Bradfield states this about DeMar:
Stage three is his only real engagement with the text itself: an argument about Greek phrase hon tropon (”in the same way” or “in like manner”). DeMar notes this phrase appears elsewhere in the New Testament (Matthew 23:37, Acts 7:28 Timothy 3:8) and is translated simply as “as” in those passages, not “in just the same way.” From this, he concludes that the translations of Acts 1:11 are prejudicially rendered, that hon tropon doesn’t actually require a precise correspondence between the ascension and the return, and therefore Acts 1:11 “not the slam dunk” people think it is.
Based on what I have heard DeMar say on his podcast, Bradfield’s summary, which I quoted above, is correct. Bradfield then accuses DeMar of sleight-of-hand because DeMar does not deal with each Greek word in the passage.
If Acts 1:11 is the very text under dispute, you cannot settle its meaning by appealing to your conclusions about other texts. That is circular reasoning. You must deal with what this text says.
I frankly think this is Bradfield invoking his own sleight-of-hand to counter DeMar. To dismiss out-of-hand the way the Greek word is used anywhere else in Scripture as irrelevant to understanding hon tropon is prejudicial. Bradfield also ignores any passages that are parallel to Act 1:9-11. He deals with this verse in isolation. Whether he is employing the magic prophecy scissors, I will let the read decide.
Bradfield then goes on to dissect several Greek words in the passage. Ironically, he does this by citing other instances where certain Greek words are used—which he just castigated DeMar for doing. He does this by selecting quotes from Keith Mathison.
Keith Mathison
Mathison is having an imaginary conversation where he is rebuking someone else’s views as wrongly understanding the text.
Bradfield wants his readers to assume that said person getting rebuked by Mathison is Gary DeMar. In My mind this is a strawman argument or a tearing down via proxy. The things being rebuked by Mathison are things DeMar has never said. Bradfield is putting words into DeMar’s mouth via this method of analysis.
DeMar points out in his podcast that Jesus’s coming is described differently in different biblical passages. In some passages, Jesus comes on the clouds. Sometimes with angels. In Revelation he is coming on a white horse—Darrell Mansfield’s favorite description. Elsewhere, Jesus comes with a two-edged sword coming out of his mouth. You get the idea. His coming is a fact, the particulars are more descriptive. Some are more literal than others.
The core of Bradfield’s article is:
DeMar also never addresses the presence of houtōs (“thus,” “in this way”) in this verse. He treats hon tropon in isolation, as though it alone carries the full weight of the comparison. But in Acts 1:11, houtōs and hon tropon work together: “will come thus (houtōs)…in the manner in which (hon tropon) you saw him go.” As Mathison explains, “The construction hon tropon is a compound adverbial phrase corresponding to houtōs. It means ‘in the manner in which’ or ‘just as.’ The use houtōs together with hon tropon serves to emphasize the point that Jesus will come in the same way that he departed.” This houtōs…hon tropon combination creates a double emphasis on correspondence between the manner of departure and the manner of return. This combination does not appear in Matthew 23:37, Acts 7:2 or 2 Timothy 3:8. DeMar’s cross-references, therefore, are not as parallel as he assumes.
Again, DeMar is not a careless thinker. He knows where the exegetical pressure points are. That is precisely what makes the pattern so damning. When he engages Acts 1:11, he isolates hon tropon from its context, ignores the verbs of sight and the spatial language that define the manner of the departure, and imports a conclusion from other passages rather than deriving one from the text at hand.
Essentially, Bradfield is demanding that the passage says that Jesus will physically return to earth in the same way that he left. Taken literally, the return of Jesus will be a local event that almost nobody will see except eleven or twelve folks on an obscure mountain top.
Compare Acts 1:9-11 to Revelation 1:7
Remember that the following verse is about the judgment on Jerusalem, not the end of the world.
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Revelation 1:7.
So, every eye will see Jesus when he comes in judgment in 70 A.D. (Kenneth Gentry spends over 20 pages of his commentary on Revelation defending this interpretation) but in Acts 1:11, where Jesus is claimed to return physically at the end of the world, it is a private affair because his return is a carbon copy of his departure? Sorry but this makes zero sense. Clearly, Bradfield is trying to shoehorn the Acts passage into the preexisting mold of tradition and the Creeds.
Kenneth Gentry
Jason Brasdfield is trying to force at least two things from Acts 1, the when, and the how of Christ’s Return. If during the judgment on Jerusalem, “every eye will see him” then clearly Jesus came, and on the clouds too! The subject of “The Cloud” is important to the Acts passage too but gets zero mention from Bradfield. There is a long history and much biblical imagery attached to “The Cloud.”
The issue of Jesus coming more than once is also on the table but nothing from Bradfield on that either.
Bradfield can employ all the Greek Fire that he can muster but nobody has disputed that Jesus would return after the Ascension, it is the how, when, and how many times that needs to be addressed. DeMar is right. Once the signatories agree then have a chat with him and bring verses not slogans.
Conclusion
Gary DeMar has been singled out for special treatment for reasons that I just don’t understand. Gary doesn’t have to answer the questions. Frankly, his job is easy, pointing out the inconsistencies on the other side. I think Bradfield is tired of DeMar being evasive. I just think DeMar is having fun poking holes in the other side. They attacked him and he is making them pay for their stupidity.
The truth is that these guys agree on 98 percent of their theology. The Bible doesn’t tell us much of anything about what happens after death. When we die then we will be with Christ. Jesus comes multiple times in judgment throughout human history. It’s part of ruling on the Throne now. That is a present reality not a future hope.
Contrary to tradition, there are zero verses that say Jesus will ever set foot on planet earth again. I think he will, but I can’t find it in the Bible. The point of the New Testament is the end of the Old Covenant with its temples, blood sacrifices, and rituals. In the Kingdom age, we have work to do. The issue facing the Church in our age is Christians hiding out in their Churches praying for the Rapture, so they won’t have to transform their culture so it is subject to the Lordship of Christ.
Contrary to Premillennial/Dispensationalism, the focus of the New Testament is the Kingdom of God and his Church conquering the world. The last, last things (end of the world as we know it) are not for us to worry about. The Second Coming—whatever form it will take—will not happen for a very long time so quit worrying about it.
Enough with the circular firing squad, Jesus is knocking on the door of your church, will you let him in?
Folks, Jesus made several predictions about his return happening within the lifetime of those hearing his words. Sadly, many of his followers in our day and age don’t believe him or worse yet, think he was mistaken. If Jesus was wrong on this claim, then he is a liar and thus not God and has no credibility for anything else he claimed or was claimed about him.
Liberal theologians and some atheists believe Jesus made claims about returning within the lifetime of his hearers, not because Jesus was correct, but because they believe he was wrong. Christopher Hitchens used to beat up premil folks with this all the time. He tried it on Doug Wilson and got smacked.
Conversely, many evangelical Christians don’t believe Jesus because it doesn’t fit their presuppositions about what Jesus meant to say. Instead of taking Jesus at his word, they try to weasel out of it.
In the last chapter of John’s Gospel, is an account of Peter and Jesus at a beach in Galilee. Immediately following the “feed my sheep” story is the last documented squabble amongst the disciples. It involves, Jesus, Peter, and John.
21 Peter seeing him [John] saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
John 21:21–23.
Prior to these verses, Jesus had told Peter that “… when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.” This is understood to indicate that Peter would die of crucifixion. Tradition further states that said crucifixion of Peter was conducted with him upside-down.
Peter then looks at John and says, Hey Jesus, what about him?
At this point in John’s narrative, C.S. Lewis fans would expect to hear Aslan say, “it’s not your story” and end the discussion.
But that isn’t how the discussion ends. Instead, Jesus says that if I want John to live until I return, what business is that of yours?
Folks, as you know, John was the only one of the Twelve that was not martyred. John did in fact live until the destruction of the Temple and siege of Jerusalem were completed. He got to see the fulfillment of the Apocalypse that he had authored and the end of the Old Covenant age. The Kingdom of God came into its fullness and John lived to see it.
At the time of authoring the Gospel, John knew it was a possibly but not a certainty that he would live to see the end. In his epistle, John wrote it is the last hour. (I John 2:18.) John knew it was about to happen.
This account reminds me of Simeon and Anna at the circumcision of Jesus (Luke 2:25 – 38). God allowed both Simeon and Anna to see the salvation of God. In a similar way, John got to see the beginning of the next chapter of redemption. God’s promise to Abraham to bless all nations through the seed of a woman became a reality in his lifetime.
So, yep, John did tarry until Jesus came. How cool.
In case you are not aware, Diana Russini covered the NFL for The Athletic; a pay-to-view website. Mike Vrabel is the head coach of the New England Patriots and was head coach of the Tennessee Titans prior to that. Russini gets paid to cover the NFL and more specifically get scoops before anyone else does. She was by most accounts very good at her job. Another thing that followed Russini was the rumors of inappropriate sexual behavior that she was trading for said scoops. There was always smoke but never fire, well until now.
One piece of information I’d like to pass along. Always tell the truth, you will never remember the story you told or who you told it too.
The information above is what 90-day guy lacked. It cost him. He told five different stories to five different people. The mental gymnastics is causing him mental anguish. I witnessed him contradict himself 3 sperate times in the course of a 3 minute conversation. When called out, he would go to his old standby “I don’t have a good memory.” As Chief would say, “Folks, you know who doesn’t need a good memory? The guy who always tells the truth.”
Back to Vrabel and Russini.
Both are married, but not to each other. They were both photographed together at The Ambiante Hotel in Arizona. The Ambiante is known for being adults only. Also, it’s a romantic getaway where you usually are proposing to your girlfriend or you’ve made the decision you want to have a child in 9 months. I went to the Ambiante hotel with my, at the time, girlfriend. Folks, as mentioned above, we left the room to eat, and to lounge by the pool, but a lot of sex was happening.
Russini is definitely very good looking but likely doesn’t have much in the brain department.
The photos leaked out and Russini took a page out of the 90-day guy’s playbook. It backfired. I call it the Holy Trinity of Stupidity.
She first insulted everyone’s intelligence by saying it was a chance encounter with another friend. Umm … folks, I have multiple female friends; we do not embrace or interact like that. Also, not on a trip without our significant other/spouse. Then she said that she was there for a girl’s weekend trip. Then when out of lies, she decided to play the sympathy/victim card saying it was lies and she didn’t want to give the story any more oxygen. If you are a loser in life, this is the playbook you follow. Notice, she could have told the truth, and while consequences would have occurred, the story would blow over.
Again, she could have told the truth but didn’t want to risk her marriage so she claimed it was a chance encounter. Then it was a girl’s weekend getaway, (strangely this would be the first girl’s weekend in the history of girl’s weekends with zero photos taken of said girls.) Secondly, going to that particular hotel and calling it girl’s weekend was definitely an interesting choice of words. Just by going there, many would understand it as a girl-on-girl orgy type outing. Definitely a different spin on girls just wanna have fun. Again, bad move. The pulling the victim/sympathy card is the last play in the playbook. Yep, when all else fails, resort to the victim or sympathy card. She is not a victim.
Russini is now seeing her life come apart at the seams. She lost her job reporting and covering New England in the NFL. Bottom line, you cannot be having sex with your source and be non-biased. It’s an ethics issue. A big one. She will land another gig, but she is damaged goods. Her marriage is likely on the rocks. No guy wants to be viewed as your “Monday through Thursday guy” with your side piece taking over on date night/weekends. Oh, she has a son who is four named Mike. Coincidentally, she was photographed with Mike Vrabel 9 months prior to her son’s birth. I would say we have even money odds that the kid may not be his. Even if it is his kid, now you find out he is named after the man your wife cheated with? Ouch. Her friend group is likely eviscerated as well. When she brought up it was a girl’s getaway trip, I have a feeling her group chat was filed with “keep us out of your adultery.” Girls in your friend group are not dumb; they don’t want to be blamed for your marriage likely dissolving. As one of Chief’s friends of the blog said, girls do not want to wreck a home. In the case of Russini, she wrecked hers. It seems as if Mike Vrabel likely dropped 7 figures on a ring or other material things for his current bride and his marriage may be ok. Money can buy happiness, especially when happiness involves likely not working and being a stay-at-home wife.
One thing I saw, while buying a couple items at the grocery store, was a gossip magazine essentially asking why Vrabel has gotten a pass and asserting that double standard exists. Folks, there is no double standard. Having an affair with a women who is not your wife doesn’t mean you get fired as a football coach. Morally bankrupt? Yes. Unemployed? No. He, to his credit, has also stayed silent for the most part, Russini lied over and over. As mentioned earlier, Russini is paid for her ability to break news before it goes mainstream. When you are sleeping with your source, your ethics are compromised.
Back to the point of this blog. If you tell the truth, you have no reason to lie or fabricate a story. It also makes memory easy. You can always recall the truth. Trying to memorizing 5 different stories you told to 5 different people is mentally taxing and emotionally draining.
It was amazing for me to hear 90-day guy, in a 3-minute, one-sided conversation, tell me he couldn’t get ahold of his doctor, then he loved his doctor and said he was the best, then he wanted to be on a stronger pill, then he also wanted off said pill.
He has no issue throwing his brother or his other agent friend in front of the oncoming bus when needed. Oh, when he was called out about his changing story he claimed he is the face of dementia. Like I said earlier, Holy Trinity of Stupidity; insult someone’s intelligence by telling 2 completely different stories, throw other folks under the bus, then play a sympathy/victim card.
It’s why he has no friends and is alone. Ditto for Russini. No one likes the person who throws people innocently under the bus. You want to cheat? Leave your friends out of it. You may be morally bankrupt; they do not need to be involved.
For the 90-day guy, he watches too much TV to know he is a loser. He knows he is alone but doesn’t seem to know why. His version of reality is quite malleable. My explanation for that is easy as I have seen the tire marks on Chief’s back from being thrown under the bus too many times when 90-day guy has been caught manipulating reality and needs to blame someone else.
In the case of Diana Russini, it’s time for you to do some inner searching and reflection. I will say the quiet part out loud, it’s going to hurt. Diana you were just a hot little piece of ass for the football coach. Hence when this news broke, he pulled out all the stops to save his marriage. He may have loved “penetrating you’re A gap or being in your defensive backfield” (hat tip to Troll for that one) but do you really believe you’re the first that’s been his backup piece? Diana, one sentence of a tip for you; you are 43 and still smoking hot, you won’t be that way forever. Try to make right with your Shake Shack Executive husband. This too shall pass. People forgot the late Kobe Bryant cheated on his wife.
The point of this blog should not be forgotten, tell the truth because you will always remember it, you will never remember the lie you told or whom you told it too. When you lie, the problem is you must tell another lie to cover that up, then another one, and so on. If you are the 90-day guy or Diana Russini, you likely have an IQ in the mid-single digits, gentle reminder: there are a lot of people smarter than you, they can quickly figure out 1+1 wasn’t equaling 2. Don’t lie. The benefit of not lying is that you don’t need a good memory when you always tell the truth.
In the last few weeks, I’ve seen the fruit of a paradigm shift in the church that I’ve been attending. Some of the clergy have been moving away from premillennial dispensationalism and toward a more historic understanding of the faith. The new pastor and the soon to be leaving one have been tag-teaming the book of Romans. In the last few weeks, they have been defending predestination as above free will and that God has one people—the church—which is the continuing Israel and true children of Abraham. Today the pastor went out of his way to proclaim that God has one people, not two. He even stated that only via faith in Jesus Christ can anyone be saved. God didn’t have one path for the church and a separate one for Jews. It sounded much like stuff that I’ve been posting here lately.
There are some really hardcore Armenians and Premil folks in the group. The pastor stating that eschatology was a secondary issue, not one that is core to the faith, was followed up by a plug for classic dispensationalism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. He said he had limited copies of a sheet with four views of eschatology for people to get at the back of the church after the service. He encouraged folks to consider views other than premillennial dispensationalism. Bold move. The four views documents were all gone when I went looking for one. I was going to photograph it and leave it for someone else but was unable to do that.
Folks, this is a dicey move to make in a nondenominational church. I think the pastors would only move their flock in that direction if they were convinced that it was true. There is a minority that is post millennial in the church but whether the clergy is heading that direction has not been revealed yet. I think they can move their people a ways down that track, but at some point, their paradigm shift will get some pushback.
A couple of the leaders in the church are what I would describe as old school Baptists. I think they will balk at any move away from Arminianism (free will) and Scofieldism.
Many Christians call eschatology a secondary issue, but the reality is that it is not. Eschatology cannot really be separated from core Christian doctrines. There is a huge difference between playing duck and cover, wait for the Rapture, and taking dominion because Jesus claims to be Lord over every area of life. Premillennial dispensationalism leads to escapism while post millennialism leads to progressive growth as nations are discipled not individuals.
I am very happy to see this change taking place. If America is to see revival, then many congregations will need to experience a similar shift in eschatology.
What do Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and Mike Hukabee have in common besides being Republican politicians? Bad eschatology. Specifically premillennial dispensationalism.
The attached meme sums it up, or at least half the story.
Facebook Post captured o4-20-2026
Folks, when you hold views in isolation—in your mind anyway—you can simultaneously claim to value two ideals that are in complete opposition to each other.
Illustration: Life or Death
Let me pick on Liberals first and illustrate what I mean. Let’s take the issue of life. Liberals simultaneously value life and death as the highest ideals. They hold both as true and don’t see the inherent conflict. Let’s explore this.
Liberals oppose the death penalty for those that commit murder. They view this as unjust. They claim nobody deserves the death penalty because it is cruel and unusual punishment, inhuman, and discriminates against minorities. Some even quote the Bible stating, “Thou shalt not kill.” Thus, they assert that executing someone is violating the Commandment of God.
Simultaneously, Liberals support death via abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide. Lest Liberals dispute my claim of support for all three: abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide then let me sight a few examples that won’t make your brain hurt should you choose to verify them.
Euthanasia is legal in several states and in Canada. Canada called their euthanasia program MAID. As of my writing, Canada is surpassing the deaths of over 100,000 of its citizens via the MAID program.
The United States has killed upwards of 73 million children via legal abortion since 1973. Contrary to what you would expect, abortions are higher now than when Roe v Wade was the Law of the Land. This is due to the availability of abortion pills being shipped over state lines, mostly from California and New York.
Infanticide is legal in California and probably a few other leftist states, I’m thinking maybe Colorado. In California, if an infant dies, it is illegal for any law enforcement officer, doctor, or other government official to investigate the cause of death. If such an investigation occurs, the person investigating can be prosecuted and jailed for committing a crime; thus, a woman has an absolute right to kill her child purposely or by neglect and she cannot be punished. This has been California law for many years. Thanks Gavin Newsom.
Oh, the time limit of how old a child can be before its death is investigated in California is not defined in the law. It was felt that the mother could choose to kill her baby during a period of at least the first 30 days of life, but such a limit was left to be decided by the courts and not the Legislature.
Thus, killing a human being that is weaker than yourself is allowed in states that oppose the death penalty. One must therefore conclude that life is not valued highly in Liberal states despite protestations that the death penalty is wrong. Life and death are arbitrary and decided on something other than the intrinsic value of human life. Oh, yes, Liberals will cite passages of Scripture in isolation to support ending life and saving life. Their metric seems to be to free the guilty and punish the innocent. There is no single logical proposition to justify both death and life in their worldview.
Scofieldism and the Jews
In like manner, premillennial dispensationalists will proclaim support for Israel and simultaneously believe that Jews only exist to be slaughtered in the largest holocaust in the history of the planet, a yet future even which will make what Hitler did seem like a picnic in comparison.
Huckabee, Cruz, and Graham all hold to this view as do millions of Evangelicals in the West. I hope to illustrate the absurdity of these ideas in what follows.
Some claim that the premillennial dispensational view is orthodox Christianity, but I say that is B.S.
I have previously delt with the idea that the promise in Genesis to bless Abraham has no application to the modern nation called “Israel.” The New Testament makes it clear that the offspring of Abraham are not genetic descendants but those who by faith believe in Christ. Look it up in the New Testament books of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews.
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Galatians 3:6–9.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 3:26–29.
Premillennial dispensationalists deny the plain teaching of the New Testament and instead teach that God will eventually get back to dealing with national Israel at some point in the future. A future when the Church is no longer in the picture. Until the Church is Raptured, they think the Bible teaches that in order to be a good Christian that you must support modern Israel, right or wrong, or God will punish you both personally and as a nation.
Again, the New Testament teaches that Jesus is the true Israel and that his followers are the true Israel—people of God. In Jesus, the promise made to Abraham is fulfilled, Abraham is heir to the whole world and through Christ (Abraham’s seed) all the nations of the world have been blessed. The Bible also promises at a future date that Jesus will be the Savior of the World. The Church will fulfill her mission, and the world will be converted. God divorced Israel in 70 AD and has a new people, a new bride, the Church. He is done with Old Covenant Israel.
What Do Evangelicals Believe is Israel’s Fate
Some Evangelicals even raise money to send Jews to Israel. Isn’t that nice? They are so supportive of modern Israel. Did you ever wonder why?
Evangelicals are supportive of Israel because they want the Jews there to die. No, really. They believe that 2/3 of all the Jews in Israel will die. Some even say that 2/3 of all Jews everywhere on the planet will die.
For Evangelicals, this wasn’t fulfilled in 70 A.D. as Jesus predicted but is the future that Jews have to look forward to experiencing. Isn’t that wonderful? So, for every three Jews you help send to Israel, two will die to usher in the End Times.
Yep, they really teach this as the Gospel; the good news that Jews have to expect in their future. Then after 2/3 are killed, the Jews will be so thankful for what just happened to them that all the rest will willingly believe in Jesus and then Christ will return and set up his Kingdom.
Premillennial dispensationalism demands a literal Kingdom, in literal Jerusalem, with Jesus sitting on a literal throne. The millennium will be so wonderful, Jews will reestablish sacrifices in the rebuilt temple (I’m not sure if this is the third or fourth rebuilt temple) and even circumcise babies on the eighth day. It will be just like old times. In fact, it will be just like Jesus never came and accomplished a darn thing by his death.
Oh, nobody ever asks, if the remaining Jews all believe in Jesus, why do they need to restart the Sacrificial system? Didn’t Jesus say, “It is finished?” Doesn’t the New Testament teach that Jesus was the High Priest and the final and perfect sacrifice for sin, so why a new physical temple?
Conclusion
These contradictions don’t matter to the premillennial dispensationalist crowd. Once you start holding contradictory views in isolation, you get to juggle these views in your head and as long as they remain in isolation, people can hold them all to be true.
This belief system is nuts but that is what is taught within the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible. Millions of people believe this nonsense. Prophecy pimps make millions of dollars printing books teaching these falsehoods. People with itching ears gobble up this teaching and just assume it must be the correct grid to interpret the Bible. Scofield’s system cannot be found within the Bible unless it is assumed before you open the Book. The core of his system is never found in the Bible.
Future Rebuilt Temple – not there
Antichrist as a political figure– not there
Seven years of tribulation– not there
Great Tribulation being Worldwide– not there
Rapture– not there
God not done with national Israel– not there
Kingdom of God put on hold– not there
Mark of the Beast being literal– not there
I could go on but you get the point. Everything that made “The Late, Great Planet Earth” and “Left Behind” sensational is not found in the Bible, at least not if the context of the Scriptures matter.
Final Word
The nonsense coming from Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, and Ted Cruz about Israel is just that, nonsense. If you want to back Israel because you think they are a good ally in the Middle East then have fun with that, but don’t expect God to bless our country just because you believe we must back Israel right or wrong. Sorry, but I get nervous when someone is more willing to back a foreign country than they are the United States. I thought Donald Trump was booting masses of people out of the United States for doing that very thing. Or is the double standard one way for conservatives and another for everyone else?
With a title like that, if you are expecting a post about Jesus’ friendship with Mary and Martha, please stop reading because you’ll be disappointed. No, I’m once again pointing out a failure in the premillennial dispensational scheme.
Would You Rather …
Admittedly, half the reason that I go to the church Bible study is to get blog ideas, and this post stems from such a study that I attended last night. Towards the end of the session, a question was asked that I found interesting. I don’t recall it verbatim, but it was to the effect of, would you rather be a part of God’s chosen people the Jews coming to Christ as such or part of the New Testament Church?
The respondent thought for a moment and then replied; I guess I would prefer knowing Christ as part of His church.
Bingo. Right answer.
Even one of the stopped prophecy clock guys came up with an orthodox sounding answer. It’s a start.
The guy answering the question is always trying to push every Old Testament prophecy of judgment into the future, but even he seemed content that the book of Amos might actually be something that was fulfilled. He seemed willing to accept the idea that maybe Amos was fulfilled but could be a warning from history that we might learn from. His concluding that God gave us the book of Amos for our instruction is mildly hopeful.
It was a rare time when folks in the group were not trying to make prophecies of judgment into passages requiring double or triple fulfillments. I think the group leader actually teaching the book as history that was fulfilled was satisfying to attendees. Much of the previous books of the minor prophets were concerning the same judgments but the group kept trying to force fulfilled passages into the future to be fulfilled yet again.
Sadly, these moments of lucid theological insight were contradicted by invoking that Christ has two brides: namely, the Church and the Jews. This is not the traditional view of the Church. This crazy idea is part of the Zionist scheme of Schofield which has been adopted without any Biblical warrant by much of the evangelical church.
Does Jesus Have Two Brides
Guys let me not confuse you by quoting the Bible since it’s not your authority as to what the Bible says. Try this explanation.
The purpose of God dealing with the Jews, and Moses, and the Old Testament was to get us to Christ, the Jews’ Messiah.
A recurring theme in the Bible is that at least a remnant of Jews will be saved. Jesus said that only a remnant of Jews alive in the First Century would be saved. In the same passage however, he also promised that hordes of Gentiles would come streaming into the Kingdom.
The illustration that Jesus used was that of an olive tree. Branches of the domesticated olive would be broken off, and wild olive branches would be grafted into the root of the tree. Thus, the Kingdom of God is built from the Jews, includes Jews, and even honors the Jews but access to Christ is also granted to the Gentiles (think rest of us in the world).
Thus, the Jews are never set aside until some future date as Scofield claims. The New Testament Church is built on the foundation of Judaism, and populated with the Spiritual children of Abraham; namely, us.
Conclusion
This is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that the world would be His inheritance (see book of Hebrews). Jesus unites both Jew and Gentile into one new man. There is no separation between male and female, bond and free, Jew or Gentile. We are all the Bride of Christ. This is a forever arrangement not a temporary one. Jesus has only one Bride.
National Israel was destroyed for the sin of adultery in 70 A.D. This is one of the main points of the Book of Revelation. The harlot, Babylon the Great, where Jesus was crucified is destroyed. Burned forever. (Burning with fire is a punishment reserved almost exclusively in the Bible for the daughter of the priest. Leviticus 212:9)
Sorry, this is not a do-over of Jacob working to get both Rachel and Leah by slaving away, working seven years for each bride. The idea that Jesus gets Israel and her little sister, the Church at the end is the ages is syrupy, sentimental nonsense.
I’ve been going to a Bible study on Thursday nights that is sponsored by the church that I am currently attending. The study is completely unmoored from the normal restraints of context, historical relevance, and using the Bible to interpret the Bible. The result is often fantastical and disjointed.
Amos is the third minor prophet that we have been reading since I started attending. Last Thursday, for the first time, the leader actually had done a bit of research on the book and its historical fulfillment. Even after reading the notes related to our reading—chapter one—many in the group were unconvinced that any of it had been fulfilled between the time Amos made the pronouncements of impending judgment and the time of Christ. They kept demanding that Amos must really be about the “end times” and couldn’t possibly be history. Some also invoke the idea of double or triple fulfillment which to me renders the text no better than the ravings of Nostradamus.
Folks, if I could ban three words during the study, most participants would be mute. Those three words are “rapture”, “end”, “times”. Many people say that the Bible is all about Jesus, but this group believes that church is just a cute bus stop while we wait with oil in our lamps for the Rapture while doing nothing in the meantime, so we don’t miss His Return. In their minds, the church has nothing else to do. Somehow that whole “discipling the nations” thing is for another era—probably a future one.
This Israel is not that Israel
I hear a lot about Israel and how all those nations mad at Benjamin Netanyahu will get punished by God because to disparage the modern nation of Israel is to attack God’s People.
Benjamin Netanyahu
If you point out that the modern nation of Israel is not the one in the Bible and that the current nation calling itself “Israel” is not based on the teaching of Moses, you get crickets. It doesn’t matter because we just have to be living in the “end times.”
If you dare to point out that only the followers of Jesus are part of the true Israel, they look at you like you have a third eye or rebuke the comment in the name of Jesus. Just because that is what the New Testament teaches matters not because Scofield doesn’t agree.
All of these abuses by Israel have happened in the last week as most people are looking only at the war with Iran. I guess other guys don’t let a good crisis go to waste either.
Folks, my California editorial staff is correct that nothing will change for the better in this country as long as the Baby Boom generation is running the show. The so-called adults running this place are broken as are lots of their offspring.
Judgment begins on Us not the Pagans
The other theme that people in the group keep saying is that God will Rapture us out of this world and then punish the wicked. My gentle contribution for the last two weeks is this, the Bible says judgment begins with the house of the Lord. 1 Peter 4:17.
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
Judgment does not begin after the Rapture, or on the heathen, but on the Church. This concept does not compute in this group. It has no pigeonhole in their theological system. It seems to be a good wedge to drive into Scofield’s theological system. Hopefully it will take root and expand the understanding of some in the group.
There is a still small voice in some corners of the Reformed camp saying the American and Western Church’s failures are due to unbelief. Dear Church, the Devil can only take what you have voluntarily given to him. Most of this is due to the poison of Scofield’s premillennial dispensationalism heresies. Yep, I said the “H” word. It is a lie to say Scofield’s views on eschatology are valid for Christians to hold. The more I see it up close and personal, the more I wretch when I hear it. Yes, I once believed that way but no more. God heard my prayer in the litany, “… from such as these, good Lord deliver us.”
Final Thoughts
There is sometimes a fine line between seasoning a conversation with salt and casting pearls. God is having me examine the idea that a few insurgents in this congregation can coax it towards orthodoxy. I am not alone in my views but clearly in the minority in this congregation. In the plus column, they do practice weekly Communion and at least one teaching Elder rejects the “sinner’s prayer.”
This is blog post is the second concerning Moses, Elijah, and Scofield’s Premillennial Dispensationalism. Bases on previous notes written by Scofield, it appears that his eschatological scheme involves Moses and Elijah—yep, the same guys mentioned prominently in the Old Testament—will again walk planet earth so that they can be killed in Jerusalem; yes, the city in Palestine/Israel, the Holy Land.
Moses and Elijah
The assertion that somehow Moses and Elijah will walk the streets of Jerusalem in the midst of some future End Times Apocalypse is clearly another case of Dispensational Premillennial folks taking symbolic language literally in a wooden sort of way and making a horrible mess of their interpretation.
Here is the passage from Revelation 11 that is being discussed in this post:
2 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy ia thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. 4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. 5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. 6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will. 7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. 8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. 9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. 10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. 11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. 12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
Revelation 11:3–12.
As always, the Dispensational Premillennial folks start by ignoring the time markers in the New Testament texts and make everything future and thus about themselves. (Thus, such passages have been unapplicable and irrelevant for the last 2,00 years of church history. Talk about hubris.)
Below is one of the key verses in this discussion:
Verse 6 of Revelation 11 harkens back to Moses and Elijah but nowhere in the passage does it say their names directly or say they are literally returning.
6 These have the power to shut up the sky, in order that rain may not fall during the days of their prophesying; and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they desire.
Revelation 11:6
Elijah famously shut up the sky and Moses turned the Nile to blood. The symbolism harkens back to these men but in the final analysis, it remains symbolism.
Below are some comments on the subject from three different sources. I am quoting David Chilton extensively because his book is available for free as a PDF from Gary North’s old website or in printed form from American Vision which is run by Gary DeMar. Lastly, I will let Logos Software take a stab at interpreting the topic.
David Chilton
David Chilton, in his commentary on Revelation, Days of Vengeance, has some interesting things to say about the two witnesses in Revelation 11.
Chilton does not believe a literal Moses or Elijah will be showing up in chapter 11 of Revelation. The two unnamed witnesses are composite symbols that will be killed and consequently resurrected.
The fact that the Witnesses are identified as members of the Old Covenant should tell you that these guys died before the Resurrection of Christ since that is the event that inaugurated the New Testament. Almost all prophets died in Jerusalem.
People in the Premillennial Dispensational camp think all the events in Revelation are in chronological order. This is not so. This can easily be proved as Jesus’ birth is discussed in Revelation chapter 12 (see especially verses 1-6). Please note verse 5 where John goes from Jesus’ birth directly to his Ascension. Compare this verse to Psalm 2:6-9. Christ’ dead, burial, and resurrection are skipped in both passages.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
Revelation 12:5.
6 Yet have I set my king Upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: The LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; This day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, And I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, And the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
Psalm 2:6–9.
Psalm 2 ends with Jesus reigning on his throne in heaven while Revelation begins with Jesus on his throne in heaven.
In making his comments on the two witnesses, Chilton follows the passage quoted above with a discussion the death of John the Baptist and Jesus—both men dying during the Old Covenant period. And then the church symbolically died and raised to victory in tandem with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple. Thus, as the Old Covenant ends in 70 A.D., we find the Witnesses having risen to everlasting life in and through Christ.
I will quote a long passage from the book. Again, I don’t want to be accused of taking things out of context.
The two Witnesses are identified as the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. At this point the imagery becomes much more complex. St. John returns again to Zechariah’s prophecy of the lampstand (Zech. 4:1-5; cf. Rev. 1:4, 13, 20; 4:5). The seven lamps on the lampstand are connected to two olive trees (cf. Ps. 52:8; Jer. 11:16), from which flow an unceasing supply of oil, symbolizing the Holy Spirit’s filling and empowering work in the leaders of His covenant people. The meaning of the symbol is summarized in Zechariah 4:6: “Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the LORD of hosts.” The same passage in Zechariah also speaks of two Witnesses, two sons of oil (“anointed ones”), who lead God’s people: Joshua the priest and Zerubbabel the king (Zech. 3-4; cf. Ezra 3, 5-6; Hag. 1-2). In brief, then, Zechariah tells us of an olive tree/lampstand complex representing the officers of the covenant: two Witness-figures who belong to the royal house and the priesthood. The Book of Revelation freely connects all of these, speaking of two shining lampstands which are two oil-filled olive trees, which are also two Witnesses, a king and a priest-all representing the Spirit-inspired prophetic testimony of the Kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:6). … That these Witnesses are members of the Old Covenant rather than the New is shown, among other indications, by their wearing of sackcloth – the dress characteristic of Old Covenant privation rather than New Covenant fullness.
5-6 St. John now speaks of the two Witnesses in terms of the two great witnesses of the Old Testament, Moses and Elijah – the Law and the Prophets. If anyone desires to harm them, fire proceeds from their mouth and devours their enemies. In Numbers 16:35, fire came down from heaven at Moses’ word and consumed the false worshipers who had rebelled against him; and, similarly, fire fell from heaven and consumed Elijah’s enemies when he spoke the word (2 Ki. 1:9-12). This becomes a standard symbol for the power of the prophetic Word, as if fire actually proceeds from the mouths of God’s Witnesses. As the Lord said to Jeremiah, “Behold, I am making My words in your mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall consume them” (Jer. 5:14).
Extending the imagery, St. John says that the Witnesses have the power to shut up the sky, in order that rain may not fall during the days of their prophesying, i.e., for the twelve hundred and sixty days (three and a half years)- the same duration of the drought caused by Elijah in 1 Kings 17 (see Luke 4:25; James 5:17). Like Moses (Ex. 7-13), the Witnesses have power over the waters to tum them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they desire.
Both of these prophetic figures pointed beyond themselves to the Greater Prophet, Jesus Christ. The very last message of the Old Testament mentions them together in a prophecy of Christ’s Advent: “Remember the law of Moses My servant. … Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet. …” (Mal. 4:4-5). Malachi goes on to declare that Elijah’s ministry would be recapitulated in the life of John the Baptizer (Mal. 4:5-6; cf. Matt. 11:14; 17:10-13; Luke 1:15-17). But John, like Elijah, was only a Forerunner, preparing the way for One coming after him, the Firstborn, who would have a double – nay, measureless portion of the Spirit (cf. Deut. 21:17; 2 Kings 2:9; John 3:27-34). And, like Moses, John was succeeded by a Joshua, Jesus the Conqueror, who would bring the covenant people into their promised inheritance. The two Witnesses, therefore, summarize all the witnesses of the Old Covenant, culminating in the witness of John.
Days of Vengeance, p 276-278
8-10 The dead bodies of the Old Covenant Witnesses, “from righteous Abel to Zechariah” (Matt. 23:35) lie metaphorically in the street of the Great City which Spiritually [I.e., by the revelation of the Holy Spirit] is called Sodom and Egypt. This City is, of course, Jerusalem; St. John explains that it is where also their Lord was crucified (on Israel as Sodom, see Deut. 29:22-28; 32:32; Isa. 1:10, 21; 3:9; Jer. 23:14; Ezek. 16:46). …
On the Mount of Transfiguration (Luke 9:31), He spoke with Moses and Elijah (another link with this passage), calling His coming death and resurrection in Jerusalem an “Exodus” (the Greek word is exodon). Following from all this is the language of Revelation itself, which speaks of the Egyptian plagues being poured out upon Israel (8:6-12; 16:2-12). The war of the Witnesses with apostate Israel and the pagan states is described in the same terms as the original Exodus from Egypt (cf. also the Cloud and the pillar of fire in 10:1). Jerusalem, the once-holy, now apostate city, has become pagan and perverse, an oppressor of the true Covenant people, joining with the Beast in attacking and killing them. It is Jerusalem that is guilty of the blood of the Old Covenant Witnesses; she is, par excellence, the killer of prophets (Matt. 21:33-43; 23:34-38). In fact, said Jesus, “it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33). Days of Vengeance, p 281
11-12 After the three and a half days, the Witnesses are resurrected: The breath of life from God entered into them in the New Creation (cf. Gen. 2:7; Ezek. 37:1-14; John 20:22) and they stood on their feet (cf. Acts 7:55), causing terror and consternation to their enemies. Great fear came upon those who were beholding them (cf. Acts 2:43; 5:5; 19:17; contrast John 7:13; 12:42; 19:38; 20:19), and with good reason: Through the resurrection of Christ, the Church and her Testimony became unstoppable. In union with Christ in His Ascension to glory (Eph. 2:6), they went up to heaven in the Cloud, and their enemies beheld them. ls The Witnesses did not survive the persecutions; they died. But in Christ’s resurrection they rose to power and dominion that existed not by might, nor by power, but by God’s Spirit, the very breath of life from God.
Days of Vengeance, p 283-284
The story of the Two Witnesses is therefore the story of the witnessing Church, which has received the divine command to Come up here and has ascended with Christ into the Cloud of heaven, to the Throne (Eph. 1:20-22; 2:6; Heb. 12:22-24): She now possesses an imperial grant to exercise rule over the ends of the earth, discipling the nations to the obedience of faith (Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 1:5).
Days of Vengeance, p 284
Gary DeMar
Something literal can’t be an olive tree and a lampstand at the same time. Thus, the two witnesses in Revelation chapter 11 are symbolic. They are both confirming the other’s message. Were the Law and the Prophets testifying against apostate Jerusalem?
3 And I will grant authority to My two Witnesses, and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. 4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth.
Revelation 11:3&4
“So, whoever these two witnesses are, they’re symbolic of witnesses bringing a message to people who still hate the things of Jesus Christ. Are martyrdom. Their martyrdom does not stop the progress of the Gospel.”
Gary “I don’t know exactly who the two witnesses are.”
Eric “And maybe that’s kinda the point”
Gary “That may be. If you identify them, specifically with two individuals, I think it would narrow maybe the application of it all. What you’re seeing here, as two witnesses, as witnesses to the things of Christ and same response that you find in the book of Acts you’re finding here. Which seems to me that the attack on these two witnesses are the same ones attacking Peter and Paul within the book of Acts. Cause you’ll find in the book of Acts that the apostate Jews were using the political establishment of the day, in order to get a hearing and to get the Roman government to stop these Christians from proclaiming the Gospel.”
Logos Software
> Two Witnesses Revelation 11
The two witnesses in Revelation 11 are empowered by God to prophesy for 1,260 days while clothed in sackcloth, and they are symbolically identified as “the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.” They possess extraordinary authority—fire proceeds from their mouths to consume enemies, they can prevent rain, transform water into blood, and strike the earth with plagues. (Rev 11:1–14)
The identity of these figures remains one of Revelation’s most contested questions. The Old Testament foundation appears in Zechariah 4, where two olive trees (representing the king and priest) are empowered by the Spirit to lead God’s people.[1] A prominent interpretation identifies them as figures operating “in the Spirit and power of” Moses and Elijah, since their miracles—turning water to blood and preventing rain—mirror those of these Old Testament prophets.[1] Supporting this view is Moses and Elijah’s appearance at Jesus’s transfiguration, along with Jewish expectations that both would return, particularly Elijah as predicted in Malachi 4:5.[2]
However, an alternative proposal suggests Enoch and Elijah, since they alone were taken to heaven without experiencing death and thus could authentically experience the death and resurrection the witnesses undergo.[2] A third view contends that Scripture intentionally withholds famous identities, allowing God to empower two ordinary believers to perform the same miraculous deeds.[2] All three interpretations remain theologically valid, and Christians need not be dogmatic about resolving this ambiguity.[2]
The number two itself carries significance—it fulfills the legal requirement for valid testimony and echoes Zechariah’s dual figures while contrasting with Revelation’s two evil leaders.[1]
[1] J. Daniel Hays, J. Scott Duvall, and C. Marvin Pate, in Dictionary of Biblical Prophecy and End Times (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2007), 460–461.
Logos Software offers three potential understandings of Revelation 11, none of which involve the literal appearance of Moses and Elijah. A group operating in the Spirit and power of Moses and Elijah seems reasonable. The alternatives of Enoch and Elijah, or two ordinary believers seem like a longshots. Again, the text of Revelation is clear that the Witnesses are symbolic and likely discussed this way as both the Old and New Testament require that everything be established in terms of two or three witnesses.
Conclusion
Scofield’s Easter Egg comment in Matthew 17:2 that “… the prediction fulfilled in John the Baptist, and that yet to be fulfilled in Elijah, are kept distinct” is without biblical foundation and like much of his theology is injected into the text when it is clearly not there. Scofield’s interpretive grid is imposed onto the text of Scripture not derived from its content. Just because Oxford University publishes Scofield’s footnotes in their copy of the Bible does not elevate it to Scripture.
I’ll take Jesus saying that John the Baptist came in the Spirit of Elijah before I would take Scofield’s juvenile, hyper-literal interpretation, that somehow demands that both Moses and Elijah be made mortal and walk the planet so they can experience death in Revelation chapter 11.
