Revelation 20 and the End Times: A Compelling Case for Premillennialism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ธ.ค. 2023
- How should we understand Revelation 20? Is it true that Revelation 20 is the only evidence for premillennialism? Does amillennialism and postmillennialism provide an adequate understanding of Revelation 20? Matt Waymeyer joins me to talk about the details of Revelation 20 and how we should understand this text in relationship to Revelation 19.
Stay tuned for Part 2 soon!
Our previous interview with Matt Waymeyer on the Two Age Model: • This Age and the Age t... (or look up Episode 129).
Matt Waymeyer's Books:
Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate: www.amazon.com/Revelation-Mil...
Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model: www.amazon.com/Amillennialism...
The Expositors Seminary, where Matt Waymeyer teaches: expositors.org/
#eschatology #revelation #revelations #dispensationalism #covenanttheology
Shepherds Theological Seminary (where The Bible Sojourner teaches): shepherds.edu/
The Bible Sojourner Audio podcast: anchor.fm/the-bible-sojourner
More About the Host, Peter Goeman: petergoeman.com
Part 2 of the interview is here: th-cam.com/video/gSWPu8RNUj4/w-d-xo.html
Amillennialists are fond of claiming that aside from Revelation 20, the Bible has nothing in it that supports the idea of the Millennial Kingdom. They are right in the sense that the Old Testament has nothing that _specifically_ says, "There will be an earthly Millennial Kingdom ruled by Christ," but the _concept_ of the Kingdom is found throughout the Old Testament, especially in the books of Isaiah, Zechariah, and Psalms. As Doctor Waymeyer said, the book of Revelation simply expands upon the idea of and confirms the existence of the Millennial Kingdom.
Well said.
This is terrific teaching that gives me great confidence is my eschatological view. I feel like I'm back in seminary! Well done, gents!
Thanks for the encouragement! Glad you found it helpful.
Excellent as reaffirm a conversation I had with PastorBrad Klassen regarding Revelation 20 verses 4-6 the word zaõ is between a 1000 years giving us the millennium clear and sound. Thank you once again. Ended very much edify. All the glory to God
Amen. That issue is specifically addressed in the next episode with Waymeyer.
Loved it, just listened to the podcast. Strong case for pre mill.
Great! So glad it was helpful! Part 2 coming soon!
I'd love to hear another one with Matt on post millennialism. I've heard one of his recent talks on the subject. It was very helpful. Thankful for both of you.
Appreciate the encouragement!
Very helpful!
Glad to hear it 😃
I benefited from the talks you had with him sometime ago on your show. Looking forward to this new one.
Thanks, Suan! This is a good one!
Just finished listening to his teaching on the problems with Postmillennialism. Looking forward to this! 🙏
@@boaz63Looking forward to your thoughts on this one!
@@thebiblesojourner I have Dr. Matt's book "Amillennialism and the Age to come" with me here, published by Grace to India. Watching this episode whet my appetite to dig into his book and the book makes so much more sense after hearing him talk and then read the book again. Just saying... the "deception" is discussed in pages 269-270 :) Thank you for having him. Looking forward to Part 2.
@@Suanlal_ZouHaha, thanks Suan! And I'm so glad you have the opportunity to read through the book!
Great video! The explanations were clear and simple
Always appreciate the encouragement. Praise God!
I left atheism around April 1993. It was in October 1993 that I was born again. It was about June or July 1993 that the structure of the timeline of the Bible narrative supported the dispensational model as I could see and it assisted me in the credibility of the Bible as history. What happened to me in April 1993? Dr Steve Austin's 'Mount Saint Helens - Evidence for Catastrophe' demonstrated the flood account in Genesis as being the best explanation of our geology and topography and very quickly my belief in Lyell's uniformitarianism and Darwin's grand theory of evolution collapsed.
Thanks for sharing that! Neat to see God at work.
I’m a big fan of that film too.
So good.
Thanks for watching! Glad you found it helpful.
Thanks!
Look for part 2 soon
I have the book Christ's Prophetic Plans: A Futuristic Premillenial Primer with Chapter 6 by Matt on Rev. 20.
I am looking forward to this, then I'll read the book again. Thank you.
That's a great book! Don't forget to be on the lookout for Part 2 next week as well.
I am an atheist who has been given a task by my Bible teacher to interpret Revelation 20. Through my extensive studies of the Bible for years and listening to these talks, I consider myself an amill (as an atheist! lol) However, premillennialism has some VERY attractive and VERY convincing arguments. I personally find amill more compelling and more Biblical
Wow! That’s honestly really cool that you are willing to look into Bible issues as an atheist. I really appreciate you dropping that note. Let me just encourage you to keep reading and studying the Bible, especially the person of Jesus in the Gospels. I am premillennial (as the video shows), but definitely have much common ground with those who are amill or postmill in these debates. If you have any Bible questions or eschatology questions, I’d be happy to try to respond as I’m able (busy teaching a full semester right now). Thanks again for stopping by to say hi!
Hi, it’s interesting to hear that you’re studying the Bible. What is it that you’re hoping to learn from it?
Saw the second one ...cane back to watch the 2nd one. Feeling like I am about to lose my mine with another friend, who is a minister by the way, is declaring Amillennialism is sensible. I even forwarded the other video but he was pretty adamant about Riddlebarger's views on things. I don't think to be honest he has watched Matt's critique of Kim's input.
Appreciate you watching! Well, you can't do anything else if they won't watch the critique :) But who knows.. maybe one day! Thanks for watching--keep on learning!
Iv heard all views on what each group thinks his way is right. Still confused about the coming End of the Age with the Tribulation. ??
It can be pretty confusing! I would recommend Michael vlach and his TH-cam channel (www.youtube.com/@michaeljvlach7388). He has some great videos on the subject. Also, look through some of our videos. We have another interview with Waymeyer on "This Age and the Age to Come." Those might be helpful.
I attend a doctrines of grace Baptist church, which is amillennial in its eschatology, and I am one of the lone holdouts for a MacArthur style of premillennialism. One of the main things that I get in opposition to this view is the issue concerning a reconstituted temple system with sacrifices and the like, and how does that square with the gospel. I am not clear that there is such a thing as a rebuilding of the temple and a reinstitution of the sacrificial system. however if there is to be such a thing, I tend to look at it in the same way, that we do communion as a memorial to what has been done. Is there a more helpful way to explain this or am I wrong about that altogether?
This is an important issue, and I need to do a blog and podcast on it! But it probably won't happen for awhile because I have other things lined up first. In the meantime, Waymeyer (the gentleman from the interview) has actually done some helpful work on this issue and I fully embrace his view: petergoeman.com/papers/The%20Millennial%20Sacrifices%20in%20Ezek%2040-48%20-%20Waymeyer.pdf
Me too. Our church is Reformed Baptist, and holds to the 1689 LBCF as our confession of faith. As far as I know, my wife and I are the only ones who are Premillennial. The reason that I am premillennial is because I believe Scripture teaches it. Although I am not dispensationalist(at least not of the pre-trib variety) I do hold to a future for Israel, including both a return to the Land, and a spiritual revival/renewal where many or most of Israel will be saved in the New Covenant under Christ. The Temple and sacrifices during the Millennium is often one of the major things that keep many Reformed Baptists from embracing premillennialism. I confess I have struggled with this concept, as well. Reformed people are skeptical of anything that they see as taking away from the sufficiency and finality of Christ's atoning sacrifice for the sins of His people. Hebrews does seem to me to teach that Jesus has fulfilled everything that the old covenant sacrificial system was pointing to.
@@krisandnatpierce8993I understand the hesitation about the Millennial Temple in Ezekiel. 40-48 but I just go with the fact that it is the plain normal reading of this section. I find it more difficult to accept that all of the detail means nothing and that Christ is the ultimate Temple. Zach. 14 talks about the celebrating of Tabernacles which includes sacrifices. Ultimately it is about worship anyway.
@@krisandnatpierce8993 I appreciate that honesty and candor! It is definitely a good topic to think through, and I think there is room for disagreement on that issue. What I don't like is the strawman/mischaracterization that is often put forward of the premill position on the rebuilt Temple. There are some possible viewpoints that Waymeyer does a good job of showing how they could feasibly work. It is bad argumentation to just say, "But Hebrews" :\
@@injeraloverThat's a good point, because there are other passages outside of Ezekiel 40-48 that talk about sacrifice and Temple worship in the future. Zechariah is one, and also Haggai 2 among others.
Every prophet of Israel in the Old testament prophesizes the Kingdom of heaven on Earth. Even Jesus said I will not drink of the fruit of the vine again till I drink it with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all those what part of the married supper of the Lamb?
It is an earthly Kingdom. That's why the prayer is thy kingdom come on Earth as it is in heaven. After the thousand years, there's a new heaven and a new Earth which Isaiah prophesizes which will abide forever Enoch said... Days without number
Also Hebrews chapter 4, the remainders therefore a Sabbath rest for God's people. That's a thousand years. The seventh day human government almost 6,000 years now. This is why Peter speaks about a day what the Lord is like a thousand years. So the seventh day is the beginning of the thousand-year reign of Christ. There's many more passages I can quote Hosea chapter 6, :12 and 3 after 2 days 2,000 years. The Jews, the Hebrew Nation will be regathered on the third day which is the millennium. Hallelujah!
Looking forward to that day!
And I saw another angel ascending *from the east* having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
{Revelation 7:2}
“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.”
{Matthew 24:7}
And *the sixth angel* poured out his vial [plague] upon the great river Euphrates; and the water [support] thereof was dried up, *that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared*
And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, *to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty*
"Behold, I come as a thief. *Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments* lest he walk naked, and they see his shame."
And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, *It is done*
{Revelation 16:12-17}
And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God.
For true and righteous are his judgments: for *he hath judged the great whore* which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.
{Revelation 19:1-2}
...
Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb *is come* and his wife hath made herself ready.
And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, *These are the true sayings of God*
{Revelation 19:7-9}👈
^
Describing events after Armageddon and the seven last plagues.
The argument on Rev. 19 being the return of Christ, even a "firm" starting point, is interesting (@ 33:04).
A few difficulties that I see with that is (1) the riding forth of Christ on the white horse never is said to come to earth. But it is a vision of heaven opening. The action described is of Christ judging and making war with the sword of his mouth (his truth and possibly the prophetic words of his mouth).
And (2) there are markers in the text that tie this event back to previous events. For example, "He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty" (Rev. 19:15), corresponds with Rev. 14:14, 19-20, "Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand...So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. 20 And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse’s bridle, for 1,600 stadia."
So there is recapitulation, but also sequence. The seven seals, Trumpets and Bowls all end in the same event, the fall of the great city of Jerusalem. The vignettes in Chap 12-14 fill out the details of the 7th trumpet. And the vignettes in Chap. 17-19 fill out the details and perspective on the 7th bowl judgment. This completes the judgment cycle in the style of the OT prophets (see Peter Gentry's How to Understand the OT prophets for details on this hermeneutic). Then Rev. 20 gives us the long indefinite period of the gospel kingdom era (corresponding to 1 Cor. 15:24), then comes Rev. 21-22 and the eternal new heavens and earth.
Anyway, that's how I'm inclined to take it. I think it satisfies the sequence requirements that premils looks for, but places the book of Rev in the historical places that the time texts and obvious symbolic pictures demand of it--the measuring of the temple, the identity of the great city, the seven heads being emperors starting with Julius, and the book being given in the reign of the sixth king (Nero). If one can have one's cake and eat it too, without contradiction by cutting it down the middle, well, why not?
Thanks for the video. I find your arguments compelling to consider and interact with.
As I mentioned in the previous comment, I do feel your attitude and articulation deserves full marks of appreciation! So thanks for giving some thoughtful interaction in a kind way.
As far as (1) I think it is reasonable to conclude the rider on the white horse comes down to earth. The passage is filled with OT imagery from Isa 61 and 62, which pictures the Messiah engaging in earthly battle. Plus, Rev 19:19 says that the beast and armies specifically set up to war against the one on the horse. It would be a natural assumption that the war happened, unless one wanted to argue that they were destroyed without the one on the horse waging war against them (but that seems unlikely in my mind).
On (2) and following, this requires a more in-depth discussion on the structure of Revelation (perhaps another podcast episode?!). But I think it is fine with preterism or futurism to see Rev 14:19-20 and Rev19 as referring to the same thing. I think it would work with either viewpoint, so we have to look elsewhere for dividing lines.
In any case, as I said on your other comment, I think you present a well reasoned perspective, and you are enjoyable to interact with :) I wish I had more time to engage with people like yourself, but I look forward to any future interactions we might have. Blessings.
@@thebiblesojourner, your point about (1) is well taken. I grant that it does have the appearance of an earthly battle. I would just leave thought or two to consider. If one grants that its connected to Rev. 14:14 and the cloud coming, where Christ is still in heaven and judging on his throne (cf. Dan. 7:25-26), then this potentially points toward the fact that the pictures in the vision are pointing toward earthly realities but the manner of the victory of Christ is pictorial representing his providential rule and the opposition of the Jerusalem leadership and Rome to Christ's rule.
One of the things that I love about this perspective is that it makes so much sense of the OT passages like Isa 61-62 (really from 59-66). Jesus' first coming is the favorable year (60:1-2), but on account of Israel's disobedience he also announces the day of vengeance (AD 66-70). The purpose of this is to comfort those who mourn, that is, the Jewish believers who have been killed and persecuted by unfaithful Israel (v. 3), but the ultimate purpose of this is not to forsake Israel, but to take the earth (land of Israel) from the proud and give it to the meek.
Eventually, as a result of this judgment the gospel planted by the Lord, will become "oaks of righteousness" in Israel itself (v. 3). Recall the parable of the mustard seed and the tree that the kingdom becomes. So here, after a long period of time (time for the oaks to grow), then, "they shall build up the ancient ruins...the devastation of many generations" (v. 4). But is this not compatible with the time frame of Israel's destruction in AD 70, a long period of exile, then a return and and a turning of them toward the Lord? But is there any word here of a new temple, or is it about a turning of Israel's heart toward the Lord as the king of Israel (cf. Ezek. 37:24, a covenant of peace in the new covenant)? After this, God will put his sanctuary in their midst, not a physical temple, but the temple of Christ himself when he returns to them and to us--the shekinah glory embodied without the veil.
Just look at the structure of Zechariah (and I'll finish with this as I don't want to lean too hard on our friendly interaction). In Zech 13:7, we have Jesus struck in his crucifixion, then the Lord turns his hand against disobedient Israel (v. 8), and 2/3 are destroyed (think of proportions of Revelation's destruction of the earth--the land of Israel). But 1/3 are preserved and are refined like gold and they will say "the Lord is my God." Does this period of refinement not fit the post AD 70 destruction? Would that not put Israel's redemption in our future? Is this not comparable to the growing of the Oak trees in Isaiah? Is this not demanded by Isa. 62:2: "and you (Israel) shall be called by a new name that the mouth of the Lord will give...You shall no more be termed Forsaken...but My Delight is in Her, and your land Married"! (Note: the judgment cycle repeats in Isa. 63, coming to a promised redemption in 64:11-12, but then a renewed cycle in 65, and again in 66, which terminates in 66:24, which corresponds with Zech. 14:12 and Rev. 20:9).
This period of redemption is stuck right between the AD 70 event after Christ's death, and then the future return of the Lord to Israel in Zech 14. But I notice that here Jesus is saving Israel from destruction and this is quite the contrast to the destruction of the great city in Revelation, where Jesus is against the land which is full of harlotry and unfaithfulness. But in Zechariah, like in Rev. 20:9 the city has become the "beloved city," and the fire does not descend down against it, but against those who are attacking it. Is this not consistent with Ezek. 37:28 "Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.”
Consider Acts 3:20, "But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago."
I am convinced by the OT and and NT that Israel's repentance--not just a short repentance during the few years of the great tribulation according to a futurist paradigm--but a deep and long lasting repentance, must precede the return of the Lord.
I've gone on too long. As you can tell, I find it all fascinating, and I could be wrong, but the puzzle pieces fit so well from my perspective. But there are so many details and I don't have them all figured out. Maybe you can chew it over, and consider it a back up position (I really like back up positions, lol), and you have my full support to use this view to prod those partial-preterist reformed types into a much more consistent view of Israel. Poke them with it. I am with you that they are stuck a in systematic theological backwater. How can we interpret these OT passages in another way than to apply them to the physical descendants of Jacob? They may mean more, as the Gentiles are ingrafted, but not less.
This is no dishonor to God, for there is one Lord, of both Jew and Gentile. Why should not the first to know him (the Jew) be last in history to bow the knee and a greater number of the Gentiles be first? Who has known the mind of the Lord? It is his glory to hide a matter and of kings to seek it out.
as an Apologist may lie to Defend that faith: how do folk determine if you are being Truthful?
You be humble and learn from others, but you learn from the original sources. You read Jesus for yourself. You read the original historical sources-Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Eusebius, etc. You seek out Christian community who believe in the authority of scripture to interact with. You pray and ask God to give you wisdom and insight.
@@jrhemmerich my Greek is a little rusty ... But I try. Eg, I understand that the meaning of Genisis 18 22 was reversed in the 10th century CE. I am yet to hear a pastor speak on this matter. I am sure it would make them uncomfortable. As I am sure they aren't stupid: I know they feel it is ethical to lie to defend their faith. This was just another example of such
@@russellmiles2861, it’s not at all right to lie to defend one’s faith/belief. The Lord desires sincerity in all things.
What is the lie you speak of?
Your reading of Mat. was pretty funny, if irreverent. Well delivered. Lol.
@@jrhemmerich I wonder if you are being ironic. I mention a renowned Biblical text that was purposely changed. You avoid commenting on that ... That is a lie by omission. With regard Matthew - the writers asserts there were hundreds of resurrection of the dead: notable at the time of Jesus death. But no other gospel writer mentions such, there is no reference in Epistles or any other chronicler of the era. Now this may be a eyewitness accounts in lost proto gospel that only the writer of Matthew had access too. It may also be using a literary devices from Greek stories to reinforce the importance of the event (Jesus' human death).
How can Aplogiticist be certain it was the former ... At best one can say this might be the case - it can't be certain. To say otherwise is lying.
@@russellmiles2861, I asked because it was not clear what you were asserting about Gen. 18:22. You mentioned a renown text, but it is renown for many reasons. The particular emendation you refer to is pretty insignificant as the change is not known to exist in any variant (some suppose that it said that Yahweh remained standing before Abraham, rather than Abraham before Yahweh, but this is speculative so far as I know). And the text is marked because the scribes cared about the original text, not because they were informing others on their lie. If they were hiding something they would not have marked the change. I don't know what your objection is, unless you hold the unreasonable expectations around the preservation of the the text. I expect the text to change in a reasonable way so as to preserve the transfer of meaning over time. The comparison of the dead sea scrolls to the more recent Alepo Codex reflects a very stable textual transmission.
Why expect certainty in most cases of historical knowledge, much less immediate knowledge and experience (most knowledge is conditional)? Why can't God impose responsibility based upon reasonable rather than certain standards.
We can say the text is reliable, and reasonably accurate, based upon its nature, the intent of the authors, and the external means of confirmation available to us.
We don't believe Matthew because every report of his is historically probable when narrowly considered by itself in every case. We are convinced of his generally reliability, become convinced of Jesus' unusual authority for many reasons, and then based upon that authority believe even the unusual details of Matthew to be true, even if an improbable event.
That is the logic behind the authority of the bible. So I would not be concerned if you don't find certain unusual events in Matthew to be particularly persuasive in believing him. The point of such reporting, is to show, if you believe Matthew, and that he had such unusual experiences, then this tells us something about the way God's power can manifest over nature.
Most humans don't consider arguments based upon a "more likely than not standard" to be lying on its face. I doubt you do either in most cases. And some things are more certain than other things, like an awareness of existence or the necessity of logic for reasoning. Or that certain very specific cosmological constants exist which make the universe possible.
Saying the person typing this on the other side of the world doesn't exist is one thing, saying yourself, the universe, or God doesn't exist is another. But if you are this skeptical, I'm not sure talking to me is going to solve your difficulty.
I’m with you on the premill, but I can no longer accept dispensationalism.
Well, you’ll be happy to know (or indifferent to know) that I’m okay with that and we can still be friends =) As long as we both value Gods word and are trying to read it in line with the authors intent (and not our own systems)-that’s all I ask for. Blessings to you for interacting brother!
@@thebiblesojourner yes sir…I’m more in line with Historic Premill position. Blessings
The idea that Rev 20 is the "single most important passages on the millennium" is very problematic. The other passages that eschatologists say supports the premillennial view (and eschatology on the whole), is the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13. They argue that when viewing these passages together and understanding how they are interrelated will lead to the proper view on the "end of days tribulation," "Second Coming, and "Israel" and the "Jews." Premillennialism, just as the other views on eschatology, relies on a trifecta that organizes and harmonises so called last days motifs. But recent studies on this issue have exposed major weaknesses in all of the futurist views. If all of these components can be shown to be incorrectly organized then a completely new paradigm is required to get this correct. Partial preterism introduces a different trifecta that isn't arbitrary and that honors the time statements and audience relevance issues that the other views must ignore to form their views on eschatology.
Appreciate your interaction. I would say the important element in eschatological discussions is to be exegetical first, and then collate a system of texts. One problem that often arises among all camps is assuming what it is trying to prove. In the case of Revelation 20, there is only one convincing interpretation in my opinion. Any other interpretation goes against the straight forward reading. Of course many will disagree with me, but at least we should all agree to exegete the passage first and then take the natural meaning of the text and harmonize it with other texts. That's where our discussions should focus.
random picking out of text to suit ideology: Eg, Mark seems to be a retelling of stories about Elisha, Moses, eg, Moses parts the sea and crosses; Jesus calms the sea and crosses. Mark also redacts Psalms, eg, Mark 15 34 “my god, why have you forsaken me” from Psalm 22 1 “my god, why have you forsaken me.”
@@russellmiles2861, but the acknowledged timing of the writing of the Gospels in the first century, even by secular critics, has cast much doubt on the legendary development hypothesis of the form and redaction critics.
When one combines that with the observation that so many of the details contained in the Gospels speak of their historical reliability and having been authored by people intimately familiar with Judea in the first century, it’s hard to draw the picture you have.
Comparative portraits might be the work of fiction, but based upon the OT specifications (eg Deut. 18:15), they are necessary, and it must be admitted, the writers are genius AND fantastical liars OR it’s true. Besides there are many elements of the prophesies that are beyond the control of the writers of the New Testament. It really would require a conspiracy so massive as to be a greater miracle than a history stranger than fiction.
The fact that Isaiah would speak of a messiah coming out of such a small nation that was not likely to survive the devastations that Babylon brought upon it, and then that man came after 700 years, and then his followers among the Gentiles would grow so large, while not of his nation, would believe in him and fulfill the words of Isaiah. For his name is on the lips of 1/3 of the world, and this Jesus is the light of the world, the breaker of chains-for he declares the slave is our brother-and the only hope for the peace of the nations? Is this not amazing? Who can write such strange fiction. Fiction that keeps coming true.
Something to consider, friend.
I’d highly recommend reading Are the Gospels reliable? By Peter Williams. You should visit Holy Trinity Church in Brompton.
@@jrhemmerich the details with Gospel are also incorrect in places too. Eg, Herrod Capital is in a few hundred km from Jerusalem so the story of Jesus being taking to Herod for adjudication is odd. Of course Herod may have been in Jerusalem for Passover. But that isn't stated. Then there is the issue that a trial was prohibited during Passover.
The issue that Hebrew authorities could not trial a capital offence is also incorrect.
This along with Jesus overturning the money changers - the Temple complex is 70 hectares with many temples, public officers, state treasury, barracks and a regiment of 700 to guard against disruption.
But sure: a lot of details seem correct. This could be achieved by writers with general knowledge of the circumstances... or lost proto-gospels by eyewitness. That is possible.
The thing is this can be certain. So why wouldn't apologist assert it "may be" "possibly" or "likely" instead of certain facts.
This is lying by omission - which is understandable as Apologist would consider such ethical if defending the Faith.
@@russellmiles2861, as I discussed in our other post, it is reasonable to believe that a possible thing is an actual thing, if it is a necessary condition X for something Y which a reliable source says did in fact occur.
If Jesus was taken to Herod in a small window of time, then its reasonable to conclude Herod was near enough to Jerusalem. To say Herod wasn't just in Jerusalem because it didn't say he was in Jerusalem directly has nothing to do with what Matthew says. If you want to doubt it, it just reflects that you doubt the source, and so anything Matthew says is up for debate.
Many apologists do specify their level of epistemic certainty, but this is not always required. If you wish to use omission as a standard of lying, then I can accuse you of lying to me this whole time about many things. That's not a reasonable standard.
Isaiah 24:21 On that day the LORD will punish the host of heaven, in heaven, and the kings of the earth, on the earth.
Isaiah 24:22 They will be gathered together as prisoners in a pit; they will be shut up in a prison, and after many days they will be punished.
Isaiah 24:23 Then the moon will be confounded and the sun ashamed, for the LORD of hosts reigns on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and his glory will be before his elders.
Thank you for posting the text Waymeyer references.
I wonder what people think about combining the restoration of Israel in the present gospel/messianic age with an amillennial view of the kingdom?
Suppose we read Isaiah 27:1-6 as parallel to 27:7-12, it is both the coming of Christ and the beginning of the kingdom Gospel era and also the judgment of Israel in AD 70, when they are finally put into exile for a long period of time rather than just the 70 years. This corresponds with Daniel 9, as the little stone (Christ and believing Israel) bring destruction upon the clay (Israel) in the feet of the Roman Empire (after a period of 490 years from the the order to restore Jerusalem). This kingdom is built upon the stone which is Christ, then grows to fill the whole earth. As it is doing in our time.
This fits with Isaiah 66, where Christ is enthroned and the age of the spirit comes (v. 1-2), the ceremonies are replaced by Christ's death (v.3), the Apostles are persecuted (v. 5) and the city of Jerusalem is destroyed in AD 70 (v. 6). But those believing Jews who survived AD 70 and were scattered among the Gentiles, they convert the Gentiles (v. 19), then the Gentiles gather Israel and bring them back to the Lord as an offering (v. 20). Does this not match what Paul says in Romans 11? That the Gentile fullness would come first in the era of Messiah, and then Israel would see revival? Does this not match with Isaiah 11 which places a second salvation and gathering of Israel after Christ's first coming, but still in "that day" that is, the messianic age?
Jesus and Paul taught that Jesus introduced the kingdom at his first coming (Mat. 12:28; Col. 1:13). This kingdom was planted and gradually matured until the first harvest and judgment against the temple. This confirms Daniel 9. This brought an end to the old covenant, which was a sign for the age of the Apostles (Heb. 9:8). It's fall was a declaration that the kingdom of God had come in earnest and that the nations would be converted.
The coming of Jesus, thus has two parts. A coming against Jerusalem (dashing it with a rod of Iron and declaring that he rules from the throne of heaven), this occurs in Rev. 1-19. Nero is killed and the false prophets of Israel and their failed revolution. Then Satan is bound and the gospel goes to the nations. There is a resurrection, but ONLY of dead martyrs and dead OT prophets, and the judgment of the dead beast, none of the living are raised (thus it could have been in the past).
Then we have the present millennium, beginning after the fall of Jerusalem in AD (thus Chap 20 is sequential to Chap 19), during which Israel is saved. Then comes the return of Christ at the end of the millennium. This fits with 1 Cor. 15:24, 51-58, where Jesus returns at the end of the kingdom/millennial age. Then comes the second and general resurrection (Rev. 20:11-13, 1 Thess. 4:13-18).
This ties into Zechariah 14 and Ezek. 38. This is the return of the Lord for the salvation of Christian Israel and the Church from the nations that have turned against them in the last days of the current age.
Thoughts? Kinda crazy? Objections?
In all seriousness, I think you have painted a very articulate and well-proposed position. I disagree with it, but certainly respect the way you are reasoning and the tone in which you present it! I think in cases like this, it is important to go into details on some of the specifics of the passages. Some of the passages you list could support the picture you proposed, but I would argue that the specifics of the passage would bring some additional (and perhaps problematic) details to consider. Part of the issue is with regard to how we define the kingdom, but also interpreting OT prophetic expectations and where they are to find fulfillment. To work on those issues takes time going through each passage and seeing what they teach! Perhaps we can have many more pleasant interactions in the future.
@@thebiblesojourner, ah you are too kind and have the heart of a teacher.
It probably is crazy, and you are quite right that the details matter. Maybe there will be opportunity to interact in the future. I really love your videos. Great stuff. Blessings on your continued work.
And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him *the buildings of the temple*
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.”
And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, [question one] Tell us, when shall these things be? and [question two] what shall be the sign of thy coming, and [question three] of the end of the world?
{Matthew 24:1-3}
...
“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”
{Matthew 24:34}
Jesus continued,
“Heaven and earth *shall pass away* but my words shall not pass away."
{Matthew 24:35}
-- We have a second (or third) witness in the Gospel according to Luke.
“But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and *wrath upon this people*
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.
And there shall be *signs* in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
And *then shall they see* the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”
{Luke 21:23-28}
-- We have a second (or third) witness in the Gospel according to Mark.
“But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
*But* in those days, *after that tribulation* the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth [the first resurrection] to the uttermost part of heaven."
{Mark 13:23-27}
"after that tribulation"
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth [maketh intercession in judgment] for the children of thy people: and there shall be *a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation* even to that same time: and *at that time thy people shall be delivered* every one that shall be found written in the book.
{Daniel 12:1}
...("whoso readeth, let him understand")
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: *for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away* and there was no more sea.
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and *there shall be no more death* neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
{Revelation 21:1-4}
^
written after 70 A D.
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
{Hebrews 1:10-11}
@@larrybedouin2921, Larry, This so very well put. Thanks for putting this here. The arguments behind the highlights takes some thinking through, and I hope people will see your argument behind them.
I think this is a very strong argument for a futurist view of Revelation and a stretched out view of Mat. 24's tribulation period. I do hold it as my runner up view if I did not hold my current view.
Though I have come to see it differently on account of some key points that have shifted the gestalt picture for me, its a great summary of very relevant scriptures that are on point.
The Jews have had nearly 2,000 to come into the new covenant.
There are no second chance doctrines. What about the Jews who have passed away? They did not het a second chance and neither will any of us.
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
“And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give *every man* according as his work shall be.”
{Revelation 22:11-12}
^
When Jesus Christ comes again he will execute the judgment that has been determined in heaven.
To the end [objective] he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness *before* God, even our Father, [who art in heaven] at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ *with all his saints*
{1 Thessalonians 3:13}
Jesus said unto her, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet *shall* he live:”
{John 11:25}
But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's *at his coming*
{1 Corinthians 15:23}
Israel, or rather those who survive the coming Holocaust 2.0 will become believers. The 144,000 in the 7 year Tribulation in Revelation are Jews and many will be slain and when He returns they will 'look upon Him who they pierced and mourn for as an only son'. Israel will be graphed back into the vine and Jesus will rule on the throne of David from Zion - Jerusalem. It should also be noted that of the 6 million Jews who died in the holocaust of 1941-45, about 400 hundred thousand Jews were Christians.