For those who say there is no Pre-Trib rapture you not only heard Pastor MacArthur's explanation from Revelation the Apostle Paul spoke of the rapture (catching up of the saints) in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, this triggers the day of the Lord (tribulation) as Paul moves into chapter 5 sudden destruction comes upon those in darkness, not on those who are walking in the light. Paul said back in chapter 1 of 1st Thessalonians (9-10) "serve the living and true God, and wait for... Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come."
Historical context is key to understanding why the reformers taught what they did about certain topics. They were greatly influenced by Rome, as they had all previously been Romanists. Hence they followed Rome in certain areas, namely infant baptism and eschatology.
@@aaronkemp7789 the term Reformed means they were Reforming the Catholic Church. People who are reformed and baptize babies and hold to other Catholic doctrines need to reform more.
It's important to note that the position John MacArthur gives here of Pre-Mill is not the historic understanding. He is giving the dispensational pre mill view.
Correct That is the WORST eschatological misreading of revelation. Ill demonstrate… Matthew 24:37-40 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [38] For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, [39] and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [40] Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. In the days of Noah who was taken??? If we keep in mind noah and the conjunction offered, “so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”…In the field who was taken??? To say evil taken in one and the saved in another, why would Jesus create 2 narratives??? Whats his thinking here???
These dispy premil goofballs who accuse anyone who is postmil or amil of being apostates are basically saying the entire church until about 200 years ago was apostate. We can easily dismiss them as not being credible sources of Eschatology, and likely a lot of other issues as well.
Brother MacArthur, God bless him, whiffed bigtime on a couple of important points: 1) He labels the historical positions of the church correctly then describes them incorrectly. Most glaringly he described historic premillennialism as modern day dispensationalism. The rapture and the future great tribulation were popularized by John Nelson Darby only a couple hundred years ago. MacArthur is the one out of synch with the majority of Christian history, not the other way around, as questioner astutely pointed out. 2) Amillennialists would never say "there is no real millennium" or that they "they reject the millennium." I don't agree with their position, but misrepresentation is not okay. 3) I agree that postmillennialism can be a hard sell. But that is a psychological point - not a scriptural one. I believe in postmillennialism not because I read it in the news paper or because I feel like it or because I personally perceive the world getting better. I see it _by faith_ in the promises of scripture. The Bible does not, in fact, teach that "the world will get worse and worse and worse." Dr. MacArthur pointedly bifurcates the culture war and the preaching of the gospel when there is absolutely no tension between the two. Calling WWII the darkest era in human history is just completely ignorant. How about the flood of Noah that killed every soul on earth save eight? How about the black death that killed roughly one third of Europe? Those would have been difficult times indeed to trust God's promises of a bright future for his people. But we doubt in the 21st century at the zenith of wealth and prosperity. Why? I actually completely agree with him regarding the historical progress of theology. The early church took centuries to develop something beginning to resemble the doctrine of the trinity. Atonement took even longer and soteriology took longer still. The five solas took 1500 years. But that knife cuts both ways. Notice how he uses his conclusion into the premises. The Church is now more mature and hence has arrived at a proper, in his view, understanding of eschatology. How do you know it's not the other way around? How do you know that the church's current understanding isn't due to immaturity? How do you know that there isn't a long glorious postmillennial future of the nations being baptized and the whole earth worshiping the lord of glory in spirit and in truth?
Jay Hu Postmil is ridiculous. Jesus is our Savior we don't save ourselves. Amil is totally metaphorical to point that the bible doesn't make any sense. The bible is clearly premil and premil is the only thing that makes sense
@@christiansoldier77 premil is ridiculous. Jesus is our savior we don’t save ourselves. The Bible is clearly postmil and postmil is the only thing that makes sense. Persuasive, isn’t it?
@@hudjahulos So you are calling God and the bible ridiculous because the bible is literally giving us a premil viewpoint. Postmil is where we save ourselves. Premil is us relying on Jesus to save us.
@@christiansoldier77 Are you calling God and the Bible ridiculous because the Bible is literally giving us a postmil viewpoint. Premil is where we save ourselves. Postmil is us relying on Jesus to save us. Convinced?
*this is inaccurate.* ...Postmill views began way before the Reformation. Although premillennialism finds slightly earlier development (especially in Irenaeus, A.D. 130- 202), theologian Donald G. Bloesch notes: "Postmillennialism was already anticipated in the church father Eusebius of Caesarea" (A.D. 260-340). Schaff traces it back even farther, observing that Origen (A.D. 185-254) "expected that Christianity, by continual growth, would gain the dominion over the world." Two other prominent church fathers whose historical confidence appears to express a nascent postmillennialism are Athanasius (A.D. 296-372) and Augustine (A.D. 354-430). As Zoba notes, Augustine taught that history "would be marked by the ever-increasing influence of the church in overturning evil in the world before the Lord's return." This would eventually issue forth in a "future rest of the saints on earth" (Augustine, Sermon 259:2) "when the Church will be purged of all the wicked elements now mixed among its members and Christ will rule peacefully in its midst." This early incipient postmillennialism contains the most basic element of the later developed system: a confident hope in gospel victory in history prior to Christ's return.
i know this is old but really? You honestly think with everything that is happening in the world that things are getting better? The church is all but silent and very weak in it's stance on sin at this moment in time. The bible is very clear that this world is going away but before it does it's going to be an explosion of evil happening everywhere which is exactly what is happening right this instance. Wherever this idea came from doesn't matter it's completely unrealistic. Jesus wins but it's going to be hell before heaven!
The reign of Christ is the Gospels advancement I believe, and not a Christian Kingdom where everything is Christianized and sanitized. I think post-mill guys have an over-realized eschatology where they want To bring about the new Heavens and new Earth when Jesus said my Kingdom is not of this world. In Acts the apostles asked the same question," Are you going to restore the Kingdom now to Israel?" Jesus shot the statement down. I think post mill want the Kingdom now when I think Jesus would say the same thing to them and that we the Church must fill up the afflictions of Christ. We live in the already not yet Kingdom reality. The new creation had begun in us and it won't come to its full realization until Jesus comes and defeats all his enemies. The Kingdom expands as souls are added. I think post - mill camp wants a tangible Kingdom here and now whereas God's Kingdom is a spiritual Kingdom growing and expanding in a similar and unique way. Trying to create a global Geneva won't work in a fallen and depraved world
@rhondahart2416 That's an over-realized eschatology. This present world is reserved for fire 2 Peter says, it has to undergo a death and resurrection all its own. A New Heavens & a New Earth Revelation 21
After watching this video last year, I posted a comment with 11 points: A-K. Just now, I watched the video again and was struck by the statement that to accept a-millennialism or post-millennialism, you have to believe the Bible doesn't mean what it says. Well, the problem with that argument is that, to accept the dispensationalist/futurist pre-millennialist eschatology promoted by MacArthur and many other preachers, you have to believe the Bible texts I listed last year don’t mean what they say: And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:29 (See Romans 4 and the rest of Galatians 3.) ..he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neigher is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. - Romans 2;28 & 29 ...For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. - Romans 9:6-8 Dispensationalist/futurist premillennialists also find it necessary to postulate a completely arbitrary “gap” into the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel 9. Most or all of the reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were historicist premillennialists (a very different method of interpretation than the one MacArther uses). Is anyone aware of any theologian proposing the futurist method of Bible interpretation before it was suggested during the Council of Trent (1545-1563) as a way to counter the protestant reformation? There are some advantages to the futurist method. It allows a more congenial attitude toward Hebrews than the sixteenth century reformers had. There are, however, some serious disadvantages too. 1: It robs people of the way a “plain reading” of the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel 9 can be understood as one additional evidence that Jesus really is the Messiah foretold by the Hebrew prophets of antiquity. (For more about which search under Historicist Interpretation of Daniel 9.) 2: The futurist method utterly fails to prepare believers for the resumption of the persecution of Jesus’ followers that plagued Europe for more than a thousand years. While I agree that the sixteenth century reformers’ eschatology was incomplete, that is not to say it was wrong. To refer to the puritans (or even many of them) as post-millennial is misleading. Is anyone aware of anyone who promoted post-millennialism before Johnathan Edwards did that in the eighteenth century? I’m not. By that time, it seems most or all of the puritans were calling themselves congregationalists. If there is anybody with evidence contrary to what I’ve written here, please let me know.
but really when you believe that Rev was written in 90 and NOT mid 60s discussing the fall of Jerusalem and the temple as a whole you are off to the wrong path. I used to believe pre mill disspy, but I had not actually studied the others. If you study ALL THE SIDES from those SCHOLARS and still believe pre-mill disspy, then more power to you.
That's OK as MacArthur has it wrong too. Christian's need to get it in their heads there is no pre-tribulation. Is has to be read into Scripture as it's just not there. The rapture, if you must call it that, is the Second Coming of Christ.
The rapture (catching up of the saints) is mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, this triggers the day of the Lord (tribulation) as Paul moves into chapter 5 sudden destruction comes upon those in darkness, not on those who are walking in the light. Paul said back in chapter 1 "serve the living and true God, and wait for... Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come."
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 1 Thes 4 can just as easily be applied to the 2nd coming. The reason I no longer hold to pre mill disspy (not to be confused with HISTORIC pre-mill, which has no rapture either) Is because I really started to read the bible in the context of THEN. Not my own feelings and experiences NOW. We all claim that we are doing that, but clearly we're not all doing it. Someone is wrong. We can't all be right. Further the world is FAR FAR FAR better in nearly every way than it was 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago, 500 years ago etc. More education, more clean water, more food, more hospitals, schools, ministries, and most of all followers of Jesus. After all the KINGDOM OF GOD is like a mustard seed that grows. Matt 28 says plainly we are to teach the nations and instruct them. Not hide and have a pessimist view. This pessimist view is the main reason we are in this stupid culture mess to begin with. We must have a God's eye view of 1000s of years, not a man's view of mere decades. Christ is LORD NOW. He is King now. If he's not, then WHO IS? I am deeply thankful for JMac as I attended and got saved at a church his father Jack started and pastored for years there in Burbank CA. HOWEVER When I was disspy, there was taught many fearful and negative things, inadvertently. But nevertheless still there. Further they could not get around the 2 ways of salvation. one for gentiles and one for jews. Again not directly taught, but it's by implication it's taught. Anyway, I deeply and humbly without reservation totally disagree
@@Richardcontramundum we believe the Bible. Israel means Israel and the New Testament Church is the New Testament Church. They are not the same. Also 1,000 years means 1,000 years. It does not mean "not a 1,000 years" and Israel does not mean "the church" that is a bad way to interpret Scripture to mean the opposite of what it says. Jesus returns before the Kingdom in both Matthew 24/25 and in Revelation 19/20 hence the return of Jesus is premillennial. Most end times Bible prophecy deals with Israel therefore the proper position is Dispensationalism. The bait and switch "Replacement Theology" makes God out to be an "Indian Giver".
@@Richardcontramundum Hey Richard. With all due respect my brother, I have to seriously disagree with you on this. First off I think the scriptures are crystal clear that the pre millenial view is taught. It's funny about a year ago I was studying Dr. Bansen, Theonomy. Then saw how it leads to a post mil view of eschatology. A red flag went up. To make a long story short, after listening to JM 6 part series why every Calvinist should be premillenial and then began my study by Greg Harris, the Expositors handbook of the old testament and new testament I had to toss the Theonomy out the window. This issue does not start in Revelation, it goes all the way back to Genesis with the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. This is where you get the proper view of the prophetic books, Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Revelation. Without literal grammatical hermeneutic you can figurative away even the diety of Christ and the resurrection. Revelation 20. The 1000 years, used 6 times , and in every context it is literal. And to say God is finished with Israel and the church is now Israel is completely foreign to scripture. Read Romans chapters 9, 10, and especially 11, which puts an end to the false teaching of replacement theology. and the premillenial view does not teach 2 ways of salvation. It's clear that salvation for all people is by faith alone in Christ alone for Jew and Gentiles like. But there are two peoples of God. The Jews were given the eternal promises of God in the Abrahamic covenant, which many of those promises have yet to be fulfilled. You say the rapture is nowhere taught in scripture. Well the word rapture is not in the bible, but the teaching most certainly is. 1 Thessalonians 4: 16-18. There's no reason to spiritualize away meeting theord in the air. In Revelation when Jesus returns at His second coming He comes back with His saints and Angel's. Then His foot will touch the Mt of olives. It's clear in the rapture He doesn't decend to earth. Paul even tells his fellow Christians to comfort one another concerning this event. 1 Thessalonians 5 now depicts the day of the Lord which is judgment on evil. Paul goes on to tell them and us that God did not appoint us to wrath, and again to comfort one another. And the post millenial view that things are getting better and we're going to usher In the millennium and then Jesus returns is almost laughable. Paul even tells us in 2 Thessalonians 2 that a great apostasy is coming in the end times not a great revival. And is Jesus Lord over all right now? Yes, of course. God is sovereign and in His sovereignty He has chosen for these things to happen to take place. Since Adam and Eve God has allowed satan to reek havoc in the world. Was God not sovereign since the beginning? was He notord when He allowed and allows all this destruction by satan? Of course.
Have you noticed the recent increase of reformed and post millennial theology? Interesting timing. Since the world seems to be spiraling to one world government and the church is growing greatly an apostasy. 2 Peter 3, 3-5
@@twj2002 Thanks! Can you pray we can find a sound church here in FL? PS - I’m a girl 😃 But not a feminist so you can call me “brother” in the faith. Lol
Michael J Vlack does a good comparison between post-millenialism, amillenialism and Dispensational Pre-millenialism. He also does comparisons between different Pre-millenial models. Bible Sojourner also tackles this subject very well. Dr Ken Johnson does some presentations on The End Times and The Early Church Fathers.
I think the only question i have that hasnt been answered yet is why do we feel we have to apoly it to the 21st century church when clearly it was written to the first century church? Am i saying we cant learn anything from the Bible since it isnt directed to us? No. But why do we feel so important that we feel the prophecies could maybe not be directed at us but rather during the 1st century? Also, im not saying all prophecies were fulfilled either. If anyone wants to answer, please do so. Also, as an afterthought, if you go to Isaiah 65, one of the chpters pre mil points to in regards to end times, why are there still people dying and babies being born if its referencing to the New Heavens and New Earth? Just a question.
I'm sorry this is an old post . Revelation is directed at the first century church but also it's for the 21st century church. The time of the Gentiles has not closed yet and it has to close because Daniel 9:24 states that that there are 490 years of judgement of the Jews to be paid back and only 483 years has been paid. Those last 7 years are tribulation/ gr. tribulation. Zechariah 12-14 speaks also of the tribulation of the Jews, this is going to be a terrible time for everyone. Those last seven years are also the judgement of the world for rejection of Messiah. The rapture (1 Thess. 4) takes the Jew or Gentile covered in the blood out of the way so God can put His full focus on Israel to bring them into the kingdom and to judge the world. Post mil. flies in the face of everything said in the bible about all things becoming completely evil before the end. 2 Thess. 2 :7 for the mystery of lawlessness is already at hand and He who now restrains must be taken out of the way 2:8 Then the lawless one is revealed. The He is the Holy Spirit which lives in all Jews and Gentiles washed in the blood, we go then all hell breaks loose. There is a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous, it's just not at the same time. Ours is first after the rapture for judgement of the crowns 1 Peter 4:17 and 5:4 , 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and 2 Corinthians 5. Revelation 20:5 The rest of the dead comes to life after the 1000 years , that's unbelievers. Verse 12 says the dead stands before the white throne , a believer is made alive in Christ and never dies(in spirit). I recommend reading a book called revealing Revelation by Amir Tsarfati a Messianic Jew, it's really instructive. Also his friend Pastor Jack Hibbs out of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills ,California is excellent for this topic. His church is a discipleship church. He has tons of teachings on end times. Looking around the world you can know that things are not getting better , Post Mil. is pie in the sky stuff that sounds like Bill Johnson's teachings out of Bethel in Redding California which is N.A.R and totally false. What really matters in the end? Being covered in the blood! Hope this helps you.
PRETERISTS take away from the words of the book of prophecy. Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
His view of Postmil is very wrong. Not one who holds to the position of Postmillennialism, such as myself, would say we hand anything to Christ. The church are the feet and hands of Christ and it is through the Gospel that people change. It is soley the power of Christ and the Gospel that transforms the world. Has nothing to do with man whatsoever. To say otherwise is completely false and a grevious misrepresentation of the view. Let us keep in mind that Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 states that Jesus rules in the midst of His enemies, puts all His enemies under His feet, and then defeats death at the end. To believe in a rapture of the Church makes the chronology of 1 Cor.15 backwards. That death is defeated first since there are many Christians who have since returned to the dust of the earth and have died, they are raised from death, conquering death and then all His enemies are put under His feet. Sorry but that is not what Scripture teachers. The mountain grows and grows and the world flourishes through the transformation of the Gospel whereby the nations stream up to His mountain and cry out for His Law.
Thanks for sharing, we’ve recently been exposed to men in a church who said we need to repent because we’re not closely studying and following the reformers.
My pastor is (was my pastor) an AMil believer and he believes that Israel is replaced by the church. Very rude about it. There’s another guy on TH-cam which is echoing the same thing his name is Ray his channel is ‘(something) dark web’ Speaking on antisemetic and anti Zionism. Yet they can’t explain Romans 11.
Regarding recovering certain areas of doctrine like eschatology he said, "they hadn't quite gotten to that yet," but Calvin did talk about hopeful eschatology without having written a commentary on Revelation and the Puritans did give biblical reasons for why they overwhelmingly held to hopeful eschatology. I understand that in a Q&A session it is not practical to present the arguments for an opposing viewpoint then explain why that argument is wrong. What JM did was to give an oversimplified and somewhat erroneous generalization of the opposing viewpoint, then claimed that those who "successfully hold/held to it" have to "not believe what the bible says," and then regarding the Puritans' understanding he claimed "they hadn't quite gotten to that." If by that he means not all the presuppositions which need to be affirmed for one to hold his novel view of eschatology were held by anyone at the time of the Puritans or before, I agree. While there have been historic premil believers who held various views on the timing of a "rapture" in regard to the tribulation and coming of Christ to establish an earthly kingdom and there have been various opinions on the future of national, ethnic Israel (including by some postmil believers,) who ever in church history before the 1800s held all the presuppositions required by premillennial dispensationalism like JM holds to?
Interesting. Something I struggle with as a Calvinist is like- minded individuals constantly citing the reformers on all issues, which causes me to think "well, they were clearly intelligent men, so who am I to disagree with them?" This helps me look at things from a different angle. Thanks for the post.
What gets me about Post mills are their belief that the world is going to finally get better and better until Christ can return. It’s almost like they forgot one of the core tenets of total depravity. How many times in the history of man has God reset things and mans sinfulness mess things up. Garden of Eden, Noah’s flood, freedom from the pharaoh. How many times was Israel Blessed by God they fell away he judged them he restores them, and the cycle goes on. One Calvinist even said the Constantine’s rule in the Roman empire was a great example of a Christian society, and yet it fell. And then he said the founding of America was another Christian society, I agree the vast majority of the founding of America were Christians what better opportunity for a Christian society to flourish, and yet it’s falling into apostasy as we speak What makes Calvinists think anything in the future will be different?
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 I think it’s more than tradition, I think it’s Calvins interpretation of scripture. I was asked by a Calvinist what are the paradoxes in the scripture, I could only think of two, the Trinity and Jesus being 100% man and 100% God. He proceeded to tell me several other paradoxes election versus man’s free will. Got sovereignty and evil in the world. Other than the Trinity in Jesus incarnation, I don’t see any paradox is in the scripture. It is so harmonious, but when Calvinism is superimposed on scripture, then you have so many contradictions that you have to explain to unbelievers. Just the contradictions in the tulip. Very frustrating. That’s why I believe that the rise of Calvinism in the end times is a sign of the apostasy. Thanks again for your channel. I really appreciate it.
The confusion about eschatology is mostly people just not reading or understanding the bible. Premil is clearly what the bible is telling us for anyone who studies and understand the bible. It's literally spelled out in the text.
The reformers not established sound doctrine? But it's so clear that during the apostolic age the church has established its doctrine- and even during the post reformation, there comes the creeds and confession the result of fighting heresies. God has established His truths.
Apocalyptic literature is filled with imagery. Apocalyptic literature must be interpreted as apocalyptic literature. Throughout history there have been several millenial stories. It would be like saying someone missed it a mile, to say he doesn't know what he is talking about. Matthew 24:36-41 teaches that like in the days of Noah so will Jesus return. During the days of Noah the righteous were left and the unrighteous left. In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 the word air is just above the surface of the air which would be like throwing a ball in the air.
It all depends on whether the revelation was written before 70AD or in 96AD. If before, then the revelation had already started, if after then it wasn't part of the great commission.
I spoke to the teaching pastor at a reformed baptist church in town and we somehow got on the topic of eschatology and his exact words were this, “Chris, I don’t know anything about eschatology except what I have been told by the senior pastor so I don’t really have a biblical reason for being post trib.” That was shocking, I was under the impression that this held to the highest standards of Bible teaching and yet here is the teaching pastor straight up telling me his convictions are based upon what a pastor told him and not the Word of God. I handed him my outline I made during my Revelation study I did on Sunday nights and the next week he told me, “this really seems to be a lot more clearer and easier to follow within Scripture and I do believe the Bible is clear about the rapture being before the tribulation.”
Amen!!! This reallly annoys me I’ve had the same experience with all pastors I’ve asked. They can’t explain parts of the rest of the Bible let alone just end times!
@ Christopher Cunningham Since you love throwing all prophetic texts into the most remote future possible , can you please tell us all why in Revelation 18:22 it is said that the sound of the MILLSTONE will not be heard again in fallen Babylon ? Wow , millstones are such modern activities ! Trap question isn't it ? I assume we should also read tanks and nucleor weapons in Ezekiel 38 and televisions and modern media in Revelation 13 , right ?
@@framboise595 what are you talking about ma’am? You made several accusations and assumptions based upon nothing than your own anger and resentment. Might I encourage you to learn from your husband in silence at home and refrain from accusing the brethren with baseless assumptions. Anyways, I am not sure what you’re talking about tanks and what not in Ezekiel but I can say that it is clear to see that you have some serious anger issues if you’re so upset that you would accuse an expository preacher. But hey, I’m just going off your words and implications, perhaps you’re mistaking me for someone else.
@@framboise595 oh wow, I just read several of your other comments to other people. You have a lot of anger and hate coming from your words. Words are a clear indication of someone’s heart. All that anger and hate towards other believers is a direct contradiction to 1John. Get some help ma’am, that much anger and hatred is bad for your soul and makes you sound like a mean hateful woman.
@@christophercunningham5434 Why don't you want to answer my trap question about the millstone ? Serious anger issues ? Sure , when I see people fawning over popular pastors and swallowing what they say without checking anything in the Bible. Because it can be eschatology or anything else , that's why it serious to take for granted everything a preacher says. Mac Arthur and so many others have led us astray : never an in-depth study of the book of Revelation , a twisting of the olivet discourse to project all that Jesus said would happen in their generation into the most remote future possible. But when you take time to read what is written , you see little details that don't match at all with what they say and what they force us to believe . Don't worry , I do learn from my husband but when when I pointed out these little details relating to antiquity - (like the millstone , the sword , the women grinding at the mill at Christ's coming on the clouds ) and NOT to our modern world - he started to wonder. He had not noticed them . I had not either until recently when I started to seriously question all of that .
Are the chronological markers in Revelation unambiguous? Especially given it's Apocalyptic genre and Johns love of multiple meanings? Or could it describe simultaneous overlapping recapitulating events? The "straightforward" reading seems more forced upon the grammar to me and the amil position less tortured exegesis.
Why is historical premill often left out of these? I am not a Dispensationalist, but I do believe in a future post-trib, pre-mil rapture. lean towards Replacement theology, or that the gentile believers have been grafted into Israel.
The further we go away from Catholicism the more we reform Christianity in all points and return to just what the Bible teaches instead of what a denomination hierarchy teaches Salvation points Sanctification points Ecclesiology points Eschatology points So yes, it took a couple centuries to reform further and further and get closer back to the Bible
If your goal is to go as far from the church of Rome as you can, well... they are theists, so you should become an atheist. The goal of Christian reform shouldn't be to be as different from something as possible, it should be to accord with scripture. Where Rome gets it right, you shouldnt hesitate to agree (and they get a lot right), and where they err (and they err a lot and in important ways) we should oppose them. Opposing Rome just for opposition sake is foolish.
You Catholics (and the Orthodox) are the ones drifted away. The Protestant Reformation was meant to reset the church and return to the teachings of Christ.
many pastors simply follow tradition and what they were told rather than caring enough to study this for themselves. there is also denominational pressures and politics to conform. i got chased out of a church and scapegoated by a "reformed" elder who found out i was dispensational.
No it is not. Please read Revelation 20 carefully...nowhere is the throne on earth. Psalm 110 Christ is seated on his throne at the RIGHT HAND OF GOD...ruling and reigning until His enemies become His footstool!
Isaiah 9:7: “ He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom…” Was David’s throne in Heaven? Was David’s kingdom in Heaven? Luke 1:31-32. II Samuel 7:12-13. Psalm 89:3-4 & 132:11. Now take all of that and pair it together with Revelation 20:4.
I remember when I used to take MacArthur's teachings as truth. That was before I decided to read through Revelation from beginning to end. To my shock, it wasn't chronological like John teaches. Chapter after chapter, the history of the Church kept being retold, and the Return of Christ kept reoccurring, and the harvest and the judgment of men kept repeating, and the 7th Trumpet kept blowing, and the saints kept showing up in heaven over and over again. The Apostle tells the story of the history of the church to the Return of Jesus, to the resurrection, to the eternal Kingdom, seven times, from seven different angles, for instance: Rev Chapter 10, Christ returns as the 7th trumpet sounds, the Church is resurrected. Rev 11:15 The 7th trumpet sounds, the Saints are resurrected again, and the nations of the world are the Lord's forever - not for 1000 years. Rev 14:14-20 The second Coming of Jesus, and the resurrection of all the dead (just and unjust) followed by the judgment. Rev 20 is the general resurrection of both just and unjust, and the judgment of the saints and the wicked. How is it possible, MacArthur keeps teaching the Book is chronological telling one story from beginning to end? False teacher. I don't believe he's even read it.
Evangelicals differ on their interpretation of this book, nobody with any credibility thinks a different view of Revelation makes you a false teacher, the only heretical view is full preterism.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 If Satan is kicked out of heaven long after John says the Church was Raptured, then the Book is not Chronological. Have you read it?
I love MacArthur and watch his sermons daily however I couldn't help but notice he forgot to mention where the Antichrist, Beast and false prophet come into play during the tribulation because Scripture is clear the Antichrist will show up before the return of Christ which makes sense since the Antichrist himself is going to claim to be Christ/ God himself in order to decieve as many as possible
I know he had a short time to answer the question, but I don't think he gave full or fair understanding of amillennialism or postmillennialism and he didn't mention historic premillennialism. Dispensationalism is held by many excellent scholars, but most biblical scholars don't hold to it. Dispensationalism is popular in the U.S., but the U.S. is not the final arbiter. The Bible, re: eschatology is difficult.
Jesus comes back 2x according to MacArthur Amilleniallism doesn't reject the millennium, they believe the millennium is now Jesus is ruling and reigning from Heaven through his Church through the hearts of his people. The Millennium is the time period between the 1 & 2 comings of Jesus. None of the NT authors mention a literal 1000yrs and they all understood when Jesus comes back its to judge his enemies and to usher in his eternal reign
@@sanders194539 Revelation is just too clear to me to adopt any other view. I don't know how you can get 70AD, Post Mill, Amill or any other view that overly symbolizes. Like what McArthur points here, Revelation is in order.
You don’t know how Christian’s could arrive to amill? The same way they arrive to salvation according to reformed theology… the same way anything happens in Calvinism: they’re predetermined by God in such a way that any other possibility is nonexistent… There’s a man who divorced his wife for for another woman. He is Calvinist, and said that God was in it because God predetermined the new marriage would happen; it was meant to be. Somehow, other Calvinists would say he’s wrong for doing what God determined he would do, as if he could’ve chosen to resist God as they interpret Romans 9 often. Yet somehow, people are bad for doing what God would have them do. In other words, the man, given Calvinism, is right in saying God determined it, but still somehow morally wrong and responsible? Most Calvinists aren’t very consistent with their theology in this area, because they can’t to be taken seriously. Really, Calvinism makes things very simple: what shall be is meant to be. I’m baffled at those who claim to be Calvinist but display cognitive dissonance when they seem to suggest people have a higher element of freedom of will than what Calvinism allows…. Calvinism is…. not true because men say it is…. Even biblical men can be gravely wrong. If Calvinism WERE true, you really have no logical grounds for evangelism because to not evangelize would literally be God’s choice for you. YES you could say, “God tells us to”, and this is exactly the reason Calvinists argue for evangelism. But again, the strange thing is that if you do or don’t evangelize is based on God’s choice of whether you will or not. It’s a paradox, like Jesus in the gospels telling people to repent when they literally can’t, because only He can cause them to repent. Calvinism is truly self-defeating, and so many gobble it up because of Sproul, MacArthur, Lawson and the others whom they idolize. The icing on this cake is this? You can’t tell me anything to change my mind, because I don’t possess the ability to, unless God has determined I change my mind. In fact, a Calvinist could say that my comment was predetermined for you to see ;) ❤
@@smartsimplefit Its remarkable how some people will take one single verse and apply it in a way it to cancel out multiple entire books of the Bible with out even a hint of suspicion they just might be misinterpreting the single verse over the rest of the Bible. Pointing to that verse in the this context is a prefect example of that. The fact that we have (just as one example) the entire book of Revelation that lays out how the powers and rulers of this world are put down and cast into hell, and then Christ reigns physically on the earth for 1000 years after the old world system is put down should give a person some clue that its might just be a misapplication of John 18:36 to say Jesus never physically reigns on the earth in a 1000 year kingdom.
@@ExperienceEric Yeah, there’s no easy way around it. Plus Revelation 7 debunks both pre trib rapture and post millennial theories. The great multitude in heaven is from all over the world and comes out of the great tribulation. A. The time period of the early church wouldn’t allow for such a diverse and large multitude, and if the rapture was before the tribulation it wouldn’t say they came out of it.
@@smartsimplefit How in the world does Revelation 7 debunk a pre trib rapture? That doesn't really make any sense. You don't seem to grasp that is there is a pre trib rapture that still means that a massive multiple of people all across the earth will come to Christ in the tribulation, after the rapture. Pre trib 101 says that there will be a massive number of tribulation saints, which lines up word for word with Revelation 7.
OK then what about the very first verse of Revelation 'the things that must soon take place'. Soon...not thousands of years in the future. See also Rev 1:3 Rev 22:6-7 Rev 22:10 Rev 22:12 Rev 22:20 Sounds like everything was about to happen when John wrote Revelation.
Yes Adam died, but it was spiritual death first, then physical death many centuries after. Look at the change in the relationship between all those involved in the fall of man before and after sin. Prior to the fall, it was total harmony, like a beautiful song, each note resounding together, God himself being the melody note.After sin, all of the notes were in discord and disorder. That beautiful harmony was gone and the melody was hidden by the confusion of those other discordant notes. That which was once restful and attractive became vexing and annoying. Not only was the harmony lost, but the melody itself was lost. The Creator, who once was feared, loved, and admired, was after the fall exchanged and abandoned for self. Pride ruled the mind and judgment, lust ruled the heart, and selfishness became the rule of life. Just as the serpent had promises, they became their own gods, but they had to believe a lie, and disobey the true God to acquire self-godhood. Man became, just like the serpent, in the new state, self-dependant, self-sufficient, self-centered, self-conceited, self-determining, self-justifying, etc. Man became alive to self, but dead to God. But praise be to God that in the new-birth he restores that original order and state to an even greater level of harmony and beauty; we are made alive unto God, but dead to the world through Jesus Christ. The song is now within our heart, where the serpent can never enter. The melody note is Christ in us
@@Richardcontramundum obviously. I am only able to assume that what I said went way over your head. Next time you’re looking for a church just go to any place that claims to be a place people for “just followers of Christ” and see if doctrinal errors show up. I am of course only a follower of Christ, and because of that I hold doctrine and theology in very high regard. When you actually have a high view of Scripture and sound doctrine you will then see the need for not just going to any church that claims to be simple followers of Christ. Every Pentecostal church that is a cesspool of blasphemies and demonic doctrines will tell you that they agree with you and everyone should “just be a follower of Christ.”
I am the same way. Many would label me as ultra-conservative Calvinist who is dispensational pre-mil. But I just believe the Bible. On a side note, 1 Corinthians 11 is clear, women should wear a head covering during prayer, but in this modern age no one does it. We have to be careful following what the trend is, and just follow the Bible regardless of opposition.
Postmil here. Johnny Mac completely skips over all the scriptural language of the events in revelations that were to come SOON. Also the olivet discourse is clearly about the destruction of the temple by 70AD. He didn’t mention any of the things that postmil explains.
Soon can mean quickly, as in when it happens its going to happen fast. Comes upon us quickly and unexpectedly as a thief in the night. Clearly Jesus did not return in the 1st Century. Preterism is false doctrine.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 “And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must SOON take place.”” Revelation 22:6 “And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” Revelation 22:10 ESV ‘Soon’ doesn’t mean ‘when we least expect it’ in this context. It means the time is near. *Jesus did come in the form of judgement on Israel in the destruction of the temple, tribulation and persecution all occurred then. Just consider maybe watching some videos presenting evidence for postmil/preterism with an open mind and see what you may find. RC Sproul has very good lectures on ‘the last days according to Jesus’ on TH-cam.
No one saw the 'truth' until J.N. Darby invented it? Are we really to interpret the Word of God by what we see around us? Is that how Abraham believed God? How many peoples of God are there? Does God have two different programs, or one program through the ages, developing from Israel, and then fulfillment through Christ to the nations? Have we really improved upon the Puritans, or are they examples to us?
Great points Rich! It is also evident that Scripture interprets Scripture. And I am sure that all would agree with that assertion. When the Church or any man usurps the authority over the Word and assumes the position and prerogitve of the Holy Spirit, that is why we have so many Popes in the world, even though they do go by that name. Every unbiblical error begins with that principle of "I know more than you know!" See 1 Corinthians 8:2 In the parable of the wheat and the tares, Jesus Christ identifies the time, but not the day, when that event will take place, that is, at the end of the world. And who are they who are taken away first, the tares, not the wheat... And the tares are burned and destroyed, while the wheat is harvested.
Yes - how can people who look to the Bible for their faith, truth and consolation …then look at the world and throw their hands up in the air and say it ain’t happening, it’s just too bad out there and God can’t possibly be victorious even though the Bible says he will be over and over again. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.“ Hebrews 11:1 ESV
"You have to say it doesn't mean what it says" So if you don't agree the the millennium is a literal one thousand years, you have to say it (revelation) doesn't mean what it says! In Revelation 19:15 does Jesus really, literally, have a sword coming out of his mouth? Because, if you don't say that its a literal sword, you have to say it doesn't mean what it says! Its a genuine question.
Symbolism should be obvious just like when you read it in the newspaper or in day to day speech. When 1,000 years is repeated 6 times in one chapter (ch 20) it emphasizes that it should be taken literally. No reason to think otherwise based on the context. The sword in the mouth is obviously symbolism.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 thank you for taking the time to answer. But claiming repetition = literal, is not how you would consistently interpret other chapters in Revelation, for example, in Rev 5, Jesus is mentioned as the "lamb" 5 times in one chapter, I doubt you would interpret Jesus as being a literal lamb! Considering the writing style of Revelation we must be careful. I can see Jesus being described as a lamb outside Revelation, so this is clearly symbolic (interpreting scripture with scripture) but have we any grounds to do the same with the 1000 years?
@@johnoconnell6344 we know Jesus isn't an animal, so its apples and oranges. The concept of the Kingdom is all thru the New Testament, Jesus told us to pray "Thy Kingdom Come" and in chapter 20 of the Revelation of Jesus Christ it says the Kingdom is here on earth and lasts for 1,000 years yet people interpret it to mean the exact opposite, that its not here on earth and it doesn't mean 1,000 years. The burden of proof is on them.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 "You have to say it doesn't mean what it says" When Jesus says "this IS my body" that is what he meant. Time to start confessing what Jesus said
@@ronv7995 Hello Ronv, hope you are well. Please don't take my reply out of our overall conversation. I understand symbolism, but my overall point was, why are so many people hung up on a literal one thousand years, when no one (no matter what millennial view) holds that all of Revelation is literal. Thanks.
Rev 20:7-9 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them. With the pre-mil this happens with Christ and multitudes of glorified immortal saints on earth?
It seems even John MacArthur gets the historic view of Premil wrong. The historic view of premil.never taught a rapture of the church but they would go through tribulation. John is pushing his eschatological view on a view that never taught it. Dispensational Premil is only been around for the past 500 years if that.
@@rhondahart2416 It is not about the rapture but about hope. People were thinking that due to their friends and family members who died and believed will not be with them in heaven, Paul is simply giving them hope and assuring them that is not the case but that they will see each again when the Lord returns.
@@paulpowell6418 Caught-up= Rapturo= Rapture. Why would Paul talk about something that isn't going to happen? He could have just said what you just stated. I guess this is the view of people that think the bible is figurative, I firmly read the bible as literal. Have a blessed day.
@@rhondahart2416 Verse 17 cannot be taken out of the context of what Paul has spoken about previously. As I said it is a letter of hope and assurance of those who have died and those who are alive seeing each other again in heaven when the Lord returns.
John Mac is a VERY strange mix of Calvinism, Baptist and Dispensationalists. I find him confused, and inconsistent. He quotes a verse. From Revelation chapter one but ignores the next verse. “For the time is at hand” I am constantly mystified as to how Dispensationalists are so locked in to their view that they cannot see any other.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 with respect, interpreting the Bible ‘literally” is not always consistent with the eternal purposes of God. For instance, there are presuppositions that are made both by dispensationalists, and covenant theologians which are contradictory to each other, and McArthur mixes them up. It’s not a simple excuse to say he “interprets the Bible literally” that is actually naive. Hers an example: like all dispensationalists he says that chapter 4 of revelation begins with “come up hither” and this means its future and then the church is gone to heaven in a supposed rapture. The scripture doesn’t say that at all! He is presenting doctrine built on presupposition not on literal reading.
Yes but since I gave up tv this is my new fun watching Christians try and figure all this out. Yes all we need to do day to day is keep our eyes on Him. I’m trying to learn this for personal enjoyment . I don’t know if I’m pre or post yet
That is the WORST eschatological misreading of revelation. Ill demonstrate… Matthew 24:37-40 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [38] For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, [39] and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [40] Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. In the days of Noah who was taken??? If we keep in mind noah and the conjunction offered, “so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”…In the field who was taken??? To say evil taken in one and the saved in another, why would Jesus create 2 narratives??? Whats his thinking here???
@@mousehead2000 well, I’ve not seen the new testament introduced anything new from the old testament. Have you? For instance what did Jesus say about the law and the prophets? But yes I would say that the conjunction referencing back to Noah is the indicator of what’s happening in the field with two people. The wicked are taken away in both cases
....the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. - I Thessalonians 4 Are there English Bible translations that translate the phrase "caught up" as "raptured"? If so, which ones?
I find it troubling that John Macarthur is mischaracterizing Amillenialist's belief about the 1,000 years. As intelligent as he is and as biblical as he is, this is shocking to me. Voddie Baucham explains the Amillenialist view very well. Baucham says your view of eschatology stems from how you interpret Revelation chapter 20; as either literal or symbolic. John tells us in chapter 1 that some of the language he is using is symbolic in nature. The Amillenialist believes that the 1,000 years is symbolic, not that it doesn't occur. The Amillenialist view is that the 1,000-year reign of Christ refers to the period between his first coming and his second coming. In other words, RIGHT NOW. Christ is reigning NOW. Also, John Macarthur KNOWS this. And yet, he still makes the claim that Amillenails believe there is no 1,000-year reign. So I'm not sure what the deal is here. By the way, I'm not fully convinced yet about either of the 3 positions on eschatology. I'm still reading the Bible and learning for myself. Just saying that Voddie Baucham made a compelling case for Amillenialism.
If Jesus is reigning right now you would never know, wickedness and immorality abounds and Paul calls Satan the god of this world and the prince of the power of the air. This is not the millennium and to say it is is to water down the Kingship of Jesus. During the actual Millennium Jesus is said to rule with a rod of iron. And the Bible says that it lasts for 1,000 years, the A-mil people say that is not true so YES, J-Mac is right.
@Doctrinal Watchdog (Active) so will he rule with a literal rod of iron? I find it odd that when 1,000 is used in other places in the Bible, it means a great number. But as soon as someone suggests that 1,000 is symbolic for a great number of years, that's not acceptable. Again, I have nothing against John Macarthur, I'm just pointing out that he may be a bit biased on this point. Also, over and over again in the Bible, we see the authors speaking of the current age, and the age to come. There's no mention of a third age in between until you get to Revelation. Either way, we know that Jesus is coming back. That is clear. Jesus said he would return like a thief in the night. So that's all we're going to be concerned about when that day comes lol
MacArthur is a great teacher and longtime faithful to the Word. However I just flatly disagree on the eschatology. I believe Scripture is very clear that Christ is reigning on His throne now and has been since ascension and will continue until all His enemies are put under His feet. I Cor 15. The last enemy to be defeated is death itself which naturally means the final resurrection of both just and unjust occurs on the last day of history, not a 1000 years before for believers which if so would mean death would not be the very last enemy. The great commission will succeed in history, i.e. all the nations will be discipled, the kingdom starts small and grows over a very long period of time. Isaiah 9 tells us "of the INCREASE of His government and peace there will be no end" So if regional or world wars really break out, God is sovereign and He uses that to bring judgements against wicked people and nations (like the USA and Nato), and redemptive judgements all to bring enemies under the feet of Christ, and more importantly prepare fields for great harvests. So when a premil rapture doesn't occur, let's engage in the long term mission to be salt and light to millions of people who will be in great despair, without God or hope in a country collapsing, with war, famine, high inflation people will need to hear the good news of salvation. We might still be in the early to middle stage of the new covenant age so we need to be thinking about grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great..and so on. We are not in the "last days" as several NT verses state. That was about the last days of the old covenant which ended in 70AD with destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. That's why the NT spoke of being soon and imminent because they were talking about Jesus returning in judgement in the first century before that generation passed (Matthew 24:34). The words "Coming of the Lord" language doesn't only mean the second coming at end of history. Most often in NT it meant judgement on Jerusalem in 70AD. I take hope from the last part of this verse where righteousness follows judgement. "For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return. Destruction is decreed, overflowing with righteousness. Isaiah 10:22 Although things look bleak in many areas right now, that in no way means we must be at the end. Almost every generation people have been saying that same thing that they were close to the end. Eventually all "swords" will give way to plowshares.
Can you explain Romans 11 for me than?? Because my pastor couldn’t. Than answer; Has the church replaced Israel? Or does God still have a plan for national Israel?
@@carly-0-7 Hi Carly. Sorry for rather long, but wanted to adequately address questions. No the church does not replace Israel. In fact the word "church" in Greek "ecclesia" which simply means a congregation or a called out assembly is not really anything new. What is new is the new covenant of Christ blood, replacing the old covenant, which always pointed to it anyway. The idea of church did not start in the NT, it was always there since before Moses. The congregation or "the camp" in OT was the church back then. God has always had a chosen assembly of people by faith. He chose to call out a specific people "Israel" from Abraham to be a light to other nations. He gave them the Word of God, His law to be that light, and to transmit the oracles of God for the world,. But they would also have to follow it. But there is only one olive tree, the people of God, containing both Jews and gentiles. But many of Israel were cut off because of unbelief. In Romans 11, I believe Paul is saying that the gospel of the kingdom, the new covenant goes out to all the world and eventually will bring in fullness of all the nations of gentiles but during that time there continues to be a remnant of believing Jews being grafted in to the one olive tree. But Romans 11 also implies a time when Jews will be grafted back in mass as God "turns godlessness away from Jacob" as it were. When this happens it literally brings great blessings and shalom to all the earth, like "life from the dead" Paul says. No more war, life expectancy will increases greatly, animals will no longer be meat eating predators, kids will play by the cobra den, etc from Isaiah. Notice that Christ will still be reigning at the Father's right hand when this occurs. He doesn't return to earth bodily until resurrection on the last day when the last enemy of death itself is defeated, after the kingdom has been finished. I Cor. 15. I don't know if there will be an actual national Israel as a political state in that time when they are grafted back in mass. There is no national Israel from a biblical identity anymore since it was abolished in 1st century after destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. Jews by blood have since been dispersed throughout the world. I don't believe the 1948 founding of the current political state of Israel has much significance, certainly not in the way of dispensational pre-mil teaching. True Jews in terms of Abrahamic blood is probably quite difficult to determine for most all, if not almost impossible. All the tribes have been dispersed for millennia, documentation long since been destroyed. Maybe the current political state of Israel will still be there when that time for grafting back in occurs, but that might be still many hundreds if not thousand or more years from now. Who knows if it will still be there. But God knows who true Jews still are, even if their blood has been mixed with gentiles for long time. So conclusion. No replacement, no need for a national Israel as a political state, and there is only one olive tree with both Jews and gentiles. Finally, gentile fullness in that olive tree will then be accompanied with remnant of Jews giving way to fullness of Jews in the one olive tree. I think this is why Paul concluded that part in Romans 11 with the doxology: "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen." Romans 11:33-36
@@carly-0-7Could you explain Romans 11 from a premil perspective? I often hear premil express that the passage supports their position, but it seems to say exactly the opposite of what they seem to need it to say.
What about Rev 20:5-6? If the dead aren’t raised until after the millennium and the dead are raised first then we are caught up in the air w them , isn’t the rapture after the millennium? That’s what rev 20 says specifically this is the first resurrection
Revelation 20: And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Verse four begins to describe the first resurrection insofar as it talks about the saints reigning with Christ. This is the same resurrection as 1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Your confusion is due to the wording of Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Where the verse says this is the first resurrection, it is referring back to the events of the previous verse. Although verse five begins "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished", this would perhaps best be in brackets or as a footnote as the rest of the dead being brought back to life after the thousand years is the second resurrection.
@@geordiewishart1683 thanks for taking the time on that. 😊. I still read it the same way tho lol … so I get v5 this is the first resurrection refers to v4 and that is my point …it says the people beheaded for not taking the mark are raised to rule for the 1000 yrs; the rest of the dead are raised later, after the millennium. So, if the dead are raised first as incorruptible & then we meet them, that puts us after the millennium. Bc If there is a pretrib rapture & the dead are raised & we are raptured out. Then comes the tribulation & people get their heads cut off. But now v5 is impossible bc the dead have already been raised
I know this is an old post, sorry. The dead in revelation 20:5 are unbelievers. 1 Thess. chapter 4 talks about the rapture when we are whisked off to our judgement 1 Peter 4:17 and 5:4, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and 2. Corinthians 5. When verse 5 says says this is the first resurrection it's finishing what is being said in verses 1-4 . The white throne is the last judgement , verse 12 says the dead stand before the throne. We have eternal salvation which means we never die(in spirit). There is a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous Daniel 12:1-2. John 5:28,29 and Acts 24 but they are not at the same time.
@@Blytheface sorry I know this is an old post. The people that get their heads cut off are the saints in trib that have the mark on their head. This is not the church. The church wears linen , the saints wear white robes , two different groups. Revelation 20:5 are strictly unbelievers, verse 12 says the dead stand before the throne. Christ followers are always know as alive and never die(in the spirit). There is a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous it's just not at the same time. 1 Thess. 4 talks about the rapture then 1 Peter 4:17 and 5:4 says our judgement is first and for the crowns spoken of in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and 2 Corinthians 5. As we look around our world we can certainly see that it's not getting better and Jesus told us in Mt. 24 it's not going to get better. It doesn't matter who thought this up or who of the early fathers believed this post millennialism it's pie in the sky. What really matters anyway , are you washed clean by the blood? If yes then you're good no matter what and then we follow Yeshua!
@@rhondahart2416 I’d re-read Rev 20:4-6… it clearly says those who are beheaded for not taking the mark are raised first, those are believers. the rest of the dead (everyone else) are raised after the millennium. To your point, in Thessalonians it says the dead will rise first… is referring to that time in Rev 20:4-6 . You can’t even have the Thessalonians without the rev 20 first
Before people could read and write they were taught orally. The same thing is done in about 2/3 of the world. Ahwile back I read about a few Christians who multiplied themselves by about 1,000 in less than five years. The Bible does not teach complex theologies. Jesus and Paul never taught complex theologies. Complex theologies are always the work of man. There is a video on TH-cam titled "7 Marks Of A Questionable Doctrinal System | Leighton Flowers | Calvinism | Soteriology 101" That video is an excellent video that shows 7 markers of a complex theology that nobody could follow without confusion.
Kenenth Gentry is probably the world renown expert on partial preterism and the post mil view with well over 2000 pages of the teaching on it. To think an 8:46 broad brush explanation nullifies all the points someone like Gentry explains, think again. Pro 18:13 If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. Pro 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Pre-Trib rapture? Not one single verse in the Bible that clearly indicates this. Yet there are verses, and in the proper exact context, tell you Christ returns to gather His elect AFTER the tribulation. Matt 24:29-31 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. How much clearer can it be?
Jesus was _not_ referring to the rapture in Matthew 24:31. He was, by his own confession, sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. So why would he talk about fleeing to the mountains in Judea, and praying that it would not occur during the sabbath and so on and then suddenly confuse them by referring, in plain language, to a rapture of a church that predominately consists of gentiles - something that was a mystery scheduled to be revealed decades later by Paul? Although it doesn't have as much impact on us today, what Jesus was speaking about was something that the Jews would have _immediately_ recognized. Why? Partly because unlike gentiles living today these people were expecting a very important old testament prophecy to be fulfilled, and partly because throughout scripture idioms such as "the four winds", "four quarters", and the "four corners of the earth" were used to reference the four directions to which the lost sheep of Israel were scattered, and from which they were also to be regathered. They were *SCATTERED* in four directions: "I will bring against Elam the *four winds* from the four quarters of heaven; I will *scatter them to the four winds,* and there will not be a nation where Elam’s exiles do not go." (Jeremiah 49:36) And "Come! Come! Flee from the land of the north," declares the Lord, "for I have *scattered you to the four winds of heaven,"* declares the Lord." (Zechariah 2:6) They will be *GATHERED* from four directions: "Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children *from the east.* and gather you *from the west.* I will say *to the north,* ‘Give them up!’ and *to the south,* ‘Do not hold them back.’" (Isaiah 43:5-6) And "He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will *assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth."* (Isaiah 11:12) When God sent the people of Israel into exile he promised them that after a period of time ALL the tribes of Israel would eventually be returned to their land. "I will surely gather *_all of you,_* Jacob; I will surely bring together the remnant of Israel. I will bring them together like sheep in a pen, like a flock in its pasture; the place will throng with people." (Micah 2:12) And "Then they will know that I am the Lord their God, for though I sent them into exile among the nations, I will gather them to their own land, *not leaving any behind"* (Ezekiel 39:28) Since this has not happened yet, we can only assume that it HAS to happen in the end times, otherwise God would be a liar. And notice that when it does happen a "great trumpet" will be blown: "And *in that day a great trumpet will sound.* Those who were perishing in Assyria and *those who were exiled in Egypt will come and worship the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem."* (Isaiah 27:13) Now with that in mind, notice how the events that Jesus lists in Matthew 24:29-31 line up closely with what we see in Revelation 6:12-7:1-8 - in exactly the same sequence: MATTHEW: The sun and moon turn dark (Matthew 24:29) REVELATION: "The sun turns black ... the moon turns blood red" (Revelation 6:12) MATTHEW: The stars fall from the sky (Matthew 24:29) REVELATION: ".. and the stars in the sky fell to earth, " (Revelation 6:13) MATTHEW: All the tribes of the earth grieve (Matthew 24:30) REVELATION: "Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?" (Revelation 6:13) So if these things correspond to what Jesus said in Matthew 24:29-30 then the next event on the list we would expect to see in Revelation is the "gathering of the elect from the four winds." Right? This my friend is _exactly_ what we see: "After this I saw four angels standing at the *four corners of the earth,* holding back the *four winds of the earth* to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: "Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God." Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from *ALL the tribes of Israel."* (Revelation 7:1-4) This is not the rapture, but the regathering of the lost tribes of Israel.
He said in the pre millennium period that after Jesus reigns for a thousand years there will be a new heaven and earth. That is totally false! Jesus Himself said heaven and earth shall pass away in Matthew chapter 24 after his coming. 2 Peter 3:10 confirms it.
I encourage Dr. John MacArthur to let Scripture speak for itself and let it shape his belief system on Eschatology and not the other way around, This is very important because he teaches others. Post Millennialism is a hard sell for him. But praise God because He is the God of the impossible! It just makes me wonder if Dr. MacArthur really believes in the power of the Gospel as much as the Apostle Paul did? 🤔
When I hear of Covenant believers say they want to dismantle dispensational theology, I wonder if it means taking on John MacArthur- or are we just going after a small back porch Baptist church that they want to take on because of their church sign?
I am postmill. Dispensationalism is not biblical. This is one of the things I disagree with John about. Christ is King today, Christ ascended into heaven and was crowned. We don't have a loser ideology, Christ and his kingdom is already growing. Like a mustard seed. John basis his ideology on when they believe the book of revelation was written.
As a Molinist with nearly zero eschatological experience (initially came to Christianity through a pre-trib rapture watch-group) I genuinely don't know what to do with this area of theology. I have highly Calvinistic friends who only quote James White and Jeff Durbin for all of their views, and yet I experientially know the pre-trib rapture view WHILE ALSO currently not believing in the rapture, period. What would be some helpful contexts as far as eschatology goes that I may benefit from? help!!!
There is a book called "Victorious Eschatology". You need to read it. It will blow your mind. I personally hold to the post millenial view. The bible doesn't teach a rapture. It is clear that the bible teaches that Jesus will return once, at the end of the age, and when he does, He will gather his elect from the four corners of the Earth, and then He will destroy the wicked. Then will come the judgement. I am what you call a pessimistic post millenialist. I do believe that the gospel will reach the ends of the Earth, and we will see church growth. But I think we are at the point in history in which Satan has been let loose. He is using the Beast system(governments, education systems, media, banks, corporations, etc) to deceive the nations, create anti-christian sentiment, and enslave humanity. Technology is going to trap us in a system in which it will be hard to survive unless you submit to the antichrist
Because he isn't writing in 1 Thess 4 about the Rapture. He is talking about the Second Coming which is easily discernable in verse 15 when it talks about the "coming of the Lord" as the contextual event. The worry of the Thessalonian Christians was centered around previous believers who died before the Second Coming, and they were concerned the dead would miss it. The part you are referring to is 1 Thess 4:16-18. However, this is an image 2,000 years ago that people were aware of. Kings used to go to war, and the city-watch would be on the lookout for their king's return from war. The King would arrive, but because they didn't have satellites or telescopes they couldn't tell if the army marching towards their city was their king's, or a foreign threat. The practice then was to send out your royal emissaries who upon realizing their triumphant king had returned would celebrate and walk him through the gates in a victorious return....which is what 1 Thess 4 is saying. At the Second Coming the believers will meet Jesus in the air to welcome him back as a conquering king. This is not a biblical text for the Rapture, nor does its context uphold it.@@rhondahart2416
@@Pastor_Chief if he isn't writing about the rapture why is the word used in verse 17? The entire passage is talking rising up and leaving earth. The coming is Yeshua putting his feet down in Rev. 14:1 putting down the rebellion with the angels and us along with him. 1 Thess. 3:12 Jude 14,15, Zechariah 14:5, Rev 17:14.
Then why in verse 17 does it say Rapture? They are leaving earth. The coming is talking about putting His feet on earth and putting down the rebellion. These are two different things.
It's one of the fruitless arguments the devil uses to divide the body of Christ. It makes no difference who is right and who is wrong in this issue.. 2 Timothy 2:23 KJV - But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
I disagree. This is not a fruitless discussion. Our two minutes eschatology will lead us to how we interact with the world. After watching hundreds of sermons videos of post-mill reformists the one absolute conclusion I come to is there lack of personal preaching the gospel to bring people to salvation. Much talk about building the kingdom through cultural change in political change. I don’t remember the last time I heard a reformist actually articulate the personal salvation gospel. In fact, every Calvinist I’ve ever met, wants to convert me to Calvinism. But pre-millennials vote and are culturally responsible. But the great emphasis is preaching the gospel to individuals so they might be saved.
@@davidcrane6593 not fruitless. Why? Because if you think God is coming back asap and you are going to be taken out without any merit or work then there's no real reason to plan or teach or move accordingly. You may say "you should" but the reality we humans DON'T It's as if I told you that the city came to my house yesterday and told me that in 1 year I will be moving regardless if I want to or not. They are making way for the new highway. What would I do to that broken AC unit? Or the cracked plaster? The chipped paint? The leaky roof? The dirty fridge? NOTHING. I would do nothing. But if I was planning on my grandchildren (who do not even exist yet) raising children in this house, then I would act very very different. Now just replace HOUSE with world. And the culture. Most Christians have bought this rapture talk for 100 years and we have thus surrender the schools, business, and culture overall to the godless pagans
@@Richardcontramundum i simply think its fruitless to argue about it one way or the other... im ok with you/anybody believeing differently on this matter.
@mrs. well... thats not what i think... i believe Jesus is coming and that we as Christians should guard our hearts and do our best to keep our spiritual "garments" clean.
Premillennialism is prophesied in the Old And New Testament but there is not even one biblical verse that clearly supports rapture of the Church before great tribulation of last days. Also the early church fathers of the 2nd century as far as I am aware didn’t teach a pretrib rapture . The early church expected going thru tribulations before going to heaven. The idea that Christians will be take out the great tribulation it’s a fiction of John Nelson Darby.
I respect Dr. Macarthur and appreciate his influence on my life as a believer in Jesus Christ. But I believe his eschatology is flawed. He must be cautious because he is teaching others. I don't want him leading others on the wrong path. Dispensationalism has questionable - even shady roots. It is the newest school of thought in Christian Eschatology that only emerged in the 1800's. Their teaching on a pre-tribulation rapture of the church was a result of a supposed prophecy given in tongues and interpreted during a gathering of the Plymouth Brethren at Reverend Irving's Catholic Apostolic Church (who still believe in apostles existing up to this day). Samuel Prideaux Tregellus, a brilliant New Testament Scholar of textual criticism and a great and saintly man of God who belonged to that group said, "I wasn't aware of any definite teaching of a secret rapture of the church and of a secret coming until this was given forth as an utterance in Mr. Irvinng's Church and from what was then received as the voice of the Spirit." The teaching caused a divide in the church among those who accepted it and those who didn't. J.N. Darby embraced and even promoted it. Other brethren like B.W. Newton, Robert Chapman, and George Muller didn't. Solid Biblical Doctrine should be based on careful exegesis and hermeneutics of God's Holy Word, not on prophecies outside Scripture. May the Lord open his eyes regarding this matter. 🙏🙏🙏
Have you studied the subject yourself? Or are you just parroting an argument that you copied from others who are quickly spreading it across the internet these days? The rapture was not invented in the 1800. Ephraim the Syrian (306-373) is especially revered in Syriac Christianity and is counted as a Venerable Father (i.e., a sainted monk) in the Eastern Orthodox Church. So popular were his works, that, for centuries after his death, Christian authors wrote hundreds of pseudo-works in his name. He has been called the most significant of all of the fathers of the Syriac-speaking church tradition. Here are some of the quotes from his sermons: - "Blessed is he who unceasingly remembers the fear of Gehenna and hastens to sincerely repent . . . for he shall be delivered from the great tribulation." - "For *the elect shall be gathered prior to the tribulation* so they will not see the confusion and the great tribulation coming upon the unrighteous world." - "Watch always, praying continually, that you may be worthy to escape the tribulation." - "Count us worthy, Lord, of the rapture of the righteous, when they meet You the Master in the clouds, that we might not be tried in the bitter and inexorable judgment." Then we have the writings of Irenaeus (130-202 AD). He was tutored by Polycarp (69-155 AD) who, in turn was a student of the Apostle John. Irenaeus wrote: "When in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption."
@@paulbrennan4163 I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this mattee. But the person you cited IS NOT an apostle. I choose the infallibility of Scripture over any other figure outside God's Holy Word. Kindly provide specific Scripture text that explicitly prove your point. What I study and stand on is Scripture, nothing else. Thank you!
@@AgeDeo2009 Sure, I don't really care what label you want to put on him but was responding to _your_ claim which I think you would agree is an extra-biblical one. So let's talk scripture. Let me know what your position is and why you think it is more scriptural than that of the pre-trib rapture.
@@AgeDeo2009 I didn't get a response from you yesterday, and that's OK. Not everyone wants to get drawn into a debate. I understand that, as well as the fact that you probably think you have heard it all before. But I want to draw your attention to something that you most likely haven't heard. I know it is long, but it would be good to hear what your thoughts are after hearing what I have to say. If it doesn't effect you in any way then that is fine by me, but please be patient and read it when you have the time. It has to do with the accounts of Noah and Lot and how Jesus used them to illustrate how things would play out in the end times. And no, it's not merely the fact that these men were removed _before_ God destroyed the places in which they were living. There is something else about these accounts that makes them unique in scripture. And it's something that everyone seems to miss. I have seen so many people in these discussions point to the story of the Exodus and suggest that this account points towards the tribulation and how the church will be protected during that time. It sounds convincing. It makes sense and is a biblical argument. However, if this is really the truth of the matter then surely Jesus would have said that his coming would be "as in the days of the Exodus". But he didn't. So why didn't he? Wouldn't that be a perfect way to describe the tribulation period in that case? Why would he single out two accounts that paint a completely different scenario? I think the answer to this question has to do with the REASON Noah and Lot were saved as opposed to why the Israelites were saved. Notice first that God made promises to Abraham a few hundred years before the Exodus. He told Abraham that his offspring - the Israelites - were first going to be enslaved, but then after setting them free from their bondage in Egypt he would allow them to enter the promised land. Why did he do this? He did it to honour the covenant that he made with Abraham. But notice what God said to these people while they were about to enter the promised land: "Understand, then, that it is *not because of your righteousness* that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people." (Deuteronomy 9:6) I think he points this out to them about two or three times in scripture. He tells them _explicitly_ that they are by no means righteous in his eyes. This is important because if you compare this with the accounts of Noah and Lot, in _both_ of these accounts scripture tells us that the specific reason they were saved is due to their righteousness: "The Lord then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, *because I have found you righteous in this generation."* (Genesis 7:1) The same thing applies to Lot. We see this in the discussion that Abraham had with the Lord before Sodom was destroyed. After understanding that Sodom was going to be destroyed he starts to wonder about the fate of his nephew Lot and pleas to God for his sake: "Far be it from you to do such a thing - *to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike.* Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" In the verses that follow Abraham is ensured by God that what he says is entirely correct, pointing out that not even as few as ten righteous people would be killed while he is punishing the wicked people in Sodom. And as it turned out the actual number of righteous people living there turned out to be THREE - Lot and his daughters - and yet God made sure to completely remove them from the area before destroying the city. Now think carefully about this. Despite the fact that God promised Abraham that he would not allow the righteous to be killed together with the unrighteous, we see COUNTLESS people being killed in the tribulation. What's wrong with this picture? Could it possibly be that the seven churches have come before the judgement seat of Christ. I want to present some evidence that it has. Notice what Jesus says to the people in Sardis: "Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy." (Revelation 3:4) So what about the tribulation saints? Do we see any account of them wearing white garments as they enter the tribulation period? No, they are given white garments first _after_ they have been killed: "Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been." (Revelation 6:11) These people have missed the rapture and now have to pay for their salvation with their own lives. What we also see just before the tribulation starts is something that has never been seen before in the throne room of God: "Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads." (Revelation 4:4) How can these elder possibly be wearing crowns? Isn't this that what Paul identified as one of the rewards that would be handed out at the judgement: "Now there is in store for me *the crown of righteousness,* which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day-and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing." (2 Timothy 4:8) So what about you brother? Do you believe that you are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus? If so then God will by no means subject you to the most horrific, cruel, tortuous, and fatal period of time since creation. The post- and mid-trib views were designed to undermine that belief, but not only that. They were also designed to undermine a belief in the imminent return of Christ to save the righteous from the wrath to come. Such imminence is only be possible in a pre-trib scenario where people are warned to stay awake because the Lord could come at any moment. What the opposing views do is make people drowsy thinking that they still have at least a few years ahead of them to clean up their act. Read the parable of the ten virgins and you will see how that turns out. You need to be wary of these doctrines.
correct, the end will not come except there comes a great falling away first. If you follow the news you can also learn that EVERYTHING is getting worse in the west all the time. Post Millenialists as I understand them (and I am just now looking into this) are not paying attention at the news nevermind the rest of scriptures.
As much as I love this man. It is ironic how he claims the world will get worse and worse and yet he is standing there preaching to 1000 people who are there to hear the gospel! Why??? Because the KINGDOM is growing and growing and growing...it is leaven taking over the whole lump...just takes time! If all we see is the bad...you will never see the glorious advances the Kingdom of Heaven has made! There are CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE...and growing every day! Did John MacArthur and his church by the power of Jesus Christ not just win against a corrupt and Satanic government in his state??? Yet, he claims everything will only get worse. No...CHRIST WILL BUILD HIS CHURCH and the gates of HELL WILL NOT prevail! The world will be Christianized! "The earth will be full of the GLORY OF THE LORD as the waters cover the sea" (Habakkuk 2:14)
That is the WORST eschatological misreading of revelation. Ill demonstrate… Matthew 24:37-40 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [38] For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, [39] and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [40] Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. In the days of Noah who was taken??? If we keep in mind noah and the conjunction offered, “so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”…In the field who was taken??? To say evil taken in one and the saved in another, why would Jesus create 2 narratives??? Whats his thinking here??? Furthermore, why does John use immanent language in Revelation? Revelation 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must SOON take place. Revelation 1:3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is NEAR. If we are going to say a day to 1000 and 1000 to a day, how do we qualify that statement? Is that how John qualified Time?? As i understand, this is God thinking alone.
The WORST eschatalogical missreading? That sound a bit dramatic. Before you accuse a very experienced theologian of "missreading" something then you should be careful not to do any missreading yourself. The argument you have borrowed here from Matthew 24:39-40 was originally used together with the KJV version which doesn't say "swept them all away" but "took them all away": "and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and *TOOK* them all away." (Matthew 24:39) So the idea was that since "took" is used in verse 39 then it makes sense that "taken" (being the same word in a different form) refers to the same thing. However, these words are not the same in the original greek language (which is obviously what we would expect if Jesus' point was that those being "taken" were the same ones that the flood "took" away). The word "took" (as in "the flood took them away") is airō (G142 ) which is most often used when something is picked up and carried away. The word translated "taken" on the other hand (as in "one will be taken, the other left") "paralambanō" (G3880), suggests accompaniment: "to take to, to take *with one's self,* to *join to one's self".* It is the same word used in the following verses, among others: "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and *took (G3880) unto him his wife"* (Matthew 1:24) And When he arose, he *took (G3880) the young child and his mother by night,* and departed into Egypt" (Matthew 2:14). But that's not the only problem. We cannot be certain that what Jesus said in verse 40 was immediately followed by what he said in 39. Why? Because in Luke 17:26-30 we see a whole string of verses separating these two verses. Finally it doesn't even make sense that Jesus, speaking of a _global_ flood, would point out things like "one man would be in the field and the other left" or "one woman grinding in the mill would be taken and the other left" or "two would be in a bed but only one taken". I have never heard of a flood that selects people like that. Sometimes you need to do a quick test to make sure that the argument you use even makes sense. You also need to ask yourself instead is why Jesus would pick about the only two account from the Old Testament where people are completely separated from the wicked BEFORE God destroys them. As for the word "SOON" in Revelation, the Greek word that is translated "soon" (τάχος) in Revelation can also be be translated as "quickly in its time" when the event being referred to is imminent. We see an example of this here: And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night Will he keep putting them off I tell you, he will see that they get justice, _and quickly_ (τάχος). However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth" If you read the parable in question (Luke 18:1-8) you will notice that the judge is actually taking a _long_ time in bringing about justice, so much so that people are crying out to him, but he keeps putting them off. However, he promises that _when the time does come_ it will be carried out quickly (τάχος). Even though the words used are different in the following OT passage we see a similar example of how imminence works: "For the revelation awaits an appointed time; it speaks of the end and will not prove false. Though it linger, wait for it; it will certainly come and will not delay." (Habakkuk 2:3) Notice that it first says that it "lingers", but when it is fullfilled it does so without delay. That the word translated "soon" or "shortly" in Revelation refers to imminence becomes obvious when we consider the following: 1. Jesus said he would return unexpectly as a thief in the night. Thieves typically do not announce in advance that they will come soon. 2. Jesus gave us three parables in a row that he would come after a long time (Matthew 24:42-Matthew 5:30). Such a long time in fact that _everyone_ would fall asleep (Matthew 25:5). (Note. to fall asleep is to die) 3. Peter indicated that Jesus second coming would be conditional. 4. Peter clearly indicated that it would be according to God's perception of time, and not ours. Please consider these things carefully. Thanks.
@@paulbrennan4163 so essentially you’re getting lost in the carried away aspect still presupposing a rapture for the elect rather than seeing the text contextually and exegetical? Your tradition in presupposition blinds you because you’re reading what you think is today into the text versus reading out of the text exegetically. OK let’s test yourself A deep theology exercise. An experiment. - lets see who reads whats there vs reading their tradition into it. Daniel 7:13-14 ESV "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. [14] And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. Who is the son of man? Who is the ancient of days? Which direction is the son of man traveling? Whats the kingdom being given? What event is this??? The text distinguishes purposefully for a contextual moment. Think about the questions explicitly relative to the text. Try not to think about anything else. If you read the text as is, what does it actually say? When Jesus said he would return in this fashion he meant with the destruction of Jerusalem through Rome in 70ad not in the same return mentioned to the apostles as he’s ascending regarding the second coming. These are two separate events. Matthew 23:36 ESV Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Since you are a fan of the Greek, This- ταύτην - demonstrative pronoun - eminent declarative. Meaning happening very soon not figuratively Revelation 1:1 ESV The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must SOON take place… Revelation 1:3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is NEAR.
@@HillbillyBlack Wow. Now that's deep. Just read an isolated text and assume that your first impression is the correct one. I don't interpret scripture according to someone else's rules, I interpret it through listening to the Holy Spirit the way scripture tells us is the correct way. Now I think you should also apply the same standard to yourself as you suggest others hold to. For example, what do you see if you read THIS without thinking of anything else: "Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and *“every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”;* and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him." (Revelation 1:17) And "This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, *will come back in the same way you have SEEN him go into heaven."* (Acts 1:11) And if you are going to LECTURE ME about having a presupposition, then what exactly is this: *"When Jesus said he would return he meant with the destruction of Jerusalem through Rome in 70ad not in the same return mentioned to the apostles as he’s ascending."* Jesus did NOT say ANYWHERE that he would return with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. That is YOUR presupposition! And your "proof" text does not "prove" what you want it to prove.
@@HillbillyBlack By the way, I don't have any "tradition". I wasn't taught to believe in a pre-trib rapture. So don't assume you know things about someone you know NOTHING about. As far as I can see the passage from Daniel you quoted is more a problem for the preterist "tradition" than it is for me. So what's your point exactly? The same applies to Matthew 23:36. It is an ENORMOUS problem for preterists! And why did you repeat the "SOON" argument. I addressed that in my first response.
If you knew GOD THEN you will also know that JESUS CHRIST our LORD IS ALSO GOD.John 1) John 10 v 30) I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE Rev 1) GOD WHO IS WHO WAS AND ARE TO COME.This despensation doctrine is pure heresy.JESUS CHRIST REIGN NOW IN ALL HIS saints.GOD IS A CONSUMING FIRE,AND WONT REIGN FISICALLY ON THIS FILTHY OLD EARTH.HE WILL ONLY REIGN FISICALLY ON HIS NEW HEAVEN EARTH AND NEW JERUSALEM.HIS REIGN IS A SPIRITUAL KINGDOM.Hallelujah Amen.
A Millennium Puzzle to solve… Will Christ be conducting funeral services for mortals killed in accidents 500 years after His Second Coming? The “first resurrection” in Rev. chapter 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the Book of Revelation, because the two witnesses are resurrected from the dead in chapter 11. There are two different types of resurrection in John chapter 5. There is a spiritual resurrection from the dead in John 5:24, and a bodily resurrection from the dead in John 5:28-29. Does your view of the Millennium agree with what Paul said in 2 Thess. 1:7-10, when Paul said Christ returns in "flaming fire" taking vengeance on those who do not obey the Gospel? The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20. Does your view agree with what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:10-13, when Peter said this earth is going to burn and "dissolve" when He comes as a thief on the day of the Lord? The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20. Does your view agree with what Paul said in 2 Tim. 4:1, when Paul said both the living and the dead will be judged at His appearing? The time of the judgment of the dead, with reward for some and destruction for others is found in Rev. 11:18, right after the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible. (This verse also proves the Book of Rev. is not in chronological order.) The judgment of the dead is also found at the end of Rev. chapter 20. Does your view agree with what Jesus said in Matt. 25:31-46, where He described the judgment of the sheep and goats, which leaves no mortals alive on the planet at the end of the passage? There are also no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Rev. chapter 19. Does your view agree with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness? Does your view agree with what John recorded in Rev. 9:1-2, when an angel comes down from heaven with a key to unlock the pit, which means the pit was locked before that time? Are there wicked angels already in the pit in Rev. 9:11? John recorded angels already "bound" in Rev. 9:14. The beast "ascends" out of the pit in Rev. chapter 11, which means the beast was in the pit before that time. Take all of the above and compare it to the symbolic language found in Rev. chapter 20, and the fact the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order, and you will have the truth. ====================== Multiple Second Coming Visions in Revelation: (book not in chronological order ) Christ returns at the end of Revelation chapter 6, with signs in the sun, moon, and stars, as are found in the Olivet Discourse. Those at the end of the chapter are hiding from the wrath of the Lamb. Why would they be hiding if Christ is not present? The "kings", "captains", "might men", "free", and "bond" are also found in chapter 19 at the return of Christ. He returns at the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible, and the time of the judgment of the dead in Revelation 11:15-18. The beginning of chapter 12 is a history lesson containing the fall of Satan, and the birth and death of Christ, who is the seed promised to crush the head of Satan in Genesis 3:15. The Second Coming is found in the "harvest" of chapter 14, which is related to the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew chapter 13. He comes as a thief at Armageddon, and we find the greatest earthquake in history in chapter 16. This occurs when the 7th angel pours out his vial. How powerful is an earthquake which moves islands and destroys the mountains? What is happening to the planet? He comes on a horse in chapter 19. Chapter 20? Does He come with the fire, and the judgment of the dead at the end of chapter 20, which agrees with what Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and 2 Timothy 4:1? (The time of the judgment of the dead is also found in Revelation 11:18.) There are no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Matthew 25:31-46. Why does an angel come down from heaven with a key to unlock the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1-2, if the pit was not already locked before that time? Revelation 9:14 proves some of the angels were previously bound in some manner. Because the two witnesses were bodily resurrected from the dead in Revelation 11, the "first resurrection" at the beginning of Revelation 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the book. The principle of "Recapitulation" means there are multiple visions of His return. ==================== New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. Watch the TH-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
@@carly-0-7 Most in the modern Church call it "Amillennialism", but that is not really a good term. The Church Age from the Day of Pentecost to the Second Coming of Christ is the millennium, based on the whole of scripture. Take a look at some of the videos of Pastor Sam Storms. He has written an excellent book on the topic, if you like to read. The book is over 700 pages. The title is "Kingdom Come". Pastor Sam Storms used to be a pretribulational/premillennialist, but discovered he could not get that viewpoint to agree with the Bible when he was in seminary.
Regarding Postmillennialism: When we read scripture, the return of Jesus is nowhere described as a peaceful event where Jesus is welcomed back to Earth to conduct the Final Judgment and usher in the eternal state by a mostly "Christianized" world. We instead read of the return of Jesus as a violent and bloody event where the Son of God goes to war against His enemies and includes the rescue of the remnant of believing national Israel (Zech 12-14, Rev 19).
The world and the devil thought that they'd defeated Christ on the Cross 2000 years ago because of how the world views success and defeat. "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." (Eph. 6:12) "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (Matt.16:18) "And Jesus came up, and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to [b]follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you [c]always, to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20) We who preach these truths, do we truly believe and apply them? "Tertullian said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Let us look beyond the physical to the spiritual!
This sounds like JW doctrine. Matthew 25 takes place , which is the judgement of the nations, the ones who stood for Israel will go into the millennial period, the ones who didn't get judged right there. At the end of the millennial period Satan deceives the nations then they're judged so far this all living judgements. Now the white throne revelation 20:5 the unbeliever dead are raised , verse 12 says this is the judgement of the dead. Before all of these judgements is the raptured church, 1peter 4:17, 5:4 and 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and 2 Corinthians 5.
Every theological camp has to interpret some passages symbolically. Even Premillennial dispys. Does that mean they don’t believe the Bible means what it says? Lol
The Kingdom of God is not symbolic, its real. To say its not literal is to not believe the Bible. Revelation 20 says its on earth and lasts 1,000 years. Jesus told us to pray "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on EARTH." This is not difficult to understand but Rome has confused people with their amillennial doctrine and the creation of Preterism to shift attention that they are likely the whore of Babylon of which Revelation 17 speaks.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 can you show me where Revelation 20 says Jesus reigns from a throne on earth? Ps 11:1 (A Psalm of David.) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. 1 Cor 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. How can Jesus reign until all enemies are under his feet if he must sit at the right hand until all enemies are made his footstool? The only explanation that can be derived from this is that he is reigning now at the right hand of the Father. God was king of Israel before anointing Saul. Who was he king over? The people of Israel. They were his kingdom. He ruled and earthly kingdom from his throne in heaven. So then, with Jesus being God, why is it claimed for it to have to be a literal throne by dispensationalist and not acceptable for him to sit on the very throne and rule over Israel as God did in times past over Israel, with Jesus being God. 1 Cor 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 1 Cor 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. The last enemy death and the victory over it forever are directly tied to the resurrection of the dead believers. Where do we see death ultimately destroy in the bible? Rev 20:14 when death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire. This event is accompanied by a resurrection of the dead and a judgement. Both of these Jesus said would happen at the last day. John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6L54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. How then do we come up with doctrines that claim to raise believers before the last day and death remaining present afterwards? Acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. The bible says Jesus will remain in heaven until the restoration of all things. Why then, do we hold to doctrines that claim Jesus comes back 1000 years before the restoration of "all" things. All things includes the new heavens and new earth which occurs in Rev 21:1
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 1. **Nature of the Kingdom**: While postmillennialists believe in a literal manifestation of the Kingdom of God on earth, they also understand that the Kingdom has symbolic, spiritual, and literal dimensions. Jesus himself spoke of the Kingdom in parables and metaphorical terms (e.g., the mustard seed in Matthew 13:31-32). Hence, it's not an either/or situation but both/and. Believing in the symbolic dimensions of the Kingdom does not negate one's faith in the Bible. 2. **Revelation and Symbolism**: The book of Revelation is filled with symbolism and apocalyptic language. For example, dragons, beasts, and numbers like 7 and 12 frequently appear, all of which carry symbolic significance. The 1,000 years mentioned in Revelation 20 can be viewed symbolically to represent a complete or perfect period rather than a strict 1,000-year timeline. Historical context matters; apocalyptic literature often used symbolism to convey deeper truths. 3. **“Thy Kingdom come on Earth”**: Postmillennialism agrees with this, and it suggests that through the influence of the gospel and the work of the Church, the world will increasingly come under the dominion of Christ, resulting in a long period of righteousness and peace. 4. **Historical Roots and Rome**: While the Roman Catholic Church does have amillennial tendencies, to reduce all eschatological views to a conspiracy by Rome is an oversimplification. Many church fathers and theologians across various Christian traditions have held diverse views on end-times theology, independent of any influence from Rome. 5. **Whore of Babylon**: Linking the Whore of Babylon in Revelation 17 directly to Rome (or the Roman Catholic Church) is a perspective, but not the only interpretation. Some scholars believe it referred to ancient Rome, others see it as symbolizing any worldly city or system in opposition to God. It's a complex passage with a rich history of interpretation, and it's important to approach it with humility. In conclusion, the beauty of Scripture is its depth and multi-dimensionality. While taking the Bible seriously and literally where intended, it's essential to recognize and respect its rich literary genres and the complexities of interpretation.
For those who say there is no Pre-Trib rapture you not only heard Pastor MacArthur's explanation from Revelation the Apostle Paul spoke of the rapture (catching up of the saints) in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, this triggers the day of the Lord (tribulation) as Paul moves into chapter 5 sudden destruction comes upon those in darkness, not on those who are walking in the light. Paul said back in chapter 1 of 1st Thessalonians (9-10) "serve the living and true God, and wait for... Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come."
Historical context is key to understanding why the reformers taught what they did about certain topics. They were greatly influenced by Rome, as they had all previously been Romanists. Hence they followed Rome in certain areas, namely infant baptism and eschatology.
@@aaronkemp7789 great points, you nailed it.
@@twj2002 I promise I typed that before I heard JMac make similar points in the video!
@@aaronkemp7789 well, I guess great minds think alike👍
@@aaronkemp7789 the term Reformed means they were Reforming the Catholic Church. People who are reformed and baptize babies and hold to other Catholic doctrines need to reform more.
It's important to note that the position John MacArthur gives here of Pre-Mill is not the historic understanding. He is giving the dispensational pre mill view.
Its not that different.
Oh boy, that is so wrong
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454
It’s entirely different and with no historical basis
@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454
It is significantly different brother
Correct
That is the WORST eschatological misreading of revelation.
Ill demonstrate…
Matthew 24:37-40
For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [38] For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, [39] and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [40] Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left.
In the days of Noah who was taken???
If we keep in mind noah and the conjunction offered, “so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”…In the field who was taken???
To say evil taken in one and the saved in another, why would Jesus create 2 narratives??? Whats his thinking here???
These dispy premil goofballs who accuse anyone who is postmil or amil of being apostates are basically saying the entire church until about 200 years ago was apostate. We can easily dismiss them as not being credible sources of Eschatology, and likely a lot of other issues as well.
Shut up goofball
Brother MacArthur, God bless him, whiffed bigtime on a couple of important points:
1) He labels the historical positions of the church correctly then describes them incorrectly. Most glaringly he described historic premillennialism as modern day dispensationalism. The rapture and the future great tribulation were popularized by John Nelson Darby only a couple hundred years ago. MacArthur is the one out of synch with the majority of Christian history, not the other way around, as questioner astutely pointed out.
2) Amillennialists would never say "there is no real millennium" or that they "they reject the millennium." I don't agree with their position, but misrepresentation is not okay.
3) I agree that postmillennialism can be a hard sell. But that is a psychological point - not a scriptural one. I believe in postmillennialism not because I read it in the news paper or because I feel like it or because I personally perceive the world getting better. I see it _by faith_ in the promises of scripture. The Bible does not, in fact, teach that "the world will get worse and worse and worse." Dr. MacArthur pointedly bifurcates the culture war and the preaching of the gospel when there is absolutely no tension between the two. Calling WWII the darkest era in human history is just completely ignorant. How about the flood of Noah that killed every soul on earth save eight? How about the black death that killed roughly one third of Europe? Those would have been difficult times indeed to trust God's promises of a bright future for his people. But we doubt in the 21st century at the zenith of wealth and prosperity. Why?
I actually completely agree with him regarding the historical progress of theology. The early church took centuries to develop something beginning to resemble the doctrine of the trinity. Atonement took even longer and soteriology took longer still. The five solas took 1500 years. But that knife cuts both ways. Notice how he uses his conclusion into the premises. The Church is now more mature and hence has arrived at a proper, in his view, understanding of eschatology. How do you know it's not the other way around? How do you know that the church's current understanding isn't due to immaturity? How do you know that there isn't a long glorious postmillennial future of the nations being baptized and the whole earth worshiping the lord of glory in spirit and in truth?
Jay Hu Postmil is ridiculous. Jesus is our Savior we don't save ourselves. Amil is totally metaphorical to point that the bible doesn't make any sense. The bible is clearly premil and premil is the only thing that makes sense
@@christiansoldier77 premil is ridiculous. Jesus is our savior we don’t save ourselves. The Bible is clearly postmil and postmil is the only thing that makes sense.
Persuasive, isn’t it?
@@hudjahulos So you are calling God and the bible ridiculous because the bible is literally giving us a premil viewpoint. Postmil is where we save ourselves. Premil is us relying on Jesus to save us.
@@christiansoldier77 Are you calling God and the Bible ridiculous because the Bible is literally giving us a postmil viewpoint. Premil is where we save ourselves. Postmil is us relying on Jesus to save us.
Convinced?
@@hudjahulos Clearly you don't understand eschatology because you have things backwards so I pray you learn more about this matter Peace.
*this is inaccurate.* ...Postmill views began way before the Reformation. Although premillennialism finds slightly earlier development (especially in Irenaeus, A.D. 130- 202), theologian Donald G. Bloesch notes: "Postmillennialism was already anticipated in the church father Eusebius of Caesarea" (A.D. 260-340). Schaff traces it back even farther, observing that Origen (A.D. 185-254) "expected that Christianity, by continual growth, would gain the dominion over the world." Two other prominent church fathers whose historical confidence appears to express a nascent postmillennialism are Athanasius (A.D. 296-372) and Augustine (A.D. 354-430). As Zoba notes, Augustine taught that history "would be marked by the ever-increasing influence of the church in overturning evil in the world before the Lord's return." This would eventually issue forth in a "future rest of the saints on earth" (Augustine, Sermon 259:2) "when the Church will be purged of all the wicked elements now mixed among its members and Christ will rule peacefully in its midst." This early incipient postmillennialism contains the most basic element of the later developed system: a confident hope in gospel victory in history prior to Christ's return.
i know this is old but really? You honestly think with everything that is happening in the world that things are getting better? The church is all but silent and very weak in it's stance on sin at this moment in time. The bible is very clear that this world is going away but before it does it's going to be an explosion of evil happening everywhere which is exactly what is happening right this instance. Wherever this idea came from doesn't matter it's completely unrealistic. Jesus wins but it's going to be hell before heaven!
The reign of Christ is the Gospels advancement I believe, and not a Christian Kingdom where everything is Christianized and sanitized. I think post-mill guys have an over-realized eschatology where they want To bring about the new Heavens and new Earth when Jesus said my Kingdom is not of this world.
In Acts the apostles asked the same question," Are you going to restore the Kingdom now to Israel?" Jesus shot the statement down. I think post mill want the Kingdom now when I think Jesus would say the same thing to them and that we the Church must fill up the afflictions of Christ. We live in the already not yet Kingdom reality. The new creation had begun in us and it won't come to its full realization until Jesus comes and defeats all his enemies. The Kingdom expands as souls are added. I think post - mill camp wants a tangible Kingdom here and now whereas God's Kingdom is a spiritual Kingdom growing and expanding in a similar and unique way. Trying to create a global Geneva won't work in a fallen and depraved world
@microatmospheremicrosend what about revelation 14:1
@rhondahart2416 That's an over-realized eschatology. This present world is reserved for fire 2 Peter says, it has to undergo a death and resurrection all its own. A New Heavens & a New Earth Revelation 21
@@jasonstrange1490 please explain further
The secret rapture is a very novel and minority view in church history.
God deals in minorities goofball
After watching this video last year, I posted a comment with 11 points: A-K.
Just now, I watched the video again and was struck by the statement that to accept a-millennialism or post-millennialism, you have to believe the Bible doesn't mean what it says.
Well, the problem with that argument is that, to accept the dispensationalist/futurist pre-millennialist eschatology promoted by MacArthur and many other preachers, you have to believe the Bible texts I listed last year don’t mean what they say:
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:29 (See Romans 4 and the rest of Galatians 3.)
..he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neigher is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. - Romans 2;28 & 29
...For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. - Romans 9:6-8
Dispensationalist/futurist premillennialists also find it necessary to postulate a completely arbitrary “gap” into the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel 9. Most or all of the reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were historicist premillennialists (a very different method of interpretation than the one MacArther uses).
Is anyone aware of any theologian proposing the futurist method of Bible interpretation before it was suggested during the Council of Trent (1545-1563) as a way to counter the protestant reformation?
There are some advantages to the futurist method. It allows a more congenial attitude toward Hebrews than the sixteenth century reformers had.
There are, however, some serious disadvantages too. 1: It robs people of the way a “plain reading” of the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel 9 can be understood as one additional evidence that Jesus really is the Messiah foretold by the Hebrew prophets of antiquity. (For more about which search under Historicist Interpretation of Daniel 9.) 2: The futurist method utterly fails to prepare believers for the resumption of the persecution of Jesus’ followers that plagued Europe for more than a thousand years.
While I agree that the sixteenth century reformers’ eschatology was incomplete, that is not to say it was wrong.
To refer to the puritans (or even many of them) as post-millennial is misleading. Is anyone aware of anyone who promoted post-millennialism before Johnathan Edwards did that in the eighteenth century? I’m not. By that time, it seems most or all of the puritans were calling themselves congregationalists.
If there is anybody with evidence contrary to what I’ve written here, please let me know.
Reformed Amillenialism says Christ reigns now as prophet priest and king and will come back to judge the world and consummate His kingdom at the end
well it was because pre-mill dispensationalism was not invented yet. duh
but really when you believe that Rev was written in 90 and NOT mid 60s discussing the fall of Jerusalem and the temple as a whole you are off to the wrong path. I used to believe pre mill disspy, but I had not actually studied the others.
If you study ALL THE SIDES from those SCHOLARS and still believe pre-mill disspy, then more power to you.
The truth doesn't need to be invented, only the labels and terms were "invented" truth is truth.
Your comment betrays your ignorance. Ever heard of Ireneas? Or do you disregard all early church founders in the first century.
@@christophercunningham5434 I have heard of Ireneas. Do you have citation of him teaching the pre-mill rapture dispensational view?
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 Well then why was pre and post millenial teaching created ?
That's OK as MacArthur has it wrong too. Christian's need to get it in their heads there is no pre-tribulation.
Is has to be read into Scripture as it's just not there. The rapture, if you must call it that, is the Second Coming of Christ.
The rapture (catching up of the saints) is mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, this triggers the day of the Lord (tribulation) as Paul moves into chapter 5 sudden destruction comes upon those in darkness, not on those who are walking in the light. Paul said back in chapter 1 "serve the living and true God, and wait for... Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come."
It’s okay Mark. The Lord Jesus Christ will straighten out your understanding.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 1 Thes 4 can just as easily be applied to the 2nd coming.
The reason I no longer hold to pre mill disspy (not to be confused with HISTORIC pre-mill, which has no rapture either) Is because I really started to read the bible in the context of THEN. Not my own feelings and experiences NOW. We all claim that we are doing that, but clearly we're not all doing it. Someone is wrong. We can't all be right.
Further the world is FAR FAR FAR better in nearly every way than it was 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago, 500 years ago etc. More education, more clean water, more food, more hospitals, schools, ministries, and most of all followers of Jesus. After all the KINGDOM OF GOD is like a mustard seed that grows. Matt 28 says plainly we are to teach the nations and instruct them. Not hide and have a pessimist view. This pessimist view is the main reason we are in this stupid culture mess to begin with.
We must have a God's eye view of 1000s of years, not a man's view of mere decades. Christ is LORD NOW. He is King now. If he's not, then WHO IS?
I am deeply thankful for JMac as I attended and got saved at a church his father Jack started and pastored for years there in Burbank CA. HOWEVER When I was disspy, there was taught many fearful and negative things, inadvertently. But nevertheless still there. Further they could not get around the 2 ways of salvation. one for gentiles and one for jews. Again not directly taught, but it's by implication it's taught.
Anyway, I deeply and humbly without reservation totally disagree
@@Richardcontramundum we believe the Bible. Israel means Israel and the New Testament Church is the New Testament Church. They are not the same. Also 1,000 years means 1,000 years. It does not mean "not a 1,000 years" and Israel does not mean "the church" that is a bad way to interpret Scripture to mean the opposite of what it says. Jesus returns before the Kingdom in both Matthew 24/25 and in Revelation 19/20 hence the return of Jesus is premillennial. Most end times Bible prophecy deals with Israel therefore the proper position is Dispensationalism. The bait and switch "Replacement Theology" makes God out to be an "Indian Giver".
@@Richardcontramundum Hey Richard. With all due respect my brother, I have to seriously disagree with you on this.
First off I think the scriptures are crystal clear that the pre millenial view is taught. It's funny about a year ago I was studying Dr. Bansen, Theonomy. Then saw how it leads to a post mil view of eschatology. A red flag went up. To make a long story short, after listening to JM 6 part series why every Calvinist should be premillenial and then began my study by Greg Harris, the Expositors handbook of the old testament and new testament I had to toss the Theonomy out the window.
This issue does not start in Revelation, it goes all the way back to Genesis with the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. This is where you get the proper view of the prophetic books, Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Revelation.
Without literal grammatical hermeneutic you can figurative away even the diety of Christ and the resurrection.
Revelation 20. The 1000 years, used 6 times , and in every context it is literal.
And to say God is finished with Israel and the church is now Israel is completely foreign to scripture.
Read Romans chapters 9, 10, and especially 11, which puts an end to the false teaching of replacement theology.
and the premillenial view does not teach 2 ways of salvation. It's clear that salvation for all people is by faith alone in Christ alone for Jew and Gentiles like. But there are two peoples of God. The Jews were given the eternal promises of God in the Abrahamic covenant, which many of those promises have yet to be fulfilled.
You say the rapture is nowhere taught in scripture. Well the word rapture is not in the bible, but the teaching most certainly is.
1 Thessalonians 4: 16-18. There's no reason to spiritualize away meeting theord in the air. In Revelation when Jesus returns at His second coming He comes back with His saints and Angel's. Then His foot will touch the Mt of olives. It's clear in the rapture He doesn't decend to earth. Paul even tells his fellow Christians to comfort one another concerning this event.
1 Thessalonians 5 now depicts the day of the Lord which is judgment on evil. Paul goes on to tell them and us that God did not appoint us to wrath, and again to comfort one another.
And the post millenial view that things are getting better and we're going to usher In the millennium and then Jesus returns is almost laughable.
Paul even tells us in 2 Thessalonians 2 that a great apostasy is coming in the end times not a great revival.
And is Jesus Lord over all right now? Yes, of course. God is sovereign and in His sovereignty He has chosen for these things to happen to take place.
Since Adam and Eve God has allowed satan to reek havoc in the world. Was God not sovereign since the beginning? was He notord when He allowed and allows all this destruction by satan? Of course.
Have you noticed the recent increase of reformed and post millennial theology? Interesting timing. Since the world seems to be spiraling to one world government and the church is growing greatly an apostasy. 2 Peter 3, 3-5
Yes. If Christ is coming soon no doubt the devil would want to divert people's attention away from that.
100%, I share with DW that we’ve just encountered this extreme camp. This past week we were told to repent 🧐
@@Lin-gv3fi stay strong in the faith brother.
@@Lin-gv3fi send them to our channel lol
@@twj2002 Thanks! Can you pray we can find a sound church here in FL? PS - I’m a girl 😃 But not a feminist so you can call me “brother” in the faith. Lol
The most clear and concise explanation I’ve heard, by far!
Um no. He literally explain the postmil position utterly wrong. It was borderline lying.
Michael J Vlack does a good comparison between post-millenialism, amillenialism and Dispensational Pre-millenialism.
He also does comparisons between different Pre-millenial models.
Bible Sojourner also tackles this subject very well.
Dr Ken Johnson does some presentations on The End Times and The Early Church Fathers.
I think the only question i have that hasnt been answered yet is why do we feel we have to apoly it to the 21st century church when clearly it was written to the first century church? Am i saying we cant learn anything from the Bible since it isnt directed to us? No. But why do we feel so important that we feel the prophecies could maybe not be directed at us but rather during the 1st century? Also, im not saying all prophecies were fulfilled either. If anyone wants to answer, please do so.
Also, as an afterthought, if you go to Isaiah 65, one of the chpters pre mil points to in regards to end times, why are there still people dying and babies being born if its referencing to the New Heavens and New Earth? Just a question.
I'm sorry this is an old post . Revelation is directed at the first century church but also it's for the 21st century church. The time of the Gentiles has not closed yet and it has to close because Daniel 9:24 states that that there are 490 years of judgement of the Jews to be paid back and only 483 years has been paid. Those last 7 years are tribulation/ gr. tribulation. Zechariah 12-14 speaks also of the tribulation of the Jews, this is going to be a terrible time for everyone. Those last seven years are also the judgement of the world for rejection of Messiah.
The rapture (1 Thess. 4) takes the Jew or Gentile covered in the blood out of the way so God can put His full focus on Israel to bring them into the kingdom and to judge the world. Post mil. flies in the face of everything said in the bible about all things becoming completely evil before the end. 2 Thess. 2 :7 for the mystery of lawlessness is already at hand and He who now restrains must be taken out of the way 2:8 Then the lawless one is revealed.
The He is the Holy Spirit which lives in all Jews and Gentiles washed in the blood, we go then all hell breaks loose.
There is a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous, it's just not at the same time.
Ours is first after the rapture for judgement of the crowns 1 Peter 4:17 and 5:4 , 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and 2 Corinthians 5. Revelation 20:5 The rest of the dead comes to life after the 1000 years , that's unbelievers. Verse 12 says the dead stands before the white throne , a believer is made alive in Christ and never dies(in spirit).
I recommend reading a book called revealing Revelation by Amir Tsarfati a Messianic Jew, it's really instructive. Also his friend Pastor Jack Hibbs out of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills ,California is excellent for this topic. His church is a discipleship church. He has tons of teachings on end times. Looking around the world you can know that things are not getting better , Post Mil. is pie in the sky stuff that sounds like Bill Johnson's teachings out of Bethel in Redding California which is N.A.R and totally false.
What really matters in the end? Being covered in the blood! Hope this helps you.
PRETERISTS take away from the words of the book of prophecy.
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
I love Johnny Mac but I would disagree that all postmillennialist believe that things are going to get better (NAR).
True. My view is a combination of post -trib, post millenial antichrist system rising soon
His view of Postmil is very wrong. Not one who holds to the position of Postmillennialism, such as myself, would say we hand anything to Christ. The church are the feet and hands of Christ and it is through the Gospel that people change. It is soley the power of Christ and the Gospel that transforms the world. Has nothing to do with man whatsoever. To say otherwise is completely false and a grevious misrepresentation of the view.
Let us keep in mind that Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 states that Jesus rules in the midst of His enemies, puts all His enemies under His feet, and then defeats death at the end.
To believe in a rapture of the Church makes the chronology of 1 Cor.15 backwards. That death is defeated first since there are many Christians who have since returned to the dust of the earth and have died, they are raised from death, conquering death and then all His enemies are put under His feet. Sorry but that is not what Scripture teachers.
The mountain grows and grows and the world flourishes through the transformation of the Gospel whereby the nations stream up to His mountain and cry out for His Law.
Thanks for sharing, we’ve recently been exposed to men in a church who said we need to repent because we’re not closely studying and following the reformers.
Amen. Tell them Watchdog said we need to follow Jesus and the Bible not the Reformers.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 Ok I will 😃
My pastor is (was my pastor) an AMil believer and he believes that Israel is replaced by the church. Very rude about it. There’s another guy on TH-cam which is echoing the same thing his name is Ray his channel is ‘(something) dark web’
Speaking on antisemetic and anti Zionism. Yet they can’t explain Romans 11.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454
Because you follow Jesus that you and your clique of futurists and fortunetellers have turned into a LIAR ?
Regarding recovering certain areas of doctrine like eschatology he said, "they hadn't quite gotten to that yet," but Calvin did talk about hopeful eschatology without having written a commentary on Revelation and the Puritans did give biblical reasons for why they overwhelmingly held to hopeful eschatology. I understand that in a Q&A session it is not practical to present the arguments for an opposing viewpoint then explain why that argument is wrong. What JM did was to give an oversimplified and somewhat erroneous generalization of the opposing viewpoint, then claimed that those who "successfully hold/held to it" have to "not believe what the bible says," and then regarding the Puritans' understanding he claimed "they hadn't quite gotten to that."
If by that he means not all the presuppositions which need to be affirmed for one to hold his novel view of eschatology were held by anyone at the time of the Puritans or before, I agree. While there have been historic premil believers who held various views on the timing of a "rapture" in regard to the tribulation and coming of Christ to establish an earthly kingdom and there have been various opinions on the future of national, ethnic Israel (including by some postmil believers,) who ever in church history before the 1800s held all the presuppositions required by premillennial dispensationalism like JM holds to?
Interesting. Something I struggle with as a Calvinist is like- minded individuals constantly citing the reformers on all issues, which causes me to think "well, they were clearly intelligent men, so who am I to disagree with them?" This helps me look at things from a different angle. Thanks for the post.
I would recommend “Victory in Christ” by the late Greg Bahnsen as a refutation of Brother MacArthur’s position.
Those guys are out to lunch.
What gets me about Post mills are their belief that the world is going to finally get better and better until Christ can return. It’s almost like they forgot one of the core tenets of total depravity. How many times in the history of man has God reset things and mans sinfulness mess things up. Garden of Eden, Noah’s flood, freedom from the pharaoh. How many times was Israel Blessed by God they fell away he judged them he restores them, and the cycle goes on. One Calvinist even said the Constantine’s rule in the Roman empire was a great example of a Christian society, and yet it fell. And then he said the founding of America was another Christian society, I agree the vast majority of the founding of America were Christians what better opportunity for a Christian society to flourish, and yet it’s falling into apostasy as we speak
What makes Calvinists think anything in the future will be different?
@@twj2002 to some degree they are stuck in following the Reformers and mans tradition over Scripture.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 I think it’s more than tradition, I think it’s Calvins interpretation of scripture. I was asked by a Calvinist what are the paradoxes in the scripture, I could only think of two, the Trinity and Jesus being 100% man and 100% God. He proceeded to tell me several other paradoxes election versus man’s free will. Got sovereignty and evil in the world. Other than the Trinity in Jesus incarnation, I don’t see any paradox is in the scripture. It is so harmonious, but when Calvinism is superimposed on scripture, then you have so many contradictions that you have to explain to unbelievers. Just the contradictions in the tulip. Very frustrating. That’s why I believe that the rise of Calvinism in the end times is a sign of the apostasy.
Thanks again for your channel. I really appreciate it.
Post-Mills are a type of cult. A reformed version of the NAR
A novel Judeo-centric dispensational movement is perhaps the greatest and most subtle deception of our own time. ✔️
The confusion about eschatology is mostly people just not reading or understanding the bible. Premil is clearly what the bible is telling us for anyone who studies and understand the bible. It's literally spelled out in the text.
I agree, although I think MacArthur gets a few details wrong, but I dont think anyone understands eschatology perfectly.
I have been preaching since 1980 and would have agreed with your statement until about 3 years ago. I have rejected the premil view.
@@eflint1 Then you have been led astray
@@eflint1lol stopped reading your Bible?
A different view of eschatology than what you adhere to is apostasy?
The reformers not established sound doctrine? But it's so clear that during the apostolic age the church has established its doctrine- and even during the post reformation, there comes the creeds and confession the result of fighting heresies. God has established His truths.
The question that must be asked is "what is more powerful, the fall of Adam or resurrection of Jesus" and I think your eschatology will make sense.
Apocalyptic literature is filled with imagery. Apocalyptic literature must be interpreted as apocalyptic literature. Throughout history there have been several millenial stories. It would be like saying someone missed it a mile, to say he doesn't know what he is talking about. Matthew 24:36-41 teaches that like in the days of Noah so will Jesus return. During the days of Noah the righteous were left and the unrighteous left. In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 the word air is just above the surface of the air which would be like throwing a ball in the air.
It all depends on whether the revelation was written before 70AD or in 96AD. If before, then the revelation had already started, if after then it wasn't part of the great commission.
I spoke to the teaching pastor at a reformed baptist church in town and we somehow got on the topic of eschatology and his exact words were this, “Chris, I don’t know anything about eschatology except what I have been told by the senior pastor so I don’t really have a biblical reason for being post trib.”
That was shocking, I was under the impression
that this held to the highest standards of Bible teaching and yet here is the teaching pastor straight up telling me his convictions are based upon what a pastor told him and not the Word of God. I handed him my outline I made during my Revelation study I did on Sunday nights and the next week he told me, “this really seems to be a lot more clearer and easier to follow within Scripture and I do believe the Bible is clear about the rapture being before the tribulation.”
Amen!!!
This reallly annoys me I’ve had the same experience with all pastors I’ve asked. They can’t explain parts of the rest of the Bible let alone just end times!
@ Christopher Cunningham
Since you love throwing all prophetic texts into the most remote future possible , can you please tell us all why in Revelation 18:22 it is said that the sound of the MILLSTONE will not be heard again in fallen Babylon ? Wow , millstones are such modern activities !
Trap question isn't it ?
I assume we should also read tanks and nucleor weapons in Ezekiel 38 and televisions and modern media in Revelation 13 , right ?
@@framboise595 what are you talking about ma’am? You made several accusations and assumptions based upon nothing than your own anger and resentment. Might I encourage you to learn from your husband in silence at home and refrain from accusing the brethren with baseless assumptions. Anyways, I am not sure what you’re talking about tanks and what not in Ezekiel but I can say that it is clear to see that you have some serious anger issues if you’re so upset that you would accuse an expository preacher. But hey, I’m just going off your words and implications, perhaps you’re mistaking me for someone else.
@@framboise595 oh wow, I just read several of your other comments to other people. You have a lot of anger and hate coming from your words. Words are a clear indication of someone’s heart. All that anger and hate towards other believers is a direct contradiction to 1John. Get some help ma’am, that much anger and hatred is bad for your soul and makes you sound like a mean hateful woman.
@@christophercunningham5434
Why don't you want to answer my trap question about the millstone ?
Serious anger issues ? Sure , when I see people fawning over popular pastors and swallowing what they say without checking anything in the Bible.
Because it can be eschatology or anything else , that's why it serious to take for granted everything a preacher says.
Mac Arthur and so many others have led us astray : never an in-depth study of the book of Revelation , a twisting of the olivet discourse to project all that Jesus said would happen in their generation into the most remote future possible.
But when you take time to read what is written , you see little details that don't match at all with what they say and what they force us to believe .
Don't worry , I do learn from my husband but when when I pointed out these little details relating to antiquity - (like the millstone , the sword , the women grinding at the mill at Christ's coming on the clouds ) and NOT to our modern world - he started to wonder.
He had not noticed them . I had not either until recently when I started to seriously question all of that .
When does Matthew 21:43 happen then?
Are the chronological markers in Revelation unambiguous? Especially given it's Apocalyptic genre and Johns love of multiple meanings? Or could it describe simultaneous overlapping recapitulating events? The "straightforward" reading seems more forced upon the grammar to me and the amil position less tortured exegesis.
You can be involved in the culture war, standing for truth and righteousness, without having anything to do with postmillenialism.
In the chronology he gave, he conveniently jumps over Satan being loose and attempting to do war.
It's at the end of the millennial period
@@rhondahart2416the question is who is left to rebel
@@starsareangels7 the nations that went into the millennial period from Matthew 25.
He forgot to mention the coming Antichrist and false prophet as well
To quote John MacArthur: “Big yikes!”
Why is historical premill often left out of these? I am not a Dispensationalist, but I do believe in a future post-trib, pre-mil rapture. lean towards Replacement theology, or that the gentile believers have been grafted into Israel.
Love MacArthur but i just flat out disagree with him. Still cant help but love the guy.
What do you disagree with?
The further we go away from Catholicism the more we reform Christianity in all points and return to just what the Bible teaches instead of what a denomination hierarchy teaches
Salvation points
Sanctification points
Ecclesiology points
Eschatology points
So yes, it took a couple centuries to reform further and further and get closer back to the Bible
The further you get away from Catholicism, the further you get away from Christ and the truth he gave us.
If your goal is to go as far from the church of Rome as you can, well... they are theists, so you should become an atheist.
The goal of Christian reform shouldn't be to be as different from something as possible, it should be to accord with scripture. Where Rome gets it right, you shouldnt hesitate to agree (and they get a lot right), and where they err (and they err a lot and in important ways) we should oppose them. Opposing Rome just for opposition sake is foolish.
You Catholics (and the Orthodox) are the ones drifted away. The Protestant Reformation was meant to reset the church and return to the teachings of Christ.
So Christ and the Church fails? The Gospel fails and one of the two people of God need to be saved?
many pastors simply follow tradition and what they were told rather than caring enough to study this for themselves. there is also denominational pressures and politics to conform. i got chased out of a church and scapegoated by a "reformed" elder who found out i was dispensational.
The return of Christ is quite clearly before the millennial kingdom.
No it is not. Please read Revelation 20 carefully...nowhere is the throne on earth. Psalm 110 Christ is seated on his throne at the RIGHT HAND OF GOD...ruling and reigning until His enemies become His footstool!
Isaiah 9:7: “ He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom…”
Was David’s throne in Heaven? Was David’s kingdom in Heaven?
Luke 1:31-32. II Samuel 7:12-13. Psalm 89:3-4 & 132:11.
Now take all of that and pair it together with Revelation 20:4.
I remember when I used to take MacArthur's teachings as truth. That was before I decided to read through Revelation from beginning to end. To my shock, it wasn't chronological like John teaches. Chapter after chapter, the history of the Church kept being retold, and the Return of Christ kept reoccurring, and the harvest and the judgment of men kept repeating, and the 7th Trumpet kept blowing, and the saints kept showing up in heaven over and over again. The Apostle tells the story of the history of the church to the Return of Jesus, to the resurrection, to the eternal Kingdom, seven times, from seven different angles, for instance:
Rev Chapter 10, Christ returns as the 7th trumpet sounds, the Church is resurrected.
Rev 11:15 The 7th trumpet sounds, the Saints are resurrected again, and the nations of the world are the Lord's forever - not for 1000 years.
Rev 14:14-20 The second Coming of Jesus, and the resurrection of all the dead (just and unjust) followed by the judgment.
Rev 20 is the general resurrection of both just and unjust, and the judgment of the saints and the wicked.
How is it possible, MacArthur keeps teaching the Book is chronological telling one story from beginning to end? False teacher. I don't believe he's even read it.
Evangelicals differ on their interpretation of this book, nobody with any credibility thinks a different view of Revelation makes you a false teacher, the only heretical view is full preterism.
Correct! Johnnymac teaches on an incorrect comic book level.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 If Satan is kicked out of heaven long after John says the Church was Raptured, then the Book is not Chronological. Have you read it?
@@TalkingOutOfSchool no issues there and yes of course. Some chapters are parenthetical.
The age to come Revelation is chronological but it is just telling us what will happen more than once a d from a different point of view.
I love MacArthur and watch his sermons daily however I couldn't help but notice he forgot to mention where the Antichrist, Beast and false prophet come into play during the tribulation because Scripture is clear the Antichrist will show up before the return of Christ which makes sense since the Antichrist himself is going to claim to be Christ/ God himself in order to decieve as many as possible
If we look at an isolated view of Revelation, ignoring how OT prophets and Jesus talked about the post-Messiah world, you end up a premillennialist.
I know he had a short time to answer the question, but I don't think he gave full or fair understanding of amillennialism or postmillennialism and he didn't mention historic premillennialism. Dispensationalism is held by many excellent scholars, but most biblical scholars don't hold to it. Dispensationalism is popular in the U.S., but the U.S. is not the final arbiter. The Bible, re: eschatology is difficult.
Jesus comes back 2x according to MacArthur
Amilleniallism doesn't reject the millennium, they believe the millennium is now
Jesus is ruling and reigning from Heaven through his Church through the hearts of his people. The Millennium is the time period between the 1
& 2 comings of Jesus. None of the NT authors mention a literal 1000yrs and they all understood when Jesus comes back its to judge his enemies and to usher in his eternal reign
John mentions A thousand years six times and one chapter he thought it was literal
I am a Dispensational Pre Trib Calvinist! Very rare it seems...!
Same. My whole church is Amil, and they make some valid points but from my own readjng of scripture, Pre-Mil Dispensational seems most likely.
@@sanders194539 Revelation is just too clear to me to adopt any other view. I don't know how you can get 70AD, Post Mill, Amill or any other view that overly symbolizes.
Like what McArthur points here, Revelation is in order.
You don’t know how Christian’s could arrive to amill? The same way they arrive to salvation according to reformed theology… the same way anything happens in Calvinism: they’re predetermined by God in such a way that any other possibility is nonexistent…
There’s a man who divorced his wife for for another woman. He is Calvinist, and said that God was in it because God predetermined the new marriage would happen; it was meant to be.
Somehow, other Calvinists would say he’s wrong for doing what God determined he would do, as if he could’ve chosen to resist God as they interpret Romans 9 often. Yet somehow, people are bad for doing what God would have them do. In other words, the man, given Calvinism, is right in saying God determined it, but still somehow morally wrong and responsible?
Most Calvinists aren’t very consistent with their theology in this area, because they can’t to be taken seriously. Really, Calvinism makes things very simple: what shall be is meant to be.
I’m baffled at those who claim to be Calvinist but display cognitive dissonance when they seem to suggest people have a higher element of freedom of will than what Calvinism allows….
Calvinism is…. not true because men say it is…. Even biblical men can be gravely wrong.
If Calvinism WERE true, you really have no logical grounds for evangelism because to not evangelize would literally be God’s choice for you.
YES you could say, “God tells us to”, and this is exactly the reason Calvinists argue for evangelism. But again, the strange thing is that if you do or don’t evangelize is based on God’s choice of whether you will or not. It’s a paradox, like Jesus in the gospels telling people to repent when they literally can’t, because only He can cause them to repent.
Calvinism is truly self-defeating, and so many gobble it up because of Sproul, MacArthur, Lawson and the others whom they idolize. The icing on this cake is this? You can’t tell me anything to change my mind, because I don’t possess the ability to, unless God has determined I change my mind. In fact, a Calvinist could say that my comment was predetermined for you to see ;) ❤
@@tomtemple69 Yeah there's a reason I didn't respond to that guy. Complete distortions like that guy's is not worth time, at least in most cases.
The straightforward reading of the text is hard to escape! 📖
Read rev 20:5-6 … that is straight forward or no? No interpretation needed
@@Blytheface John 18:36
@@smartsimplefit Its remarkable how some people will take one single verse and apply it in a way it to cancel out multiple entire books of the Bible with out even a hint of suspicion they just might be misinterpreting the single verse over the rest of the Bible. Pointing to that verse in the this context is a prefect example of that. The fact that we have (just as one example) the entire book of Revelation that lays out how the powers and rulers of this world are put down and cast into hell, and then Christ reigns physically on the earth for 1000 years after the old world system is put down should give a person some clue that its might just be a misapplication of John 18:36 to say Jesus never physically reigns on the earth in a 1000 year kingdom.
@@ExperienceEric Yeah, there’s no easy way around it. Plus Revelation 7 debunks both pre trib rapture and post millennial theories. The great multitude in heaven is from all over the world and comes out of the great tribulation. A. The time period of the early church wouldn’t allow for such a diverse and large multitude, and if the rapture was before the tribulation it wouldn’t say they came out of it.
@@smartsimplefit How in the world does Revelation 7 debunk a pre trib rapture? That doesn't really make any sense. You don't seem to grasp that is there is a pre trib rapture that still means that a massive multiple of people all across the earth will come to Christ in the tribulation, after the rapture.
Pre trib 101 says that there will be a massive number of tribulation saints, which lines up word for word with Revelation 7.
Glad for his conviction on this, as post mill and covenentalism grow as we get closer to the end. I think this explanation is needed for the remnant.
OK then what about the very first verse of Revelation 'the things that must soon take place'. Soon...not thousands of years in the future.
See also
Rev 1:3
Rev 22:6-7
Rev 22:10
Rev 22:12
Rev 22:20
Sounds like everything was about to happen when John wrote Revelation.
JMac has a supernatural gift of radically misrepresenting others' views.
It's so intellectually dishonest to speak of eschatology and only refer to the book of Revelation, what happened to the old Testament?
So, when God told Adam that the day he ate the fruit he would die, did God mean that literally?
@microatmospheremicrosend hmm...does that include you, too?
1peter 3:8 a day to the Lord is a thousand years
@@rhondahart2416 does that include the days of creation?
@@sbag11 Why not? But I get your point!😁
Yes Adam died, but it was spiritual death first, then physical death many centuries after. Look at the change in the relationship between all those involved in the fall of man before and after sin. Prior to the fall, it was total harmony, like a beautiful song, each note resounding together, God himself being the melody note.After sin, all of the notes were in discord and disorder. That beautiful harmony was gone and the melody was hidden by the confusion of those other discordant notes. That which was once restful and attractive became vexing and annoying. Not only was the harmony lost, but the melody itself was lost.
The Creator, who once was feared, loved, and admired, was after the fall exchanged and abandoned for self. Pride ruled the mind and judgment, lust ruled the heart, and selfishness became the rule of life. Just as the serpent had promises, they became their own gods, but they had to believe a lie, and disobey the true God to acquire self-godhood. Man became, just like the serpent, in the new state, self-dependant, self-sufficient, self-centered, self-conceited, self-determining, self-justifying, etc. Man became alive to self, but dead to God.
But praise be to God that in the new-birth he restores that original order and state to an even greater level of harmony and beauty; we are made alive unto God, but dead to the world through Jesus Christ. The song is now within our heart, where the serpent can never enter. The melody note is Christ in us
Absolute explanation
More of an Amillennial guy myself.
I am an independent fundamental pre-millennial missionary reformed baptist.
just be a follower of Christ
@@Richardcontramundum obviously. I am only able to assume that what I said went way over your head. Next time you’re looking for a church just go to any place that claims to be a place people for “just followers of Christ” and see if doctrinal errors show up. I am of course only a follower of Christ, and because of that I hold doctrine and theology in very high regard. When you actually have a high view of Scripture and sound doctrine you will then see the need for not just going to any church that claims to be simple followers of Christ. Every Pentecostal church that is a cesspool of blasphemies and demonic doctrines will tell you that they agree with you and everyone should “just be a follower of Christ.”
Wow !!!
I am the same way. Many would label me as ultra-conservative Calvinist who is dispensational pre-mil. But I just believe the Bible. On a side note, 1 Corinthians 11 is clear, women should wear a head covering during prayer, but in this modern age no one does it. We have to be careful following what the trend is, and just follow the Bible regardless of opposition.
Postmil here. Johnny Mac completely skips over all the scriptural language of the events in revelations that were to come SOON. Also the olivet discourse is clearly about the destruction of the temple by 70AD. He didn’t mention any of the things that postmil explains.
Soon can mean quickly, as in when it happens its going to happen fast. Comes upon us quickly and unexpectedly as a thief in the night. Clearly Jesus did not return in the 1st Century. Preterism is false doctrine.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 “And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must SOON take place.””
Revelation 22:6
“And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.”
Revelation 22:10 ESV
‘Soon’ doesn’t mean ‘when we least expect it’ in this context. It means the time is near.
*Jesus did come in the form of judgement on Israel in the destruction of the temple, tribulation and persecution all occurred then.
Just consider maybe watching some videos presenting evidence for postmil/preterism with an open mind and see what you may find.
RC Sproul has very good lectures on ‘the last days according to Jesus’ on TH-cam.
No one saw the 'truth' until J.N. Darby invented it? Are we really to interpret the Word of God by what we see around us? Is that how Abraham believed God? How many peoples of God are there? Does God have two different programs, or one program through the ages, developing from Israel, and then fulfillment through Christ to the nations? Have we really improved upon the Puritans, or are they examples to us?
Great points Rich!
It is also evident that Scripture interprets Scripture. And I am sure that all would agree with that assertion.
When the Church or any man usurps the authority over the Word and assumes the position and prerogitve of the Holy Spirit, that is why we have so many Popes in the world, even though they do go by that name. Every unbiblical error begins with that principle of
"I know more than you know!"
See 1 Corinthians 8:2
In the parable of the wheat and the tares, Jesus Christ identifies the time, but not the day, when that event will take place, that is, at the end of the world.
And who are they who are taken away first, the tares, not the wheat...
And the tares are burned and destroyed, while the wheat is harvested.
Yes - how can people who look to the Bible for their faith, truth and consolation …then look at the world and throw their hands up in the air and say it ain’t happening, it’s just too bad out there and God can’t possibly be victorious even though the Bible says he will be over and over again. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.“
Hebrews 11:1 ESV
How many times is he going to misrepresent postmillenialism?
"You have to say it doesn't mean what it says"
So if you don't agree the the millennium is a literal one thousand years, you have to say it (revelation) doesn't mean what it says!
In Revelation 19:15 does Jesus really, literally, have a sword coming out of his mouth?
Because, if you don't say that its a literal sword, you have to say it doesn't mean what it says!
Its a genuine question.
Symbolism should be obvious just like when you read it in the newspaper or in day to day speech. When 1,000 years is repeated 6 times in one chapter (ch 20) it emphasizes that it should be taken literally. No reason to think otherwise based on the context. The sword in the mouth is obviously symbolism.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 thank you for taking the time to answer. But claiming repetition = literal, is not how you would consistently interpret other chapters in Revelation, for example, in Rev 5, Jesus is mentioned as the "lamb" 5 times in one chapter, I doubt you would interpret Jesus as being a literal lamb!
Considering the writing style of Revelation we must be careful. I can see Jesus being described as a lamb outside Revelation, so this is clearly symbolic (interpreting scripture with scripture) but have we any grounds to do the same with the 1000 years?
@@johnoconnell6344 we know Jesus isn't an animal, so its apples and oranges. The concept of the Kingdom is all thru the New Testament, Jesus told us to pray "Thy Kingdom Come" and in chapter 20 of the Revelation of Jesus Christ it says the Kingdom is here on earth and lasts for 1,000 years yet people interpret it to mean the exact opposite, that its not here on earth and it doesn't mean 1,000 years. The burden of proof is on them.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454
"You have to say it doesn't mean what it says"
When Jesus says "this IS my body" that is what he meant. Time to start confessing what Jesus said
@@ronv7995 Hello Ronv, hope you are well. Please don't take my reply out of our overall conversation. I understand symbolism, but my overall point was, why are so many people hung up on a literal one thousand years, when no one (no matter what millennial view) holds that all of Revelation is literal.
Thanks.
Rev 20:7-9 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them. With the pre-mil this happens with Christ and multitudes of glorified immortal saints on earth?
It seems even John MacArthur gets the historic view of Premil wrong. The historic view of premil.never taught a rapture of the church but they would go through tribulation. John is pushing his eschatological view on a view that never taught it. Dispensational Premil is only been around for the past 500 years if that.
Then what is 1 these. Chapter 4 about
@@rhondahart2416 It is not about the rapture but about hope. People were thinking that due to their friends and family members who died and believed will not be with them in heaven, Paul is simply giving them hope and assuring them that is not the case but that they will see each again when the Lord returns.
@@paulpowell6418 Caught-up= Rapturo= Rapture. Why would Paul talk about something that isn't going to happen? He could have just said what you just stated. I guess this is the view of people that think the bible is figurative, I firmly read the bible as literal. Have a blessed day.
@@rhondahart2416 Verse 17 cannot be taken out of the context of what Paul has spoken about previously. As I said it is a letter of hope and assurance of those who have died and those who are alive seeing each other again in heaven when the Lord returns.
@@paulpowell6418 well one of us is going to be surprised😁
John Mac is a VERY strange mix of Calvinism, Baptist and Dispensationalists. I find him confused, and inconsistent. He quotes a verse. From Revelation chapter one but ignores the next verse. “For the time is at hand” I am constantly mystified as to how Dispensationalists are so locked in to their view that they cannot see any other.
He just interprets the Bible literally and doesn't follow some manmade system. Sorry he doesn't fit in your denominational box.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 with respect, interpreting the Bible ‘literally” is not always consistent with the eternal purposes of God. For instance, there are presuppositions that are made both by dispensationalists, and covenant theologians which are contradictory to each other, and McArthur mixes them up. It’s not a simple excuse to say he “interprets the Bible literally” that is actually naive. Hers an example: like all dispensationalists he says that chapter 4 of revelation begins with “come up hither” and this means its future and then the church is gone to heaven in a supposed rapture. The scripture doesn’t say that at all! He is presenting doctrine built on presupposition not on literal reading.
I don’t know how any man can speak with any authority on eschatology. I will just wait and see what happens.
Yes but since I gave up tv this is my new fun watching Christians try and figure all this out. Yes all we need to do day to day is keep our eyes on Him. I’m trying to learn this for personal enjoyment . I don’t know if I’m pre or post yet
@@RichardTavilla I don’t know how anyone can say they’re either. I’m just going to wait and see.
That is the WORST eschatological misreading of revelation.
Ill demonstrate…
Matthew 24:37-40
For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [38] For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, [39] and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [40] Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left.
In the days of Noah who was taken???
If we keep in mind noah and the conjunction offered, “so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”…In the field who was taken???
To say evil taken in one and the saved in another, why would Jesus create 2 narratives??? Whats his thinking here???
@@HillbillyBlack the second mirrors the first as the whole NT mirrors, compliments or fulfills the OT?
@@mousehead2000 well, I’ve not seen the new testament introduced anything new from the old testament. Have you? For instance what did Jesus say about the law and the prophets?
But yes I would say that the conjunction referencing back to Noah is the indicator of what’s happening in the field with two people. The wicked are taken away in both cases
....the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. - I Thessalonians 4
Are there English Bible translations that translate the phrase "caught up" as "raptured"? If so, which ones?
I find it troubling that John Macarthur is mischaracterizing Amillenialist's belief about the 1,000 years. As intelligent as he is and as biblical as he is, this is shocking to me. Voddie Baucham explains the Amillenialist view very well. Baucham says your view of eschatology stems from how you interpret Revelation chapter 20; as either literal or symbolic. John tells us in chapter 1 that some of the language he is using is symbolic in nature. The Amillenialist believes that the 1,000 years is symbolic, not that it doesn't occur. The Amillenialist view is that the 1,000-year reign of Christ refers to the period between his first coming and his second coming. In other words, RIGHT NOW. Christ is reigning NOW. Also, John Macarthur KNOWS this. And yet, he still makes the claim that Amillenails believe there is no 1,000-year reign. So I'm not sure what the deal is here. By the way, I'm not fully convinced yet about either of the 3 positions on eschatology. I'm still reading the Bible and learning for myself. Just saying that Voddie Baucham made a compelling case for Amillenialism.
If Jesus is reigning right now you would never know, wickedness and immorality abounds and Paul calls Satan the god of this world and the prince of the power of the air. This is not the millennium and to say it is is to water down the Kingship of Jesus. During the actual Millennium Jesus is said to rule with a rod of iron. And the Bible says that it lasts for 1,000 years, the A-mil people say that is not true so YES, J-Mac is right.
@Doctrinal Watchdog (Active) so will he rule with a literal rod of iron? I find it odd that when 1,000 is used in other places in the Bible, it means a great number. But as soon as someone suggests that 1,000 is symbolic for a great number of years, that's not acceptable. Again, I have nothing against John Macarthur, I'm just pointing out that he may be a bit biased on this point. Also, over and over again in the Bible, we see the authors speaking of the current age, and the age to come. There's no mention of a third age in between until you get to Revelation. Either way, we know that Jesus is coming back. That is clear. Jesus said he would return like a thief in the night. So that's all we're going to be concerned about when that day comes lol
Mark Trafford Voddie is clearly wrong . Macarthur is much closer to the Truth
What a bunch of BS. Oh I'm right because I know I'm right
Well how do you know you are right that it is a bunch of BS?
Pretrib and postmillenialism are errors on the opposite end. The antichrist can't make war on the saints (Revelation 13) if everyone is raptured.
MacArthur is a great teacher and longtime faithful to the Word.
However I just flatly disagree on the eschatology. I believe Scripture is very clear that Christ is reigning on His throne now and has been since ascension and will continue until all His enemies are put under His feet. I Cor 15. The last enemy to be defeated is death itself which naturally means the final resurrection of both just and unjust occurs on the last day of history, not a 1000 years before for believers which if so would mean death would not be the very last enemy.
The great commission will succeed in history, i.e. all the nations will be discipled, the kingdom starts small and grows over a very long period of time.
Isaiah 9 tells us "of the INCREASE of His government and peace there will be no end"
So if regional or world wars really break out, God is sovereign and He uses that to bring judgements against wicked people and nations (like the USA and Nato), and redemptive judgements all to bring enemies under the feet of Christ, and more importantly prepare fields for great harvests.
So when a premil rapture doesn't occur, let's engage in the long term mission to be salt and light to millions of people who will be in great despair, without God or hope in a country collapsing, with war, famine, high inflation people will need to hear the good news of salvation. We might still be in the early to middle stage of the new covenant age so we need to be thinking about grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great..and so on. We are not in the "last days" as several NT verses state. That was about the last days of the old covenant which ended in 70AD with destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. That's why the NT spoke of being soon and imminent because they were talking about Jesus returning in judgement in the first century before that generation passed (Matthew 24:34). The words "Coming of the Lord" language doesn't only mean the second coming at end of history. Most often in NT it meant judgement on Jerusalem in 70AD.
I take hope from the last part of this verse where righteousness follows judgement. "For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return. Destruction is decreed, overflowing with righteousness. Isaiah 10:22
Although things look bleak in many areas right now, that in no way means we must be at the end. Almost every generation people have been saying that same thing that they were close to the end. Eventually all "swords" will give way to plowshares.
Can you explain Romans 11 for me than?? Because my pastor couldn’t.
Than answer;
Has the church replaced Israel? Or does God still have a plan for national Israel?
@@carly-0-7 Hi Carly. Sorry for rather long, but wanted to adequately address questions. No the church does not replace Israel. In fact the word "church" in Greek "ecclesia" which simply means a congregation or a called out assembly is not really anything new. What is new is the new covenant of Christ blood, replacing the old covenant, which always pointed to it anyway. The idea of church did not start in the NT, it was always there since before Moses. The congregation or "the camp" in OT was the church back then. God has always had a chosen assembly of people by faith. He chose to call out a specific people "Israel" from Abraham to be a light to other nations. He gave them the Word of God, His law to be that light, and to transmit the oracles of God for the world,. But they would also have to follow it.
But there is only one olive tree, the people of God, containing both Jews and gentiles. But many of Israel were cut off because of unbelief. In Romans 11, I believe Paul is saying that the gospel of the kingdom, the new covenant goes out to all the world and eventually will bring in fullness of all the nations of gentiles but during that time there continues to be a remnant of believing Jews being grafted in to the one olive tree. But Romans 11 also implies a time when Jews will be grafted back in mass as God "turns godlessness away from Jacob" as it were. When this happens it literally brings great blessings and shalom to all the earth, like "life from the dead" Paul says. No more war, life expectancy will increases greatly, animals will no longer be meat eating predators, kids will play by the cobra den, etc from Isaiah. Notice that Christ will still be reigning at the Father's right hand when this occurs. He doesn't return to earth bodily until resurrection on the last day when the last enemy of death itself is defeated, after the kingdom has been finished. I Cor. 15.
I don't know if there will be an actual national Israel as a political state in that time when they are grafted back in mass. There is no national Israel from a biblical identity anymore since it was abolished in 1st century after destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. Jews by blood have since been dispersed throughout the world.
I don't believe the 1948 founding of the current political state of Israel has much significance, certainly not in the way of dispensational pre-mil teaching. True Jews in terms of Abrahamic blood is probably quite difficult to determine for most all, if not almost impossible. All the tribes have been dispersed for millennia, documentation long since been destroyed.
Maybe the current political state of Israel will still be there when that time for grafting back in occurs, but that might be still many hundreds if not thousand or more years from now. Who knows if it will still be there. But God knows who true Jews still are, even if their blood has been mixed with gentiles for long time.
So conclusion. No replacement, no need for a national Israel as a political state, and there is only one olive tree with both Jews and gentiles. Finally, gentile fullness in that olive tree will then be accompanied with remnant of Jews giving way to fullness of Jews in the one olive tree.
I think this is why Paul concluded that part in Romans 11 with the doxology:
"Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen."
Romans 11:33-36
@@carly-0-7Could you explain Romans 11 from a premil perspective? I often hear premil express that the passage supports their position, but it seems to say exactly the opposite of what they seem to need it to say.
Christ defeated death at the cross 2000 years ago
The 24 elders is the whole church in heaven, really?
It doesn't have to be. Jesus told his disciples that in his Father's house there were many rooms. So why would they all be in the throne room?
What about Rev 20:5-6? If the dead aren’t raised until after the millennium and the dead are raised first then we are caught up in the air w them , isn’t the rapture after the millennium? That’s what rev 20 says specifically this is the first resurrection
Revelation 20:
And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Verse four begins to describe the first resurrection insofar as it talks about the saints reigning with Christ.
This is the same resurrection as 1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Your confusion is due to the wording of Revelation 20:5
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Where the verse says this is the first resurrection, it is referring back to the events of the previous verse.
Although verse five begins "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished", this would perhaps best be in brackets or as a footnote as the rest of the dead being brought back to life after the thousand years is the second resurrection.
@@geordiewishart1683 thanks for taking the time on that. 😊. I still read it the same way tho lol … so I get v5 this is the first resurrection refers to v4 and that is my point …it says the people beheaded for not taking the mark are raised to rule for the 1000 yrs; the rest of the dead are raised later, after the millennium. So, if the dead are raised first as incorruptible & then we meet them, that puts us after the millennium. Bc If there is a pretrib rapture & the dead are raised & we are raptured out. Then comes the tribulation & people get their heads cut off. But now v5 is impossible bc the dead have already been raised
I know this is an old post, sorry. The dead in revelation 20:5 are unbelievers. 1 Thess. chapter 4 talks about the rapture when we are whisked off to our judgement 1 Peter 4:17 and 5:4, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and 2. Corinthians 5. When verse 5 says says this is the first resurrection it's finishing what is being said in verses 1-4 . The white throne is the last judgement , verse 12 says the dead stand before the throne. We have eternal salvation which means we never die(in spirit). There is a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous Daniel 12:1-2. John 5:28,29 and Acts 24 but they are not at the same time.
@@Blytheface sorry I know this is an old post. The people that get their heads cut off are the saints in trib that have the mark on their head. This is not the church. The church wears linen , the saints wear white robes , two different groups. Revelation 20:5 are strictly unbelievers, verse 12 says the dead stand before the throne. Christ followers are always know as alive and never die(in the spirit). There is a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous it's just not at the same time. 1 Thess. 4 talks about the rapture then 1 Peter 4:17 and 5:4 says our judgement is first and for the crowns spoken of in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and 2 Corinthians 5.
As we look around our world we can certainly see that it's not getting better and Jesus told us in Mt. 24 it's not going to get better. It doesn't matter who thought this up or who of the early fathers believed this post millennialism it's pie in the sky. What really matters anyway , are you washed clean by the blood? If yes then you're good no matter what and then we follow Yeshua!
@@rhondahart2416 I’d re-read Rev 20:4-6… it clearly says those who are beheaded for not taking the mark are raised first, those are believers. the rest of the dead (everyone else) are raised after the millennium. To your point, in Thessalonians it says the dead will rise first… is referring to that time in Rev 20:4-6 . You can’t even have the Thessalonians without the rev 20 first
I see no secret rapture in the Bible. This is one area is disagree with MacArthur
I don't think uses the word "secret" he says people will obviously notice.
Before people could read and write they were taught orally. The same thing is done in about 2/3 of the world. Ahwile back I read about a few Christians who multiplied themselves by about 1,000 in less than five years. The Bible does not teach complex theologies. Jesus and Paul never taught complex theologies. Complex theologies are always the work of man. There is a video on TH-cam titled "7 Marks Of A Questionable Doctrinal System | Leighton Flowers | Calvinism | Soteriology 101" That video is an excellent video that shows 7 markers of a complex theology that nobody could follow without confusion.
AMEN
post trib pre mil (Historic Premillennialism)✝
Kenenth Gentry is probably the world renown expert on partial preterism and the post mil view with well over 2000 pages of the teaching on it. To think an 8:46 broad brush explanation nullifies all the points someone like Gentry explains, think again. Pro 18:13 If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. Pro 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Pre-Trib rapture? Not one single verse in the Bible that clearly indicates this. Yet there are verses, and in the proper exact context, tell you Christ returns to gather His elect AFTER the tribulation. Matt 24:29-31
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
How much clearer can it be?
Jesus was _not_ referring to the rapture in Matthew 24:31. He was, by his own confession, sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. So why would he talk about fleeing to the mountains in Judea, and praying that it would not occur during the sabbath and so on and then suddenly confuse them by referring, in plain language, to a rapture of a church that predominately consists of gentiles - something that was a mystery scheduled to be revealed decades later by Paul?
Although it doesn't have as much impact on us today, what Jesus was speaking about was something that the Jews would have _immediately_ recognized. Why? Partly because unlike gentiles living today these people were expecting a very important old testament prophecy to be fulfilled, and partly because throughout scripture idioms such as "the four winds", "four quarters", and the "four corners of the earth" were used to reference the four directions to which the lost sheep of Israel were scattered, and from which they were also to be regathered.
They were *SCATTERED* in four directions:
"I will bring against Elam the *four winds* from the four quarters of heaven; I will *scatter them to the four winds,* and there will not be a nation where Elam’s exiles do not go." (Jeremiah 49:36)
And
"Come! Come! Flee from the land of the north," declares the Lord, "for I have *scattered you to the four winds of heaven,"* declares the Lord." (Zechariah 2:6)
They will be *GATHERED* from four directions:
"Do not be afraid, for I am with you;
I will bring your children *from the east.*
and gather you *from the west.*
I will say *to the north,* ‘Give them up!’
and *to the south,* ‘Do not hold them back.’" (Isaiah 43:5-6)
And
"He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will *assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth."* (Isaiah 11:12)
When God sent the people of Israel into exile he promised them that after a period of time ALL the tribes of Israel would eventually be returned to their land.
"I will surely gather *_all of you,_* Jacob;
I will surely bring together the remnant of Israel.
I will bring them together like sheep in a pen,
like a flock in its pasture;
the place will throng with people." (Micah 2:12)
And
"Then they will know that I am the Lord their God, for though I sent them into exile among the nations, I will gather them to their own land, *not leaving any behind"* (Ezekiel 39:28)
Since this has not happened yet, we can only assume that it HAS to happen in the end times, otherwise God would be a liar.
And notice that when it does happen a "great trumpet" will be blown:
"And *in that day a great trumpet will sound.* Those who were perishing in Assyria and *those who were exiled in Egypt will come and worship the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem."* (Isaiah 27:13)
Now with that in mind, notice how the events that Jesus lists in Matthew 24:29-31 line up closely with what we see in Revelation 6:12-7:1-8 - in exactly the same sequence:
MATTHEW: The sun and moon turn dark (Matthew 24:29)
REVELATION: "The sun turns black ... the moon turns blood red"
(Revelation 6:12)
MATTHEW: The stars fall from the sky (Matthew 24:29)
REVELATION: ".. and the stars in the sky fell to earth, " (Revelation 6:13)
MATTHEW: All the tribes of the earth grieve (Matthew 24:30)
REVELATION: "Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?" (Revelation 6:13)
So if these things correspond to what Jesus said in Matthew 24:29-30 then the next event on the list we would expect to see in Revelation is the "gathering of the elect from the four winds." Right?
This my friend is _exactly_ what we see:
"After this I saw four angels standing at the *four corners of the earth,* holding back the *four winds of the earth* to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: "Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God." Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from *ALL the tribes of Israel."* (Revelation 7:1-4)
This is not the rapture, but the regathering of the lost tribes of Israel.
Why would Christ establish the millennium on earth for only 1000 years? Clearly it’s symbolic 😊
Why would Christ wait 4000 years before his first coming? Clearly, these things take time.
He said in the pre millennium period that after Jesus reigns for a thousand years there will be a new heaven and earth. That is totally false! Jesus Himself said heaven and earth shall pass away in Matthew chapter 24 after his coming. 2 Peter 3:10 confirms it.
"after Jesus reigns for a thousand years" IS after his coming.
I encourage Dr. John MacArthur to let Scripture speak for itself and let it shape his belief system on Eschatology and not the other way around, This is very important because he teaches others. Post Millennialism is a hard sell for him. But praise God because He is the God of the impossible! It just makes me wonder if Dr. MacArthur really believes in the power of the Gospel as much as the Apostle Paul did? 🤔
When I hear of Covenant believers say they want to dismantle dispensational theology, I wonder if it means taking on John MacArthur- or are we just going after a small back porch Baptist church that they want to take on because of their church sign?
Mcartur is in total ERROR
I am postmill. Dispensationalism is not biblical. This is one of the things I disagree with John about. Christ is King today, Christ ascended into heaven and was crowned. We don't have a loser ideology, Christ and his kingdom is already growing. Like a mustard seed. John basis his ideology on when they believe the book of revelation was written.
As a Molinist with nearly zero eschatological experience (initially came to Christianity through a pre-trib rapture watch-group) I genuinely don't know what to do with this area of theology. I have highly Calvinistic friends who only quote James White and Jeff Durbin for all of their views, and yet I experientially know the pre-trib rapture view WHILE ALSO currently not believing in the rapture, period. What would be some helpful contexts as far as eschatology goes that I may benefit from? help!!!
There is a book called "Victorious Eschatology". You need to read it. It will blow your mind. I personally hold to the post millenial view. The bible doesn't teach a rapture. It is clear that the bible teaches that Jesus will return once, at the end of the age, and when he does, He will gather his elect from the four corners of the Earth, and then He will destroy the wicked. Then will come the judgement. I am what you call a pessimistic post millenialist. I do believe that the gospel will reach the ends of the Earth, and we will see church growth. But I think we are at the point in history in which Satan has been let loose. He is using the Beast system(governments, education systems, media, banks, corporations, etc) to deceive the nations, create anti-christian sentiment, and enslave humanity. Technology is going to trap us in a system in which it will be hard to survive unless you submit to the antichrist
The rapture is 1 These. Chapter 4 . If it doesn't exist why bother to write about it ?
Because he isn't writing in 1 Thess 4 about the Rapture. He is talking about the Second Coming which is easily discernable in verse 15 when it talks about the "coming of the Lord" as the contextual event. The worry of the Thessalonian Christians was centered around previous believers who died before the Second Coming, and they were concerned the dead would miss it. The part you are referring to is 1 Thess 4:16-18.
However, this is an image 2,000 years ago that people were aware of. Kings used to go to war, and the city-watch would be on the lookout for their king's return from war. The King would arrive, but because they didn't have satellites or telescopes they couldn't tell if the army marching towards their city was their king's, or a foreign threat. The practice then was to send out your royal emissaries who upon realizing their triumphant king had returned would celebrate and walk him through the gates in a victorious return....which is what 1 Thess 4 is saying. At the Second Coming the believers will meet Jesus in the air to welcome him back as a conquering king. This is not a biblical text for the Rapture, nor does its context uphold it.@@rhondahart2416
@@Pastor_Chief if he isn't writing about the rapture why is the word used in verse 17?
The entire passage is talking rising up and leaving earth. The coming is Yeshua putting his feet down in Rev. 14:1 putting down the rebellion with the angels and us along with him. 1 Thess. 3:12 Jude 14,15, Zechariah 14:5, Rev 17:14.
Then why in verse 17 does it say Rapture? They are leaving earth. The coming is talking about putting His feet on earth and putting down the rebellion. These are two different things.
It's one of the fruitless arguments the devil uses to divide the body of Christ. It makes no difference who is right and who is wrong in this issue..
2 Timothy 2:23 KJV - But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
I disagree. This is not a fruitless discussion. Our two minutes eschatology will lead us to how we interact with the world. After watching hundreds of sermons videos of post-mill reformists the one absolute conclusion I come to is there lack of personal preaching the gospel to bring people to salvation. Much talk about building the kingdom through cultural change in political change. I don’t remember the last time I heard a reformist actually articulate the personal salvation gospel. In fact, every Calvinist I’ve ever met, wants to convert me to Calvinism. But pre-millennials vote and are culturally responsible. But the great emphasis is preaching the gospel to individuals so they might be saved.
@@twj2002 i disagree. but ok.
@@davidcrane6593 not fruitless. Why? Because if you think God is coming back asap and you are going to be taken out without any merit or work then there's no real reason to plan or teach or move accordingly. You may say "you should" but the reality we humans DON'T
It's as if I told you that the city came to my house yesterday and told me that in 1 year I will be moving regardless if I want to or not. They are making way for the new highway. What would I do to that broken AC unit? Or the cracked plaster? The chipped paint? The leaky roof? The dirty fridge? NOTHING. I would do nothing.
But if I was planning on my grandchildren (who do not even exist yet) raising children in this house, then I would act very very different.
Now just replace HOUSE with world. And the culture. Most Christians have bought this rapture talk for 100 years and we have thus surrender the schools, business, and culture overall to the godless pagans
@@Richardcontramundum i simply think its fruitless to argue about it one way or the other... im ok with you/anybody believeing differently on this matter.
@mrs. well... thats not what i think... i believe Jesus is coming and that we as Christians should guard our hearts and do our best to keep our spiritual "garments" clean.
Premillennialism is prophesied in the Old And New Testament but there is not even one biblical verse that clearly supports rapture of the Church before great tribulation of last days. Also the early church fathers of the 2nd century as far as I am aware didn’t teach a pretrib rapture . The early church expected going thru tribulations before going to heaven. The idea that Christians will be take out the great tribulation it’s a fiction of John Nelson Darby.
The darby argument is incorrect. Would you like resources?
There is a difference between "tribulations" which we face now and "The Great Tribulation."
I respect Dr. Macarthur and appreciate his influence on my life as a believer in Jesus Christ. But I believe his eschatology is flawed. He must be cautious because he is teaching others. I don't want him leading others on the wrong path. Dispensationalism has questionable - even shady roots. It is the newest school of thought in Christian Eschatology that only emerged in the 1800's.
Their teaching on a pre-tribulation rapture of the church was a result of a supposed prophecy given in tongues and interpreted during a gathering of the Plymouth Brethren at Reverend Irving's Catholic Apostolic Church (who still believe in apostles existing up to this day).
Samuel Prideaux Tregellus, a brilliant New Testament Scholar of textual criticism and a great and saintly man of God who belonged to that group said, "I wasn't aware of any definite teaching of a secret rapture of the church and of a secret coming until this was given forth as an utterance in Mr. Irvinng's Church and from what was then received as the voice of the Spirit." The teaching caused a divide in the church among those who accepted it and those who didn't. J.N. Darby embraced and even promoted it. Other brethren like B.W. Newton, Robert Chapman, and George Muller didn't.
Solid Biblical Doctrine should be based on careful exegesis and hermeneutics of God's Holy Word, not on prophecies outside Scripture. May the Lord open his eyes regarding this matter. 🙏🙏🙏
Have you studied the subject yourself? Or are you just parroting an argument that you copied from others who are quickly spreading it across the internet these days? The rapture was not invented in the 1800.
Ephraim the Syrian (306-373) is especially revered in Syriac Christianity and is counted as a Venerable Father (i.e., a sainted monk) in the Eastern Orthodox Church. So popular were his works, that, for centuries after his death, Christian authors wrote hundreds of pseudo-works in his name. He has been called the most significant of all of the fathers of the Syriac-speaking church tradition. Here are some of the quotes from his sermons:
- "Blessed is he who unceasingly remembers the fear of Gehenna and hastens to sincerely repent . . . for he shall be delivered from the great tribulation."
- "For *the elect shall be gathered prior to the tribulation* so they will not see the confusion and the great tribulation coming upon the unrighteous world."
- "Watch always, praying continually, that you may be worthy to escape the tribulation."
- "Count us worthy, Lord, of the rapture of the righteous, when they meet You the Master in the clouds, that we might not be tried in the bitter and inexorable judgment."
Then we have the writings of Irenaeus (130-202 AD). He was tutored by Polycarp (69-155 AD) who, in turn was a student of the Apostle John. Irenaeus wrote:
"When in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption."
@@paulbrennan4163 I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this mattee. But the person you cited IS NOT an apostle. I choose the infallibility of Scripture over any other figure outside God's Holy Word. Kindly provide specific Scripture text that explicitly prove your point. What I study and stand on is Scripture, nothing else. Thank you!
@@AgeDeo2009 Sure, I don't really care what label you want to put on him but was responding to _your_ claim which I think you would agree is an extra-biblical one. So let's talk scripture. Let me know what your position is and why you think it is more scriptural than that of the pre-trib rapture.
@@AgeDeo2009 I didn't get a response from you yesterday, and that's OK. Not everyone wants to get drawn into a debate. I understand that, as well as the fact that you probably think you have heard it all before. But I want to draw your attention to something that you most likely haven't heard.
I know it is long, but it would be good to hear what your thoughts are after hearing what I have to say. If it doesn't effect you in any way then that is fine by me, but please be patient and read it when you have the time.
It has to do with the accounts of Noah and Lot and how Jesus used them to illustrate how things would play out in the end times. And no, it's not merely the fact that these men were removed _before_ God destroyed the places in which they were living. There is something else about these accounts that makes them unique in scripture. And it's something that everyone seems to miss.
I have seen so many people in these discussions point to the story of the Exodus and suggest that this account points towards the tribulation and how the church will be protected during that time. It sounds convincing. It makes sense and is a biblical argument. However, if this is really the truth of the matter then surely Jesus would have said that his coming would be "as in the days of the Exodus". But he didn't.
So why didn't he?
Wouldn't that be a perfect way to describe the tribulation period in that case?
Why would he single out two accounts that paint a completely different scenario?
I think the answer to this question has to do with the REASON Noah and Lot were saved as opposed to why the Israelites were saved.
Notice first that God made promises to Abraham a few hundred years before the Exodus. He told Abraham that his offspring - the Israelites - were first going to be enslaved, but then after setting them free from their bondage in Egypt he would allow them to enter the promised land. Why did he do this? He did it to honour the covenant that he made with Abraham. But notice what God said to these people while they were about to enter the promised land:
"Understand, then, that it is *not because of your righteousness* that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people." (Deuteronomy 9:6)
I think he points this out to them about two or three times in scripture. He tells them _explicitly_ that they are by no means righteous in his eyes.
This is important because if you compare this with the accounts of Noah and Lot, in _both_ of these accounts scripture tells us that the specific reason they were saved is due to their righteousness:
"The Lord then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, *because I have found you righteous in this generation."* (Genesis 7:1)
The same thing applies to Lot. We see this in the discussion that Abraham had with the Lord before Sodom was destroyed. After understanding that Sodom was going to be destroyed he starts to wonder about the fate of his nephew Lot and pleas to God for his sake:
"Far be it from you to do such a thing - *to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike.* Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
In the verses that follow Abraham is ensured by God that what he says is entirely correct, pointing out that not even as few as ten righteous people would be killed while he is punishing the wicked people in Sodom. And as it turned out the actual number of righteous people living there turned out to be THREE - Lot and his daughters - and yet God made sure to completely remove them from the area before destroying the city.
Now think carefully about this. Despite the fact that God promised Abraham that he would not allow the righteous to be killed together with the unrighteous, we see COUNTLESS people being killed in the tribulation. What's wrong with this picture? Could it possibly be that the seven churches have come before the judgement seat of Christ.
I want to present some evidence that it has. Notice what Jesus says to the people in Sardis:
"Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy." (Revelation 3:4)
So what about the tribulation saints? Do we see any account of them wearing white garments as they enter the tribulation period? No, they are given white garments first _after_ they have been killed:
"Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been." (Revelation 6:11)
These people have missed the rapture and now have to pay for their salvation with their own lives.
What we also see just before the tribulation starts is something that has never been seen before in the throne room of God:
"Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads." (Revelation 4:4)
How can these elder possibly be wearing crowns? Isn't this that what Paul identified as one of the rewards that would be handed out at the judgement:
"Now there is in store for me *the crown of righteousness,* which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day-and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing." (2 Timothy 4:8)
So what about you brother? Do you believe that you are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus?
If so then God will by no means subject you to the most horrific, cruel, tortuous, and fatal period of time since creation.
The post- and mid-trib views were designed to undermine that belief, but not only that. They were also designed to undermine a belief in the imminent return of Christ to save the righteous from the wrath to come. Such imminence is only be possible in a pre-trib scenario where people are warned to stay awake because the Lord could come at any moment.
What the opposing views do is make people drowsy thinking that they still have at least a few years ahead of them to clean up their act.
Read the parable of the ten virgins and you will see how that turns out.
You need to be wary of these doctrines.
Pre is the most biblical. I really don't see any exception
correct, the end will not come except there comes a great falling away first. If you follow the news you can also learn that EVERYTHING is getting worse in the west all the time. Post Millenialists as I understand them (and I am just now looking into this) are not paying attention at the news nevermind the rest of scriptures.
With a due respect. He’s so wrong 😂
Postmill or let them be anathema
The reformers didnt get it wrong, Darby got it wrong.
Common strawman argument.
Too bad MacArthur strayed so heavily on futurist eschatology. His arrogance only complicated his unbiblical stance on this issue.
Preterism is a false doctrine, so pull the log out of your own eye.
As much as I love this man. It is ironic how he claims the world will get worse and worse and yet he is standing there preaching to 1000 people who are there to hear the gospel! Why??? Because the KINGDOM is growing and growing and growing...it is leaven taking over the whole lump...just takes time! If all we see is the bad...you will never see the glorious advances the Kingdom of Heaven has made! There are CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE...and growing every day! Did John MacArthur and his church by the power of Jesus Christ not just win against a corrupt and Satanic government in his state??? Yet, he claims everything will only get worse. No...CHRIST WILL BUILD HIS CHURCH and the gates of HELL WILL NOT prevail! The world will be Christianized! "The earth will be full of the GLORY OF THE LORD as the waters cover the sea" (Habakkuk 2:14)
That is the WORST eschatological misreading of revelation.
Ill demonstrate…
Matthew 24:37-40
For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [38] For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, [39] and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [40] Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left.
In the days of Noah who was taken???
If we keep in mind noah and the conjunction offered, “so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”…In the field who was taken???
To say evil taken in one and the saved in another, why would Jesus create 2 narratives??? Whats his thinking here???
Furthermore, why does John use immanent language in Revelation?
Revelation 1:1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must SOON take place.
Revelation 1:3
Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is NEAR.
If we are going to say a day to 1000 and 1000 to a day, how do we qualify that statement? Is that how John qualified Time?? As i understand, this is God thinking alone.
The WORST eschatalogical missreading? That sound a bit dramatic.
Before you accuse a very experienced theologian of "missreading" something then you should be careful not to do any missreading yourself.
The argument you have borrowed here from Matthew 24:39-40 was originally used together with the KJV version which doesn't say "swept them all away" but "took them all away":
"and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and *TOOK* them all away." (Matthew 24:39)
So the idea was that since "took" is used in verse 39 then it makes sense that "taken" (being the same word in a different form) refers to the same thing.
However, these words are not the same in the original greek language (which is obviously what we would expect if Jesus' point was that those being "taken" were the same ones that the flood "took" away).
The word "took" (as in "the flood took them away") is airō (G142 ) which is most often used when something is picked up and carried away. The word translated "taken" on the other hand (as in "one will be taken, the other left") "paralambanō" (G3880), suggests accompaniment: "to take to, to take *with one's self,* to *join to one's self".* It is the same word used in the following verses, among others:
"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and *took (G3880) unto him his wife"* (Matthew 1:24)
And
When he arose, he *took (G3880) the young child and his mother by night,* and departed into Egypt" (Matthew 2:14).
But that's not the only problem. We cannot be certain that what Jesus said in verse 40 was immediately followed by what he said in 39. Why? Because in Luke 17:26-30 we see a whole string of verses separating these two verses.
Finally it doesn't even make sense that Jesus, speaking of a _global_ flood, would point out things like "one man would be in the field and the other left" or "one woman grinding in the mill would be taken and the other left" or "two would be in a bed but only one taken". I have never heard of a flood that selects people like that.
Sometimes you need to do a quick test to make sure that the argument you use even makes sense.
You also need to ask yourself instead is why Jesus would pick about the only two account from the Old Testament where people are completely separated from the wicked BEFORE God destroys them.
As for the word "SOON" in Revelation, the Greek word that is translated "soon" (τάχος) in Revelation can also be be translated as "quickly in its time" when the event being referred to is imminent.
We see an example of this here:
And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night Will he keep putting them off I tell you, he will see that they get justice, _and quickly_ (τάχος). However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth"
If you read the parable in question (Luke 18:1-8) you will notice that the judge is actually taking a _long_ time in bringing about justice, so much so that people are crying out to him, but he keeps putting them off. However, he promises that _when the time does come_ it will be carried out quickly (τάχος).
Even though the words used are different in the following OT passage we see a similar example of how imminence works:
"For the revelation awaits an appointed time;
it speaks of the end
and will not prove false.
Though it linger, wait for it;
it will certainly come
and will not delay." (Habakkuk 2:3)
Notice that it first says that it "lingers", but when it is fullfilled it does so without delay.
That the word translated "soon" or "shortly" in Revelation refers to imminence becomes obvious when we consider the following:
1. Jesus said he would return unexpectly as a thief in the night. Thieves typically do not announce in advance that they will come soon.
2. Jesus gave us three parables in a row that he would come after a long time (Matthew 24:42-Matthew 5:30). Such a long time in fact that _everyone_ would fall asleep (Matthew 25:5). (Note. to fall asleep is to die)
3. Peter indicated that Jesus second coming would be conditional.
4. Peter clearly indicated that it would be according to God's perception of time, and not ours.
Please consider these things carefully. Thanks.
@@paulbrennan4163 so essentially you’re getting lost in the carried away aspect still presupposing a rapture for the elect rather than seeing the text contextually and exegetical? Your tradition in presupposition blinds you because you’re reading what you think is today into the text versus reading out of the text exegetically.
OK let’s test yourself
A deep theology exercise.
An experiment. - lets see who reads whats there vs reading their tradition into it.
Daniel 7:13-14 ESV
"I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. [14] And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Who is the son of man?
Who is the ancient of days?
Which direction is the son of man traveling?
Whats the kingdom being given?
What event is this???
The text distinguishes purposefully for a contextual moment. Think about the questions explicitly relative to the text. Try not to think about anything else. If you read the text as is, what does it actually say?
When Jesus said he would return in this fashion he meant with the destruction of Jerusalem through Rome in 70ad not in the same return mentioned to the apostles as he’s ascending regarding the second coming. These are two separate events.
Matthew 23:36 ESV
Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Since you are a fan of the Greek,
This- ταύτην - demonstrative pronoun - eminent declarative. Meaning happening very soon not figuratively
Revelation 1:1 ESV
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must SOON take place…
Revelation 1:3
Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is NEAR.
@@HillbillyBlack Wow. Now that's deep. Just read an isolated text and assume that your first impression is the correct one. I don't interpret scripture according to someone else's rules, I interpret it through listening to the Holy Spirit the way scripture tells us is the correct way.
Now I think you should also apply the same standard to yourself as you suggest others hold to. For example, what do you see if you read THIS without thinking of anything else:
"Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and *“every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”;* and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him." (Revelation 1:17)
And
"This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, *will come back in the same way you have SEEN him go into heaven."* (Acts 1:11)
And if you are going to LECTURE ME about having a presupposition, then what exactly is this:
*"When Jesus said he would return he meant with the destruction of Jerusalem through Rome in 70ad not in the same return mentioned to the apostles as he’s ascending."*
Jesus did NOT say ANYWHERE that he would return with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. That is YOUR presupposition! And your "proof" text does not "prove" what you want it to prove.
@@HillbillyBlack By the way, I don't have any "tradition". I wasn't taught to believe in a pre-trib rapture. So don't assume you know things about someone you know NOTHING about.
As far as I can see the passage from Daniel you quoted is more a problem for the preterist "tradition" than it is for me. So what's your point exactly?
The same applies to Matthew 23:36. It is an ENORMOUS problem for preterists!
And why did you repeat the "SOON" argument. I addressed that in my first response.
@@paulbrennan4163 so what you’re saying is you don’t interpret theologically, you interpret emotionally?
If you knew GOD THEN you will also know that JESUS CHRIST our LORD IS ALSO GOD.John 1) John 10 v 30) I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE Rev 1) GOD WHO IS WHO WAS AND ARE TO COME.This despensation doctrine is pure heresy.JESUS CHRIST REIGN NOW IN ALL HIS saints.GOD IS A CONSUMING FIRE,AND WONT REIGN FISICALLY ON THIS FILTHY OLD EARTH.HE WILL ONLY REIGN FISICALLY ON HIS NEW HEAVEN EARTH AND NEW JERUSALEM.HIS REIGN IS A SPIRITUAL KINGDOM.Hallelujah Amen.
The world is getting worse and hard to live in😢
A Millennium Puzzle to solve… Will Christ be conducting funeral services for mortals killed in accidents 500 years after His Second Coming?
The “first resurrection” in Rev. chapter 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the Book of Revelation, because the two witnesses are resurrected from the dead in chapter 11. There are two different types of resurrection in John chapter 5. There is a spiritual resurrection from the dead in John 5:24, and a bodily resurrection from the dead in John 5:28-29.
Does your view of the Millennium agree with what Paul said in 2 Thess. 1:7-10, when Paul said Christ returns in "flaming fire" taking vengeance on those who do not obey the Gospel? The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20.
Does your view agree with what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:10-13, when Peter said this earth is going to burn and "dissolve" when He comes as a thief on the day of the Lord? The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20.
Does your view agree with what Paul said in 2 Tim. 4:1, when Paul said both the living and the dead will be judged at His appearing? The time of the judgment of the dead, with reward for some and destruction for others is found in Rev. 11:18, right after the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible. (This verse also proves the Book of Rev. is not in chronological order.) The judgment of the dead is also found at the end of Rev. chapter 20.
Does your view agree with what Jesus said in Matt. 25:31-46, where He described the judgment of the sheep and goats, which leaves no mortals alive on the planet at the end of the passage? There are also no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Rev. chapter 19.
Does your view agree with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness?
Does your view agree with what John recorded in Rev. 9:1-2, when an angel comes down from heaven with a key to unlock the pit, which means the pit was locked before that time? Are there wicked angels already in the pit in Rev. 9:11? John recorded angels already "bound" in Rev. 9:14. The beast "ascends" out of the pit in Rev. chapter 11, which means the beast was in the pit before that time.
Take all of the above and compare it to the symbolic language found in Rev. chapter 20, and the fact the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order, and you will have the truth.
======================
Multiple Second Coming Visions in Revelation: (book not in chronological order )
Christ returns at the end of Revelation chapter 6, with signs in the sun, moon, and stars, as are found in the Olivet Discourse.
Those at the end of the chapter are hiding from the wrath of the Lamb.
Why would they be hiding if Christ is not present?
The "kings", "captains", "might men", "free", and "bond" are also found in chapter 19 at the return of Christ.
He returns at the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible, and the time of the judgment of the dead in Revelation 11:15-18.
The beginning of chapter 12 is a history lesson containing the fall of Satan, and the birth and death of Christ, who is the seed promised to crush the head of Satan in Genesis 3:15.
The Second Coming is found in the "harvest" of chapter 14, which is related to the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew chapter 13.
He comes as a thief at Armageddon, and we find the greatest earthquake in history in chapter 16. This occurs when the 7th angel pours out his vial. How powerful is an earthquake which moves islands and destroys the mountains? What is happening to the planet?
He comes on a horse in chapter 19.
Chapter 20?
Does He come with the fire, and the judgment of the dead at the end of chapter 20, which agrees with what Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and 2 Timothy 4:1?
(The time of the judgment of the dead is also found in Revelation 11:18.)
There are no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Matthew 25:31-46.
Why does an angel come down from heaven with a key to unlock the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1-2, if the pit was not already locked before that time?
Revelation 9:14 proves some of the angels were previously bound in some manner.
Because the two witnesses were bodily resurrected from the dead in Revelation 11, the "first resurrection" at the beginning of Revelation 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the book.
The principle of "Recapitulation" means there are multiple visions of His return.
====================
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by
husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
Watch the TH-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Just to put a label on it.. what would you call your view? I want to study it please
@@carly-0-7 Most in the modern Church call it "Amillennialism", but that is not really a good term. The Church Age from the Day of Pentecost to the Second Coming of Christ is the millennium, based on the whole of scripture. Take a look at some of the videos of Pastor Sam Storms. He has written an excellent book on the topic, if you like to read. The book is over 700 pages. The title is "Kingdom Come". Pastor Sam Storms used to be a pretribulational/premillennialist, but discovered he could not get that viewpoint to agree with the Bible when he was in seminary.
Regarding Postmillennialism: When we read scripture, the return of Jesus is nowhere described as a peaceful event where Jesus is welcomed back to Earth to conduct the Final Judgment and usher in the eternal state by a mostly "Christianized" world. We instead read of the return of Jesus as a violent and bloody event where the Son of God goes to war against His enemies and includes the rescue of the remnant of believing national Israel (Zech 12-14, Rev 19).
The world and the devil thought that they'd defeated Christ on the Cross 2000 years ago because of how the world views success and defeat.
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." (Eph. 6:12)
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (Matt.16:18)
"And Jesus came up, and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to [b]follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you [c]always, to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20)
We who preach these truths, do we truly believe and apply them? "Tertullian said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Let us look beyond the physical to the spiritual!
All hell has already broke loose...what happens to the heathens during the thousand year reign? Everyone becomes saved. All Jews.
This sounds like JW doctrine. Matthew 25 takes place , which is the judgement of the nations, the ones who stood for Israel will go into the millennial period, the ones who didn't get judged right there. At the end of the millennial period Satan deceives the nations then they're judged so far this all living judgements. Now the white throne revelation 20:5 the unbeliever dead are raised , verse 12 says this is the judgement of the dead. Before all of these judgements is the raptured church, 1peter 4:17, 5:4 and 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and 2 Corinthians 5.
This channel is super sketchy
Every theological camp has to interpret some passages symbolically. Even Premillennial dispys. Does that mean they don’t believe the Bible means what it says? Lol
The Kingdom of God is not symbolic, its real. To say its not literal is to not believe the Bible. Revelation 20 says its on earth and lasts 1,000 years. Jesus told us to pray "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on EARTH." This is not difficult to understand but Rome has confused people with their amillennial doctrine and the creation of Preterism to shift attention that they are likely the whore of Babylon of which Revelation 17 speaks.
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 can you show me where Revelation 20 says Jesus reigns from a throne on earth?
Ps 11:1 (A Psalm of David.) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
1 Cor 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
How can Jesus reign until all enemies are under his feet if he must sit at the right hand until all enemies are made his footstool? The only explanation that can be derived from this is that he is reigning now at the right hand of the Father. God was king of Israel before anointing Saul. Who was he king over? The people of Israel. They were his kingdom. He ruled and earthly kingdom from his throne in heaven. So then, with Jesus being God, why is it claimed for it to have to be a literal throne by dispensationalist and not acceptable for him to sit on the very throne and rule over Israel as God did in times past over Israel, with Jesus being God.
1 Cor 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1 Cor 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
The last enemy death and the victory over it forever are directly tied to the resurrection of the dead believers. Where do we see death ultimately destroy in the bible? Rev 20:14 when death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire. This event is accompanied by a resurrection of the dead and a judgement. Both of these Jesus said would happen at the last day.
John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6L54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
How then do we come up with doctrines that claim to raise believers before the last day and death remaining present afterwards?
Acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
The bible says Jesus will remain in heaven until the restoration of all things. Why then, do we hold to doctrines that claim Jesus comes back 1000 years before the restoration of "all" things. All things includes the new heavens and new earth which occurs in Rev 21:1
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454
1. **Nature of the Kingdom**: While postmillennialists believe in a literal manifestation of the Kingdom of God on earth, they also understand that the Kingdom has symbolic, spiritual, and literal dimensions. Jesus himself spoke of the Kingdom in parables and metaphorical terms (e.g., the mustard seed in Matthew 13:31-32). Hence, it's not an either/or situation but both/and. Believing in the symbolic dimensions of the Kingdom does not negate one's faith in the Bible.
2. **Revelation and Symbolism**: The book of Revelation is filled with symbolism and apocalyptic language. For example, dragons, beasts, and numbers like 7 and 12 frequently appear, all of which carry symbolic significance. The 1,000 years mentioned in Revelation 20 can be viewed symbolically to represent a complete or perfect period rather than a strict 1,000-year timeline. Historical context matters; apocalyptic literature often used symbolism to convey deeper truths.
3. **“Thy Kingdom come on Earth”**: Postmillennialism agrees with this, and it suggests that through the influence of the gospel and the work of the Church, the world will increasingly come under the dominion of Christ, resulting in a long period of righteousness and peace.
4. **Historical Roots and Rome**: While the Roman Catholic Church does have amillennial tendencies, to reduce all eschatological views to a conspiracy by Rome is an oversimplification. Many church fathers and theologians across various Christian traditions have held diverse views on end-times theology, independent of any influence from Rome.
5. **Whore of Babylon**: Linking the Whore of Babylon in Revelation 17 directly to Rome (or the Roman Catholic Church) is a perspective, but not the only interpretation. Some scholars believe it referred to ancient Rome, others see it as symbolizing any worldly city or system in opposition to God. It's a complex passage with a rich history of interpretation, and it's important to approach it with humility.
In conclusion, the beauty of Scripture is its depth and multi-dimensionality. While taking the Bible seriously and literally where intended, it's essential to recognize and respect its rich literary genres and the complexities of interpretation.
Jesus Christ RETURNS GOD will AWAKEN