Dangers of Hyper-Preterism | w/ Dr. Joshua Howard

The Appeal of Time Indicators in Full Preterism

And I want to emphasize this. Remember you brought up earlier, what's so appealing to the full Preterists are the time indicators, right?

Right.

And so I've told people we have to clap back with better time indicators. And so what's going on here is when you look at the world around you and you see pain, you see suffering, you see wars, you see death, that is an indicator that Christ has not come yet at the end to restore all things.

Introduction to Eschatology Matters and The Apologetic Dog

Welcome back to eschatology matters. I'm your host, Josh Howard. And today I'm joined for a special topic by a special guest. Um, so I've got Jeremiah Nortier, Jeremiah, why don't you pronounce your last name for me?

So you said it right. Yes, Nortier is the French version, but in the South we say Nortier.

Okay. Very good.

Nortier.

Um, but most people might know, uh, Jeremiah from the apologetic dog. Um, he was kind enough to have me on and we had a little chat a couple of weeks back and, uh, tonight we were going to be addressing.

It's a listener question that came in and it's concerning, um, really two, two, uh, subjects. The first is a full preterism or hyper-preterism. And then the second is the use of the word heresy in regard to that topic.

So when the, when the question came in, I thought it was a good question. It was a timely question. Um, we don't use the word heresy, uh, you know, lightly, um, by any stretch. And that came up during some of our previous, um, interviews.

So I asked Jeremiah to come back on here and join me. So Jeremiah, if you could just give a brief introduction, if you don't mind, um, and where people can find you, um, and your ministry online.

Thank you so much, Josh, for having me on your channel because eschatology does matter. What also matters is apologetics. And so people can find me at my YouTube channel, The Apologetic Dog, and you'll find a bearded dog, uh, that is a reform beard, I remind you.

And, uh, first Timothy 6 20 is the verse that I want my ministry to be grounded in because the dog represents a guard dog. Paul tells Timothy, Oh, Timothy guard, the gospel deposit that's been entrusted to you.

And so as Christians, we're called to guard the gospel of grace. And we do that by avoiding irreverent babble, pagan philosophy and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge. So we stand on the truthfulness of God's word.

Where else are we going to stand? Anywhere else would be sinking sand. And so we stand on the truth of who God is. And so you can find me at my YouTube channel, The Apologetic Dog. I also have, um, uh, Josh, I also have a website now, so I'm rising up in the online world.

So you can find me in those things. Please add me on Facebook. I love to help out with any questions. And, um, I also have a Facebook group called the Church of Christ Exiles with me and Trey Fisher as moderators.

We were recently on the cultish, uh, YouTube channel and podcast. Uh, cause one of our strong ministries is evangelizing the church of Christ and helping those that come out of it. So that's just a little bit about me, Josh.

No, I, and I appreciate you coming on, Jeremiah. I've appreciated your ministry since you reached out and, or we reached out or you reached out, however we became, um, acquainted with one another's ministries.

Um, I love local church involvement. I love seeing ministries spring out of and stay connected to and tethered to the local church. Um, I love seeing ministries that genuinely try to serve the body of Christ, not by being divisive or, you know, trying to build, build platforms, but actually serve the body with good doctrine.

So for all those, for all those regards, I'm appreciative of you. Um, today, what we're addressing, as I say, is a full preterism. I think is going to be the term we're going to go with. I'm going to throw out a little definition and then Jeremiah, I'm going to ask you to come in, um, because, uh, I'm counting you as our subject matter expert, as far as this conversation goes, and we're going to try to try to walk through this together, but for a lot of people, I think when they hear full preterism, um, or even preterism in general, typically you have to define these terms.

Um, I've, I've been reminded recently that even when we mentioned terms like heresy within the church, um, that a lot of Christians aren't, aren't comfortable with that term, or maybe don't even know exactly where to put that term within their, um, within their purview, within their doctrinal, you know, categories.

So I'm going to, I'm going to back up just a little bit and say that there are heresies, uh, within, within doctrinal teaching, um, not everything that is wrong is a heresy, praise God, because most of us who have preached from a pulpit, um, have at one time or another realized, oh man, I think I got that one wrong and we've grown by the sanctification of the spirit and by God guiding us through his word, we've grown in our faith.

So not everything is a heresy and we certainly don't want to be cavalier with that word. We don't want to, uh, you know, go around on heresy hunts and, you know, just decry anyone who disagrees with us as a heretic, but there are heresies, which I would just kind of generally term as, um, these are damnable teachings.

And I say damnable, not in the, uh, you know, some sort of bombastic sense of the term, but those teachings, which will lead someone toward destruction. Is there anything you want to kind of fill in with that one, Jeremiah?

No, that was great because it's all how you define your terminology. Cause on one hand, heresy simply means wrong teaching, but you hit at the key part of it. I mean, there, there is damnable heresy, things that you can be wrong and they'll actually lead you away from the faith, um, and you cannot be saved.

And so that's what we're in this conversation. We're talking about heresy. We're talking about if you hold us something near and dear, that's a, a heresy, that's a damnable, then you actually cannot be Christian.

And so kind of a couple things to just to really help our audience understand what heresy is. Heresy always begins with a figurehead. This is essentially how Walter Martin and the kingdom of the cults definitely recommend, um, our viewers to go check out his book.

Um, it usually starts with a figurehead, somebody that deviates from orthodoxy. And so you don't always have a central figurehead. That's it's hard to pin down sometimes, but that's usually the case. But the big point is to, to veer away from the right Jesus and how to receive the right Jesus on the terms that he prescribed.

So this is why the Trinity is so important. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity of the Godhead. And he told us to re to receive him by faith. And we understand that it's by faith alone, apart from any works.

And so that's why Galatians one, uh, comes into the picture. And if you're trying to add anything like the Judaizers, where they're trying to add circumcision to the gospel of grace, it nullifies the whole thing.

You've severed yourself from Christ and you've fallen from the gospel of grace, essentially. And so that's what we're getting at is you can't play games with first tier gospel issues. The good news about the right Jesus and how to receive him on the terms that he prescribed.

Yeah, no, that's, that's super helpful. And that in it.

Yeah.

And if anybody that's listening to this, hasn't read that book, that's one of those foundational books that I think everybody should at least read through once. Um, the thing with heresy as well, and false teaching in general, we could say is that I think oftentimes for the Christian, um, we're cautious with impugning someone's motives or someone's character, right?

And I think that that's a good, a good, you know, balanced, that's a good and a healthy impetus that we don't want to unintentionally or, you know, misrepresent or smear someone's character. But I would say with false teaching, um, generally within scripture, there's a difference between false teach, uh, those that teach false doctrine and those who follow false doctrine.

Typically with those who teach, um, there is a harsher standard. Typically scripture recommends that we deal with those people far stronger than we would with those who are being led astray by false teaching.

So that's one division. But I would also say for those who teach it, um, we can't always decipher what their motives are. And I feel like for Christians, that's where we get bogged down a bit. We say, we don't want to, we don't want to call something false.

Um, we don't want to call something even necessarily heresy. Um, because I don't know where that person's coming from. Um, as best as I can tell in scripture, I don't think it's up to us to tell where their heart is when they're teaching false doctrine, what we are.

Our call to do though, is to confront false doctrine. And then if they don't repent and they're still claiming the name of Christ, then there's more steps than, um, where we're told even to consider them as worse than an unbeliever and there's, there's very stringent, um, instructions to the Christian, but I think for a lot of Christians, it can kind of free us if we pay attention to the doctrine and try to bother ourselves less with, uh, deciphering where their heart is and where their motives are coming from, because I'm not so sure that that's beneficial, um, when we're addressing those doctrinal issues.

Hmm.

Well, I agree 100 with everything that you said. We got to have those necessary distinctions about when you do have a cult, you got people in the cult that are followers, right? And God bless their soul.

If we're praying for them, that they would come out. And even though there's a lot of sex, um, that are, you know, very troubling, they believe wrong gospel. That doesn't mean that everybody in that is necessarily lost.

And here's the big thing. It doesn't mean that they're going to stay in that position forever.

Right.

And you were alluding to James 3 .1. There, there is a stricter condemnation for those people that, um, purposely maliciously, um, mishandled the word of God. And you're right. We can't judge the motives.

Um, I will say, I noticed the pattern we see in the gospels. Jesus comes at false teachers with full force. And I think that's because, um, uh, wolves kill sheep and then shepherds are called to kill wolves.

And so we kill wolves in the sense that we attack their doctrine because at the end of the day, our battle is not against flesh and blood. We love false teachers in the sense that we pray that God would grant them repentance and they would look to Jesus and saving faith and we war for the faith.

We contend for the truth of God's word. I love what you said. We, it's not up to us to judge their heart motive. So it's their doctrine that satanic, um, it's their doctrine that ultimately is what leads people astray.

Yeah.

And I think, I mean, it feels a bit like, you know, kind of laying the qualifiers out, but I think it's, I think it's important with a discussion like this, as, as, as people are trying to walk through these issues.

Defining Full Preterism and Its Claims

So let's jump in. Um, if, if, if anyone has not been over to the apologetic dog, we've talked about this before. I know you've talked about this before with other hosts, so you can get a pretty good picture of what preterism is in general, but I'll just throw out a brief definition and again, Jeremiah, help me fill this in as we walk through it.

But, uh, preterism in general, that word, uh, preter, um, coming from the Latin word for past, but this is referring to a past fulfillment of things. And typically we're thinking of prophetic fulfillment and specifically with those things in the revelation and other, other kinds of, um, apocalyptic or eschatological passages, um, in the new Testament.

So when we're looking at things that have been fulfilled, many, uh, would fall into a partial preterist category. So many would look at things and I'll throw myself in there. Well, I can throw both of us under the bus on this one, Jeremiah.

We talked about this on our last video. Um, so both of us would read Matthew, you know, the Olivet discourse there in Matthew 24, and we would see aspects of it, or at least large portions, which have been fulfilled.

They seem to clearly be pointing toward a fulfillment, namely in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple, um, the leveling of Jerusalem, and typically 70 AD is what we're talking about, that, that little, uh, you know, mile marker where these things were fulfilled.

Um, so we look to some things that were fulfilled there, but not all things. What, what we're talking about tonight though, is, and we could, we could call it full preterism or, or, uh, um, consistent preterism or hyper preterism is a term that I've seen used.

Um, but we'll just use full preterism for consistency. Um, but typically I've seen these three things, Jeremiah, and help me, help me if I'm missing one, um, that all things that we encounter in scripture have been fulfilled.

Um, and specifically in the, in the, the, the events surrounding the temple destruction in 70 AD, and I keyed in on three specific doctrines. That was the future bodily coming of Christ was accomplished in 70 AD.

This is full preterism. Um, that the bodily resurrection of the dead, or however you term that resurrection of the dead occurred in 70 AD and that the end of history and the final judgment essentially occurred in 70 AD so that things are continuing now kind of ad infinitum into the future without, without an end inside or anything, anything climactic or culminating that we're looking to.

Does that about cover it? Or am I missing anything in that?

No, that's really good. That's, that's a good entry point. Cause you can kind of springboard in so many things, uh, something that's very unique to full preterism is we're living in the new heavens and the new earth.

Now they really will kind of redefine new heavens and new earth to just simply mean regeneration. Or when you come into spiritual union with Christ by faith. Um, but yeah, like you said, there, there's no, uh, culmination of all things.

There's not a restoration of all things. And then the curse of sin being undone and this world being transformed that, and like the third point you were getting at, yeah, everything that you see around us, all of the heinous sin that you see is going to always continue as is.

And the claim to fame with full preterism is that the second coming of Jesus already happened at the destruction of the temple.

The Appeal of 70 AD Timing Indicators

Yeah. Which, and if somebody has not encountered that, obviously these teachings have been around for a while. Um, you and I have talked about how there seems to be maybe an uptick in that. Um, we had, we had Joel Webinon for an interview.

He kind of intimated the same thing that maybe with, um, some of the popular resurgence in post-millennialism, not to hang this on the post-millennial circles, but that with some post-millennial thought, you'll also get a fringe element that also experiences, um, a growth.

Because I wouldn't say the full preterism is, is a predominant view by any, by any stretch within post-millennialism. But, um, so let's, let's walk through a little bit of the details, because one of the things that you brought up in our last, um, in our last conversation was that one of the things that full preterists will appeal to is those timing indicators and those, those specific timing factors.

Could you walk us into that just a little bit, Jeremiah, in case somebody hadn't encountered that.

Yeah.

Um, it's all those verses that say, you know, the time is near, the time is at hand, these things are going to happen soon. Um, the, the hour is not yet, but the idea is that there's something immediate.

Right.

What full preterism does is say, see, something is really immediate with this generation. The generation of the apostles and the key that turns everything on is the destruction of the temple. And I was listening to Doug Wilson and I love beautifully how he laid out the problem, what's going on.

With full preterism, there seems to be a lot of explanatory power because yeah, there is something immediate and that would have been a huge deal with Israel and the destruction of the temple. And so they have this theological hammer, this novum, and now everything else starts seeming like a nail.

So with everything else, they just start slamming it with 70 AD in mind. And so, and it undoes Christianity in that way. It's something totally brand new. And I've mentioned earlier how the apologetic dog, one of my major emphasis in my ministry is evangelizing the church of Christ, the church of Christ, they emerged out of the restoration movement, um, not too many years ago, maybe around 200 years ago or so.

I'm not quite sure on that, but. Ironically, uh, full preterism emerged out of the church of Christ Campbellite movement. So this is very new on the scene of history.

Reading Scripture Backward: The Hermeneutic Problem

Hmm.

And when you're talking about, you know, using the hammer with the nail, I think one of the things that makes it appealing, um, to a lot of, to a lot of people that I have read who have been, um, who have been influenced by that teaching is the fact that that 70 AD and the temple destruction and the timing indicators have largely been neglected in a lot of Protestant circles.

Um, and, and specifically I would say within evangelical circles, there's been a large futurist, uh, take on most prophetic passages where everything is kind of pushed into the future and there's nothing present so that when you start to point out some of those things, like timing indicators, like this generation, like Jesus, Matthew 24, walking along and saying, do you see these stones, you know, pointing at these literal stones.

Um, so I think that there's, there's something there that we can latch onto biblically textually. Um, but then it's how far does that extend? And like you said, with the nail and the hammer, um, one of the recent conversations that I've been seeing is, um, is specifically with the timing indicators.

So with, with any word used within scripture, whether it's Hebrew or Greek, um, but specifically I'm going to speak about like Greek terminology. You have, you have different categories and Greeks are very structured and organized language.

And yet there's a semantic range with, with any given term, um, semantic ranges being, you know, that how far that term can stretch, how far it can apply in different terms, have different, different stretchiness we could say lexically.

Um, but it would be something as simple as encountering, for example, in Revelation 119, um, when we, when we read a timing indicator of these things will happen. Um, and for a lot of the, uh, there's been some really interesting, the reason I bring up Revelation 119 has been, there's been some really interesting back and forth.

I've seen Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar, they've been discussing this. Um, I've also read some things that Fred Zaspel and Sam Waldron have recently released on this. Um, but, but the pushback on that word mellow there in the text would say, they would say that's a timing indicator, which must mean these things are about to take place as in they are imminent.

Um, whereas the plainest reading of that within a semantic range is just that these things will happen, not necessarily that they have to happen. To me, that seemed like, like what you're talking about with the, with the hammer and the nail analogy.

Um, it is good and proper for us to recognize timing indicators, especially when they're very clear timing indicators. But when we start swinging that at everything that looks like a timing indicator, we start hitting nails that aren't there.

I think oftentimes, or forcing things into those holes. Does that make sense?

100%. I'll tell you another one. You mentioned Revelation real fast. Revelation one, three says, 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.

And so the idea is the time is near, like it's impending chronologically about to take place. Well, when you look at the semantic domain of near, we understand, well, this also could mean at hand, literally that it's here, it's now.

It's at hand. Um, so not, so there, and here's the biggest problem. Uh, Josh is it's a different type of hermeneutic. That's what's going on. So we understand God's word has been unfolding progressively, right?

All the way back with Revelation two, or, uh, from Genesis to Revelation, the full Preterist has it 100 reverse. They have committed to these timing indicators with 70 AD, and they've locked in with that and they've interpreted the rest of scripture in light of that axiom.

Does that make sense? And so they have an exact, you don't start with the end. You let scripture develop in itself and we have the fulfillment, right? The new Testament helps us, you know, shed light on the things in the old Testament and a lot of the, um, it's so, it's so interesting when I start talking with full Preterist, um, they, they have these backward hermeneutics and you can see how there's inconsistencies on the board, but they'll do anything to rescue kind of the 70 AD paradigm, right?

No, that's, that's a good point. It's, you know, Christians frequently bring up, you know, eisegesis versus exegesis, you know, trying to read something into the text. Um, and unfortunately, like, especially when you look at the language work of the new Testament, I think that it frustrates a lot of us because you want to say this word always means this, right?

Like, so I can, I can take, you know, a timing indicator, or I can take some sort of chronological indicator. And this will always mean the exact same thing. Um, and it's, it's difficult because, you know, working through Greek and Hebrew, I can, I can remember being in class and saying, aha, this word means that.

And the answer is usually it depends. It depends on the context. It depends on how it's used. I mean, an easy example would be take how John uses world and just trace that through the gospel of John alone.

And you're going to see, he uses that world, that word world with a, with a pretty wide semantic range at times. So, um, when we look at those timing indicators, um, similarities, not always sameness is, is a phrase that I saw somebody use, and so it really depends on that context and what you're talking about then is trying to read from the back, you know, or from the, from the end backward and, and read back into the text.

And I think you're right that we're supposed to read outward, um, from that.

Hymenaeus and Philetus and the Danger of Denying the Resurrection

Now, um, going back a couple steps, um, we were talking about the word heresy earlier and why, because some people, a lot of the full predators community, they want to be Christian. And so they don't like it when people are coming in and say, no, what you're actually presenting is not Christianity.

It's not the historic faith. You're you're outside and we're trying to evangelize you because we think that you're lost. And so they want to be Christian. And so a question I've had to me is why are they outside the faith?

Why can't we just consider them as brothers who are just simply in error on something, right? And that's a legitimate question. And so if you're okay with this, I think there's one classic passage that speaks to why this type of teaching would be damnable heresy.

So when you go to second Timothy chapter two, and you had some false teachers in this first century time of hominids and Philetus, and it's something, because they believed that the resurrection had already happened in their time.

Um, to which the full predator says, yeah, well, that's true. The, the, the resurrection hasn't already happened at 70 AD yet. So this is all preceding it, but I'm just saying, if we pause, listen to what Paul says to them, because they got the timing of the resurrection, which would necessarily entail the second, the timing of the second coming as well.

These two men got those timing wrong and they said it already taken place, um, and it's not future. And so I wanted to just read this small passage and I want the viewers to hear what Paul would say to those that have already said that the resurrection necessarily the second coming has is something that already took place in the past, if that's okay with you.

Oh, for sure.

Okay.

So on second Timothy chapter two, starting in verse 16, Paul says, but avoid irreverent babble for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus who have swerved from the truth saying that the resurrection has already happened.

They are upsetting the faith of some. So number one, he talks about avoiding irreverent babble, right? On the apologetic dog is the same phrase used in first Timothy six 20. This is pagan philosophy. This is worldly ideologies that rival the knowledge of God, which were caused, were called to bring, um, every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, even those thoughts that rival, uh, the Christian worldview.

And so pay this irreverent babble is pagan philosophy and it quickly, um, leads people into ungodliness and to sin and their talk will spread like gangrene. So this type of teaching that Paul's setting up, he says, it's cancerous.

It's going to kill from within. And so he names out false teachers and, you know, there's a time and place to call out the chief heretic, right? Or a group of them or, and tell the sheep beware of these poisonous pastures that are going to lead you astray and cause you to be sick and even to die.

And then he says this strong term in verse 18, uh, those who swerved from the truth, that's what we mean by heresy falling outside of orthodoxy to swerve from the truth means you're not in the truth, you're not in the fold anymore.

And so, and the whole point and the pushback from the full preterist that I've gotten, Josh. Is that, well, Paul is not talking to them about the nature of the resurrection. I'm sure he agrees about the nature.

All he's doing is disagreeing with the timing. And to me, it's a fallacy just to say, because he didn't talk about the nature of the resurrection, therefore, um, he agrees with them. And what they're getting at is, uh, the resurrection and the second coming.

These are spiritual truths that already happened in the past.

Right.

And so, but here's the big point. The fact that he's disagreeing with the timing. He's, um, basically calling them anathema. They're saying they're swerved from the truth and causing people to follow after them.

And so what I've posed to full preterist is if Paul was living today and the, the parousia is still future, how would Paul talk to the full preterist today? He would say the same thing that he said to Hymenaeus and Phileas.

He's, he would say, your teaching is cancerous. You're causing people to swerve and you need to repent.

Right.

And so I've thought about this a lot too, because earlier you asked, we're talking, we're talking about heresy. Heresy typically damages the person of Christ in some way or how you receive Christ, right?

Cults do this, right? They're going to, they're going to capitulate on, on one of those two things. And really what I think when you start making, uh, the resurrection into a spiritual Gnostic teaching, well, it, it ultimately is going to funnel back to who Christ is and if he's not going to judge the world as it is and restore all things, this is ultimately creating a different Jesus.

That's why I think this is heresy of the highest order, um, name, nameable heresy, because it ultimately touches on the person of Christ and it touches our blessed future hope, trusting in Christ to resurrect us, to be with him for all eternity and to restore all things.

So they take all that away.

Matthew 24 and the Two-Pronged Question

Yeah, no, that's, that's good to point out that it's, cause, cause we, I think, I think there is the temptation to simplify it down to, well, it's just a matter of timing. And like you pointed out, not only do we have biblical precedents for how Paul handled those things.

We've talked about before how, you know, Paul was much harsher than most modern evangelicals would prefer him to be. But, but he's very clear about this. You can't separate the resurrection truth of Christ from the person of Christ, um, to, to, to, uh, smear somehow or to get wrong the resurrection is to get Christ wrong himself.

Um, I want to walk through a couple of passages because I know, I know one of the requests that we'd had from a previous video was, can we point out some of the passages I know we have one that we're going to work our way to, but, um, I'm just going to throw a couple out there and, and help me along with this, Jeremiah.

We can't cover everything. Obviously there's a lot here. We're talking about nothing less than prophecy and how it's fulfilled, but we can throw a couple of them out. So one of the ones, and I'll start off with the easy one because we've already mentioned Matthew 24.

So Matthew 24 is a tough passage, but it's a wonderful passage. Um, and to give just kind of a recap of, of what Jeremiah and I discussed previously, um, I think the best reading of Matthew 24 is that it is a two pronged question, um, which is the disciples give to Jesus and Jesus then gives a chapter long, um, well, chapter plus long explanation then of that, of that answer, um, the questions that are posed to Christ are what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age.

So a two pronged question, um, one of the, or excuse me, when will these things be and what will be the sign of your coming end of the end of the age? Excuse me on that one. Um, so it's, it's two different questions.

When will these things be specifically Christ is pointing around, he's looking at the temple, he's saying that this will all be destroyed. And so they say, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of your coming end of the end of the age?

Um, Christ then walks through that chapter and as we discussed, I'm not going to be so, so bold as to say, it's just, you know, demonstrably clear where that differentiation is, but I think you could do far worse than to look at verse 36.

There seems to be a, a very distinct turning point there in the text where we read these words in Matthew 24, 36. He says, but now he's been speaking about the temple destruction and all of its horror and all of its, all of its, uh, um, all of the turmoil that, that happened in 70 AD, but then Matthew 24, 36, he says, but concerning that day and hour, as in the day and hour of his coming in the end of the age, that day and hour, no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the son, but the father only.

And I thought that was a really instructive passage just to start, start our thinking in this regard is that when Christ spoke of that, um, number one, he says, no one knows this time. Um, this is not for you to know, um, nor the son, but the father only, which, which is, which is a tremendous statement.

But also if you back up in that text and you look at verses 23 through 27, Christ has just warned them at great length, not to be deceived by false words, by false teachers, um, by those who are upsetting them with false warnings.

So I think that, I think that the, the, uh, the, the strong message that Christ gives us concerning those things is one of caution and one of trust in God. And certainly nothing in Matthew 24 seems to indicate that this is some sort of thing that the church would have missed for 1900 years, certainly not that all the apostles seem to have missed.

If there was, if there was a spiritual resurrection alone, which qualified to fulfill Matthew 24 or Christ's coming in judgment, and that's the entirety of the, all of that discourse, it seems that almost everyone missed it.

And that's, that's a difficult one to wrap my head around your thoughts on that one though.

That's good. I just want to encourage the audience. You and I talked to at some great length on Matthew 24, and I believe the, the, we, we have it on my channel. I'd love for people to go listen to that.

And, um, I have a book plug that I'd like for people to consider, um, by Ken Gentry. Have we missed the second coming? The way that he treats the Olivet discourse was kind of the first time that I learned that there's this two pronged approach to the Olivet discourse, where there's two questions being presented to Jesus and he gives two answers.

So it shouldn't surprise us that maybe one is imminent answer, uh, that they should look forward to, and then something is still future. And so I love that because, um, you may have to close your ears on this, but I grew up dispensational pre-millennial.

And so what I, how I read the Olivet discourse is I read it as an all or nothing event, like it's all talking about the same event and its future. And so I want people to know about this. The full Preterist does the same move in reverse.

They see the entire Olivet discourse talking about the same event, like the dispensationalist, but they just put it in the past, right? And so I want people to be aware of that move. And by God's grace, you can be a pre-millennial dispensational individual and be saved, but because these things are still our future blessed hope to look forward to.

And, you know, you, you talked about in verse 36, but concerning that day, um, many scholars pointed out that this is being contrasted potentially with a couple of verses before it. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things will take place.

So this is kind of the transition verse that, uh, the first question about the destruction of the temple. Perhaps that's what's imminent here, that these people will experience these great tribulations, just to emphasis that it's going to be great persecution, tribulation that's about to happen, um, in this century.

That's going to happen in the span of this 40 year generation. But then that day, um, concerning the coming of the son of man, no one knows that day, only the father. And so another thing I want to point out in my study of all millennialism and post-millennialism is how you understand the end of the age, this age and the age to come.

Because the move of the post mill, which is orthodox, typically understands this generation, the end of the age to be the end of the Jewish age. Now that is one-to-one, the same move of what the full preterist does as well.

And I loved what, um, Joel said on your podcast, uh, the other day is as post-millennialism grows, there's this weird subset, just strand of people that just take what is good and then twist it into something bad.