Is Hyper-Preterism Biblical?

Eschatology and the Meaning of Last Things

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and today we're gonna be talking about a very interesting topic and it is relating to something what's called in theology eschatology.

Okay for those who are well versed in theological studies eschatology is a big old fancy word that you'll be familiar with but for those who are new to theology or just kind of diving into the topic eschatology deals with last things.

So eschatology is the study of end times right now. Of course the the topic of eschatology as is most topics in theology is very controversial and there are a wide spectrum of views out there. You may be familiar with the very popular view which is the technical term would be a pre-millennial dispensationalism.

I apologize. In theological studies they're all sorts of you know all sorts of technical language that's kind of annoying and scary for people. But for those who are initiated in theological studies this is kind of old hat.

But eschatology like all areas of theology is super important. Okay and so it's an important topic to discuss now growing up I grew up within a context that that taught let me see here someone's that taught from a pre-millennial dispensational perspective.

So if you guys are familiar with like the left-behind series you know where you have a rapture where Christians are taken and there are those who are left behind who undergo a seven-year tribulation.

You have the Antichrist the mark of the beast and all those sorts of interesting topics. I grew up with that perspective and it was only later in life where I picked up the book by Gary DeMar last days madness the obsession of the modern church.

And I highly recommend you pick up that book that is the book that got me into this idea of partial preterism. Partial preterism. Okay this episode we're gonna be dealing with full preterism or hyper preterism but that book that I mentioned there before last days madness was a partial preterist sort of book and it critiqued the very popular pre-millennial dispensational perspective that kind of left behind theology and for the first time I was opened up to this whole new perspective and I if I can use this word I kind of was converted over to the partial preterist view what I found very helpful and I'm sure my guest is going to dive into this a little bit more deeply.

But the issue of the time text the time text that you find all throughout scripture there's these words like soon and near as it relates to kind of these end time scenarios and prophecies those became very important to me as I was reading in Gary DeMar's book there and it really kind of swayed me in that position.

Another interesting side note and kind of this is all a precursor. I'm waiting for people to come in but I want to tell you a little bit about my story. Not a lot of people know this but one of the ways that got me into apologetics was actually my study of eschatology when I came to Gary DeMar's book that's where I was introduced to American vision.

And of course when you get hooked to American vision and you look through their apologetic section there's all this in this material on Greg Bonson and so that was kind of like my gateway drug along with some other things into the realm of apologetics presuppositional apologetics and so I've never looked back since then.

That's kind of been a the door that got me into the whole realm of apologetics along with a bunch of other issues that I'm sure folks have heard in past episodes that I've alluded to now if you're interested more in my perspective I'm going to be releasing a video and maybe a couple of weeks entitled everything I believe and so literally what I'm going to do is I'm gonna do a live stream where I'm just gonna share my theological perspectives on every major theological topic.

Okay so what's my view on creation. What's my view on salvation. What's my view on eschatology. I'll go into a little bit more details with respect to that so stay tuned for that all right. Well what is full preterism or hyper preterism.

And why is it an issue. Is it biblical. And for to answer that question I have a friend of mine Sam Frost who I don't want to introduce any of his background information. I want him to do that because interestingly enough Sam has had a very interesting relationship with the full preterist or the hyper preterist movement and so I want him to share with us a little bit about his experience there and what brought him out of that movement you know what are the biblical reasons and things like that and we'll kind of move the discussion from there.

I also encourage questions. As always if you have any questions you can put them in the comments. Please preface your question with the word question or the letter Q so that I can differentiate between your question and the various comments that I am sure this conversation will produce.

So without further ado I'd like to introduce my friend Sam Frost. How's it.

Going. Sam all right. Well it's my pleasure you're looking a little choppy.

There hopefully you won't have any technical difficulties. I don't know I don't know any Bible jokes so let's see here. Okay. Are you okay there. Yeah yeah I'm fine. Okay. I think I could hear you look a little choppy but I could hear you.

So why don't you tell folks a little bit about who you are and your.

Relationship with the full preterist position. Well currently right now I'm working on my PhD and was just appointed as a elder of a local church here Presbyterian and Reformed Church. So redemption life Bible Church here in Newcastle Indiana with pastor Tyler Jackson.

And then in church basically all of all of my life came out of the four square gospel. Was baptized in the four square gospel church went through the charismatic movement. Late 70s early 80s with the Bible College explored several different denominations.

Bible College really opened up a lot of getting my bachelor's there opened up a lot of doors that you don't hear growing up just in a kind of a shell the four square gospel church they stemmed off like the holiness Pentecostal assemblies of God kind of movements kind of branched out there in the late 50s 60s and was founded and more or less most of the assemblies of God Church of God charismatic it doesn't really matter.

At least back in that in that time assimilated a dispensationalism that was the popular Hal Lindsey view at the time and of course with reference to Schofield. But it really was really was Hal Lindsey that really put it on the map for me.

And so growing up as a child and then as a preteen and teen that that was my that was. My view basically was the Schofield reference Bible going to college so Sam real quick Sam so the.

Schofield reference Bible position that that kind of reflect a kind of a.

Premillennial dispensation. Right. Okay. And then of course Hal Lindsey that Lindsey is doing just that. So when you grow up as a child you know as a kid you know six seven eight years old you're starting to understand things you know you you implicitly trust the the pastor that's that's teaching.

And this was a relatively large church in the town here. Okay. And good man I mean I have fond memories of growing up in the church. But going to college again you're exposed as you should be you're exposed to all of these different views that you did not know existed.

And of course church history and and all of this. And it wasn't until really my sophomore year professor because we were accredited we could get really high quality professors and we I got Professor Dal Robinson the Summer Institute of Linguistics and he was reformed and worked with Bible translation and all of that.

And that's where the bug really hit for theology. And prior to those two years my first two years of college I was wondering what am I doing here. And then after like the second year somewhere around there the bug hit real hard.

And and I was the nerd that hung out in the library and was reading footnotes and making sure those footnotes lined up with the footnotes you know. So when there was like a break in the class I'd go to the library.

You know you're a bookworm. You're a bookworm. I remember when you.

When you came to debate on Long Island and it was you myself and Anthony Uvenio I think they were picking you up from a bookstore that you were kind of wandering into or something like that. You know you're a bookworm.

My son and I, my son is actually two, we just collect books, we look for books all the time. So you know you're introduced and you know the new ways I'm a millennial post-millennial you start hearing about this kind of stuff somebody handed me Lorraine Bettner's book it was Brian Starmer a good friend of mine still in still to this day handed me a Bettner's book Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.

I remember reading that and thinking this is scriptural I mean you know Bettner does a great job in that book and that was the one that launched me into Reformed and Calvinism and thinking and then very early this is late 80s came across because I was working working in the bookstore, campus bookstore and Dominion Press, Gary North, Ray Sutton, James B. Jordan, David Chilton all those guys out of Tyler, Texas.

Started buying their book and of course read Paradise Restored by David Chilton and that book and then I read it again and then I went running through the forms to anybody that would listen you've got to read this book.

So that that's my that was my foray into eschatology that's yeah that that book changed the whole nine yards. So you grew up you grew up within the.

Context of a premillennial dispensational perspective. For those who don't know what that is that's kind of the left-behind sort of theology right. The rapture people get left behind. There's a seven-year tribulation.

At the end of the seven years Jesus comes back. You have a millennial reign the sort of the thing that most people are familiar with. That's your background. However after reading David Chilton's book Paradise Lost you your eyes were open.

The scales were you know fell from your eyes and you're like oh my goodness everyone's got to check out this position. Now Chilton was a partial preterist. Am I.

Correct? I guess you could call him that, a partial preterist. He views you know all of Matthew 24 and then the bulk of Revelation as fulfilled in the 66 to 70 CE the war of the Jews and the Romans. So why don't.

So why don't we start with.

With defining our terms then so most people will be familiar and I keep saying left behind only because at a popular level people know the books and things. Of course there are more sophisticated versions of that and I know there are variations within those perspectives.

But when we speak of the the futurist perspective those who think that say for example Matthew 24 Luke 21 Mark 13 the Olivet Discourse is something that is in our future right that's usually associated with kind of the the dispensational view you would identify as a preterist.

Now why don't you define for us what the term preterist is. What you know if you could just give us a brief definition of the position and then perhaps we can dive a little bit into what full preterism is.

And what your problems are with it. Well I you know hearing your introduction I don't know if I would call myself a preterist. Okay what I when I wrote this this place hope because I started talking Chilton footnoted in his book Days of Vengeance which is his commentary on on Revelation.

Sure I read you know bought the first edition. When the thing came out we were like waiting for this thing. So it comes out we read it and he has a footnote there about a guy named Max King and he's just in this little footnote says Max King believes that all prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD.

Well that. Okay that's my interest. I thought now how in the world could anybody do that. So I found the book. He lived in Warren Ohio. I'm in Indiana and I was at Florida at the time but I knew where Warren was and found the book ordered the book read it.

King made a very compelling 700 page argument. It's a massive volume and I saw what he was doing. Because if in in the dispensationalist framework if Matthew 24 the bulk of that is fulfilled then those first Thessalonians 4 1st Corinthians 15 Philippians 3 all of Revelation the problem was an all-or nothing approach and the full preterists were operating very much like a dispensationalist framework.

It's an all-or-nothing approach there's no partial piece milling progressive there's none of that going on off to where. Because I was raised in a dispensationalist background and I had that framework.

It was very easy for me to go from Chilton's well what we call word partial preterism. That actually is a pejorative that we full players were using against people like tomorrow. Because we would joke around saying how can you be partially pregnant.

So it was actually a silly term. Me and Preston Stevens and others we started calling people like Eric more Sam I do have to.

Interrupt you your your your image is freeze is frozen up. If you can do. If you could do me a favor I could hear you. But if you could sign off and then sign back in one more time and I'll tell a couple of eschatology jokes while we wait all right.

Okay so we'll give we'll give Sam an opportunity. Sorry about that. I know you guys could probably hear but the visuals were. I don't want to I don't want it to distract from the content. So so real quick.

So we've been talking about eschatology. The study event times. Sam was explaining that he was raised within a dispensational premillennial perspective which is sort of like that kind of left behind theology.

And and then we were kind of going into preterism. Okay preterism refers to the belief that the majority of the prophecies that most people think are in our future actually have been fulfilled. And of course you have different views as to what prophecies have been fulfilled and what prophecies are still yet to come.

So you have a variation within that. So hopefully we'll have Sam back here to kind of continue where we left off. Hopefully it's kind of a brief summary. So just in case you missed it. But let's.

See if we're a little better this time. There we go. You look better. Good okay.

Good much better thousand times better. Yeah so well so. Partial preterism was a.

Phrase that we we full prayers for hyper prayer that's what we came up with. Because we were trying to use the word preterist for ourselves. Because we we realized when I when I came from the Damar camp and went over into the Max King Don Preston camp it wasn't that.

It wasn't that hard of a jump. Okay the only the only thing that prevented that prevents I would say people from doing that better better preterist into a hyper preterist is because the issue of bodily resurrection and the end of history the last day the great white throne judgment all of those things being future.

So but if everything is an all-or-nothing approach the dispensationalist approach and that is also the hyper preterist approach it's an all-or-nothing thing if you're operating in that framework and it's very easy to jump from one into the other and become a full preterist from a dispensationalist background.

And then I wrote misplaced hope and that sold several thousand copies. And the next thing I know I'm speaking all over the United States at these conferences you know with Don Preston and Ed Stevens and Jack or John Noe and these are all full preterist.

Yeah these are all you know especially Don Don Preston. Would he's I guess the he's the most vocal leader I guess. But yeah so hype but hyper preterism is very fragmented. There's several different things camps and things going on with them.

But initially 2002 somewhere around there we we launched off of RC Sproul's book because I was studying Hebrew under dr. Bruce K Waltke and I noticed that RC Sproul I was on the RTS the Reformed Theological.

Seminary. Yes that book right there. And any local bookstore. Actually it's not any local bookstore you gotta order it but yes I enjoyed it when I was at.

Reformed Seminary there in Orlando doing my Hebrew studied two years of Hebrew there and that book came out and I read it and lo and behold I couldn't believe it. Max King is mentioned in this book. I thought little old Max King from Warren Ohio Church of Christ guy is mentioned by RC Sproul.

Well that just I knew. That was gonna throw the spotlight RC Sproul readers on who's Max King. And they're gonna start looking up this Max King guy Ned Stevens. Which they did. And so from that period 1999 -2002 to roughly around 2004 -2005 there was a big interest in WAVE and we we had probably four or five conferences a year during that period of time.

And then I started also a hyper preterist church. We were running several conferences. We had a debate with Don Preston and James B Jordan and we had a debate with Thomas Ice and Mark Hitchcock and Don Preston.

So we you know we were getting on the spotlight. The problem was is the movement as a whole began to seriously fragment. I was even criticized for being a pastor because hyperpreterism you don't have pastors.

Hmm. The the gifts of the ministry is for the building up of the man to complete maturity which happened in 70 AD. Hmm.

Okay so so before you get there so okay. So so so partial preterism is the view that the majority of prophecies biblical prophecies have been fulfilled especially the ones that most people today think are in our future.

So on a partial preterist view no future great seven-year tribulation no Antichrist no literal mark of the beast sort of deal the Millennium is not a a literal 1 ,000 years. Right. Yeah. Okay. So so all of those things that many people looked in our future have already occurred now except some key things like the bodily return of Christ the bodily resurrection of both the you know the dead and of course that the the transforming of the body of those who are alive right to be caught up with the Lord.

And and so partial preterism awaits that future resurrection. And that's what keeps it within orthodoxy. Am I correct. It's kind of yeah it still affirms those key central aspects of Christian theology now.

That said what is full preterism. And why don't you unpack the reasoning behind why a full preterist kind of holds to the view that they hold so.

Definition and explanation. Well it gets the back to that all or nothing. So all prophecy falls or stands or falls together. Okay. So with dispensationalism if you have some part of Matthew 24 70 AD then you have to have all of it.

That's that's how they think. Okay. And so the they're wholly future all these prophecies and Revelation is all future everything is all future. And the full preterist arguing just like that says that all of these prophecies which stand or fall together is wholly past so they're all past.

And that includes resurrection of the dead great white throne judgment the whole nine yards. Even even the Millennium which is from the Ascension of Christ to 70 AD that's the Millennium. That's the thousand years.

You can't have anything after 70 AD being fulfilled or being standing in need of being fulfilled. Because then.

You're off into a partial preterism. So a thousand year reign for them is from the Ascension of Christ. Yeah the 70 AD. Yeah yeah you gotta have it. That's really tiny. I mean I don't take a thousand to be literal but like dag I mean it'd be a.

Little bit longer just 30 or 40 years. That's a hard look. That was one of the hard ones to do. But when you're so committed to 70 AD and in your mind and then you've got your reputation and everything you've got these books and all this stuff out there you got to do what you got to do.

So they so they hold.

That all of this all of this prophecy that kind of the end times prophecy Matthew 24 Luke 21 Mark 13 and all these things Revelation. And of course they hold to as I as I would as well that the book of Revelation was completed before the year AD 70.

So before the destruction of the temple. So they would they would shoehorn all of those prophecies through AD 70. So that's the key event the destruction of Jerusalem is where you have this this really this all of this prophecy coming together and finding its fulfillment before the generation passed away which is what Jesus says in Matthew 24.

Right. Yeah they yeah everything it's.

So you think well what about resurrection of the dead. Yeah you've got to a spiritual eyes it okay. You could use the phrase like Don Preston would use as a covenant resurrection. So basically it is a corporate body view.

So the church was in Adam and Adam was put to death in the body of Christ and the body of Christ was raised and made whole and complete in 70 AD. I this I'm I'm being extremely brief okay to get there.

But that's basically but the another view Ed Stephens says no there were people that were literally raised in 70 AD. And there was a literal rapture in 70 AD. Because because Stephens wants to hold to a bodily aspect because he finds that very hard to get away from.

And for Corinthians 15 however the it's ludicrous to assume that all these tens of thousands of Christians disappeared throughout the Roman world and nobody noticed or something or not report. So you can see the weaknesses there.

But when you're again when you're so committed to 70 AD being the the termination point then you have to you've got to reinterpret everything to.

Fit that frame. So. So I was thinking of something so one of the arguments and perhaps is this used by many I mean it's used by partial predators but is this used by full predators as well. The the argument that the book of Revelation was completed before the year 80 70 and one of the powerful evidences for that is the lack of mention of the destruction.

Would they use that as kind of a piece.

Of evidence. Yeah they fully endorsed the idea of Revelation being. In other words that's that's an action that's a dogma. Obviously. You have to have that in full.

Well but but the reason why I bring that up is that if the lack of mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 80 70 is evidence that it was that it hadn't been destroyed yet all right wouldn't the silence of this apparent rapture be evidence against that.

Yeah see me it would seem like a double standard in.

Interpretation there there's a lot of double standards that goes on. Okay. And especially when you start dealing with the early church or the apostolic fathers who clearly did not think 70 AD resurrection of the dead and all of that they clearly did not do that.

So then you have to say well what happened to them. Well then they lost or did not understand what went on and all this. And it really becomes difficult there because now you're just revising. You're acting sort of as a revisionist at that point.

Because here's the other double standard that the perfection of God and the glory of the brightness of creation in the light of God himself showed up in 70 AD to perfect the church in all things and in church and and or in the in the body of Christ and to bring about the restoration of all things in perfection of truth and knowledge.

And within 30 years they didn't have a clue. Well wait a minute did God perfect us or not. So to get rid of that we have to go through what I call neo Gnosticism. It's the only way around it. Our perfection is a spiritual perfection.

It's a covenant perfection. It has nothing to do with tangibility perfection. In other words we're all going to agree on everything. Yeah we start transcending and spiritualizing or becoming very.

Esoteric in our explanations. So so so do some full preterists believe it. A bodily I mean if Jesus came back do they all spiritualized the second coming. I mean I'm thinking in terms of Acts in the book of Acts where he's where the angel says after Jesus ascended to heaven just as you saw him left then there's kind of the same way he's gonna come back.

So there seems to be a an essentially bodily element to his return. Well they believe that there is a that a bodily.

Return of Christ occurred. There's a there's a book okay is written by this guy here between the veils by Alan Bond are which is published by Don Preston. Okay arguing that at the Ascension Jesus was reabsorbed back into the Godhead shed his earthly body and is now eternal.

Logos again so there is no bodily.

Humanity of Jesus in heaven. Ah and so if I'm if I could think ahead. So if you were to say well wait a minute the Apostle Paul says there's one mediator between God and man the man right. Jesus they'll say well that was written before AD 70 and so that's how they they would get around it.

Everything everything is fit into the brain now. Doesn't that affect the the role of high priest. It seemed to me. The prerequisites for being a high priest is that you are a man it.

It wrecks everything. And I now when I was leaving the movement around to 2010 this was one of the issues that I had because as a as a hyper preterist I maintained mm-hmm the what we call the continuing incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth at the right hand of the Father fully man fully God.

Okay we continued to maintain that the testimony of the early churches is is two plus two equals four clear. Hmm. So if we got rid of that then we're then our eschatology is now forcing us to deny aspects of Christology so now we're getting into other areas where we even have to deny that so that we can keep our full preterist eschatology.

And guys like Alan Bond are and Don Preston have done just that. Jesus is no longer a human being after after his ascension he ceased being human and was reabsorbed back in the Godhead. It sounds like a polynarianism and it just but the the controlling factor is the the so-called you know these time texts and 70 AD so that controls every that's that controls everything.

And if Jesus is still if he ascended into heaven with the body a human body and it and is in heaven in a glorified human body then that defines what resurrection and glorification looks like for us and we can't have that because that didn't happen in 70 AD resurrection you see where I'm going with sure you've got to get rid of this and I wrote an article called you a mafia term you got to get rid of the body and because you have to and so I was not willing to go now 2010 and this 2021 I'm looking back at it now.

Something in my spirit said right there there's this is that right there's something something is not right here again I just focusing real quick on the.

Bodily aspect I'm thinking I remember. But by the way someone's asking if you're a hyper preterist. The answer is no. Sam used to be a hyper preterist back in the day and he came out of that position and so that's what we're talking about now.

But um I'm thinking it's and again I'm I've never been a harsh I mean a full preterist. I've never you know drank the Kool-Aid all the way. Every time when I even when I studied partial preterism I and I would read some full preterist stuff.

I'm kind of like hmm that doesn't. That doesn't sound right. But I remember sitting in church once and something struck me when I was reading about Jesus being the first fruit of the resurrection. And that that kind of confused me at first I was like well wait a minute how can Jesus be the first fruit of the resurrection.

There are others who have been resurrected before Jesus. I mean he raised Lazarus from the dead. He raised a little girl from the dead that read you know he raised that that guy a young man at the name in the Gospel of Luke.

Yeah. Um. And then I realized I learned later that Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection because he's the first to ever be raised from the dead with a glorified body. Right. And so you have kind of this bodily aspect to the resurrection.

And so he's never to die again. It's it seemed to be a clear indication that he would remain in that state. And as you said is the model that believers look forward to when they receive their resurrected body.

There's a very physical aspect to it that goes all.

The way back to Augustine and Tertullian and all the way through Aquinas through Calvin they all say the same thing Westminster. I mean you can go down the.

List. Charles Hodge. Okay but Sam but Sam don't go through the list because I know that many preterists full preterists will say well wait a minute. Our standard. Yeah not the creeds. It is not what church councils have said or what this father that father said our standard is the scripture.

And if I could throw a bone to the full preterist I agree. Now I'm not missing the importance of the early church fathers by no means. But it is true we do want to get to the scripture. So I want to move in a different direction.

If you don't mind one of the strongest aspects in my opinion of the full preterist position are those time indicators. So for example you know people ask me all the time you know do you think we're living in the last days.

And I'm like well I mean no. I mean why. I would say I don't know. And probably not that's my answer. But I turn them to Hebrews chapter 1 where it says that God had spoken to you know the spoken to us through the the prophets.

And many times in many ways. But in these last days right. He's spoken to us by his son Jesus Christ. And then he goes on to talk about you know the deity Christ. The last days are referred to as the days in which the author of Hebrews is living.

That struck me when I first read that first John chapter 2 speaks of the and this is how you know that this is the last hour that Antichrist has come. So the the author of well John looks at the days in which he's living in as the last hour.

Paul says that these things have happened upon whom the ends of the ages have come. And then in the book of Revelation which got me right there at the beginning at the middle and at the end but most specifically at the beginning before you get into the metaphor before you get into the symbolism of Revelation.

It says these are things that must soon take place. The time is near right now me Sam as a partial preterist one of the things that caused me to abandon dispensationalism was the force of those time those time indicators.

But a full preterist would say well Eli why are you being so inconsistent. Those indicators is what sets the context of the timing of these prophetic passages. It's there in Revelation. Why don't you take the full the full dip.

So my question for you is how do you get around the time indicators. And say yeah I would say many of these things happened in 8070 but not the whole thing. How do you get. How do you differentiate the time indicate how do you differentiate between time indicators that suggest the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem.

And those events that you believe are still in our.

Future. Well the last five years I guess now keep in mind I was in Bible College and I graduated 89. You're old. Yeah. I don't know. You look good. We both have great. So it's critical Syrian ages. There is no age.

Mm-hmm. So and as you noted you know before you know a book work so I mean I'm an avid reader. And of course over 30 years you just develop a hat. You know you read through all this kind of stuff. So looking at that particular issue of these the time text and of course Schweitzer his famous argument of a failed apocalyptic and Jesus thought this was all going to happen and of course it didn't happen.

And and a good deal of historical Jesus going all the way back to Ernst Renan and others is based on this idea of failed apocalyptic ism that's being challenged today. We're now in the third quest of historical Jesus and so that scholarship has has kind of moved in understanding the when the aspect of these time text or what are utilized this time text.

Some of it has to do simply just with translation. For example in Revelation when it says for the these things must soon take place actually it could translate that these things must swiftly take place.

It's not saying when they take place when they happen though they're swift. Can I.

Stop. Can I stop and give a little push back there. Yeah. So. Are you a dispensationalist. No. Okay. So. So when the dispensationalism. What. So when the dispensationalist will argue. Well wait a minute.

Soon doesn't necessarily need to mean soon. Like you preterists you know you partial predators or Fulbright it could mean swiftly. So. It doesn't that if we were to be consistent doesn't that remove the force of how we would argue against the dispensationalist.

Well. No I.

Don't think they I don't think our alternatives are preterism or dispensationalism. There's other there's other aspects out there. My book the Parousia of the Son of Man it covers a good deal of this but when you read you know in the Greek text ade genestai entake so it's using that phrase the things which must necessarily take place swiftly.

That's just the prepositional phrase entake that's found numerous times in both Greek classic literature as well as in the Septuagint. For example in Psalm 2 kiss the Sun lest his wrath flare up. Entake swiftly mm-hmm doesn't mean kiss the Sun lest he immediately is gonna flare up and wrath on it might be 34 it.