MacArthur on Dispensationalism

With a wrinkled face of worry, the Padreus Protectorus is always on top of his children. Be careful where you drive. And avoid the road, there's traffic. You left 20 minutes ago and I don't know about you.

But the Padreus is evolving. Since State Farm is there 24 hours a day, they are now calmer. Son, we're going to Tulum by ourselves.

Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. Call to get a discount today.

You can get lucky just about anywhere.

This is your captain speaking. We've got clear runway and the weather's fine. But we're just going to circle up here a while and get lucky. No, no, nothing like that. It's just these cash prizes add up quick.

So I suggest you sit back, keep your tray table upright and start getting lucky.

Play for free at LuckyLandsluts .com. Are you feeling lucky? No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited by law. 18 plus terms and conditions apply. See website for details. Andrew, let me clarify for everybody.

Your podcast that you did, I just want to make everybody understand the way that I viewed it. I thought you were incredibly gracious and incredibly fair. And I had nothing but appreciation for what you did.

I would have told you. I know you well enough to tell you, hey man, what are you doing? I would have gotten a phone call. You did not. Right. No, it was incredibly fair and balanced, and I appreciate you for that.

Introducing Emilio Ramos and the Dispensationalism Discussion

All right, well, we are privileged this week to have a special guest. If you listened to last week's episode, you already know who the guest is. But last week we wrapped up our, or maybe so we thought we wrapped up, our discussion on the church.

And we ended up talking about John MacArthur and his message he did, and a portion of his message where he dealt with dispensationalism. If you remember from last week, I played a clip from Pastor Emilio Ramos, who is the pastor of Heritage Grace Community Church and the founder of Red Grace Media.

And we've brought him on so that he can correct everything that I said wrong about him. So, Pastor Emilio, it is a privilege to have you on. I think you and I actually kind of got to know each other more through your wife.

Your wife and I both worked with, well, back then it was Way of the Master and then Way of the Master and Wretched. And we got to really know each other through your wife. Introduce yourself to the audience here.

If you could talk about your role as pastor, Red Grace Media. And also, you know, I've had the privilege of knowing some of your salvation testimony, and if you could just share with folks how you got saved so they can get to know you.

Well, it's good to be with you, Andrew. Thanks for having me on the program. And yeah, kind of the story of my life. A lot of folks know me through Trish and through the work she did with Ray and then later with Todd Freel and Wretched.

And so that's surprising. That's how you're right. That's how you and I kind of got to know each other through the years. And right now I'm privileged to be the preaching pastor of Heritage Grace Community Church in Frisco, Texas.

And I've been doing that now for, oh, I don't know, approximately eight years. And then prior to that, I did pastor a church in Fort Worth for a number of years. So I've been pastoring in Texas since 2007.

And also been doing open air preaching at the local university here, UNT, University of North Texas. And a lot of that can be featured on Red Grace Media. Red Grace Media is kind of a multimedia ministry that I started many years ago that just kind of gave me a platform to talk about all the various aspects of Christian theology and things that we and I am passionate about, like apologetics, evangelism, but also reformed theology, which is really more of my personal interest.

I do apologetics and evangelism and things like that, to be quite honest, more born out of necessity just to equip the church and to engage the culture and to spread the gospel and to do evangelism. But really, my passion has really become sort of the kinds of things that we cover on our YouTube channel, which is reformed theology.

And when it comes to apologetics, a very distinct Vantillian apologetic, which is a presuppositional apologetic, as you know. And so you asked me about my testimony. Well, of course, you know, I would say my testimony is as simple as the fact that when I was 19 years old, God sovereignly saved me, pulled me out of a life of rebellion.

I did not grow up in the church, was not raised Christian in any way whatsoever. I was raised basically just, you know, just the I would say it's kind of an average kid, so to speak, in terms of partying and getting into trouble and stuff like that.

And the Lord saved me from a life of all kinds of stuff, drugs, gangs, violence, you know, things like that. And God gave me a new heart and he sovereignly intervened. I guess the one thing I would point out about my salvation is that the Lord, when he saved me, I actually happened to be the only Christian in my family.

My stepfather at the time proclaimed Christ to a certain degree. Don't really know where he was really, truly at with the Lord at the time. This is 1996. But at that time, I wrote down every family member's name on a piece of paper.

I think it was one hundred and fifty family members on two sides of a piece of paper and not one single Christian in my entire family on both sides of the family. And so God was very gracious to me and I just began systematically to evangelize my family.

And so that's a little bit of the kind of the background where I came from in terms of salvation. And then from there, I was I was introduced to Calvary Chapel, where I attended Chuck Smith Church for a number of years.

And then later I moved into a smaller Calvary Chapel, which was actually where I met Easy and Niels Wayne from Living Waters and Mark Spence at the same time. And so and that's also where I met Ray Comfort.

So that's kind of where things took off was from that point on. So, yeah, that's right. So praise God.

Family Salvation and Open-Air Preaching

So how many of your family members know Christ now?

Good question. Yeah, a number of them now. Praise the Lord. My parents, my sister, nephew, my brother in law, a couple of my cousins, perhaps. And yeah, so the Lord has has definitely brought numerous family members.

One of my aunts actually just recently moved to Texas, and she's also she's also a Christian. So praise God for that.

Yeah, and I have been able to have the privilege of doing some open air with you when I was out in Texas, came out with with your team. And folks, if you if you haven't had an opportunity to watch Emilio do open air, it is good because I think Emilio, you'd agree with me.

There's a lot of people we wish wouldn't do open air and just don't do it well. But Emilio is an example of how to do it well. You end up hearing him answering questions. And this is why I think you do it so well, because you're a pastor.

I can hear when you do open air, I hear the shepherd, the shepherd's heart. And, you know, I hear someone ask a question, even if they're challenging. You're always going to it with compassion in your voice.

You're concerned about the soul. You can hear that. And I've always appreciated about that with your open air. So let's get to what brought us here today, right? So you and I have some disagreements when it comes to dispensationalism and covenant theology.

We just have a differing view of looking at it. I realized after I sent you the episode from last week and I went, I wonder if Emilio ever knew that that long conversation we had at Shepherd's Conference, I was like anxiously waiting to go and meet Kostya.

And so I was like, oh, I didn't know that you ever knew that. But yeah, I mean, it's always enjoyable to get together with you. I always, every time there's things that I learn. So when you said that you'd want to come on, I was like, oh, that'd be great.

So you did a response to John MacArthur at Shepherd's Conference. I thought, I didn't play the full thing, but I think that you gave very flattering words to him in the sense of explaining the respect that you had for him.

But you do have disagreements with what he had said, and you wanted your audience to know that. I think that's good, and because I responded to you, I think it's only fair that you get a chance to respond to this same audience to say, hey, here's where we differ, and you get to say it in your own words.

So to start us off, for folks who maybe covenant theology is a newer thing, or as you said, Reformed theology, could you give an overview of your position, what you hold to, and some of why you hold to it?

Covenant Theology, the Covenants, and the Covenant of Works

Well, sure. Covenant theology is the theology that stresses the idea that what we're looking at in Scripture is one organic plan of salvation, and that that plan of salvation is encapsulated within the concept of covenant.

And what is a covenant? Well, a covenant is something like an agreement, a bond, a commitment that God makes on the basis of some sort of either a ritual or sacrifice or an oath, an oath that God takes.

I actually agree with Meredith Klein's definition of a covenant, that a covenant is an oath-bound commitment. And sometimes I use the covenant of marriage as a perfect example of what a covenant is. Covenant of marriage, of course, entails two people taking an oath and making commitments to one another.

And that's what covenant theology really is stressing, is that God, through these covenants, has made certain commitments either to his people or to a nation or to his son. And all of these covenants, of course, are bound by some form of commitment or oath, and that when God makes a covenant, he swears by his own name and by his own integrity, for example, as we see in the Abrahamic covenant.

But covenant theology stresses also the idea that not only are there the covenants that we know of in terms of biblical history, like the Noahic covenant or the Abrahamic or the Mosaic or the Davidic or the New Covenant, but also that behind that there are other covenants that may not be as explicit.

For example, Reformed covenant theology believes in a covenant of redemption, which is an intra-Trinitarian covenant. That's a covenant between the members of the Trinity. And in this covenant of redemption is where God, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit both or all commit in terms of the means and the objects of salvation, of redemption.

And so that each member of the Godhead has a role to play in the covenant of redemption. And that from the covenant of redemption stream forth all the other covenants, really, and that what you begin to see is that as God created the world and created his image in Adam, that Adam becomes in a sense sort of a covenant being and that Adam immediately is placed into a covenant relationship with the covenant God.

Reformed theology stresses that God is a covenant God and that we are covenant creatures and that Adam in the Garden of Eden, for example, in Genesis chapter 2, verses 15 to 17, was in a covenant relationship with God for two reasons.

By virtue of being in the image of God, and number two, by virtue of being under the command, the law of God. And so that is what we would call the covenant of works, whereby Adam, if and when he were to perfectly obey God's command, God's law in the garden, to eat of all the other trees, but of the knowledge of good and evil he shall not eat, because the day that he eats of it he will die, or literally in dying he will die.

So he had to earn what was promised to him in that covenant, which I think would have been a perpetuation until he reaches eternal life in Eden and giving way, I think, even to a higher Eden or a higher world, which I think would be represented by the Sabbath, for example.

So we can come back to that if you'd like. And then also we believe that, of course, after the fall of man, because Adam did not obey that initial covenant, whereby he would have earned the right to eternal life to eat of the tree, for example, of eternal life, which that's what the tree symbolizes, is eternal life.

He lost the right to that tree and did not get to partake of the tree of life, and therefore, as he fell in sin, man was in need of another covenant, but no longer a covenant whereby through merit he could earn his right standing before God and advance himself, that is, to sort of move into a higher form of life.

And now, in order for man to achieve that, man must be in a different covenant arrangement. And this is what we would call the covenant of grace, which you begin to see the very foundations of that in Genesis 3 .15, where God promises that through the seed, his Messiah, his messianic seed, that we will achieve ultimate and final victory over the serpent, for example.

And so there you have it. I mean, Reformed theology would stress covenant of redemption, covenant of grace, covenant of works, and then all the other covenants that you see are an outworking of the principles that you find either in the covenant of grace or in the covenant of works.

And so I would say that you find elements of those covenants intermingled in different biblical covenants. So, for example, the covenant with Abraham is a gracious covenant, but it also entails a certain level of commitment on the part of Abraham and a certain level of works whereby he has to walk blameless.

But as it pertains to Abraham's salvation or his redemption, that is only going to be a result of the covenant of grace. God promising to save a people by grace through faith. That is not a random act of kindness on the part of God, just because God is good or kind or gracious.

That is a covenant bound promise that he makes for those who repent and believe, obviously, in Jesus Christ. And so that would be kind of where I would start with people. I don't want to go too fast, too long or too deep, too fast here, but that would be kind of the overarching.

So ultimately, because there is a sort of organic continuity through all the covenants, we can expect that God has one ultimate purpose, and I would say one ultimate people of God, one ultimate salvation for the people of God, and one ultimate destiny for the people of God.

And one thing I want to clarify, because this is a strawman argument that I hear dispensationalists make against covenant theology, and so I mentioned it on the show last week, but when you say covenant of works, we want to be clear, you're not saying works salvation.

The covenant of works is the name given for that time period where this covenant is in play, but it's not, as some dispensationalists try to say, that it's two ways of salvation. You made it clear, I think, that you believe in one way of salvation, one gospel.

Well, I would put it this way, Andrew, that salvation is by works, but it's the work of Christ. It's by works in terms of somebody needs to keep the law of God. The problem is none of us will do it. None of us can do it.

Adam didn't do it. He could have done it, but he did not do it. We believe that by nature Adam could have obeyed, but he did not obey. And therefore, somebody does need to keep the law of God. Well, that's exactly what Adam too did.

Jesus, if he fulfilled all righteousness, he kept the law of God perfectly, and therefore our salvation was earned, and because our salvation was earned, it can therefore be applied to us by the merit of Christ.

Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, and Different Ways God Works in History

Now, when you talk with the covenants, because I think there's more similarity in our positions than many people often think of, and I think it's because it's easier to attack strongman arguments. You mentioned several covenants, the covenant with Adam, with Moses, Noetic, the New Covenant.

As a dispensationalist, we too would end up seeing the covenants. As a dispensationalist, I would end up seeing that each of those covenants gave new responsibility, more revelation would be given, but it's a new accountability for the people, a new responsibility that they have.

And sometimes a different way God works with his people, his elect people, during that time. Would you agree, at least with that aspect, that at different times God has made covenants with his people, given them responsibility, and the way he works with his people at that time might be different?

Well, there's no question about that, but I think it just goes down to definition of terms. When you say he works with his people in different ways, I don't think you mean anything like classic dispensationalism in the tradition of Schofield and Darby would believe, which definitely does lead to some sort of merit-based system of salvation, and that's why that whole classic approach has been pretty much rejected.

What we have in MacArthur, what we have in Dallas Seminary and places like that is much more of a progressive dispensationalism, a leaky dispensationalism, as you have heard it said. But at the same time, now that we can put that kind of off the table, no one, neither you nor I, is talking about man being able to earn his salvation.

But in these different dispensations, and I don't have a problem using the word dispensations, if you read any Reformed theology, you read these guys using the word dispensation. Of course, they mean that in terms of ethical definition, meaning that we're looking at different ethics.

We mean that in the way Scripture means that. You know, Hebrews chapter 1, various times and in various ways God spoke to the fathers, right? And those types of ethical distinctions. Second Peter talks about the time of Noah, and he refers to it as the world that then was.

It was a different ethic. And during those types of ethics, you do have God operating in the midst of his people in different ways. And so even under the Mosaic period of time, we can expect that a nation in a theocratic institution is going to have things that we no longer have.

God relates to them in ways that he doesn't relate to us. We no longer are bound to the ceremonial and civil aspects of the law, for example. We no longer obey positive law. That's all been removed in Christ.

And so there's no question that God worked with his people in different ways and at different times for different reasons. But Reformed theology, I think, Andrew would make this distinction, if I may be allowed to make this distinction, is that what we're looking at here is not just simply the progression of time, but we're looking at a typological structure in the Bible.

We're moving from type to anti-type, and that's why things change.

Israel, the Church, and the End of National Israel

Yeah, I think I would agree with a lot of that. One of the things in the response that you did to John MacArthur, and I said this in the last episode, it really clarified for me where I felt so much of the crosstalk between dispensationalist and covenant theologies occur, and it was probably because I was talking to a pastor who really didn't understand.

He had only studied dispensationalism, never studied covenant theology, which is really, I think, a shame for anybody to only study one side of an argument. I think that my opinion is that could give people an unbalanced view and give them a false sense of assurance that they're right when they just don't know the arguments actually made.

They only hear arguments that their side makes, and that becomes problematic. So I think, though, your response, what it really helped with, what it had really helped with was the fact that, you know, I started to— I was listening to you and realized that when I talked on, like, previous episodes of this podcast, as we went through the Church, we talked about how historically the term ecclesia, the Church, changed over time, and it became something that people start defining as different with the local gathering, where it's a mix of unbelievers and believers, and the universal Church that is all believers.

But we don't talk about Israel in that way, but it was. Israel was a mix, the nation of believers and unbelievers, and then we speak of spiritual Israel, and we talk about them, well, they're all believers.

And in your response, it actually clarified in my mind what I couldn't put my finger on was the issue in much of this discussion. It's because you were really clear that you're referring to spiritual Israel, and a lot of people, when they're responding to covenant theology, are talking national Israel, and I think there's a miss there.

I think that—and you brought this out in your thing—how you handle Israel in the Church is essentially really where we would differ, for the most part. I think that's the biggest difference. So could you get into your view of Israel in the Church and define that for folks?

Yeah, sure, and I also just want to point out that my response to John MacArthur was— it's interesting because the way that it was received, I had pastors and students and stuff coming up to me at the conference, telling me, hey, what's your video, your response?

I would say I think I had about five different folks approach me, and I think all of them except for one were very positive, even to the point where maybe— yeah, that's pretty much exactly where I'm at.

I had one pastor come up and say, hey, I think you're missing it, and here's why, and we ended up having a really good discussion for about an hour, a really, really good, very friendly, loving discussion.

But on social media, I had people criticizing me and really taking cheap shots for no reason. It was just so immature that we can't even have these conversations, but whatever. I was just trying to clarify because, like I said, 90 of everything MacArthur said in that message I thought was stellar.

But obviously, coming from Reformed covenant theology and from that position, I obviously took issue with his understanding or the way that he described Reformed hermeneutics on one hand, and on the other hand, talking about replacement theology.

Let me just say with regard to Israel, I think the word replacement theology is really unfortunate. And to me, when I hear somebody use the word replacement theology, it's almost a clear indicator that they really do not understand Reformed theology.

Telling someone that you're a replacement theologian from a covenantal perspective would be like me saying that dispensationalists believe you can earn your salvation in the Old Testament. I don't think MacArthur would ever be okay with somebody telling him you can earn your salvation in the Old Testament.

Of course not. But that's the kind of ad hominem stuff that happens when you're not really educated on theology in these areas. And so when it comes to Israel, though, I would just put it this way. There is no such thing as the nation of Israel anymore, not in terms of the purpose of God or the economy of God.

And that is where I know dispensationalists will disagree, because I don't believe that Israel as a nation any longer has any program in the plan of God. I don't believe that there will be a restoration of the nation of Israel.

I don't believe in the millennium that Israel will be sort of the focal point of the raid of Jesus Christ on Earth. When there is references to Israel in the New Testament or references to the Jews, it is simply speaking ethnically.

But Israel as an institution, as a nation state, as an elected nation, has lost its national election and has forfeited its covenant blessings and its covenant standing. God has declared, lo ami, you are not my people.

And when Jesus destroyed the temple, and even prior to that, when Jesus was on the cross and he died on the cross, God, to make an emphatic once-for-all declaration, tore the veil from top to bottom, not only to say the new and living way is here into the holy place, but to say the old way has expired.

And that's exactly what you find in the book of Hebrews, is that the old is gone and the new is here. And so that's kind of where I think we'll probably, as dispensationalists and covenantalists, we will always disagree.

I do not see a future for the nation of Israel, although I do see a future for national Jews, if that makes sense, or ethnic Jews.

Clarifying the Dispensational/Covenantal Misunderstandings

Yeah, I mean, it makes sense. We may disagree on it, but it does make sense. And I hope that you weren't thinking of me when talking about cheap shots on the internet.

No, you know, Andrew, let me clarify for everybody, your podcast that you did, I just want to make everybody understand the way that I viewed it, is that I thought you were incredibly gracious and incredibly fair, and I had nothing but appreciation for what you did, so no, there's nothing.

I would have told you, I know you well enough to tell you, hey man, what are you doing? I would have gotten a phone call. You did not. Right, no, it was incredibly fair and balanced, and I appreciate you for that.

Well, that's what we tried to do here. And, you know, I actually agree with you about MacArthur's usage of replacement theology. When he was on Ben Shapiro's show, I cringed when I heard him say that.

I was like, you know, it's hard, in my mind, maybe in yours, it's hard to conceive someone who is as bright, as intelligent, as studious as he is to make what I think, and it sounds like you may agree, a really simple misstep with the use of that word.

I don't know if it's just easier, look, it's always easier to fight a straw man. That's always the case. But when he was on with Ben Shapiro, it was the same thing. He defined covenant theology as a replacement theology, and it's something that I don't think, there are extremes that hold to a position like that, but it is, I think, not fair to blanket a whole group of people by the extreme.

And I personally wish he would stop doing it, because it does muddy the waters.

And when you say replacement theology, that's very much like, when did you stop beating your wife? You know, it's very much like a complete poisoning of the well, so to speak. And so it's not a helpful, I don't think it's a helpful way to describe, but at the same time, I must say I do sympathize with MacArthur when you take his position, that what covenant theology is saying is that the promises that were made to ethnic Israel, to the Jews, you know, when you're coming from a dispensational bent, you expect to see the literal fulfillment of certain promises and prophecies that regard Israel, you expect to see literal fulfillments of those types of things.

Now listen very carefully, I'm going to use a term that if you need me to define it, I will. You're expecting a geophysical fulfillment, whereas Reformed theology understands all of that to be mainly redemptive and eschatological in its fulfillment.

Those are big terms, if you want to talk more about that.

We should. Let's do this. Let me play, go to a break, and then if you could, after the break, define those terms. I know what you mean by them, but it is, you recently did a show with someone who you did the same thing when he put the big words out.

You need to explain it, because not everyone understands them. But basically, whether we believe the future is a land promise or a spiritual promise, that's the very short way. After this break, I'm going to have you give it better definition.

Biblical Theology, the Future of Israel, and the 70 Weeks of Daniel

The good news is, Striving for Eternity would love to come to your church to spend two days with your folks, teaching them biblical hermeneutics. That's right, the art and science of interpreting scripture.

The bad news is, somebody attending might be really upset to discover Jeremiah 29 11 should not be their life verse. To learn more, go to strivingforeternity .org to host a Bible interpretation made easy seminar in your area.

My name is Andy Olson, and I want to tell you about Echo Zoi Radio. Echo Zoi Radio is a podcast outreach of Echo Zoi Ministries. Every month I find a knowledgeable guest to talk about an important and interesting topic that affects the church today.

We carefully balance the discussions of positive, God-glorifying doctrines of Orthodox Christianity from a mostly Reformed point of view with exposés of heresy, false teaching, and poor practice that goes on throughout the church today.

You can find us at echozoi .com. That's E-C-H-O-Z-O-I dot com.

All right, and Echo Zoi is one of the podcasts on the Christian Podcast Community, which is also part of this podcast that we are also on there, so go to christianpodcastcommunity .org to check out all of the 20-plus and ever-growing list of podcasts.

So let's talk about Israel and the church, because this was going to be the question that I had written down in my notes for you was, do you believe in a future for Israel? And that's really where you, before the break, you were getting to.

So what is the covenant view of the future for Israel? And really, is there one, really?

The answer to that question is yes and no. Yes, there is a future for Jews. No, there's not a future for Israel as a nation, that is, as an institution, to resurrect the concept of the Old Testament theocracy, for example.

So no. Whereas in dispensational thought, you must have a literal, and this is the word I use, the geophysical fulfillment of the Jewish state. And so you must have a literal millennium where Jesus must literally reign from literal Jerusalem in the literal temple.

As Reformed interpreters, we disagree with that, and that's why the vast majority of Reformed folks would fall into either amillennialism or postmillennialism. I'm personally amillennial, and so I believe that the millennium is not a literal phenomenon there in Revelation chapter 20, and there are plenty of reasons for that.

So I would say, yes, if you're Jewish, you're going to be saved like the Apostle Paul. And so if you're going to be saved, God will save you, but he will put you into the church. He will not put you into Israel, not even in the future.

Yeah, and myself being a Jewish believer, I'm going to agree with you, and people will sit there and ask me all the time, you know, as if, are you a Messianic Jew? Are you a completed Jew? And my answer is always, I'm a Christian, right?

I mean, I got saved the same way everyone else did, by God's grace, and it had nothing to do with me, and it's nothing special. And this is, for some reason, it seems hard for people to understand, like if you're Jewish, there's got to be something special about your salvation.

No, there isn't. I'm a member of the church. I may be from a Jewish background and someone else from a different background. It really doesn't matter. But I do think, and this is, like you said, this is where we end up disagreeing, is I end up seeing that I do think God will have a plan for Israel in the future as a nation.

Now, I would end up seeing, and well, let me ask you, and I should have asked you this ahead of time so you could prepare, but in Daniel, you're probably familiar, but in Daniel you have the prophecy of the 70 weeks in Daniel chapter 9, 24 to 27, I believe.

Now, as we look at that breakup, we end up seeing that he lays out a time from when sin is going to, there's going to be, put an end to sin, finishing of the transgression, and an everlasting righteousness.

So he's got a list of things that he has there, and he gives a total time of 77-year periods, and he breaks them down into a 7-year period, a 62 -7-year period, and then that last 7-year period, and he breaks that in half.

Now, I think universally, from almost everyone I know, we all agree that the first 7-year period, or 7 -7 years, from the building of Jerusalem and the temple, that being restored, that is a literal 49 years, and then that 62 -7-year periods, people see coming up until Messiah.

Now, I take those as literal, which then in my mind presents an issue for that last week, because I would think that has to be literal, and it's split in half between the first half a week and the second half a week.

So I see that as a three-and-a-half-year period, a three-and-a-half-year period. How would you, and so I guess part of the thing with that is where my interpretation, not that I'm telling you, Pastor Emilio, anything you don't know, you've studied this, but for people, to bring them up to speed, I end up taking that this whole thing is literal.

I just see a gap between when Messiah is cut off until that covenant that's made for one week, and that gap I would end up seeing is the period we're in now, that in dispensationalism we'd call the Church Age, and I would end up seeing that that seven-year period will be in the future with Israel.

How, from your perspective, because I think this is a clear passage where because of our differences we're going to look at this very differently, and you may not be ready to exegete this on the spot, and if so, that's fine, but how would you handle a text like that or view that?

Well, you know, I think my position would be much like Meredith Klein's position, so if you read his book, God, Heaven, and Armageddon, he has a section on Daniel 70 weeks, and so I'm kind of more in line with that.

I think that much of this was fulfilled at the cross, and that Daniel 70 weeks is really referring to the ratification of the New Covenant through the Messiah and not so much indicative of the work of Antichrist.

But you're right, this takes us into the exegesis of Daniel 70 weeks, which is very complex and certainly not something I'm prepared to do here and now, so I just take more of a messianic interpretation of that passage of Daniel 70 weeks.

But even then, I would say even upon the passage of Daniel there, I still think you need to obviously account for where in the New Testament do you see the use of Daniel 70 weeks here, and how do we understand its fulfillment from the New Testament perspective, and certainly we want to think in line with the teaching of the apostles, with the teaching of the New Testament, and the interpretation of Jesus.