Throwing Down on End Times

Welcome to Theology Throwdown! We, the

Christian podcast community of podcasters, gather to discuss our theological differences with love and charity.

This is a ministry of striving for eternity. Well, welcome to another throwdown.

This is where all the podcasters at the Christian podcast community get together. Well, obviously not all of us, because we have a lot of them.

But we get different faces, different voices each time. And so we actually have only one person here who hasn't missed a one, as far as I can recall.

And that would be Eve Franklin. So with that, we're going to all introduce ourselves.

And tonight's topic is going to be eschatology. That is the doctrine of end times.

I'll start with Eve, since you are the person who hasn't missed any of them, as far as I believe.

Introduce yourself, your podcast, for the audience. Hi, yes. I'm Eve Franklin, and I'm co -host of Are You Just Watching?

My other host is Tim Martin. And we discuss movies and other entertainment from a

Christian worldview. And I think we just finished, well, actually our last episode, we didn't know what movie to discuss, because COVID has kind of shut down entertainment.

And we just decided to talk about what we've been watching from a general standpoint.

And we got to go see a movie this last week. So our next episode will be on a new release.

So we're very excited about that. All right. I thought your co -host was actually going to be in here this week.

I was hopeful. Yeah, he's traveling this week. So it's not going to be possible.

But you can find our website at areyoujustwatching .com, and our podcast is found on any of the podcasts, wherever you find your podcasts.

All right. Next up would be Keith. Keith Helmsley. With my carpet picture,

I guess. I'll grab my microphone. Okay, here I am.

Back again. Yeah, Keith Helmsley, host of Quest for Truth. My co -host,

Nathan Caldwell. We talk about, in a casual way, we talk about social issues, culture issues.

We try to tie that to the Bible. And once a month, we do an expository look at the

Bible. We dig a little bit deep. We went through the book of John. And then we do an audio drama once a month.

We shoot for that. We don't always make it. So recently, actually, we had two audio dramas this last month.

Back to back. One of them was a crossover show with my robot from my other podcast.

And the last week, we had our audio drama about Luke investigating and writing things down.

All right. Next up, we'll go with Mr. Anthony Russo, who is also kind of my co -host here.

Yeah, all right. Well, good evening and hello, everyone. I am the host of GraceandPeaceRadio .com.

Grace and Peace Radio. It's a, which is available on all the usual podcast platforms.

It's a Christian living blog and podcast. I try to usually keep it short, under a half hour, sometimes just 10, 15 minutes.

It comes out every week, usually on Mondays, sometimes Tuesdays if I'm a little backed up on things.

But like I said, Christian living blog and podcast. And it's encouraging Christians in their biblical worldview, their commitment to the

Lord Jesus Christ, and their active participation in the furtherance of his kingdom through great commission living.

And so I've done devotional things. This past week, the episode was talking about just some of the strange responses some evangelical

Christians have given to recent surveys that have come out, and how it really showed a lack of biblical knowledge, and how we really need to make sure that we are studying the

Bible, reading it, and aware of what it is that we as Christians actually believe. So those are just a couple of things

I've talked about recently. And Grace and Peace Radio, you can find it everywhere. Thanks so much.

All right. And next up is, let's see, Daniel Minnick. Hey, hello.

I'm Daniel Minnick, the host of the Truthspresso podcast. And at Truthspresso, we like to dive deep into topics that raise a lot of questions that we have to get some good answers for, mostly questions that a lot of people don't even feel suited to ask, questions deep into theology and economics and politics.

And the episode that just aired today was asking the question, is democracy good and biblical?

So that's going to be an interesting discussion as we're in an election year. The next episode for next week is going to be nine problems with democracy.

And so I hope you look forward to listening to that and having views challenged as we like to do at Truthspresso.

Yeah, I was going to bring up your response. I did listen to it already. And yeah, it was interesting.

I actually had to, I'll admit, I had to listen to it and put aside like my

Americanism. Well, wait, next episode is going to be like a ton of bricks.

Oh, thanks. All right. Next up is Ken. I'm Ken Shipchase with the

Do Theology podcast, where we keep doctrine in its place. I co -host that with Jeremy Howard.

You can find us at dotheology .com. Our podcast is about helping Christians think through what are the theological distinctives that, first of all, we need to fight about, and we need to make sure we are understanding things, you know, things about the gospel, foundational truths of Christianity.

But then also, how do we live in unity with brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree, either in matters of theology or in matters of conscience?

And so helping people wrestle through and do theology in their everyday lives. And I'm Andrew Rapport, the host of several shows.

Andrew Rapport's Rap Report, Andrew Rapport's Daily Rap Report, Apologetics Live, and this show,

Theology Throwdown. I co -host So You Want to Be a Podcaster with Colleen Sharp.

So I keep myself a little bit busy. I don't know why. But we're glad that we can all get in to discuss this.

The issue of end times, as Anthony and I were discussing different topics, this one became one of interest in these times, because it is something that a lot of people are starting to bring up again.

I noticed a lot more discussion on end times. I haven't seen it as much since 2000, really, before 2000, when everyone thought the world was coming to an end and Y2K bug and everything was going to crash.

And I think that one of the trends that I notice is that it seems like when there are major world events,

World War I, World War II, Y2K, there seems to be a lot more focus on eschatology, the doctrine of end times.

So let's do this. Let's go through and first find out from each of you what your position is, theological position is, of eschatology.

What do you hold to? Or if you just don't have a position, just so we have an idea.

And after that, what we'll probably do is either Anthony or I could give some definitions of overarching terms for the audience.

So who wants to go first? Well, actually, I should do more like Anthony and pick people.

That way, we don't have dead air. So we'll start on my list, Eve, you're first.

So what's your position? Oh, that's rude. Put me first. Okay, Anthony, what's your position?

I can easily change that. Okay. I just have to remember that I didn't skip you.

So Anthony, what's your position? Yeah, you know, it's funny. Part of my testimony is

I was a nominal Christian for 20 years. And so I was in and out of different churches. And I heard a lot of different things. And that really kind of gave me a little bit of all kinds of different sound theology.

Even though during that time, I really wasn't saved. I heard a lot of really good theology. Most of those years, I was in premillennial churches.

So naturally, that's what I grew up with, was there's going to be a rapture, then seven years, and then the tribulation.

You know, seven years tribulation, then the millennium, and so on. As I did get saved in 2005 and I started looking at things,

I came to obviously what's called the amillennial position, that the millennium is symbolic, that it's really not going to happen, that effectively what's going to happen is that Christ is going to come, and that's it.

Game over, and then it's judgment. And I can talk more as to how

I arrived at that. But that's where I stand on this. But I'm also not dogmatic, and I don't argue with people about it, because honestly,

I also believe that none of us really know which is the correct one.

But anyway, go ahead. Okay, Eve, is it okay to go to you now? I was like him, raised as a pre -trib, premillennialist, being mostly

Baptist my whole life. But I don't necessarily hold to a pre -trib. I do believe in a premillennial.

But other than that, I consider myself a panmillennialist. It'll all pan out in the end. It's in God's plan, and I admit to a lot of ignorance on the topic.

Ken, where are you at? I'm a dispensational premillennialist.

I was born and raised that way, and after studying the scriptures, I realized, you know what, this really is the biblical position.

So, yep, that's where I'm at. And I see Keith. I think it's going to be just like the left behind story, exactly like that.

You said exactly like the left behind, is that what you said? Not really. I just had to be an honoree there.

I'm like much of the rest of you. I was raised with Jesus is going to come back, and tribulation, and millennium, devil's defeated, all that good stuff.

I still might hold to a premillennial position, but I'm not sure about the whole pre -tribulation thing.

I'm up in the air on that one. Okay, Daniel.

Okay, last but not least. So I, like most of you, grew up as a dispensational premillennialist after having some views challenged, mostly by very strong dispensational views.

I kind of studied a bit and then eventually kind of became convinced of an amillennial position, just kind of like Anthony there.

But like Eve, I would also say that, you know, there's room to be wrong here.

I'm not like 100 % convinced of it. It just seems to make the most sense of studying scripture, and it's the simplest form of eschatology, but that's what

I currently hold right now. Also to say that I can also say that I'm panmillennialist, but amillennial in particular.

Well, you're not the last because I am. And I'll argue that I'm promillennial if there's a millennium.

I'm all for it. No. See, panmillennial, everyone just uses it. No, I'm actually premillennial, pre -tribulational, and we needed more of the

Presbyterians. And I forgot I was supposed to wear my mask, so I'll put that on. In case you guys don't recognize that, that is

R .C. Sproul saying, what's wrong with you people? If I have to wear a mask, it should be

R .C. Sproul saying, what's wrong with you people, right? So we needed the Presbyterian representative. So let's give some terminology for folks real briefly, and then

I'm going to hand some of this off to Anthony to lead discussion. So we have three major views that are viewed when it comes to this, premillennial, postmillennial, amillennial.

So with each of them, you hear the millennial, that is the thousand -year kingdom. So the idea there is whether you believe that there is a literal thousand -year kingdom or not, if you believe there is a literal thousand -year kingdom, you're going to be in the premillennial, postmillennial camp.

Amillennial would say that we're in the thousand -year kingdom now, but it is a very long period of time.

So it wasn't a literal thousand years, and therefore we are in that.

And by the way, both premillennial and amillennial get their theological roots from Augustine, which presents problems because everyone thinks that Augustine has their point of view, actually even postmillennial, we can include in that because Augustine believed in a literal thousand -year period, he just believed that he was in it.

And so that was actually held, that they were in the millennial kingdom until 1000 AD. So a little historical note there.

The Catholic Church started to have more of a amillennial view after 1000

AD or sometime after that, I think it was Pope Innocent II, who wasn't so innocent.

So what you're looking at with that is when is Christ coming? Does he come before the thousand -year kingdom, after the thousand -year kingdom, or just there is no thousand -year kingdom, we're kind of in it.

Within premillennial, you may have heard some of us refer to pre, in that there's a couple of camps.

There's pre -tribulational, mid -tribulational, pre -wrath, and then there's also post -tribulational.

So those are dealing with the tribulation period. Tribulation is only within premillennialism, and that is going to be one where you have a seven -year period where the

Antichrist makes a covenant with basically a seven -year covenant with Israel, and he'll break it halfway through.

And as we look at that, the question is when does the church get taken up?

When does the rapture occur? At the beginning, before that seven -year period, in the middle of the seven -year period, just before the wrath comes during that seven -year period, so I think it's a little bit beyond the midpoint, and then or at the end, post -tribulational.

One of the posts, if you want a pre -wrath view, one of our podcasters,

Echo Zoe Podcast with Andy Olson, just did a podcast on the pre -wrath view, so I'll highlight that to let you guys know to listen to that if you're interested in that.

But those are basically the main views. And so with that, I'm going to hand this over to Anthony to kind of just lead the discussion.

Okay. So, yeah, one of the things I mentioned earlier was in my own life, in my own wrestling with this, the main thing

I saw with the pre -trib or the pre -mill position was it just seemed honestly convoluted.

So part of my discussion on this is I'm going to ask you all some questions, and you help me understand your position better.

And so hopefully through that, we'll kind of talk more about this. The first thing

I noticed was the idea of the rapture, correct me if I'm wrong, but it comes from 1

Thessalonians chapter 4, particularly where it says in verse 16, for the

Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangels and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first.

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the

Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. What I see there is the rapture is loud.

There's a shout, there's a trumpet. So if there is a rapture,

I don't see it as a silent sort of suddenly all the Christians disappear. It's a loud event, something that more fits with amillennialism.

What are your thoughts on that? Well, doesn't the amillennial, besides having the millennium be the whole figure of time, doesn't that also make tribulation a figure of time as well?

I'm just asking. I'm sorry, can you repeat that? I could barely hear you, honestly.

I'm just saying that in amillennialism, they consider the millennium to be a figure of time.

It's not exactly a thousand years. Does the amillennial approach also consider the tribulation period a figure of time?

Yeah, and to be honest with you, that's something that, it's funny, because I'm taking systematic theology three this semester.

Honestly, that's something, even in my own position, I don't quite fully understand where the tribulation fits in.

I don't think it's there, honestly. I think, unless, just this idea that things are just going to get so bad for Christians before Christ comes back.

But yeah, you're right, there's no tribulation per se. But you can't answer my question with a question.

Yeah, well, no, he was asking, clarifying. I would say, you know, with what you brought up in 1

Thessalonians 4, this would be what we'd see as a rapture, right?

But in an amillennial position, it wouldn't fit in at all. I almost think maybe what we should start with would really be

Revelation 20. Right? Because that's really where the millennium gets brought in.

But you brought up 1 Thessalonians 4. So I would say this would be the rapture within a— well, it could be in any of the systems.

I guess you're taking it that this is the final judgment, and therefore that's why it's a loud situation.

But I would say that the Lord's calling up from all the

Christians would still be a pretty significant event.

And part of this that really does play into our understanding here would be, what does

God do with Israel? That does play into it. Because if God has a future for Israel, and that's where premillennialism would see that God has a future plan for Israel.

So that also is something that plays into the interpretation. And this is where we get into broader things of covenant theology and dispensational theology.

But keeping it simpler, I think that that plays into it.

Can I ask you a question? Sure. Why do you think that the question of, is the rapture a loud event, why would that propose a problem for a pre -trib position?

Well, as I understood it, the rapture is something that happens in the blink of an eye, all the

Christians are gone. And again, help me understand. I'm not trying to tear down your position.

I'm honestly just trying to understand it better. But to me, if suddenly all the

Christians disappear, whether it's loud or quiet, I mean, what are all the unbelievers going to do?

They're just going to be like, oh, good, they're gone. And I'm not trying to make fun of it. I'm really not.

I'm just trying to understand what is the attitude then of the unbelievers who are left. It just seems like if all the

Christians are gone, they're going to be like, oh, well, everything they believed was true. So that would make them want to repent or something,

I would think. I just don't understand. What's the rest of the world going to do? Well, I think there's a few things that we could say to that.

First, when it comes to the rapture and all the Christians disappearing, how many are actually going to disappear is one question, because we also believe in a great apostasy, a great falling away.

And so I think there's a very real possibility that there's going to be a lot fewer Christians than we anticipate actually disappearing.

So there's that consideration. I'm not going to be dogmatic about all of those issues. No, that's a great point.

But then also, even if there was a huge cataclysmic event where there were suddenly just a mass amount of people off the face of the earth,

I don't see why that would necessitate unbelievers all of a sudden coming to their senses.

They are already suppressing the truth and unrighteousness, denying the God that they know exists. Why would the fact that there's a lot of Christians disappearing, why would that cause them to change from that and to seek after the living and true

God? You know, the argument I've always heard was that it would be people would say alien, you know, it was aliens to explain it.

But in light of what we see going on in our country, I actually argue, I think what's going to happen is they're just going to imprison

Christians around the world. And then people won't notice as much because the prisons will just be empty, but no one knows that.

People will rationalize anything, you know. They'll figure out something to say. So is it safe to say that maybe dispensationalists today might not have as much an issue with, you know, people, the unbelievers hearing the shout, the voice of the archangel and the trumpet when the rapture occurs?

Because I think historically, I mean, of dispensationalism, the word mystery that the

Apostle Paul uses to differentiate the body of Christ from Israel would also make it so that the shout and the voice only the

Christians hear because it's almost like to distinguish this from anything prophetic, which then starts after the rapture occurs, the prophetic time clock starts again.

And so it's almost like trying to make a clean break from the body of Christ, then from the prophecy of Israel beginning.

And since it's a mystery, then only Christians hear it. I mean, I could be wrong, but I've heard the term secret rapture, and that historically dispensationalists held to the idea that the shout, the trumpet, the archangel's voice are only heard by the

Christians somehow. Yeah, I've heard that. I've heard, you know, the secret rapture thing.

That's not necessarily something I hold to necessarily. And I don't know how widespread. I think it probably is still a widespread belief amongst many dispensationalists.

But I don't think it'll necessarily be a secret thing. I think, like I said, there's the potential that it could be a very cataclysmic event all on its own if there are a great number of people that disappear.

And if there's not, if there's only a small number of people that do get caught up into the air, then there may have been a great noise in the heavens that people try to find different ways to explain what that sound was.

And then there's a few people gone, you know, so. Okay.

So I guess, and we'll get to the millennium. I guess I'll start this on kind of a time flow.

I guess another question I would have is, in the pre -mill position, when is the second coming of Christ?

Is it at the rapture, or is it at the end of the seven years to establish the millennial reign?

I think that's where you have to differentiate between, as Andrew mentioned, the different camps of the pre -millennial position.

Because I am not, as I said, I'm raised pre -Trib, but I don't believe in pre -Trib anymore because of some of the issues that have just been raised in the previous conversation.

After reading the Bible for myself, I honestly don't see a pre -Trib rapture in the scripture.

And so it's been hard for me in Baptist camps to have constant, you know, people who believe in a pre -Trib rapture, but I don't necessarily hold to it.

And I can't defend that position because I don't believe it anymore. But I do believe that the

Lord will come and issue in a millennial reign. And so I do believe that he comes before the millennial, which is why

I'm still pre -millennial. But I'm not exactly sure where that coming fits into the tribulation.

I don't see, and that's one of the reasons why I'm a pan -millennialist, is because I honestly,

I don't see how all of it goes together, and I'm willing to express ignorance on it. But I do believe that he doesn't come prior to the tribulation.

And sometimes it concerns me when I see the church talking about persecution and tribulation and saying, well, at least we'll be, we won't have to experience it because God's going to take us away before it all happens.

And I'm like, well, you can definitely hope that, but what if he doesn't? Because I feel like sometimes we use it as, at least some

Christians use it as a, well, we're not going to experience persecution. God's going to rescue us from that.

And that's, to me, it's a false comfort because God never promised us that we wouldn't be persecuted as Christians.

And that has actually concerned me about the position of some of the denominations. So it sounds like you're more a pan -tribulationalist, not a pan -millennialist.

Yeah. Since you're pre -millennial either way, it sounds like you're a pan -tribulationalist.

Can I just say as a pre -tribulationalist, I actually agree with some of those concerns about some of the things that people have, the conceptions that like, oh, okay, we're going to be fully insulated and protected from everything.

It's a rather, I think it's a rather American -centric viewpoint where it's like, it's not as if God's church hasn't been persecuted around the world for a very long time.

And that viewpoint that says, oh, well, we're not going to experience that because we're going to be raptured is very limited in its scope towards believers in America, typically.

And that's problematic. So do we have a passage in the Bible that actually timelines a seven -year period that we can call the

Great Tribulation? Yeah, and this would be the one I would turn to is the 70 weeks of Daniel.

If you look in Daniel chapter 9, this actually, in my opinion, is the most difficult for someone who is a non -millennialist to hold to, to deal with.

Because when we look at this, I'll read this, but before I read it, what

I want to do is note that as we look at it, focus on what's literal or whether it's not with each of these weeks.

Now, it's going to talk about a week. The week refers to a seven -year period.

It actually, in the Hebrew, is just 77s.

And so that could be a one -week period, seven days, or it could be one of the things with the way the

Jewish calendar is, is things are marked by a seven -year period. That's because on the seventh year, you add in an extra month, kind of like our leap year.

They have a leap month. And so I want to read through this portion.

It says 70 weeks, so this is Daniel chapter 9, verse 24. And I'll read 24 to 27.

70 weeks have been decreed for your people and for your holy city to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place.

So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild

Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there will be a seven weeks and 62 weeks.

It will be built again in the plaza and the moat, even in the times of distress.

Then after the 62 weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the

Prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary, and its end will come with a flood.

Even to the end, there will be war. Desolations are determined.

And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week.

But in the middle of the week, he shall put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering.

And on the wing of abomination will come one who makes desolation, even until a complete destruction.

One that is decreed is poured out on the one who makes desolate.

So you have basically 70 weeks broken up into three. It's a seven -year period, a 62 -year,

I'm sorry, a seven -seven -year period, a 62 -seven -year period, and a one -seven -year period.

Now, basically every scholar I know will take the first 69 weeks as literal, okay?

That we would argue that this is the decree that goes out to rebuild

Jerusalem, that we have the building of Jerusalem. The time frame there is the 49 years.

You have the next 62 times seven -year period until Christ comes on the scene. And therefore, the question becomes, where's this last week?

Now, there are some who will try to say that that last week is the first half of the week is the three -and -a -half -year ministry of Jesus.

I've heard millennials argue that. And what do they do with the last half that week?

Suddenly, it becomes figurative. Now, as you read through this, I see nothing that would say that it's literal, literal, literal, literal.

All of a sudden, we take part of it figurative. I think it either all has to be literal or it all has to be figurative.

Now, you say, okay, what about some of these other views where you do take it literal?

I think the premillennial view is the only one that has an answer to this passage in Daniel 9 because in verse 27, where it will speak about the one week, you have the 62 weeks in verse 26 that it says you have the seven -week period.

Then after the 62 -week period, the Messiah is cut off.

So the Messiah comes on the scene at that point. Now, what you end up seeing,

I believe, with this is it says that there is a possibility that we could see as a gap that wasn't described in the

Scripture because he says, and he's going to make a covenant. There's not the timeframe there like there was in verse 26.

So we would see that the church age is this gap that's in the middle there. Now, I also point out, and we'll get everyone's discussion on it, but verse 24 gives you what's going to be the end of this 77 -year period, the 490 years.

And one of it is to finish transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the holy place.

So what I would say is we don't have an end to sin yet. And people would say, well, this is the atonement was at the cross.

But then that puts, again, it puts the timeframe off because the end of the 70th year has to be that, where everyone sees that this would end up being in the middle of, when

Christ is at the cross, would be in the middle of that. And that would present a problem, I think, for any view other than premillennial.

So that's where I would see this seven -year tribulation. See, and if anybody else wants to jump in here, please do.

But I'm going to counter with that, with the idea that that's awfully convoluted.

And I would rather say, I have no idea what this text means than to go with a convoluted answer like that.

And I don't mean to convolute it again to sound insulting, but I don't know what better word to use.

It's kind of like, I love and I have great affection and respect for my

Presbyterian brothers and sisters. However, I'm Baptist by conviction through reading the scriptures.

And they would say they're Presbyterian by conviction through reading the scriptures. I get that. But I feel like the Presbyterians tend to read into certain texts in order to arrive at their conclusion.

And a plain reading of the New Testament by an average ordinary person would likely cause them to become

Baptist by conviction, not Presbyterian, not infant baptism, not sprinkling.

I feel like with the premill position, the pre -trib position, it's the same thing.

There's an awful lot of reading into text and making things say this and then this and then this in order to line it all up and say, aha.

And so that's why I really struggle with it. And that's why I ended up saying I can't embrace this because it's just too complex for –

I'd rather say we have no idea what this text is. Well, Anthony, as a millennialist,

I actually do take this passage literally. But, of course, I know Andrew mentioned some of the things like the finishing the transgression, making end of sins.

I see some of that language used in Hebrews, you know, when he himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high.

And that the six – let's see. So that the 70 weeks are, you know, 70 weeks of years and that they also don't break.

Like the 70th week, I don't see any evidence there that it breaks.

And like I follow the notes from I think it's Albert Barnes on understanding this that I would start at about 444

A .D., the 70 weeks, and that the first section is when the wall is built, the moat is built, and then the next section is the period between that.

And if you take these sevens as sevens of the 360 -day years, the

Jewish years, because the Jews were taken into captivity because they didn't keep

Sabbaths. And so it used the 360 cycle. Like these don't necessarily have to be solar years of 365, but if they're 360 -day years, then at the end of the 69th week, you end up in A .D.

30, which I think is when Jesus was baptized and his ministry started.

And then in verse 26, you know, you have to read into it the idea that the prince that shall come is different from Messiah the prince.

I mean, I know that, you know, some scholars believe that and others will believe that the, you know,

Messiah the prince is the same as the prince that shall come. But I think it's still possible to believe that the prince that shall come can also be

Jesus Christ himself, Messiah the prince. And you might think, well, then why would the people of Jesus Christ be the ones who would come and destroy the city?

But if you go to a parable of the kingdom that Jesus mentions in Matthew chapter 22, where he says, the kingdom as heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son.

And then you go, the people killed his son. And then in verse 7 of Matthew 22, he says, but when the king heard thereof, he was wroth, and he sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers and burned up their city.

So if this is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem here, the prince that shall come can still be the

Messiah. And when he says, your house is left unto you desolate, since in the parable, the king would be the father,

Jesus would be the son who would be the prince, and then their armies come and destroy the temple.

And then, you know, Andrew, you mentioned verse 26, after three score and two weeks, so Messiah be cut off.

Does that have to mean like immediately the second after the end of the 69th week, or could it be three and a half years after?

You know, like as a consequence after, so then that's reiterated in a different way in verse 27, where he, referring back to Jesus, will confirm the covenant with many for one week.

So then I would say, well, what's this covenant? It's the covenant with Israel to call the remnant, and he confirms it for one week, but in the midst of the week, he causes the sacrifice and oblations to cease by his death, you know, after three and a half years of ministry.

And then the other half, I still take as literal, because I believe that it was three and a half years after that point until the stoning of Stephen, the calling of Paul, and where the gospel goes out to the

Gentiles. And so the covenant with Israel was for that seven -year period, and in the midst of it,

Jesus causes the sin to cease by the atonement, and then the other three and a half years of the ministry, the apostles going to first Jerusalem, then

Judea, then Samaria, and then the uttermost part of the earth begins at the end of that period with Paul the apostle to the

Gentiles. I don't know if that makes sense at all, but that's how I see this. Okay.

Anybody want to chime in? Okay. I'll chime in just to say,

I thought Ken might have jumped in there, but I'll just jump in and say that I don't think it's so convoluted.

I think that I'm just reading it. The only thing that would be convoluted is, what do you do between verse 26 and 27?

I think that the natural reading of this, we would end up seeing that there is a literal 490 -year period that's being described.

We got to remember in its context, it's an answer to his prayer that Daniel has about the 70 years that they're supposed to be in captivity.

And so this is the answer to some of his questions of when are these things going to happen?

What are the next events in time? I think it's fitting with that. So I wouldn't see it as,

I guess, convoluted. In one sense, anything that we deal with in the future is convoluted.

No matter which position you have, we're all going to have some positions that we would all look at as convoluted, if we're going to be honest, because it's not as clear as scripture that's already fulfilled.

And so, yes, we're trying to make heads or tails of something that's not as clear. I think that the two passages to me that are very clear that I turn to for my position is this one in Daniel and Revelation 20 that maybe we'll get to.

Ken, you were going to say something? Yeah. I mean, the only thing I was going to say was essentially what you just said about being convoluted.

To me, it's just a straightforward reading of the text. What does the text say? And grappling with that, as far as the first 69 weeks, all you have to do is do the math, as Daniel mentioned, how a lot of that stuff lines up.

You just do the math and it's right there. And then from there, you're just trying to figure out, as Andrew mentioned, what do you do with that last week?

And it just seems to line up pretty well with what we have in Revelation and things, which

I know Revelation is another area of debate and things as well. So that may, that's not very helpful bringing that into the conversation.

But yeah, to me, it's not convoluted. It's just a straightforward. And this is why dispensationalists are known for having our great charts, man.

That's exactly where I was going to go next. Yes. You, yes, you, they, they have the best charts.

There's no question, but that actually is exactly my, my point between what you, what you just said.

And then the way Daniel ended his statement with, I don't know if that makes sense, but you know, but there you go.

Kind of thing. When I say it's convoluted, what I mean is if, if we went to an unreached people group and we, and let's say they were an unreached people group that for our sake, spoke

English. Okay. I don't know how, but just for the sake of argument, right? We don't have to go through all the linguistic training and all that.

They speak English. Great. So now we go and we present a chalkboard every, as far as I can think of everything about the

Christian, Christian faith can be easily diagrammed on a chalkboard.

God came down, lived among us, died on a cross, went to a grave three days later, rose back to heaven.

And one day is coming again. So that's, that, that could be easily graphed out.

You know, all of this can be graphed out. The, the all millennial position can be graphed out that there's just a, a line, a vertical line at the end of time.

And then Jesus judges everything. So everything about the

Christian faith is, is easily drawn. Children can understand all of it. Why would, why would

God make such a difficult graph, a difficult end time scenario?

That, that a plain reading of scripture, it doesn't really arrive at easily.

If at all. And it would be so difficult to communicate to, to people, to, to people in general.

That's what I mean by a convoluted. It's just so. Again, I know it's your position.

I'm just explaining the struggles I had with it. I just found it so implausible. Have you ever tried to explain the

Trinity? I just explain it.

Like, this is what it is. And if I can't explain it, this is what it is. That's what we're. That's, that's, this is what the

Bible is. From what I understand, this is what, this is what the Bible teaches. And this is, but even the complexity of the

Trinity is easier than what the pre trib. Position is.

Well, so I I'll put it this way. I don't, I'm a dispensationalist that never had charts. you know,

I, I guess I'm a bad dispensationalist, but remember I grew up in a Jewish background, so I didn't have any preconceived ideas from Christianity when

I became a Christian. Okay. This, this, this passage was actually one that I, when I went to the rabbi, when my parents found out

I was Christian, he brought me to the rabbi. This is one that I brought to him to say, Hey, look, 490 years.

Messiah has to be on the scene. Now, granted, I thought all 490 years were completed before Messiah came, but in an, in a, just a natural reading of it.

I read that as literal without any understanding of end times at all. I wasn't seeing any of that in there.

I was just reading it as a literal 490 year period. And then Messiah is there.

So, and, and would be cut off. So, you know, this was a natural reading. I don't think that it was, it wasn't anything that I read with a preconceived ideas of pre -millennial pre -trip.

And to, to, I know to Anthony's concern, you know, as you could tell, I have a literal understanding of this passage too, but it's not the dispensational timeline.

Basically, all I'm doing is saying that the years are not solar years, they're

Jewish years. And so when those all add up, the 69 weeks and where Jesus ministry begins.

And then, yeah, I have the understanding that the last week follows the other 69.

So in a literal reading of this passage, I don't see where there's anything that would say that the 70th week is postponed for 2000 plus years.

I mean, I know that maybe you'd say a literal reading would say that the, the city and the sanctuary are destroyed in that period, like in verses 26 and 27.

But I see that those are the consequences of what happened, you know, near this time.

So Messiah is cut off in the middle of the 70th week. And then as a consequence, the people of the

Prince will come and destroy the city within the generation. As Jesus says, you know, this generation, you know, no stone will be left upon another.

And then that's kind of repeated. So verse 27 kind of repeats 26 in another way.

So after three score and two weeks, Messiah will be cut off in verse 26 parallels with, and he will confirm the covenant with many for one week.

And in the midst of the week, you will cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease. And then verse 26 and verse 27, talk about the destruction that follows as a consequence.

And Jesus says that the, you know, when he cries over Jerusalem and says, your house is left unto you desolate, which

I think reflects the desolations that talk about here. So he's making the decree, you know, he cries over them that they wouldn't respond.

And so the desolation then is near that Daniel is talking about.

And that happens in that generation as a consequence. Well, just one thing

I would say with that, with the solar years, the, so the Jewish calendar is, you know, especially at that time was one of the only ones that had both the solar and lunar calendar.

So it had the lunar months, but it was based off a solar year, but not as tightly as we have today.

So it was actually a seven year period completed because after seven years, that seventh year, you added a whole month in.

And so that kind of, you know, like we have a leap day where we add a day in every four years, but we don't have, you know, we have sometimes it's 31 days in a month, sometimes 30 days, sometimes 28, you know, and then we get the 29th.

We had that one day to kind of line things up. They did that with a whole month. They had an even number of months.

It was always 30 days and then a whole, you know, a whole month would get added in every seventh year.

So it is a solar with that. The question I have,

Daniel, is the, so you take the last week as literal, but when,

I guess, I guess the question would be, when do you see that literal seven year, that last seven year period starting?

Because at the middle of it would be the stopping of sacrifices. And so that didn't stop until 70

AD historically. Well, I see it as like, you know, as you mentioned earlier, it's the, it's basically the legal standpoint, you know, the, the veil of the temple is rent in two.

So it's not that no one could ever do an actual sacrifice.

It means that, you know, just as like the book of Hebrews would talk about Jesus purged the sins, he sat down and so, you know, sacrifices and offerings have

I not desired, but a body you have prepared for me. So once Jesus died, that put a legal end to the sacrifice.

And now we come boldly to the throne of God. So those who would do sacrifices and trust in them for their salvation, they're, you know, not in on this, but I say that the 70th week started right at the end of the 69th week, the 69th week ended,

I think in 80 30, where I believe Jesus was baptized and started his ministry.

The 70th week started from there halfway into it. Jesus is crucified, puts an end legally to the sacrifices.

And then the other half is the ministry to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

And then at the end of that week, that's the whole timeframe of the 70 of the 70 weeks.

Now the gospel goes to Jew and Gentile equally. So, and I'm just asking clarifying questions, but I'm trying to understand.

So you're saying that the first three and a half years is the ministry of Christ. Yes. Okay.

And the second three and a half year period. The ministry of Christ via his apostles to Israel as you know,

Acts two, Acts three, what men of Israel hear these words, you know, the, the ministry is focused on Israel for that next three and a half years until the stoning of Steve and the calling of Paul, which

I believe is, you know, chronologically right at the end of those three and a half years.

And so then that ends the 70 weeks. And now the gospel goes to all the, or opens the door to the

Gentiles. Would you see an issue in this private, my last clarifying question so that we get others in, would you see an issue with the fact that your three and a half year period when you see it ending when the 70th week ends, yet you still have visions or not visions and prophecies are not sealed up because we have visions and prophecies within the scripture being provided.

Okay. So you're talking about verse 24 to seal up the vision and prophecy.

So like I think at the end of 70 weeks, there can be no visions and prophecies.

I mean, you have, you had, well, it could may not be talking about all vision and prophecy.

It could mean specifically visions and prophecies directed toward covenant

Israel, but I, I'd have to study this more about that.

So Keith Eve, what are your thoughts? I have no thoughts.

I'm just listening to you guys talk. Okay. And Anthony, where do we go next?

Yeah. So while you have been very gracious and patient, so I want to give you plenty of time.

Would you like to introduce revelation 20 and how that fits in? Sure. Yeah.

I mean, I, I think revelation 20 really is the key for where people go with the millennial kingdom.

Right. Now you read the first six verses and try to give the different views.

And, and so this would be for, for Eve who said she can't argue a position she doesn't hold to. I'll actually argue the

Amil position as well. I think we should be able to argue positions we don't hold to meaning that we should be fair with other people's view.

But it is harder to do. I will grant that. Okay. So revelation chapter 21st six verses.

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a chain in his hand.

And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old who is the devil and Satan and bound him for a thousand years.

And he threw him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him so that he would not deceive the nations any longer until the thousand years were completed.

After these things, he must be released for a short time. Then I saw thrones and then

I sat on them and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image and have not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand.

And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were complete.

This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has part in the first resurrection over the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

Now, pre -millennial view, we would see the thousand years mentioned six times in six verses.

We would look at the fact that this, the context here seems to be literal.

It seems to be chronological explaining events that happen in a chronological ordering.

This happens and this happens and this happens with the thousand years in there. So we would take the thousand years as being literal.

Post -millennial might look the same way with a literal thousand year here.

Um, the on millennial view would take this whole passages figurative. Now what many would argue is my friend,

Matt Slick would actually argue this, that this is all literal. His argument would be everywhere.

Actually he used to say everywhere where thousand appears, it's always figurative. Uh, I showed him plenty of places where it wasn't.

He then changed it to thousand year. Okay. Uh, thousand year only shows up a couple of times, uh, in scripture.

Okay. Outside of this passage we looked at, it only appears four times two of them are in first Peter a day is a thousand years, a thousand years is a day.

The other two are in Psalms and Proverbs, which is, uh, the style of writing is going to be wisdom literature in first Peter.

I would say that is a literal thousand years being compared to a literal day to point out the

Lord's long suffering. But I do, I don't think that's a figurative thousand year compared to a figurative day because then that illustration being made, that makes no sense.

But if you take this as one of the other arguments Matt would make along with many other on millennials is the key and the chains that are holding down angels.

Now in Matt's case, I think he kind of loses because he actually believes that in Genesis chapter six, that the, that angels had physical relations with women.

So they could be held then by physical chains would be my argument to him.

Uh, so really what we deal with here is, is this a literal thousand years or is it a figurative?

Uh, I would say, and again to what Anthony said earlier, uh, a simple reading of this in its natural sense, along with the fact that there's a lot of language that is chronological,

I would say it's a literal thousand years. And even say a literal reading of this.

Uh, I mean, considering what we're dealing with, uh, you know, the, the genre that revelation is, you almost can't even say that.

I mean, it's apocalyptic literature. So what, you know, we can't say a literal reading of apocalyptic literature because it, cause you know, we have, we have no idea.

I'll answer that after Keith goes. Okay. Well, I'll just say, I, I don't have a problem with agreeing, being a literal thousand years either.

And probably one of my biggest reasons why I was pulled to a, a pre millennial

Jesus comes and then the millennium is because it says that Satan will be bound.

You're breaking up Keith. History of 2000 years. Satan will not have been active in the world.

Let me try that again. My reasoning behind it, a pre millennium is when

Jesus comforts this millennium during this millennium, Satan was bound. And in our last couple of thousand years of history,

I've not seen where Satan has ever been not active. So I can't go for a post millennial view because Satan is not bound.

Yeah. And, and I think, let me, let me just answer Anthony's question is I think that we can, we can't say that just because it's apocalyptic literature, we can't understand it at all.

There's plenty of things within this apocalyptic, sorry, I'm having trouble saying that apocalyptic literature where we can see this happens and this happens and that happens.

It's broad in its perspective. But when we look at this and actually

I didn't read verse seven, that was the sixth the sixth usage of thousand years. When a thousand years are complete,

Satan will be released from prison. Um, what you see there is both in verse two and verse seven, it's giving a literal years that Satan is going to be bound for a thousand years and then he's released.

You see in verse four, then I saw that's chronological. Um, you, you end up seeing the language here seems to be laying out a chronology of events.

So yeah, I don't think it's, it's outside of the type of literature to say that he can be released from prison.

He can't be providing chronology and, and literal chronology. Okay. I mean, that's a, that's a fair refutation of that.

I still, you know, that's one of those things we'll agree to disagree on that, but I think that's a, that's a great defense of that position.

One of the things that fascinates me about reading revelation is that a lot of it is descriptive from a man who lived in, you know, for the first century.

And we live in a world now that how would we explain what we live in and is like normal stuff to us and have somebody from the first century step into our lives and try to describe it.

Um, I, I think that a lot of the things that, that John saw in revelation, he didn't know how to describe.

And I think he did. He had the spirit with him and he, and he wrote it down the way he saw it. Uh, but I, I think that some things that people take as figurative may have just been his attempt to try to describe what he was seeing.

And he had, had no vocabulary to actually explain it.

Probably explaining to your kids what it was like before cell phones and the internet. Remember my kids actually asked me one day, they were like, they were like, you know, they asked what, you know, if my parents ever took like my cell phone away.

And maybe, maybe it's my love of science fiction that when I read revolution, I see some of that because it's like him describing how, you know, the two, two witnesses are killed and then rise again and the whole world sees them.

And in the first century context, how does the whole world see two people killed and resurrected?

And now, I mean, that's the whole world sees everything that happens because we're all always watching all the time and always plugged in.

And, uh, and so some of that stuff can be explainable with modern technology that would have completely blown the mind of a first century man.

I'd say too, when it comes to reading revelation in general and just trying to understand that book.

So much of this is going to come back to hermeneutics. You know, what is the method of interpretation that we're bringing to the text?

And a lot of times I think dispensationalists and, uh, dispensational premillennialists get a, get a bit of a bad rap on the idea of literal interpretation that they're always taking everything literal.

And I mean, uh, Anthony, you, you mentioned the, uh, the concept of, well, it's, it's apocalyptic literature.

How can we take any of that as, as literal? And, and when we're reading the text though, it's not that we're saying that there's no figurative language or there's no, uh, there's nothing in there that is not strictly literal, but we're looking for the clues for that within the text itself.

So when the text uses language that indicates that this is figurative, okay, that's when we seek to understand the symbolism of some of those terms.

But when those clues are not in the text, then we take it more at face value.

Almost sounds like you're doing theology there, Ken. Almost. Kind of like a pun on your podcast.

I got that. Very good. Can I recommend a book on that, on the

Revelation 20 debate? If you, if you want to understand the pre -millennial position, there's a, it's a really simple book.

It's a really thin book. You could probably read it in a couple hours if you really wanted to. Revelation 20 and the

Millennial Debate by Matthew Wehmeyer. I don't have that one.

Very good. Yeah. That's worth checking out. Maybe I'll use that one for my class this semester.

I'll have to get, there is one, one of the stronger arguments for millennialism is, actually,

Anthony, you do sound, I'm going to grab a book because I'm going to, I want to get it right in the way it is. So I'll be right back.

Yeah, sure. Go ahead, go ahead, please.

I was going to say, so while Andrew's gone looking for his book, I guess, you know, of course, all millennialists, you know, should be the first to admit that Revelation 20 is a difficult passage for anything that's not pre -millennial.

You know, if that's the only text that we'd have to discuss, then you're forced to come to a pre -millennial conclusion.

But then the challenge is, you know, if we recognize Revelation chapter 20 is the only place in the

Bible that mentions the concept of the thousand years as a, as a kingdom as reigning.

And basically, you know, if, if we didn't have Revelation chapter 20, there would be no reason to believe in a timeframe of some kind of kingdom on earth that ends because all the other passages talk about, and he shall reign forever and ever.

And so, you know, without Revelation 20, there's no reason to be pre -millennial. And, you know,

It also doesn't fit with the day of the Lord. Oh yeah. Yeah. There's that. And of course we, you know, we could look at Isaiah chapters 65 and 66 to see if that fits with a pre -millennial scheme or one of my favorite passages to challenge that idea is 2

Peter chapter three, but, which I think is like, how can you avoid a millennialism in second

Peter chapter three? So if we get to that, but that's just to say that, you know, Revelation 20, lest we forget is the only place we have this concept.

I would say in Ezekiel, we have the concept of the Messiah reigning literally, but we don't know it's a thousand years.

So the book I was trying to get is by Matt Wehmeyer is a millennialism and the age to come.

So one of the arguments, I think that is the better argument for a millennialism is the comparison of this age and the age to come and a millennialism and the age to come is a critique of a millennialism.

It's a very good critique. And I think that it, it kind of puts the rest in my mind, at least the two age argument that people would hold to, to have a millennial view.

So recommending books, make sure

I got the title, right. But I do think though that, you know, when you speak of the day of the

Lord, again, you know, we get into the thing where from an amillennial view, because Daniel you didn't explain so much for folks who may not be familiar with this, but the day of the

Lord in an amillennial view would be one to argue that we were in that day of the

Lord now, because Paul will say we are, but yet he'll also say it's future.

So the, the issue there would be an amillennialist would say, we'll see we're in the day of the

Lord. And that, that is this kingdom now where we, in my position, we wouldn't, we would see that that is a term that could refer to Paul's day as well as a future kingdom.

That's not outside of the way language could be used, especially in scripture.

So I don't know that it's the rock solid there.

Um, you know, the, the point of first Peter is not so much to give a chronology of events like it is in revelation 20, as much as it is to say, to, to be ready.

The Lord is long suffering, but he's coming. So, or would you like to go to second

Peter three? Yeah. When you break, when you read that and explain your view. Okay.

Let me go to second. That sounded like a throw down challenge. Okay. Well, I, I've already read like two different passages and gave, gave the view.

No, I'm just joking. It's like, Hey, this is theology throw down. And he just threw it down.

But now Daniel has to not only explain his view, but then explain mine. Well, basically named after a book of the

Bible. He's already trumped you. And a prophetic book note to do. I'm named after,

I'm named after one of the 12 apostles. Okay.

Actually no, I'm named after my aunt, my grandma or was it my great aunt, Ann that's so.

So second Peter three, which, um, let's see if I go to verse three, knowing this first that there shall come in the last days, scoffers walking after their own loss and saying, where is the promise of his coming for which coming is that, you know, the second coming,

I'm guessing most people might hold to that. We're not talking about the rapture here of the church.

Are we, does anyone believe that this, his coming is referring to the rapture of the church as opposed to the second coming.

Okay. For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation for this, they willingly are ignorant of that.

By the word of God, the heavens were bold and the earth standing out of the water and in the water whereby the world that then was what then was being overflowed with water perished.

So he's, he's talking about judgment by the flood. There is a judgment that destroyed the world by water.

Now verse seven, but the heavens and the earth, which are now by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

So we have a comparison between the flood of Noah judgment by water and the day of judgment, judgment by fire.

Verse eight, but beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years is one day.

So there's a mention of a thousand years, but it's in the context of the patients of the

Lord in this age. So verse nine, the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, referring to the second coming as some men count slackness, but as long suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. We see other passages talking about the coming as a thief in the night, including

Paul in which the heaven shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.

The earth also in the works that are therein shall be burned up. So notice the day of the

Lord will come in which the heaven shall pass away with a great noise.

Verse 11, seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved. What manner of persons ought you to be in all holy conversation and godliness?

And now verse 12 looking for and hastening onto the coming of the day of God, where in the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved and the elements shall melt with fervent heat is repeating there.

The coming of Christ, the day of judgment is parallels the flood in which everything's burned up.

At least there's a destruction by fire. So, you know, if you see the parallel there, there isn't, he doesn't come and then a thousand years later you have that.

But verse 13, nevertheless, we according to his promise look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwells righteousness.

So what are we looking for? Peter doesn't say we're looking for a thousand year kingdom in which mostly dwells righteous righteousness.

But he says that we look according to his promise for new heavens and new earth.

So our hope is the day of judgment. He comes, there's the judgment by fire and there's the new heavens and new earth.

So like I'm curious from reading this passage, where do we see this thousand year period where he comes and then you have a kingdom and then you have the judgment and the new earth.

It seems like there's a parallel between the flood, the judgment by water, the judgment by fire, when

Christ comes and it says in which the heavens, the earth shall be dissolved by fire.

And we look for new heavens and new earth wherein dwells righteousness, not a millennial kingdom.

So my question is where's the thousand year kingdom? Where's there room for the thousand year kingdom in this passage?

I was waiting to see if Ken was going to pipe, pipe in there. Cause I feel like I'm doing too much talking, but again, you're unmuted.

So were you, do you want to say anything? I can't, if you'd like me to actually talk through this passage, not that long ago.

So, I would say there's a couple of things I would say. Number one, well, what is the, what is, what is

Peter writing about in the overall context of his letter? So he's got this whole concern in chapter two is he's dealing with these false teachers.

And there's a wrestling with this concept in chapter two, that these false teachers seem to be having success.

And how do we wrestle with that? The fact that they, they are, I just went back to chapter two, that, that here they are, they're doing these things in the false teachers will be among you.

They'll be secretly bringing in destructive heresies, even denying the master who bought them, bringing upon themselves, swift destruction.

And yet they're, they're having all these things are happening. And so some are going to say, well, where's

God? You know, he's not bringing the judgment. Where is the judgment that's, that they deserve?

They rightly deserve. Why does God allow this? And so Peter in many ways is, is writing to let them know, like, you know what, there is a judgment coming.

And then as we shift into chapter three, that's the theme that he is carrying on is that there is a judgment coming for these false teachers.

I don't think Peter's concern is specifically about the, the tight chronology so much as it is the point that there will be a day of judgment, that verse 10, the day of the

Lord will come. The will come is, is, I believe it's emphatic in that sentence in the

Greek where it's fronted in that sentence will come the day of Lord. It's, it's an emphatic statement to make that point that there is a day of judgment that is going to come upon the false teachers that is going to come upon the scoffers.

And so in light of that, therefore we ought to be living holy lives.

And so his, his, I would argue that his point is less about a tight chronology as it is about the fact of coming judgment for the false teachers and the scoffers.

So you would read, but the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night in which the heaven shall pass away with a great noise as the day of the

Lord will come in the thief in the night. And a thousand years later, the heavens will pass away with a great noise.

I'm just throwing that out question out there to, I want to agree with Ken and say that that doesn't represent a timeline.

This is the end will come at some point. Honestly, to me, it sounds just as much of a credible timeline.

And if you will, as revelation 20, if you, if you're going to argue, this passage over here is a literal timeline.

I think you really have to give it the same credibility in this passage, that there's, there's some kind of a timeline there that's laid out.

And verse 12 repeats that looking for and hastening onto the coming of the day of God, where in the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved.

And then the next verse we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth where in dwells righteousness.

But ours, our hope, our first hope is for a millennial kingdom where there's more righteousness now, but not full, complete righteousness until the new earth.

Well, I think one of the things that might explain it then is, is that that new heaven and new earth, maybe that is your timeline you're looking for that, that very well may be when this millennium, we're saying is about to take place.

That's just the thought I may be wrong. Yeah. And I'm going to agree with what Ken said.

When we look or we do hermeneutics, right. We're looking at the immediate context.

What I see here is not chronological language. Like I see in revelation. So right off the bat, if you're looking for chronology, revelation has it.

And so that would be more in line with what I would look at where it's trying to explain events where this, as we already said, the purpose is different than trying to explain future chronological events.

It's using that future chronological events or future events as a illustration to make his point.

But that's not the focus of it where in revelation 20, it is the focus. So one of the rules of hermeneutics is, you know, you interpret you from the easier to understand to the harder to understand.

And also when we're looking at the language, we're going to look to say, okay, the easier to understand chronologically would be revelation 20 because it has chronological language.

Okay. But see, I think he, he is making a point there, that there is a purpose to it.

The end of the chronology, the reason he's laying it all out, one is to refute those false teachers, but two verse 14, wherefore beloved seeing that you look for, for such things.

So he's encouraging them to look forward to such things and to be diligent that they may be found in him in peace without spot and with blameless.

And so, so I think there is a reason he's laying all that out. Oh, I agree that there's a reason he's laying it out, but it's not to provide a chronology.

It's to provide a mindset. But he mentions like, there's the parallel between the flood and the judgment of Christ by fire.

And Jesus makes like the statement, I forget which passages where he talks about like at the time of Noah, people were, you know, and then all of a sudden the flood came upon them in an instant, you know, and then

I think that's kind of like that parallels here where, you know, the day of it comes as a thief in the night in which the heavens will pass away.

And, and he's emphasizing that it's by fire as compared to the flood by water.

But there's a big parallel there because at the time of Noah, as he preached about the coming judgment of the flood, you know, they mocked him, but then once it came, they couldn't enter the

Ark. And so the parallel here, then Jesus, the scoffers are mocking out when is the promise of his coming, but the long suffering because the day is as a thousand years, you know, his coming is, seems to be postponed for a while, but once it happens, you know, there's judgment by fire.

Well, yeah, but again, what's the purpose of stating that? It's, it's basically to live in expected lifestyle, be living, you know, like they should have been living in the days of Noah expecting the flood to come.

We should be living, expecting Christ to come. That would fit with the pre -millennial view just as easily.

So, you know, I, I, I mean, unless we have further discussion, we're almost up on time.

I think. I was good. I wanted to bring up the Matthew 24 passage, because this is the one that, that I've heard a lot of people use to support the rapture.

You know, the, the, the, the people will be taken out of the field and one will be taken in the other, not.

And, but I've also heard it described as, as also the coming of judgment and that some will be taken in judgment and some will not.

And, but it also has the same kind of language. This is Jesus talking about, you know, the, the, how the end times will come and the, you know, the gospel, the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations.

And then the end will come. And the abomination of desolation as seen by Daniel and all of that. So I'm just curious how that fits into everybody's positions.

Do you want to read that passage? It's a long one. You want me to read the whole thing? It's practically the whole chapter,

Matthew 24. And that's the passage. That's the passage

I was referencing about Noah there. You could probably start in verse 37. Well, there's a lot before the verse 37 because it talks about, let's see.

Well, I'll start. Okay. I was gonna say maybe in the interest of time, we just kind of refer people to it.

Yeah. It's basically the whole chapter because you have the, he gives the signs of the end of the age.

He's talking to the disciples privately and they want to know what signs that will be the, that are coming.

And then he, he talks about tribulation. He talks about being hated by all the nations.

And then he mentions the abomination of desolation spoken by the, by the prophet Daniel sitting in the

Holy standing in the Holy place. He does mention that, that the gospel will be spread proclaimed through hold all the world as a testimony to all the nations before the end will come, which

I know that Wycliffe Bible translators uses as kind of their mission verse that, that they need to get the gospel to all the nations and then all the languages before the

Lord can return. And then he goes on to talk about the coming of the son of man, the lesson of the fid tree that no one will know the day and the hour that only the father knows that not even the son.

So yeah, just curious how that fits in for everybody. Yeah.

I mean, to answer the, one of the questions you have, you know, where it talks about one would be taken, one would be left.

Okay. I'm pre -millennial pre -trib. I don't think that's the rapture as some try to argue.

I think that's a poor reading of it in the sense where the context is not that they're, they're taken for the rapture.

They're actually taken for judgment and that would not fit with a rapture. I agree with that.

Can't see me, but I'm nodding. Can you get your icon to nod?

Yeah. So just in historical context, referring to dispensationalism,

I think it's kind of more of a newer thing like, you know, with the left behind that people would actually interpret that passage as a rapture because in more classical or dispensationalism, there's the idea that nothing about the rapture could have ever been talked about except for when

Paul gave the mystery of the body of Christ and that anything else that's prophetic refers to Israel.

So Matthew 24 in classical dispensationalism wouldn't talk about the rapture.

So they'd be correct about that, but you know, not for the reason

I would agree with. Well, let's, there's not too many people that hold to classical dispensationalism.

I don't think, are any of the amillennialists here, are any of them hold with the preterist camp?

Because that's one that I have struggled with a lot. I've known a few preterists in my lifetime and they confuse me.

Yeah. By preterist, do you mean like full or hyper preterism or partial preterism?

That Christ has already returned the second time and we're living in the kingdom. Oh, okay. You mean like, oh, so full preterism,

I would consider, you know, a heresy because full preterism will even deny the future bodily resurrection of the saints against first Corinthians 15 that ties, you know, there's so many passages,

Christ is the first fruits and those who are Christ that is coming. And if Christ be not raised, then your faith is in vain.

But if Christ be raised and you're raised, so there's that tie between our physical bodily resurrection in Christ.

There was a time where I was struggling with not full preterism, but like a strong partial preterism, like were presented by some post -millennialists.

But then I toned that back, you know, more recently, like, okay, I see little bits of partial preterism, but nothing even remotely anywhere near full preterism.

Yeah, I would agree with you. I think full preterism is heresy. Yes. The reason

I asked is I had been handed a book and I didn't get very far into it because I immediately determined that I didn't agree with any of it.

But one of the points they made was that Jesus kept saying that the, that the generation would not, would see, you know, that that generation would see and the coming of the

Lord. And that if you don't believe that that generation that saw it, then

Jesus was lying because he predicted that that generation would see his coming.

And yet they all died or slept until, you know, the second coming and which as, you know, as a pre -millennial, so I believe

God hasn't, Jesus hasn't come again. And so how does that fit in? And I've heard it explained that it was the transfiguration was the reference there that they saw the coming of the kingdom and the transfiguration.

But that was one of the things that kind of threw me off. I definitely do not agree with that position, but I thought that was an interesting.

So you're referring to verse Matthew 24, 34, and he's, he's giving all these events.

Okay. Let me just read some of it. So we have context. Now this is verse 32. Now learn the parable of the fig tree.

So this is back to son. He had been teaching, right? When the branches had already become tender and put off its leaves.

And you know, it's summer is near. So you too, when you see these things, that becomes important for certain when you see these things recognize that the time is near at the door.

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until these things take place.

The question of which generation while verse 33 gives it to us, the generation that sees these things.

So that's the generation. So it's within the generation that sees these signs, that generation will not pass away until heaven and earth passes away.

So, which is verse 35. So it's, it's the generation that sees those signs that are going to be the ones to, you know, have that.

And so that's where the difference is is they would say this generation, a full preterist would say this generation must be the generation he's speaking to when the context is when you see these things.

Okay. Well, that generation didn't see all the things he was speaking about. So that generation that does see those things, that's the one that won't pass away.

Thank you. All right. So I think we have about covered everything.

Well, no, actually, let me, let me throw one more thing out. Actually, as I think about it as you know, as before we went live and prayed about, let me ask this question to wrap things up.

So with our differing views of in times kind of where does this leave us? How does end times apply?

As we look at our culture, we look at people going having great anxiety over stay at home orders, people having to wear masks, people who are in fear.

I have a friend of mine whose, whose family actually went to Denmark to avoid

Los Angeles because of all the rights, just hearing the police sirens here, you know, knowing that the police aren't going to come.

If you need to call them a fear of all these things, where does that leave us? I mean, we, we mentioned, right.

World War I, World War II, Y2K, that seems to heighten the talk of end times.

Why does it heighten it? And for Christians, where does this leave us? I know

I've kind of been having these conversations with my mom a lot over the last little while because of current events and stuff.

And I always in the conversation with her and saying, you know, God is in control. He has a perfect plan.

And we know that he has it all planned out and worrying about it and living in anxiety about it is not the

Christian's position. It should only heighten our, our need to, especially if we feel like we're seeing the signs of the ends of the time, that should only heighten our need to witness to those who are unsaved because we know the end is coming.

And, and just as we know that their death would take them to judgment, the end of times takes them to judgment as well.

And so that should just, we should take comfort in knowing that it's all perfect in God's plan and that that should just make it even more necessary for us to be using every opportunity to witness to those we know who are unsaved.

Yeah, definitely echo that. And yeah, people can be go too far one direction or the other one.

Someone can go too far in the, the end times are upon us. I just got to bunker down and wait for it to happen or go too far where there's no signs of the times.

And, you know, you know, we shouldn't think that the Lord's coming is near, but, but so on one hand, we should be able to say, even so come

Lord Jesus. But on the other hand, Jesus says occupy till I come. So our goal is preach the gospel in season and out of season.

You know, that's our mandate. You know, as Jesus gives the parables of the servants, you don't know what day your

Lord will come, but be good and faithful servants. And that's our focus. As we know that we're in the last days, our focus is to preach the gospel.

Amen. I would echo a lot of that. You know, it's, it's, it's almost a shame that, you know, we spent, it's not a shame.

This has been a good conversation. I really appreciate going back and forth, but we spent a lot of time talking about chronology and when these things take place and trying to, to, to parse all these different terms.

When, you know, a lot of times when prophecy is given, it's,

I believe it's given less so that we can make a calendar and more to shape our character. Right.

And that's, that's not an original quote. I don't know who said that first, but I've heard that somewhere where it's, it's not about the calendar.

It's more about our character. And so that is really, you know, we talked about that passage from second Peter about how, you know, since we're looking forward to these things, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness looking forward and hastening and consider the, the patience of our

Lord as an opportunity for salvation. You know, these, this is our mandate while we live out this time here on earth, as we do anticipate the day that is coming, you know, in, in the circles that I'm in, you know, with a lot of people talking about the, you know, the rapture and the signs of the times.

And it seems like a lot, I think a lot of times, especially pre -millennialists are prone to this or pre -tribulational pre -millennialists are prone to this, where get all caught up in the signs of the times thing and, and trying to figure out,

Oh, is Jesus going to come back? Is rapture going to happen? It's going to be soon. Oh, I know it's soon. I know it's soon. And it is soon, but when is soon, you know, it's, it's been soon for, for 2000 years.

And we continue to look for the coming of our Lord, but we eagerly anticipate that day.

But at the same time, you know, we're, we have that responsibility of how we are to live out our life here.

And now, regardless of whatever eschatological viewpoint we take, the main takeaway should be, how is this going to shape my character?

Whether I'm pre -millennial, all millennial or post -millennial. So we didn't have a post -millennialist in here. That would have been, that would have had a lot of fun in this discussion.

I don't actually know if we have a post -millennialist in the Christian podcast community. I don't know.

We'll have to find out. Does anyone know what Colleen is as a

Presbyterian? Well, I'm a millennial would be my, I mean,

Presbyterians, go by the Westminster confession, right? Okay.

I would just add, yeah, to everything that you all said, you know,

I look back at the end of second Peter three there, verses 13 through 18, and all of this should give us hope, should cause us to not fear what we see going on, that, yeah, that it should cause us to, to, to grow in our, our diligence for Christ and what we do for him and, and growing in grace and knowledge of him.

And so, yeah, I think those are, those are all, all important things.

Yeah. And I think for me, the issue of end times, I agree. I like what Ken had said, because I think that's where a lot of times we, we kind of lose it with eschatology.

We want to have our charts where our chronology, right. And things like that.

I had a friend of mine, Fred Zaspel that described eschatology as a, that we should read the book of revelation like a political cartoon.

In other words, if we have an Eagle swooping down and picking up a bear and dragging it off, we kind of know that's

America, you know, with, you know, taking, taking Russia. Well, okay. Maybe next generation doesn't know that so much because we're not, there's not that constant

US versus Russia, but when, when we were kids, at least that was the, that would easily be understandable.

So what I think you end up having is the, when we look at it in times, it's not so much for us to have all our

I's dotted and T's crossed, chronologically as much as it is knowing that Jesus wins, you know,

I mean, that's what I think it was Dick Mayhew summarized with his, his, or no, it might've been Dr. Thomas in his revelation commentary on revelation is it could be, it could be summed in two words,

Jesus wins. And that's really the thing. It's about our character that we live a life that's depending upon Christ in every moment that we are living expectant lives for his return, that we are anxious to be with him, that we are not worried about the world events that the world seems like it's losing it.

I mean, completely, people have completely lost their mind and that's okay. You know, kind of like you said, it's an opportunity for the gospel.

That's what we're supposed to be about instead of, instead of, you know, as I see some Christians arming themselves and making sure they have plenty of ammunition, you know, the ammunition we need is the

Bible, maybe some gospel tracks and let's get out there. I mean, that is really what

I would see is the application of all this is that we should be living a life expecting to be with Christ at any moment and wanting to tell a lost and dying world that they need to repent and believe on Christ.

So Anthony, I'll give it to you to close out and then

I'll play the outro music. I can't possibly close it out any better than that. Okay.

Well then I will actually, I'll play the outro music and then we'll have a, well, before that I should play a commercial.

So I will do that. Unbelievers now have no excuse to misinterpret the

Bible like they ever did. Interpreting the Bible has never been easier or less expensive.

Get your copy of what does it mean to me? This teaches and demonstrates the importance of biblical interpretation.

Proper biblical interpretation is the difference between truth and error, life and death, heaven and hell.

This is created for your Sinos. That's your Christians in name only.

Readers will stop asking, what does this mean to me and start asking what does it mean?

Get your copy of what does it mean to me at trackplanet .com or on amazon .com

today. You want to get this before it's too late. This is a ministry of striving for eternity.