Adam, the rapture, small hands and Oompa Loompa’s

You can say what you want, but you won't around me, sheep among misfits, a misfit in the trailer park at night, a misprint with the sixth sense, been sick ever since my brother died of an

O .D. My two cents never made sense, either to me or anyone else inside of the sheep tents, my knife's clipped on my right side, tell me what's the bottom line, the bottom line is

I'm not right, I'm not left, but this elephant won't find my assigned seat to sit in, my theology don't fit in, black sheep of the

Reformation sheep pen, I'm just another Baptist baptized again, the bastard child.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Open Air Theology, I'm one of the co -hosts here at Open Air Theology Show, my name is

Jeff, I'm also one of the elders of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church in Tullahoma, Tennessee, if you're ever in the area, come out and check us out.

Also, we were supposed to be on earlier, but this guy down here doesn't know how to operate with time, right?

It's kind of like they're just on two different mindsets, so, you know what

I'm saying, like I'm a time guy, like I like to be on time, most of the time I like to be before time ever starts and early, you know what

I'm saying, but this guy right here, this jack leg, yeah. Listen, I don't, my potato sundial is off,

I'm sorry, is it my turn next or should we let the other guy that's going to ride me over there?

No, no, let's go ahead and get you out of the way, because you might be late, you might be late. All right, well, my name is

Brayden Patterson, I am the pastor of Valley Baptist Church currently in Southern Idaho, it would be a great blessing if you live in this area,

Valley Baptist Church of Hagerman, Idaho, however, I am going to be, I've been my, I've been called to pastor

Grace Bible Church in Moorpark, California, my family and I are going to be moving there early December, if you live in Ventura County, Southern California area, come check out

Grace Bible Church, Moorpark, have a YouTube channel called Reformed X Mormon, and I'm almost always on time,

I can't complete traffic, these guys, listen, last week we were an hour late because, because of this guy, go ahead.

Oh, me, oh, yeah, I had a legitimate excuse as to why

I was late, Brayden was just playing outside with the kids and lost track of time.

My name is Tom Shepherd, I'm in, I'm with Even If None podcast, and I attend

Grace Bible Church of Birney, Texas, outside of San Antonio, and I lead the street evangelism team, so if you're ever in San Antonio and want to come to a church, come to Grace Bible Church of Birney and we'll be glad to have you, we actually had

Brayden Patterson preach a couple, was it last Sunday? It was last Sunday. Last Sunday night, yeah.

It was on time. It was on time, yeah, it was, you did a good job.

So Lord's Day was good today, how was your guys' Lord's Day? There's some, there's some big news that good, good, good news that I heard today, all around the world.

Well, not that good news, that yes, that's the news, but answer to prayer and, and, you know,

I'll tell you, and I, and I'm going to let Jeff talk about it and everything, but I want to, I want to say first that, that God has, has, you know, we, we all know that He uses means to accomplish, to accomplish whatever

He has planned. And one of the means was this very show and the people of this show and through the prayers of His people.

And it is, it is amazing to see our God work through, through the means, through His very people who have the

Holy Spirit and who, who, who confess Christ as their Savior. And I'm just praising

God that we, we hear, heard some good news. I don't want to keep on babbling about it, but Jeff, tell us what happened.

Well, man, I posted on Facebook, it's got about a hundred comments, almost 500 likes.

So we got the church building and yeah, and so I was in the process of,

I just got done praying over the Lord's Supper and I was getting in my seat to, for the, for the last song of the service before we,

I served the Lord's Supper and then I read from the pastor of the church, he says it was an, an anonymous decision.

We get the building and their lawyer will be reaching out to us this week about transfer, transferring the deed.

And when I got backed up into the pulpit, like I shoot from the hip anyways, I'm kind of like a loose cannon.

And so I just went ahead and told them right then and there before we, you know, before we took the

Lord's Supper, what was taking place, the church celebrated. And so it's, you know, full of excitement now, now trying to figure out how we're going to get everything done in time.

So, but keep praying for us. We're hoping to have our first service there,

December 1st. So yeah, it's exciting. And the

Lord, so, so last week we mentioned that we needed a little bit more money and it was actually more money than I mentioned last week.

So I thought last week it was around 10 ,000 we needed and it turned out, turned out being around 15 ,000.

And so, yeah, and, and, and it was all like the next day we had it all.

And we get a few people that watch this show, donate it. And we had one guy donate a large sum.

And thank you. Yeah, thank you, everybody. The prayers, the giving.

That's awesome. Yeah. So, so real quick, I want to, you know, sometimes we look at things with our human eyes and we know it's impossible for us.

The building that Jeff got is valued at $800 ,000.

He got it at $125 ,000. God, God, if He intends for you to have that building,

He's going to make the way. Yeah. Again, we had someone give $30 ,000.

We had someone give $15 ,000 and another guy give $2 ,000 and then $1 ,000 here.

Like it was just a few hundred here. Like it was just coming in. So praise God. Yeah.

I mean, we didn't have to, the church itself did not have to come out of pocket. We may have to come out of pocket a little for some of the, like remodeling type of things, like getting new carpet and stuff like that.

But as far as getting into the building, the Lord paved the way for everything.

And actually your monthly costs are in half, aren't they? Now, too. Well, yeah, the rent portion of it.

Of course, we have to get insurance and stuff like that. We're not sure what insurance will be on the building that size.

So we're just, but yeah, I mean, it's just like, I've had a smile all day up until Brayden counseled on this a little bit and had to push us back.

But I'm happy I could be your Debbie Downer and just gut punch you, bring you low.

Hey, I'm not always a big fan of doing online prayers, but I want to lift up a prayer of thanksgiving for it, brother, if you guys don't mind.

Yeah, for sure. Lord God, I thank you just for this wonderful news that Jeff has just shared online here,

Lord, and just the news that he has received today. Him and the rest of your beloved bride there in Tullahoma, Tennessee, Lord, Covenant Reform Baptist Church, Lord God, you are a

God of miracles who has changed hateful sinners, enemies to you, change their hearts to love you and sending forth your spirit, causing us to cry out

Abba Father and Lord God, we love you. We thank you that we have places to worship you, Lord. And I thank you for providing this for the saints there at Covenant Reform Baptist Church.

May they in years upon years upon years come that they would just rejoice in remembering what you have done today and just all the different avenues, the roads that led up to this,

Lord. We thank you for just those that were lifting up prayers. We thank you for the generous giving,

Lord. And God, we thank you for never, no, never, no, never, no, never, no, never forsaking us,

Lord, in your name. Amen. All right. I'm not mad at you no more. Yeah, you see.

You're welcome. Exactly. But service today was good, man.

I mean, service was really sweet. And afterwards, like just, so we welcomed in a new family to membership.

So if you look in our comments, I can't remember what he said his name was in here.

Oh, yeah. Random bass player, John. I call him

Jay. Him and his wife, Erica, were brought in as official members today.

And then we also interviewed another family for membership. And it was just a sweet time.

And the lady, if you watch the video that I shared last week,

I baptized her last week. And she said that she's able to learn.

She says, because she's been going to church for a while down here, but this is the first church that she's been to where she's learned something.

And she says she just loves it at our church and that she knows that Jesus is there.

Well, he was just like, some amazing testimony. She was like, she's like, you know, because I mentioned

I like you can be blind and still say God may have been in here. And she's like, you can just feel

Jesus everywhere in this place. I was like, he's here. She said, yeah, I know.

And so we just had a wonderful testimony. It was just to spend such a sweet time of fellowship, man.

And so I'm so I'm really grateful for what the Lord is doing in the body.

You know, I mean, I mean, like Orthodox MacArthur came to our church last week.

I won't reveal who he is. Right. Once he revealed it to me, I gave him a little gut punch. And but I mean, it's just a sweet fellowship.

You know, like when I get on here, I'm kind of a little rough and rowdy. But on the

Lord's Day, we kind of, you know, we we gather and we're serious about the word of God and we want to worship

God. But we also want to have a good time and have a good fellowship and everything. And so I'm just really grateful for where the

Lord has me. Yeah, that's awesome. That's good stuff.

So our Lord's Day, we went to church today and Michael Beck, my pastor, preached about Christian liberty.

And and and, you know, we ought to be careful about not causing a brother to stumble, the weaker brother, and to come alongside them and let

God God do that work in their heart instead of looking down upon them because of their weaker faith and stuff like that.

It was a really good, really good sermon. Then yesterday we went out to the Pearl Brewery and did open air evangelism.

We had a guy who is visiting our church from North Carolina who's in training for something with the

Air Force. And he's decided to. Yeah, I look like a goat. That's right,

Red. Here, let's have a real laugh real quick. Look at this. It looks good.

I knew you were going to pull it up. Look, look at that, guys. That's that's thick.

I don't. That's a 10 strap. It is. It is still filling in now.

It's doing better. It's coming along. It's coming along. Thank you, Tom. You're doing really good.

Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, so we did evangelism. Anyway, this guy comes along and he came out to evangelism yesterday and he was just excited to see people preaching the gospel on the street.

And that's that's what we do. So it was a really good Lord's Day today. What about you, Brandon?

Today was good. I got to preach on Galatians chapter four, verse 21 through 31.

I've been just because I'm going to this new church. As already already been at the church

I'm currently at, like just trying to perfect the art of preaching and just really trying to improve the style and the methods and the means that I do it.

And so this Sunday I approached the pulpit with some different type of notes. It was more of a skeletal note outline, maybe with a little bit more manuscript than a classical skeletal notes.

And so typically for the last eight months, I've been using manuscript and have been loving it.

I was like, I'm going to change it up and see if I can do this. And after today, I I felt like the message was good.

The exegesis was there, the exhortation, the preaching and the the just the the commanding these things was there in the text.

It was just not as it was a good structure, but it wasn't. It was a little bit too wiggly.

I don't know how to describe it. It was a little too too fluid in it. And so I liked it.

It was good. I preach for about an hour. Usually my messages are about 45 minutes.

And so I think that was just because of the rambling that that that kind of structure caused a little bit. But it was still a good message.

I was happy with how it went. The worship was sweet. I just got done. So the reason I was late was I got to go to the second service of another sister

Baptist church near us. And on the way in about like five minutes ahead of us, there was a semi truck that collided with the center barrier, flipped over, hit some cars.

It was a really bad ordeal. Caught on fire, shut down the whole freeway. So my wife and I sat in traffic for 30 minutes waiting for you.

Google that to make sure you can turn it. I'll pull it up on the screen here. Time out. I'm gonna get this up here for you guys.

You can pull it up. You can't pull it up on the screen, but I'm gonna pull it up on the screen for you guys.

OK, do it. Pull it up. All right. Give me a second. Katie, I think it's he's not understanding.

Just I know he doesn't understand. I don't. I don't know what you guys are talking about right now.

Well, you're able to pull up the website for you anyway, because we had to go home the other direction.

It took us a lot longer to get home because we had to take a more indirect route to get home. So. Here, I'm gonna click on this.

Yeah, where'd it go? Where'd it go? Yeah, because it didn't happen.

Listen, I'm showing you guys. I knew it. Calm down. Showing nothing.

Calm down. What are we talking about tonight? We're looking at this interstate crash. So you guys can believe me.

Look, there it is. I don't see it. I got it. Hey, put it up,

Jeff. No, put it up. Jeff, put it up. I knew it. Jeff has limited access to control everything.

And so I can't show you guys my screen. It's right there. Right where?

Jeff has absolute power. I'm gonna do a workaround. You ain't working around nothing.

I'm gonna do a workaround. Post it in the comments. Post it in the comments. You have to enter through the narrow gate.

That doesn't count, bro. You're coming into the... Oh, look at him. What is that?

I can't see it. I can't see that. Accident, Twin Falls and Jerome.

You can see that. Look at this. Look what you done made happen.

Catherine, you need to get on him. Go on and smack him right now. She ain't about nothing.

No, it was honestly, seriously, they landed Air St. Luke's to come and do something with patients.

I don't know what the outcome of anything was, but it was a serious accident. It was real bad. There was a huge plume of freaking smoke that was just rolling out, and I was kind of getting some

PTSD being a firefighter. I was like, I'm gonna go do it. I was like, I'm not. That's not me. I thought you ain't got a job.

I was like, I don't got a job. I'm homeless. No, I'm not really homeless. You ain't working. Hey, I'm in between jobs, all right.

I'm a pastor of the church. I'm in a church right now. I'm a pastor, Jeff. I'm working.

We're talking about some pretty exciting, a pretty exciting event that is yet to happen.

What, the small hands? Yeah, well, and that's the question. We're talking about the rapture, and one of the questions was -

First, Adam, the rapture, small hands. What were we gonna talk about with Adam? Was it just if Adam is saved or not?

Was that the topic we were gonna talk about? Yeah. Yeah, I think so. So post in the comments, do you think

Adam, the man of dust, is in heaven?

When we go to heaven, will Adam, the one who launched all of earth into a curse.

So the reason why we came up with - We brought sin and death. Is that Jeff, me, and Braden were talking offline one day, and we were talking about when, because some of us believe that he might be saved, that when we see

Adam in heaven, we're gonna go way to go, bro. I mean, what did you do? You're just gonna be a side item as we're worshiping

Jesus. Yeah, so the question is, is Adam in heaven right now?

Does he have, has he been reconciled to the father? So Nicholas said yes, because he was given the animal skin.

Well, yes. So sacrifice - He's got Debbie, just poor Debbie. What, you gonna let me answer him?

They're both the same thing. Because it said that God clothed them. Same thing, that's the same thing. I think I know exactly where Jeff is gonna go.

He's saying that was to cover their shame. Well, so like the animal sacrifice in the

Old Testament, now, of course, I'm looking toward the Mosaic sacrifice, the sacrificial system.

It was only to purify the flesh, had nothing to do with their salvation in heaven.

I mean, argue with that, we'll break out some Hebrews. Is that really your strongest argument for why you think -

No, I'm just, my argument for what was just said about because of the animal skin, just because he was clothed in animal skin.

Well, yeah. The sacrifice of an animal has nothing to do with him being saved.

In order to be saved, you had to believe in the promise. Okay, let me ask you this. How can you know, how can you, let me,

I'll phrase it like this. How can you know if someone other than yourself is saved?

The profession of faith. Okay. Or, hold on, hold on, hold on. Or if we're talking in scripture, the

Bible speaks about them being righteous. That is true, that is true. However, so a profession of faith, a profession of trust in Yahweh, right?

For sure. Okay. Genesis chapter three. Hold on, hold on, hold on.

Making sure you ain't skipping that. What translation? You got the message? I got, I got, I got the

Jehovah Witnesses, Joseph Smith translation, limited edition, 2025, baby.

The prophecy book. No, I got ESV right here. Obviously, I got, I got my Post -Tenebrous

Lux Bible Rebind ESV. Hey, look at mine.

That's the better, that's the better Post -Tenebrous Lux with Totalist Eye on the cover by Jeffrey Rice.

I'm gonna be rebinding you another one this week. I had to wait on brown ribbons because my wife decided to have all five ribbons, about 30 feet of ribbons in her

Bible. So I had to be put on hold. So in Genesis chapter three.

So let me just run this down real fast for you guys. Just give me one minute to be able to speak out loud. And I'll reference the text.

We've taken up 15 of our minutes. I know, let me talk. Adam and Eve are there with the serpent and God is speaking to the three of them, right?

He curses the serpent. Yes. Adam and Eve hear that. He promises pain and childbearing that will eventually crush the head of the serpent.

Adam and Eve hear that, right? They're there hearing. Come on. They have the, they have the leaves on them.

They got the works of their hands on them that they were trying to hide away from God. God removes them and covers them with the animal skin.

That is a thousand percent talking and foreshadowing, typologically prophesying about the coming of Christ, removing our sin, guilt, and giving us his righteousness.

A hundred percent. However, the one phrase, the one phrase that Adam says after seeing all this, feeling the skin, seeing all this take place.

Verse 20, the man called his wife's name Eve. He had already named all the other animals and named all the other things that God gave him charge of.

And he gave him Eve. What does Eve mean? She was the mother of all living. Okay.

What's the promise to Eve? The seed will crush the head of the serpent. So it would appear that Adam is giving a name to his wife saying that your seed, you are the mother of where my hope is placed.

That, that's the profession of faith. That's the profession. He trusted in God.

Listen, he didn't, he could have called Eve. How many times? Time out.

If you and I, like, if my wife and I fight, do you think I'm going to call her a good name? Wait a minute.

Where's the exegesis out of that text? Not the eisegesis. That's the exegesis.

Why else would he name his wife? Where are you seeing the man called his wife?

Verse 20. Name Eve. Because man called his wife. How is that a profession of faith?

That is trusting in God's promise that she would be the mother of the seed. Promise.

That is the promise. Listen, because this guy, Nicholas is trying to chime in with the same thing.

Nicholas, I do appreciate you, brother. This is just how we roll, right? So are you willing to say that that Paschal Lamb, that Paschal Lamb that pointed to the gospel of Jesus Christ, everyone who ever put that blood on the door is in heaven?

No. Then why would you say that about this? Because this is different context,

Jeff. No, no, no, no, no, no. That Paschal Lamb was pointing to Jesus. John sees Jesus and he says, behold the

Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Just because something has gospel principles in it, just because something is foreshadowing something doesn't mean that that person has righteousness.

I would say in verse 21 is your verse. And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skin.

I done shot that down. After, but listen, that's what I'm trying to say. That's after he named his wife

Eve, meaning he's trusting in the promise of God that's going to come through his wife, the seed.

And then he gets covered. Yes. Doesn't say that. Yes. All right.

Let's go to, uh, let's go to the new Testament. First, let's go to Romans chapter five. We're going to see what

Adam did. Listen, I think you're the worst of your sinners.

All right. I'll let you talk now. Let you talk now. All right.

First. Okay. I'm going to go to Romans 12. And then we're going to go to first Corinthians 15.

Romans 12 or Romans five. Romans five beginning in verse 12.

And then we're going to go to first Corinthians chapter 15. All right. So therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, who is that one man that sin came to the world?

And death through sin. And so death spread to all men because all sin for indeed sin was in the world, right?

So this has given an argument of how sin came into the world.

It was through Adam's sin. Now, follow me. First Corinthians chapter 15. Let's go.

All right. So look at verse 21. For as by a man came death.

Who's that man? Adam. By a man has also come the resurrection of the dead.

For as in Adam all died. So that dead right there.

What is that speaking about? That's physical and spiritual death.

Yeah. Physical and spiritual death. Because what Adam has done, we're born spiritually dead, right?

So also in Christ shall all be made alive each in his own turn. Okay. Now we're going to go down and we're going to skip down just a little bit, right?

If you want to read it all we can. I'm just trying to save some time here. And what you're going to see take place is they're going to be a comparison between Adam and Christ.

They're on two separate ends of the spectrum. All right. So when you get down here to verse,

I didn't, I forgot what was doing this. Okay. Okay. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Verse 45.

Thus it is written. The first man, Adam became a living being. The last

Adam, which is Christ became a life given spirit. But it is not that the spiritual,

I'm assuming, but it is, but it is not the spiritual, which is talking about Christ that came first, but the natural, which is

Adam. And then the spiritual. And it's also talking about Adam being representing our body.

Christ representing our, our, our resurrected body. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust.

The second man from heaven, as was the man of dust. So also are, so also are those who are of dust and as is the man of heaven.

So also is the man of heaven. Just as we have born the image of the man of dust.

So also we will bear the image of the man of heaven. So this is what it's saying right here.

At the resurrection of the dead. All right, now go back to the sheep and the goats.

The sheep are going to be raised from the dead. They're going to be raised clothed in the man of heaven.

The goats are going to be raised from the dead and they're going to be clothed in who? Who are they going to be clothed in?

The man of dust. Wait a minute. Okay, wait. Yeah. So my turn, you went, you went.

So I would say to answer Jeff, that the main point of this is not about Adam's sinful.

He's being compared. Adam, you went, it's my turn. No, no, no, he's being compared. You're trying to argue my point. He is being, no, he's being compared.

Yes, but the main point of this is how sin entered the world. And he was our federal head.

That has nothing to do that if whether or not grace was dispensed on Adam or not. Where does it say that?

Just ask me this one question. Where does it say that Adam believed or Adam was counted righteous or any of that language?

But what you have is the comparison between the two. Yes. It has the comparison that if you're raised clothed in Adam, you're going to remain when

Adam sin guilt, we inherit Adam sin guilt.

It's not because of that. It's Adam sin guilt that we are guilty that, that by nature we are sinners.

Okay. But it doesn't mean that he wasn't saved. You've not given us anything. You haven't given me anything that said he was saved.

I'm not saying that either, except that he was clothed. The comparison between those who are in Adam and those who are in Christ.

And if you remain in Adam sin guilt as he was our covenant head and failed.

If you remain with that guilt. Yes, I can agree with that,

Jeff. I think you're saying that, that, that this, this guy right here is the one that was the mom and I agreed and entered into the world.

Listen, listen, this is a no vote. Just cause y 'all out vote mean that you can't even say them.

The rapture here in a minute. No, keep on talking about Adam.

Preach it. Come on. Yeah. So verse 20, they were both clothed. Clothed in what?

In an animal. Right here. And if it's a sacrifice of anything, according to look to Moses, it purifies the flesh.

And they didn't immediately die. There was grace that was dispensed on both. Well, listen, we're not talking about the day of death.

We can have a conversation. Right. But the, the point I would also like to add to is exactly

Nicholas wrote out exactly what I was going to say. Moses was a federal head. Moses was a covenantal head and he represented people.

He failed and he wasn't even the answer to answer the promise land. Just because he failed as a federal head.

Doesn't mean that he wasn't in Christ. Adam failed as a federal head. That doesn't mean that he wasn't in Christ.

Good point. Did sin and death enter into the world through Moses? Absolutely. Resurrection. I didn't.

I want to represent something else. Is, is, is, is Jesus and Moses compare in a, in a comparison when it comes to the resurrection of the dead, if you're closing

Moses, it is, it is absolutely compared in Hebrews over and over again.

That Christ is the better builder of a better house of a better, better promises. No, no, no, no, no, no.

You're taking something that I said, and you're putting something else in it. I'm saying, listen, I'm saying a comparison between if you're clothed and it is absolutely a comparison.

No, it's not. It's not a direct comparison. That's what you said. I'm a scripture where it says, if you're clothing

Moses, you're going to hell. Because I can show you where it says. I will listen, not necessarily clothes, but if you lived and died in the

Mosaic law, you went to hell. Absolutely. Well, no, hold on. You can be in the Mosaic law looking to Jesus Christ.

Well, for sure. I'm saying if you died, not having Christ, that was your only hope was the Mosaic law. You went to hell. For sure.

A hundred percent. So if you die with Adam as your only hope, you go to hell. Yes, because they're both federal heads.

Every covenant head. What'd you say? No, 14, if someone died,

I mean, what'd I say? Every covenant head failed.

It doesn't mean, but if you die, if you die looking to the covenant head, you're not looking to God.

You're not looking to Christ. My argument is still going to be that, yes, if you remain under the death, if you remained under the guilt of Adam, you're spiritually dead.

You need to be converted, but you're making the argument that that was his salvation.

And this Nicholas guy is agreeing and arguing with you, Brayden. Wait, what did he say?

I always thought Seth was taught by Adam as, oh, that one?

No, Moses represented the law. Moses was not. I think he was a federal head because it uses the same.

It doesn't call him a federal head in the same sense that it calls Abraham a federal head. But in the way that Christ is a federal head of the covenant of grace, it speaks of him as a mediator.

And therefore, also in that same chapter, it talks about Moses as a mediator. And so there was federal headship language without calling him the exact same, the same names that it was for Abraham.

You can see that in Galatians chapter three, Hebrews chapter four, I believe it is. Hebrews chapter eight.

I do. I would adamantly say that Moses was a federal head of his covenant. Yeah. And when it comes to the comparison between Christ and Moses, it speaks about grace and law, right?

Like we would agree with all that. My argument is when it comes to the resurrection of the dead, those that are going to heaven and those that are going to hell.

Right. The comparison is between Adam and Christ. Why would he compare someone?

Listen, let me listen. Why would he compare someone to a place that you're going to go to hell?

If you, if you bear this man's image, you're going to go to hell. But that man is going to be in heaven. Did Seth bear

Adam's image? Seth bore Adam's image. There we go. Is he a believer or unbeliever?

According to your argument, he would be an automatic unbeliever. Everyone born under Adam is an automatic unbeliever.

That's the point. That's the point. So just because Adam took on the image of dust or death or whatever we want to say it is, doesn't mean that he was outside of Christ.

But you got to show me where he, where the text tells us that we're in Christ or I can have my opinion. Adam hears the promises of God spoken to him,

Eve and the serpent. He turns to his wife with a hopeful statement, and then he's covered by God with the skin of an animal.

I think that's good as a comparison. I don't see, I don't see just because he named his wife

Eve, but I would say in verse 21, that since they were both covered, Eve was covered.

Adam was covered in the same way. Then you have to say that everyone who had an animal sacrifice for them were covered in that same sense.

Animal sacrifices have never purified the spirit. I agree with that.

I would agree. Sure, sure. You're making like, I don't know what this obsession is about Adam with you being in heaven.

Like you can't find it in scripture. It's just an assumption like I'm making.

Well, it's an assumption to say that the text shows that if you're in Adam, you're going to hell.

If you're clothed in Adam on the last day, you're going to be raised covered in dust. Why? Because he failed.

For sure. But that doesn't mean that he couldn't be inside Christ while also representing those that go to hell.

That doesn't make any sense. What? Show me one scripture where Adam was looking to the promise.

Genesis three. And then also ask yourself this, who taught Abel to make a sacrifice?

Did Abel just learn about that on his own? Or did he get shown that by his father? God showed him.

God spoke to Abel before he offered a sacrifice. Well, let's go and look at the text.

Go look at the text. It doesn't say that Adam showed him, but that's what we can infer from the text.

No, you can infer that the same way as someone can say that God told him to because the text doesn't say it.

It's not clear. The text doesn't say. Okay, time out.

What was the works of Cain? It was the first fruits of the field, right?

Or it was the fruit of the field. What did Adam try to cover himself before he was talked to by God?

He tried to cover himself with leaves, the works of the field, right? And then it's so clear what's going on here.

Yes, it is. Adam was taking action to his own hands, trying to cover his own sin.

But God intervened and covered them with a better skin that was absolutely.

God intervened by telling the people of Israel to slaughter a lamb and put the blood over the door.

Absolutely. All right. Did everyone that slaughtered that lamb put the blood over the door? When they died, did they go to heaven?

No, no. All right.

All right. We can't stay on this one forever. Next one, rapture. I win, you lose. Next one, rapture.

What covenant were those people in though? Listen, we said we were going to talk about several different things.

We can't spend the whole time talking about this. We made our arguments. We made our points. Let the cards fall where they land.

Okay. So the question is the second one was the rapture, but the third one had something to do with it.

And it was about Braden's small hands. Yep. This one I'm actually really needing help with.

Yeah. Was this that he was getting raptured and he was holding on? No, it's when a person, when

Christ returns and he gathers his saints unto himself and you have a glorified body, will

Braden still have a handicap? Or is this the perfect size of hands and all y 'all are going to have this size of hands?

My hands are perfectly fine. My hand to Braden. Tom's wife's hands are bigger than mine.

It was so bad. I think it's a serious question. So first of all, we'll come back to the rapture because I do think it'd be good to go look at 1

Thessalonians and just look at the rapture text and just talk about that in general.

But in the glorification, when Christ comes again, there's a lot of questions that are left unanswered.

We know that we're going to be in the image of Christ. We know that that's what glorification is. So whatever that is, is what we're going to be.

So we're not denying that whatsoever. But what does that look like for every individual? What age would we be?

What weight would we be? What will all our physical? So we put

Oompa Loompas in the show because maybe you're a very small stature and a deformity of a stature, something that came about through genetic process.

And that's a result of the fall. Just like we would see every sort of genetic fault or losing of information, whatever that is that causes that.

Those things we would believe would be redeemed. Well, would a small person be normal size?

What about a ginormous, huge person? Would they be average size? I don't know.

If you lost the leg, would you get your leg back? I would think so.

It's kind of dicey. I mean, Christ. So when Christ was resurrected, you could still stick your finger into the scar of his hands and his side and his feet.

I do think, though, he's a little bit of the exception in the sense that I'm not saying that I believe that.

I'm just for sure. Yeah. Norlin has some comment. I think that he is that exception to it because I think he will remain with those scars to remind us of the salvation that we have in him forever and ever and ever.

And so I think that there's a purpose in that. Right. So Debbie asked the question, are we still going to have the same face?

Do you think that we would be able to recognize each other? I would think that we would be able to recognize each other.

I think that we will have fellowship with the people that we knew here and that we would know them.

I don't know for sure. We have a beard. You know what I'm saying? I hope that Braden's has finally grown in.

It'll be redeemed. It'll be glorious. I don't know, because there also is in Revelation.

It says that every nation, tribe and tongue will worship him. Right. And so between nation, tribes and tongues, there's different types of there's uniqueness in God's people,

I guess is what I'm getting at with that. There's uniqueness in God's people and there's something beautiful in the worship of God with that.

And so I wouldn't say everything becomes uniform. Right. Like, I don't think

I don't think what I there's a lot of there's a lot of conjecture, but we still have distinct features from each other.

I would say the way that we look now outside of physical harm that might have come upon us or anything like that, you know,

I think we'll be the same height that we are now. Same build, so on and so forth. What about a child that's only four feet tall?

Would they remain a child? They're going to be 33. I think 30 to 33.

I would agree. The reason I say 30 to 33 is because that's the time of when Christ began his public ministry.

I think that would be the age that Adam was in the garden. I think that that's what is. I think it's.

I think that will be resurrected. Again, this is just speculation. This is all conjecture and just out there.

No, that was in the Bible. So for those of y 'all that are watching, we're really trying to think of something that we could talk about, argue, and then some some agreements and just have some fun.

So Troy just made a great point. The rich man recognized Lazarus and Abraham. Sure.

That's a great point. That's what I'm saying. I think we're going to have this. Well, sure. Like, yeah.

Peter recognized what will be glorified. That the only thing I don't know how he did, by the way, glorified.

How did how did how did Peter know that it was Moses in the transfiguration?

How do you know it was Moses there that said that Moses appeared with Elijah? And how did they know that they were?

That's a good point. You know, somebody put earlier that Nicholas again, good comment.

I don't think our ability to recognize will be merely according to our eyes, but rather, I think we will spiritually be aware of one another.

So maybe that would be it was that we have a physical body. So we would have a physical body like there's just no way around it.

Yeah. I mean, yeah. Listen, if I raise out of the grave and I look like Tom, something's going to be confusing. Like I need to be.

I think that's hell that you woke up in, Jeff. I don't like you guys very much at all.

Everybody wants me. Hey, you can go meet Adam looking like Tom. Taking applications right now.

Just go ahead and send it to rtsheppard at me .com. And I'll be glad to do an interview with you guys.

Replacing Jeff and Braden. Do you guys want to look at 1

Thessalonians? I can't see. You guys want to look at chapter four?

Yeah. Let's look at those. Yeah. That would be good conversation. Are any of us in here dispensationalists?

Any of you two guys dispensationalists? You're more than I am. I'd rather look like Tom than be told.

I mean, just think the size of the road that red has to wear.

I mean, he's going to be in a five, six X robe. That's a huge robe. Okay.

Nicholas just said he does believe that we'll have a body. Just to make that clear. He wasn't saying with being able to recognize each other spiritually.

He wasn't saying that we won't have physical eyes. He was just saying that in addition to physical eyes, our spiritual clarity would be.

I think that's what he's getting at is that we could recognize. Well, Nicholas, we make fun of each other. Love you, Nicholas. When we see you, it is what it is, brother.

And you too. Oh, that's a good question. In heaven, will we be able to make fun of each other?

I hope so. I'm going to get in trouble. Not in a sinful way, not in a derogatory way.

But I don't think we do that now. Well, I do. I think you're ugly. Well, I don't.

I was really hoping that I like that was my way out. I thought that's when this. No, Brandon, you're stuck with those small hands for all eternity.

Yeah. Are you smoking in air? Smoking where brothers and sisters can see you.

You consider yourself a pastor? No, I'm not a pastor. So I am going to enjoy my cigar to the glory of God, bro.

But I do smoke in public because if I want to smoke in private, then that's, you know, people hide in private when they're doing sins.

Yeah. And I smoke cigars to the glory of God. Absolutely. We have a podcast about this.

I think it's called don't smoke, don't drink and don't go with girls that do. Yeah, we did have a show about that.

All right, well, let's keep on going. We're going on. We're not talking about the liberty we have in Christ, which is a great topic.

But we have liberty in Christ. Don't try to yoke another man's conscience based off of what your convictions are that are not in the scripture.

But that's another topic. First Thessalonians verse 13 on it says this, But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.

For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.

For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the

Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself would descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the sound of the trumpet of God.

And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the

Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore, encourage one another with these words.

The rapture. All right.

So if this isn't the rapture, Oh, there he is.

I thought he got raptured. Oh, he did. Unbelievable. I see your butt.

So if this isn't the rapture, what is it? I mean, I have an answer, but I'm asking the question.

So what is it? Well, it seems to me the rapture.

So well, go ahead. It's all right. You're good. Go ahead. According to one camp, they would believe that this is

Jesus returning, but not all the way down. You're seeing him in the air and that because he's in the air, he has not descended all the way down into heaven.

So people would say that this is a separate event of his actual return, that he is coming to remove one group of people, a particular group of people.

And that would be his elect, the church, everybody who had believed in Christ to get them away in order for them to escape the tribulation of the day to come.

So they would say that all believers of all time, past, present and future that we see right now would be ascended into heaven, caught up in the air.

That's what it means to be caught up with Christ in order to spare them the great tribulation, something that has never seen ever before and something that we'll never be seeing in the end.

So they would look at this as a separate event of his actual second coming.

And most people would say that this is the rapture, which is the rapture. A lot of people would say that no one visibly sees it other than those that are being called up into the air.

That's right. The question is, does that hold water? Does that hold water? Absolutely not. This is the popularized view in Hollywood, according to the

Left Behind series and the movies that came out. And the view is called dispensationalism, right?

Yeah, it is. It's not right. It's for sure. Pre -trib, pre -millennial dispensationalism is what that view holds.

This, however, is talking about the second coming of Christ. But listen, in the

Old Testament, in those days when a king came into the city. So think about God coming down to his kingdom.

Yeah, I think you and I share the same view here. Absolutely. Where are the people going to come? They're going to come out to meet him.

And that's what this is talking about, that we're coming out to meet the Lord. And that's the language of this. And I would also say that this cannot be a secret rapture because why would he describe this as that?

He will come with the voice of an archangel, with the trumpet of God. It's something that is cataclysmic in that sense.

When you look at Revelation, it talks a beautiful, beautiful text of this. Several texts with this is who is it that's talking about coming back?

It's talking about Christ. When we compare this to Revelation, that here he is in Revelation chapter 19, where he has the name written on his thigh, his robe is dipped in blood, that there's these trumpets going off, all these kind of things.

You compare that to the man of war from the Old Testament, that Joshua meets outside of his tent with his sword drawn, ready for war.

That's the angel of the Lord. That's Christ Jesus that we see. You see, David, when he does a sinful act and he asks for God's judgment, it says that the angel of the

Lord stood at the Mount of Zion, the Mount of Zion with his sword unsheathed.

A sword? A sword, sorry, a sword unsheathed, visible for everybody.

Speaking of the wrath of God that's going to come upon Israel if they didn't repent, and David makes a sacrifice, this angel of the

Lord sheathes his sword. This is the man of war from the Old Testament. It is Christ Jesus, the commander of God's host.

The Lord of hosts is his name. And that's exactly what we see in Revelation. It's again, talking about Christ, the one in the

Old Testament that's identified as the angel of the Lord, the commander of God's hosts. And that's what we're seeing here in Thessalonians, is that here is

Christ coming again with something that's visible for everyone to see. He's coming as a king, either you're

His and you welcome Him or you're going to be judged ultimately by Him. A sword that now extends from His mouth will judge you.

AMIR I would also say that in verse 16, it says, for the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command.

This is not something silent. With a voice of an archangel and with a sound of a trumpet of God, this is nothing that's going to be quiet.

This is something that will be visible, a loud event that everybody is going to see. And so notice the mention of the trumpet there.

And then we go to 1 Corinthians 15. PASTOR BARRY Hold on, I was going to read that. AMIR Go ahead.

PASTOR BARRY If you want to, you can. Just let me say something first. AMIR You better believe it. PASTOR BARRY Because both of y 'all were saying something I agree with.

Braden, I just think that that story needs to be extended more. PASTOR BARRY So at that time, whenever kings would go out to war with their people, right?

And so a kingdom would always have watchmen on towers. PASTOR BARRY Right. PASTOR BARRY And they would be looking out for, whether it's an opposing army coming or they would be watching for their king to come back.

And all throughout scripture, Jesus, the apostles are telling us to be watchful.

Don't go to sleep, but watch, pay attention, so on and so forth. And it's this idea that whenever the king was coming back, those that were on the tower would see him, would shout, would sound a trumpet that would awaken the people in the kingdom who would then go out to meet their king as he was coming back to the kingdom.

And then when they met their king, they'd celebrate and come back to the kingdom with their king. So this would have been a way that Paul was using a visual, something earthly to explain something heavenly.

And then I was going to look at it. And so in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, the same text that I was, text underneath the text where I was showing these guys that they're just totally wrong about Adam, verse 50 says this.

It says, I tell you this brothers, flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed in a moment.

And the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet, for the trumpet will sound and the dead will rise imperishable.

And we who have been changed and the dead will be rise imperishable.

And we shall be changed from this perishable body must put on imperishable.

And this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on imperishable and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, death is swallowed up in victory.

Oh, death, where is your victory? Oh, death, where is your stain? Verse 56, the stain of death is sin and the power of sin is the law.

But thanks be to God who gives victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, beloved right here, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the

Lord, knowing that in the Lord, your labor is not in vain.

And so it's arguing the same thing that there's going to be a trumpet, he's coming, we're going to be changed, so on and so forth.

Right. So the other thing is, so we're talking about in that text there, it sounds like the dead that are raised there are believers.

There are other texts and we go back to Old Testament talks about this, that the resurrection of the dead also would include unbelievers.

PASTOR BARRY Yes, that would be above it. So if you were talking about Adam, it was talking about unbelievers as well.

AMIR Yes, and I would even tie it into Daniel chapter 12, and it says that that time shall arise

Michael, the great prince who has charge over your people, and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never seen since there was a nation till that time.

But at that time, your people shall be delivered. Everyone whose name shall be found in the book, verse 2.

And many of those who sleep in the dust of what the earth will awake, some for everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

So this is showing here that when Christ comes back at that last trumpet, when

He comes back, that the people who are raised are not only the believers, but those who would be put to shame as well, unbelievers.

So there's a resurrection of the dead, which would include the believers and the unbelievers at the same time, not just the believers.

So we would say that when Christ return, He's going to make a cause of resurrection of the dead, right?

That there's going to be a judgment immediately, that this is going to be simultaneously during the same event, three separate events, but all at one time.

And then He's going to make all things new. So we have the resurrection of the dead. We have the final judgment of believers and unbelievers.

And third, making all things new. So when we talk about those who are going to be judged, some to everlasting life and some for everlasting contempt, what verses would we go to there?

Where would you go through for judgment of both wicked and believers? So Matthew 25 verse 31, that's the one

I was going to read. When the son of man comes in His glory and all angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.

Before Him, He will gather all nations, and He will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

And so again, in that right there, when the son of man, so our

King, Christ Jesus, that's being already talked about elsewhere in other verses, comes in His glory,

He brings what with Him? All His angels. It's talking about this commander of the army of heaven, all the angels that are coming out to gather the nations.

That's what Matthew chapter 22 even says, I believe it is. And so again, over and over and over again, it's demonstrating what's taking place in the second coming of Christ right here.

When He comes, there's both righteous, the sheep and the wicked, the goats, and they're both being judged at the same time.

Right. And the goats are covered in Adam. Yep. Yes, they remain under that sin guilt that Adam had, that we've all inherited by nature.

So this is what happens when He returns. So the resurrection of the dead, the judgment of believers and unbelievers, and then

He would also make all things new. Uh, 1st Peter or 2nd Peter 3 .10

and Romans 8 .21. Anybody want to read those? I can read

Romans 8. Okay, I'll go to 2nd Peter 3. Or do you want to do 2nd Peter 3? 2, yeah, 3 .10.

Jefe? Oh, well, I'm sorry. I blacked out. Okay, I'll get it. 2nd

Peter 3 .10. 2nd Peter 3 .10. Right now or wait? Let Brandon go first on Romans 8 .21.

You want Romans 8, just 21? Or do you want me to read the ones around it? You can read ones around it too.

Okay, verse 18. For I consider that suffering of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willing, but because of him who subjected it in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

Not only each creation, but we ourselves, who have been the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption of sons, the redemption of our bodies.

The redemption of our bodies. All things will be created new. That destroys full preterism right there.

Absolutely. And then 2nd Peter 3 .10. I think full preterism destroys full preterism.

Yeah. Heretics are going to heretic. You know that one, huh,

Jeff? So this all happens. Here's the key here. This all happens, the resurrection of the dead, the judgment of believers and unbelievers, and then making all things new, 2nd

Peter 3 .10. All right, I'm gonna go to verse 9. The Lord is not slow to fulfill

His promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance, verse 10.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

It doesn't sound like to me that anybody gets through this. Nobody gets through this unscathed.

I mean, everybody, when Christ returns, it's a consummation. It's a wrap.

It's a wrap. It definitely is a wrap. When you look at this, and then we heard of the twinkling of an eye in verse 52, back in 1st

Corinthians 15. Behold, I tell you a mystery that we shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed in the moment.

What was that that you just read? In a twinkling of an eye, in the last trumpet, same trumpet that was in 1st

Thessalonians, for the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised imperishable, imperishable, and we shall be changed.

For this perishable body must put on imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

In the dispensational schema, when Christ comes back after the rapture,

He comes back with His saints, what, seven years later? Seven years later to reign on a literal millennial kingdom on a corruptible earth where people die, where people have gone through the judgment.

It's a physical impossibility. It is impossible for you to be in your glorified body, to be surrounded, living next door to people in corruptible bodies, surrounded by sin, still suffering, eating, having sex, still procreation.

All that happened during the same time. It's a biblical impossibility. But you're forgetting about something though,

Tom and Jeff. What's that? The 70th week and the 2 ,000 year gap.

I forgot about that 70th week. So I just want to say right now, you take all that clear text, that mumbo -jumbo, just biblical, historical

Christianity that you guys just talked about, throw it out the window, and let's go to Daniel chapter nine, because that's where it all makes sense, guys.

Hold on, hold on. Daniel chapter nine doesn't take place without Daniel chapter two.

That statue where the feet of iron mingle with clay is right next to the legs of iron, and there's this parenthesis where the feet separate from the statue.

That's what begins. Listen, I mean, you got to have proper exegesis, and it means that you got to read everything out of context.

And you got to read where it's talking about Christ, instead of saying that it's Christ. It's got to be anti -Christ.

Yeah, so right here, Daniel nine. Look, this actually kind of makes me mad, but in all honesty,

I know you guys know this, but to the audience, it is, you're calling Christ the anti -Christ in this text.

A lot of dispensation, it's messed, it's jacked up. It's borderline, it is blasphemy.

It is. It's bad. That's the biggest problem with dispensation. Should I read verse 24 and 27, through 27?

So here's what I think you should do. I think you should read it where, hold on. Just give me a second.

I'm trying to turn to it. I'm trying to remember the verse. Yeah, right here.

So Daniel nine, I just want to make sure that, yeah, yeah.

Read verse 24, because like he lays out, I think it's like six things that must take place.

Yep. And I can do a sermon to show how all six of these things are in Christ.

Right. So, and I, I, I have a lot. So I had a great conversation with a this be once about this, and we'll get into it here in a second.

Let me read it. And then I'll tell you the conversation because I agree, Jeff, you and I are a hundred percent on board with those six things right here.

So let's read. 70 weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin and to atone for iniquity, to bring an everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and profit and to anoint a most holy place.

No, therefore, and understand that from the going out of the word to restore the bill and restore and build

Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be 70 weeks.

Then for 62 weeks, it shall be built again with square mode, but in a troubled time.

And after 62 weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall come, shall have nothing.

And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood.

And to the end, there shall be war. Desolations are decreed and he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week.

And for half a week, he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abomination shall come one who makes desolate until the decree and is poured out on the desolator.

So just time out in verse 24, this is where I think it really is important to understand this.

I believe this all was accomplished in the first coming of Christ. Here in verse 24, very clearly,

I think it is. And the immediate pushback is, well, there's still sin. How can there be an end to sin if there's still sin?

How is there a finish of transgression when there isn't? What about the anointing of the holies of holies?

Like, that doesn't make any sense. Every person that's a dispensational premillennial that I have ever met who says that this is what takes place at the beginning of the millennium period still admits that sin takes place, death is occurring, and all these other things, transgressions and all this other stuff is taking place during the thousand years.

So just because you want to say that sin still takes place after the death of Christ doesn't get your problem fixed.

Your problem is that you still believe this takes place in the thousand years. Hey, real quick, I might be able to shine some light where it talks about he'll put an end to sin.

It's speaking of the day of atonement. The day of atonement is known as the day of sin, the putting it into.

And so when Christ makes that atonement, he puts it into that continuing day of offering that sacrifice.

Well, and so there's a couple of things too with it. The anointing of the most holy place, that speaking of Christ, that is baptism.

That's speaking of the Christ being anointed, the tabernacling God amongst us. That's talking about the true tent, the better tabernacle, the temple of God, Jesus Christ himself.

The atone for iniquity that's talking about him dying on the cross to finish transgression.

Again, all these things to seal both vision and profit. Christ, how many times do you say I have come to fulfill all the profits?

And what did the prophets prophesy? A coming Messiah and a judgment if you don't repent.

These things take place here. So that is undoubtedly speaking of the first coming of Christ.

Again, in its 70 weeks. And as Jeff already made mention of, this is talking about a lot of typological events that are taking place in the

Old Testament. 70 weeks, seven years was a year of rest after that 70 years there.

The number seven means a ton. And so what this is talking about, 70 weeks, 70 sevens.

This is talking about ultimate rest. What does Christ call himself?

I'm the Lord of Sabbath. I'm the ultimate rest. I'm the 70 sevens is what

Christ says to the Pharisees, essentially. Right. Yeah. So the argument will be in verse 27.

So if you look at verse 26, in which we could get into verse 25, we're talking about the time that the temple is going to be rebuilt in time of trouble.

Read Ezra, read Nehemiah. It'll explain all that stuff for you. Verse 26, it says, then after the 62 weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off.

Speaking of the crucifixion of Jesus. Right. He shall have nothing.

And the people of the prince shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

All right. So who are the people of the prince? The prince is identified as the

Messiah. All right. The people are identified. If you look at verse 24, it says 70 weeks are declared about your people.

Who's he talking to? Daniel, who's this people? The Jews. So right here it says, and the people and to seed it, talking about the

Jews of the prince. The prince is Jesus who will come and destroy the city.

We see this Jewish revolt that actually broke out during that time. So destroy the city and the sanctuary.

This is 78, 66 to 70 AD. It's end will come as a flood. All right.

And then, okay. But then it's not, it's retelling the story. So verse 27, he's going to retell the story.

It says in he. So who's the he here? They're saying this is antichrist. It has not mentioned an antichrist figure.

The only he here, the nearest center seated is the prince. Right. It's Christ.

And, and so he will make a strong covenant with many for one week. When was this done? This is the blood of the new covenant.

This is my body. This is the blood. They're trying to, when he issues, when he makes that sacrifice of the new covenant in his blood, they're a dispensational to say, no, that's, that's antichrist.

He's making a covenant with a bunch of nations. My dear friends, this is heresy.

Yeah, it really is. It really is. No one has held to that interpretation. Like, like what a dispensationalist has in the last 200 years, it's crazy to think about in the last 1800 years before those last 200 years,

I would say. And Jeff, I think this would be a conversation that we should have on another show to talk about.

And I haven't been sold one way or the other with the destruction of the sanctuary. The partial preterists will often say that that's talking about 70

AD. I I'm thinking that it's referring actually to the sanctuary being the most holy

Christ his body. And that's how he makes the covenant in verse 27, the destruction of the sanctuary.

Well, so yeah, I would, we can talk about that another time.

I just wanted to throw that out there. However, I, I, I definitely see one pointing to the other.

So, so the destruction that they put up, they came upon Christ came upon the physical temple.

They destroyed the spiritual temple. For sure. Yeah. It was raised up. He, in the same way that I would use this knife to cut an apple.

Right. Rome to destroy that city. Yeah, for sure. For sure. I'm just, I guess where I'm going is like Christ in John three, destroy this temple and I'll raise it up on the third day.

Right. Yeah. But there, but yeah, but yeah, yeah. But also there was a physical temple there. There was a temple that they were rebuilding.

And it was actually destroyed in 70 AD. So for sure. I know, but I'm just saying the covenant that's being spoken of is talking about the death of Christ.

And so I think that's right. So I think just contextually, I think it's talking about the destruction of his body for that.

That he will be cut off. This is speaking about him being crucified. Yeah. Verse seven. I mean, verse 27 is going to reiterate this.

It's kind of like a recapitulation. It's retelling the same thing taking place just in a different, a different way of looking at it.

So when it says in an anointed one shall be cut off. So this could actually be.

So, so to be honest with you, I can see this going two ways. It's either mentioning his crucifixion or it's mentioning that when the

Jews reject him. Right. Because whenever someone was cut off in the old Testament, they wasn't always put to death.

They were rejected by their people. Remember, uh, thrown out of the kingdom, right?

I'm thinking, uh, Genesis chapter 17, right? If someone refuses to circumcise their kid, their son, they were cut off.

Right. All right. This could be a rejection. And then 27 is an on telling.

So I kind of can see this two ways and I don't know where I'm landing the plane, but I can argue for both.

Yeah, I just something that I just want to throw out there. This is just, let me, let me get it out just real quickly in verse 26.

Um, and I'm just going to throw this out there. This is according to kingdom come. Um, I think also, uh, some other all millennialists hold this view as well, but just, just as some food and I, I'm not saying

I'm a hundred percent sold in one way or the other, but verse 26, the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy.

So that he came unto his own, his own did not receive him. John one shall destroy the city.

So we understand Israel. Christ is the true Israel. The sanctuary, he's the temple.

They destroy the city and the sanctuary. I think that that's, I think that's talking about the, the crucifixion and let me finish this.

It's end shall come with a flood. Again, you think about flood in the old

Testament where it takes you right back to the judgment of Noah, which first Peter then three talks about the baptism of Christ, the flood of Christ and him taking our wrath.

I think they're spiritualizing something that doesn't need to be spiritualized because we have in history where the people of the prince, the

Jews started a revolt, began to destroy the city, which is why Titus, but was there a flood?

Yes, for sure. A flood of people. You can go, but I'm just saying, there's still going to be some spiritualizing of this text one way or the other of the enemy of people.

I'm just saying, I don't, I don't see seven. I, I see. So this is where I see 76 to 70

AD. This is where I see 66 to 70 AD. And to the end, there shall be war.

Desolations are a decree. Matthew 24 applies that to 70 AD. I know, but that, but here's the thing.

It does apply that to 70 AD, but also that is a, a, a two -tier typology.

It's typological to what's taking, what's going to take place in our future. Yes, because we are in the end times right now.

Every time Christ came, we've been in the end. But we wouldn't want to dismiss it just because of that though, just because it's typological because the fact of the matter is that that is 70

AD. There's no way, I don't see any way, like the way that you're talking about, like,

I agree that, you know, that, that, that he is the sanctuary. However, this right here is not talking about,

I don't see. So when it says that he's cut off, I'm, I'm, I'm fairly certain this is talking about him being, I would probably say that him being rejection all the way to his crucifixion.

And then that 27 is retelling the same story from a different view. You're saying in 26 is his crucifixion to 70

AD, right? Yeah, because if you look in verse 27, it says that he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, one seven.

Midway through that seven is whenever Jesus was cut off. At the end of that seven would be the end of the 40 weeks.

I would say that that was probably AD 34 and it says real quick.

And for a half a week, he shall put an end to sacrifice and offerings. So this is whenever he is put to death on that cross.

So this is how he puts an end to everything, all six of those things that it mentions, right?

And then it says, and on a wing of an abomination shall come one to make desolate until the end is decreed poured out on the desolator.

So I would argue that the abomination of desolation. Now, I know that there was this whole, this pig being put into the temple and all that stuff.

My argument would be every time after the sacrifice of Christ on that cross, that they went back to the temple and made a sacrifice.

They were crucifying once again, the son of God. That is the abomination of desolation by sacrificing after the once and for all sacrifices made.

That's good, but let me, I agree with you a hundred percent on that, but on just that portion right there,

I just want to say though, what I'm trying to get at is that the last time that you've studied this from my recollection is when you were a partial preterist, right?

What I'm just saying is 89 federalism to this. Follow me. Just follow me on this.

Okay. Again, the sanctuary in the city is already been referred to earlier that it's talking about Christ.

That destruction took place in the crucifixion of Christ. When was Israel flooded in 70

AD? It wasn't. When was Christ flooded with the waters of the wrath of God on the cross?

And so again, when it says, just follow me on this though, follow me on this.

There wasn't a flooding in 70 AD. It doesn't need to be spiritualized. You're, you're allegorizing the same text. You're just taking it 70

AD. And listen, just because I'm no longer a partial preterist don't mean that some of these. I get it.

But I'm just saying apply 1689 federalism, dude. Apply, listen to me. Trust me. Follow me on this.

It's end shall come with a flood. And the end there shall be war because war took place after the death of Christ.

Desolations are decreed. Christ applies the desolations to 70 AD. And then the recapitulation is this.

The strong covenant will be made. Recapitulation say that's why I said a recapitulation.

I said that pick up regardless. And then 27, it talks about the strong covenant.

And then on the wing, meaning it's extended what comes after the main body. There's going to be a desolation of abomination and that's applied to 70

AD. So it is talking about the destruction of the physical temple in 70 AD. But I think that everything before the flood is talking about the death of Christ.

Because that's what the sanctuary is. That's the anointing of the most holies. That's not talking about 70 AD. So what would the flood be figuratively speaking of?

So the judgment of Noah in the days of Noah, where the wrath of God was poured out. So here's wait, wait.

So what would that be pointing to both of you guys? The death of Christ, Christ taking the wrath of God on our behalf.

Him being our arc that we're in that saves us by. Would you agree with that, Jeff? I don't know the question because I had something that I was going to say.

And I kept getting interrupted not being able to finish. Well, that's what we do here in Open Air Theology.

I'm supposed to take you both off the screen and explain this text. I let you talk and I just needed a second.

You interrupted me. You just did it again. I just did what? Interrupted.

You keep interrupting me. So yeah, I waited until you stopped and then I talked. What was the question? Take some notes.

I said that the flood would be representative of judgment. When judgment, okay.

Now, what would that be pointing to in the New Testament? Braden says that this is pointed to the judgment that was poured out.

The wrath of God poured out on Christ and in His death. Would you agree with that?

Or are you saying that the flood is representing a judgment? The flood is representing God using

Rome to come in and destroy the people who put the Messiah to death. Okay, so you're saying 70

AD. 66 to 70 AD. So you're spiritualizing flood and applying it to something that I just can't get on board with that.

Well, so you don't have to visualize it because this is a popular language. And we go to a relation and see that flood represents a people coming.

Not God coming, but a people coming to destroy. I would say in generally speaking of speaking of just judgment in general, not necessarily a people or the way it happens, right?

Right. I agree with you, Tom. What would you say is the flood speaking of the destruction of the temple in 70

AD? Or is that talking about Christ? What would be the implications of speaking of 70

AD? What was the results of that judgment at 70 AD? And what were the results of the judgment?

Yeah, so it was to show that the Jews were no longer God's covenant people. So I would agree with that.

I would agree with that. Yeah, I would too. That's exactly what would... No, you don't. I agree that that's a demonstration of the end of the program.

Listen, again, the recapitulation is not at the end of the flood. The flood is speaking. Every time you say picket, it makes me say picket.

And I say it from my wife and she gets on to me. Recapitulation. Let me say it again. Let me recapitulate my recapitulation.

It's the same story. Yeah. Listen, the sanctuary in the city is speaking of Christ.

Do we agree on that? No. So you don't think the city in the sanctuary is talking about Christ?

No, I think it's talking about Jerusalem. Are you kidding? Dude, the holies of holies. What is that in verse 25?

Verse 24. Listen, verse 24. Seventy weeks are declared about your people and your holy city.

And it mentions a sanctuary in a city and to seed it, dog. What is the most holy place?

What is the sanctuary? The most holy place in verse 24. What is the most holy place? Well, that's why that's the nearest antecedent to sanctuary.

Yeah, but you're taking the interpretation that the anointing of the most holy place, you're saying that this was

Christ in his baptism, correct? Absolutely. And you said amen and shook your head to that earlier.

Yeah. Well, I'm not too sure that this is what that's talking about. No, dude.

No, this is 100 % talking about Christ. Because I've preached through this and I don't remember speaking.

Because you were a partial preterist at the time. That's what I'm trying to get at, dude. Listen, just because I'm not a partial preterist,

I don't think there should be any partial preterism. All right. I don't think it should be an interpretive grid.

However, what some of these texts are teaching partial preterism, we should not reach. We are teaching something as a past event.

We should not reject. You know. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, bro. No, I'm not.

70 weeks. The ultimate rest is decreed for your people and the holy city to finish.

Okay. Who is the holy city? What is the two -tier typology regarding the holy city?

What is the two -tier typology? What's that? New heavens, new earth. Galatians 4.

I just preached on it today. The Jerusalem above. Are you and I a part of the holy city? The Jerusalem above. Yes.

Okay. So a permanent rest. A rest of rests have been decreed for your people in the holy city, which

I'm going to say is the church, which is the body of Christ to finish transgression.

How does that happen? Through the death of Christ to atone for iniquity, to put an end to sin, to bring an everlasting rest.

That didn't take place in 70 AD. That took place at the cross. Listen, even if someone was to concede that the holy, that the most holy place here is speaking of what you're saying.

I don't remember. Listen, you don't let me talk. I'm listening. I'm making a face. Even if someone was to concede with that,

I don't remember my interpretation of it right now. I have to go back and check it out. It still doesn't stop the fact that when it mentions your people and your holy city is speaking of Jerusalem.

And then when you get down here to this text, it mentions in the people of the prince shall come and destroy the city and the sanctuary.

So who's the people there? If you're saying the people there, okay. See, you're not being, what's the word?

Consistent in your interpretation. So why? No, the Jews crucified Christ. But here's the thing.

Did the Jews destroy Jerusalem? Most every time in this text where it mentions people, it also mentions the holy city or sanctuary.

It has to do something with the city of Jerusalem. Did the Jews crucify

Christ or did the Jews destroy Jerusalem? Both. No, the

Romans destroyed Jerusalem. Romans did both. The Romans crucified Jesus. But who, the

Jews. Here's your king. We have no king but Caesar. Were destroying the city, causing a riot.

Who called out crucify, crucify. But who was it? Here's the question is, who was it that was judged at AB 70?

And who was it that was judged at the cross? The ultimate Jew, the Israel Christ.

Which was the father of the. Listen, all I'm saying is that.

Listen, you're wrong. You know, you're a hundred percent. Jeff, you're gonna repent of this in a week from now because that's not 1689 federalism that you bring into the text.

That's the saying that that's in 70, verse 24. That's not right. If you're saying the 1689 federalism has to make up stuff as it goes, homeboy.

No, that's what I'm not. What are you talking about? There's a reason why words are written.

All right. When was the strong covenant made? Purpose for it. When was the strong covenant made? The strong covenant was made when

Jesus made the covenant with his disciples. This is my body. This is my blood. So when he made that strong covenant, which was at his death.

Yep. Did he put an end to transgression? Yes. Did he seal up both visions of prophecy?

He put an end to all six of those things. Perfect. But you just said that the sanctuary is talking about the physical sanctuary.

I remember now the most holy is whenever he goes in Hebrews, he goes into the holy of holies and sprinkles his blood.

This is the holy place in heaven. Yeah. 1689 federalism with that, baby.

That's not bad, Jeff. That's not bad. But regardless, it's not talking about 70 AD. It is.

I don't think. No, it's not. It is. It's talking about 34 AD. You already said it, dude. No, 34

AD is when he went into heaven. When did Christ go into heaven? At his death. 70 weeks would have been, the 70 weeks would have ended at 34.

But of course, I believe in those numbers being literal. You don't believe that there was a literal. Okay, do you want to get into that conversation?

I'm just saying, you know what I'm saying? Because who does Isaiah say will give the decree? Who does Isaiah say will give the decree?

I have been listening to that and reading through that. And I still come out that my interpretation is correct.

But regardless, listen, 70s in this is not to be taken literal.

It's to be taken saying, this is the permanent. It is literal. Oh my goodness. You should just be a dispute.

You should be a dispute. I'm not a dispute. I'm saying, this is Christ saying, he's the Lord of the Sabbath. Yeah, I agree.

He's the Lord of the Sabbath. No, you don't. You said it was literal. Yes, I did. The 70 Sabbaths. Listen, it's two tiered typology.

Something you might need to read up about. No, I know it. You ain't applying it. You have the literal pointing to the spiritual.

You're just making it up. Tell me who gave the decree. Tell me who gave the decree. That's not.

Tell me who gave the decree. I know who gave the decree. Who did it? Right now, my brain's.

Because if you say Artaxerxes, it's not agreeing with scripture. No, I didn't say it was Artaxerxes, but it was

Cyrus. However, Artaxerxes, I can't remember how it went, man.

I just, I've talked to it and I listened to it twice, two weeks ago. But for some reason.

When did Cyrus give the decree? According to Isaiah, that he started the declaration. Be quiet. You have to read both

Ezra and Nehemiah. Yes, you do. You also have to read Jeremiah and Isaiah too.

You can't ignore those ones. 100%. I agree. Who does Isaiah say will give the decree? And Jeremiah says will give the decree.

Cyrus. Cyrus. Yes. When did he give the decree? 530 BC. Now, we're at 490

BC. No, but this is where it comes to that time of trouble. This is what. No, no, no, no. I think you're wrong there. Here's where it comes to that. Give me the math.

590 BC, 530 BC. That's a historical event. Cyrus decrees for Israel. I don't have. Listen, I've done my study on this a few years ago.

I don't have all these numbers memorized. That's back when you were a partial preterist, dog. That's what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with partial preterism.

Daniel. 1689 federalism promotes the type anti -type. You're skipping over the type.

No, I'm not. What's the type? The type in this, the two tier type is this.

The type is that they're going to be released from captivity. That's pointing forward to the release of ours from our sin captivity, which is in Christ.

That's the two tiers, right? It isn't. Yes, it is. It isn't. If you're saying that Christ fulfilled it when he was on earth.

Christ fulfilled it. Now you live the life. We can't live and die the death you and I deserve. You're not consistent. Yes, I am.

No, you're not. 70 weeks. You cannot get 490 years from the decree of Cyrus. No, no, no, no.

I didn't say. No, it's not. I said it was from King. Tom, did he not just say it was from Cyrus?

No, the decree went out from Cyrus. One hundred. That's when the 490 years. Listen, listen, be quiet.

The decree went out from Cyrus. I might mess up on the name. All right. They went out.

They had to come back. Something happened. This is where it talks about that time of trouble. Something took place.

I can't remember exactly what it was. But then they are sent out again. And that time is when they're sent out again.

It was through Arctic Xerces. No, there was two decrees sent out by Cyrus. Listen, I guess we're going to read it.

Where is it?

There was multiple decrees given out by everybody. That's why I'm saying 490 years. Don't I know? I listened to it twice last week.

As I mean, Nehemiah and. Listen, ever since I became a pastor,

I was doing this Bible reading plan where I would read the Bible like I was like eight to 10 chapters a day.

I become a pastor. I don't get to read the Bible as much as I want to anymore. I listen to it like I listen to a lot.

However, whenever you're not reading to a physical copy, it's hard to find out what you want to know.

Let's see. You remember where it was at in Ezra? Anyways, we don't have time for this.

Let's prepare something for this argument. I'm just saying that you cannot read that as 70

AD. It is 70 AD. It's not. Yes, it is. It's not. It is.

Absolutely. It's not. I got a sermon on it. It's ironclad. It's not. Yeah, it's not because you're you're also saying that the 490 is relating to the 70

AD and the 480, 483 is relating to Christ. You need to read all these things, all these verses that these books that you keep chopping off at the mouth about.

What? Nicholas mentioned something here. What is what is the war mentioned?

That's talks about the wars that take place after the death of Christ. That's talking. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that's talking about 70

AD, and it's also talking about the applicableness of that from every ever since then. But that's why it's recapitulated in verse 27.

The strong, the strong covenant Christ and the abomination talking about 70

AD. Like, it's that simple. You can't put it all on 70 AD. I'm going to listen to it again this week and I'll have those those.

Well, I probably won't. So Ezra one one in the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia, that the word of the

Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled. The Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, King of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all the kingdom and also put it in writing that took place in 539

BC. Work 490 years into that. Keep reading.

That's what I'm saying. We cannot have this conversation here if we don't know the exact text. We can't have this conversation here because we have to read.

We have to read both Ezra and Nehemiah because it puts it together.

I agree that Artaxerxes kept on giving more proclamations, but the point of it is that Ezra says that's the fulfillment.

They wasn't sent out. They wasn't sent out then. It's when they were. They did.

That's what they came back is what I'm telling you. Oh, my freaking goodness. Listen, what you need to do is stop reading the

Bible in little small chunks and read it all together because that's what you're screwing up by doing it, by just taking little small chunks here and there.

I'm going to record this and send it back to you in a week from now when you repent and believe that this is 1689 federalism talking about Christ.

Okay, stop. When Christ returns, what are the three things that he accomplishes when he returns?

Are you talking about those three things that you were talking about earlier? Before we got on the topic of the conversation?

No, because I said something that he disagreed with. So he had to chime in and spiritualize something.

I didn't know. I would have read the text earlier and you were saying, yep, amen. I agree. That's Christ. And then you said that the sanctuary right after talking about another sanctuary isn't

Christ. Listen, if you are. So let's say that I'm hanging out with.

I'll be right back. I'm not going to say Greg Morin Jr. Because I'm pretty sure I'm not going to.

He's a little too dispensational to be a historical premill. But let's say I'm hanging out with Michael Schultz.

And Michael Schultz is having an argument with someone, an eschatological argument. All right. And he's promoting premillennial, historical premillennialism.

Right. And I'm right there with him. I know what historical premillennialism is.

And I can sit right there with him and agree and argue with what he is saying. Yeah.

To help him fight off this person. Right. And not agree fully with what he was saying.

I can nod my head and agree at certain things that you say. And my head is still nodding when you say something else that I probably don't agree with.

And yes, ma 'am. All right. Fair enough. Yeah. One of it, though, is that how can you say that the putting of the end of sin is talking about 70

AD? I didn't say I was talking about 70 AD. Yes, you did. No, I didn't. The putting the end of sin is talking about when

Christ is crucified. Okay. So the most holies, is that talking about Christ being crucified?

I think that's during his burial. I think that's when he's going up into, if I remember correctly, I think

I had that going into his burial when he goes into the holy of holies and he sprinkles the blood on the

Ark of the Covenant. But it has to do with what took place on the cross. But again, though, what

I'm just trying to say to you is in verse 24, I turned away from the page. So I'm just going off memory. Verse 24. Everything that you're saying in there is talking about Christ.

But then when you come to 26, when it says the city and the sanctuary, you're saying that that's not Christ, even though the people are the

Jews who killed Christ. Yeah. Which again, so the nearest antecedent is Christ.

In the city and sanctuary. It's this nearest antecedent is Christ, Jeff. In Matthew chapter 21, when they take

Jesus, when he's given that parable, they take him out of the city and sanctuary. Did it take Christ out of Christ? No.

I'm done. Because that's the context of what's going on there. But no, it's just the point that you're trying to make.

That's snapping all over the place. Anything that says sanctuary, that's what you're doing here in this text.

It's two verses that it says sanctuary. You're going to hold another book to talk about sanctuary.

All right. Listen, is the city in the sanctuary, the tabernacle in heaven? No, it is not.

All right. But it was typological to it. It was typological to it. It was typological to what?

To the city and tabernacle in heaven. The temple that was built by Moses in chapter eight of Hebrews is that it was the pattern which was in heaven.

I'm so confused what you're saying right now. You asked me a question. I'm answering it. No, listen.

The city and the sanctuary. Yep. Is that speaking of the tabernacle in heaven?

No. No, that's talking about Christ. You're saying it's talking about Christ. I do think so.

All right. All right. So is the city and the sanctuary talking about the most holy in this text?

I think it's talking about Christ being the most holy. I think the most holy in this text is the city, is the tabernacle in heaven.

I like that interpretation. I've never seen that before. I've never considered it. But what I'm just saying is that the anointing of the most holies of holies is what it's talked about.

I think that that's specifically talking about when at Christ's baptism, he was anointed with the

Holy Spirit. And that's what began his public ministry. That's what began him doing all the work.

You said the anointing of the most holy. So you have his baptism before everything else.

I'm saying that it's talking about his life, death, burial and resurrection. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. But but you're having his baptism at the very end.

So he's baptized after he puts an end to sin. Is our life in the resurrection of Christ?

Is our righteousness in the resurrection of Christ? Our righteousness is in Jesus Christ living the life we could not live.

Right. But there's also a verse. I can't remember where it is in the New Testament that talks about he rose for us so that we might live something along those lines.

Yeah. Because he didn't rise from the grave. If you're if you're saying that my point in all this, though, is if you're saying that the anointing has to come before everything else, if it's talking about the baptism.

Well, the burial didn't take place after the resurrection. All right. So I'm just saying that this is just saying all the things that Christ would do in his life, death, burial and resurrection stuff.

Listen, look at it. All right. A decree about your people in your holy city to finish transgressions, to put an end to sin, to atone for iniquity, to bring about everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and profit.

Yeah. All right. That's him all the way down. Like he's talking about his death, his burial, his vision and all that stuff.

And he's going to be baptized. Yep. No, no. It's not that he's going to be baptized.

He's talking about his whole life, death, burial and resurrection. No, I'm talking about the anointing of the most holy place, his baptism.

It's just listing that as Christ being our temple, the God who tabernacled amongst us being anointed.

I think you're taking federalism too far. You're taking it. Oh, my goodness. No, no, no.

So what do you what do you think the most holy is? Let me ask you this. What do you think the most holy is in this text? You're thinking that's in heaven when he died and went to his burial.

Are you talking to me? Yes. The most holy. I think it's the tabernacle in heaven.

I just told you that. So when did Christ go and sprinkle his blood on? He was buried. All these other spots are talking about him being put to death.

So let me follow this. So when was his resurrection? Because it's not his resurrection needed for our righteousness and putting an end to sin.

Isn't his resurrection needed for that? But yet you're putting his burial after his resurrection. No, it doesn't have to mention his resurrection.

Yes, but that's what I'm trying to say. This is talking about everything Christ did in his ministry.

But OK, but OK. But at the end, he doesn't talk about his resurrection. It's talking about it with him putting an end to sin, dude.

It's everything. Listen, this is talking about him. If he doesn't go into the holy of holies and in a tone, put his blood on the

Ark of the Covenant, there is no life for us. So let me follow. This is what you're saying is that it cannot be talking about his baptism because it's talking about his baptism at the end, right?

I didn't say it's talking about his baptism. That's what I know. But you're saying that argument against me. Right. Yeah.

Mentioning that. Well, I'm saying I'm saying you are. No, that's not my argument. I'm saying your argument doesn't make sense because it has his baptism at the end.

And I'm saying that this right here is talking about his burial when he had Hebrews chapter 10. So that's what

I'm trying to say. It doesn't make any sense. Did Christ have to raise from the grave for us to be righteous? Yes.

So then why is the burial at the end of this text? It doesn't make any sense. You're not applying the same logic that you're using to your interpretation.

It doesn't have to mention the resurrection. So does the resurrection need to happen? Does the resurrection need to happen?

There's times where the resurrection mentioned it doesn't mention the burial. There's times where it doesn't mention that.

It's all insinuated together. But following on this, and then all of a sudden at the end, it mentions his.

Does Christ need to be resurrected for everlasting righteousness? Yes, he has to be resurrected.

So then why is it talking about an event during his burial after his resurrection? So you're trying to make a ridiculous argument.

No, I'm telling you that you're not using the same logic. I'm not denying your interpretation.

You're saying that my interpretation can't fit based off of some logic you're not applying to yourself. Because it's talking about two different things.

Okay, what if I told you that Christ... So when did everlasting righteousness come, Jeff? Listen, what if I told you that Christ resurrected, he was buried, and then he was crucified?

You say, not then, not then, not then. That's not what I'm saying in this. It's saying that he will accomplish these things and it gives a list.

Yeah, but you have the last thing being the first. Let me ask you started off the minute. The first thing that starts...

If your wife gives you a list to the grocery store, do you have to follow and order everything on the list?

Or do you just go through the store and grab the things that are on the list as you go? No, you cannot put words in my mouth,

Jeff. I'm not saying the anointing of the most holy place took place after his resurrection. I'm not saying that.

I'm not saying you're saying that, but I'm saying... That's what you're arguing. No, I'm saying that you're trying to argue it sequentially with this text.

No, I'm not saying sequentially. I'm not saying sequentially. Listen, I'm saying... This is what I'm saying.

You're misrepresenting me, dude. Listen, listen. I'm saying it doesn't make sense for the most holy to be speaking of his baptism because it mentions it last out of the six things.

So again, I'm going to... So you just did a sequential thing again, dude. Let me then apply the same sequential logic to you.

The burial that you're saying that the most holy took place, you're also saying the everlasting righteousness had to take place with his resurrection.

You're placing the burial after his resurrection. No, it doesn't happen. The book of John never mentions the word repentance, but you have to repent and believe.

That's the argument I'm freaking making, Jeff. No, you're not. It's not a sequential argument. It says it lasts.

It says it lasts. Oh my goodness, dude. Okay, so real quick, real quick. So because we're at an hour and 49 minutes, give me your best argument as to why this is talking about 70

AD and then let... I don't think... Listen. In three minutes and you give me your argument.

Look at this. And I'm going to... We're not mad. No, I love these guys, but that's because Christ tells me to love them.

The only reason they haven't hung up on each other right now is because we're on the show live. I'm sorry, guys.

We're not mad. We do this all the time. So real quick in two minutes, you're arguing this, why this is talking about 70

AD and he talks right over me. You guys have been hogging the show and then Braden, you go two minutes, Jeff.

Why is this talking about 70 AD? I just think if you just look at the argument, again,

I didn't know I was going to have to give a last word in testament. I just think if you look at it clearly, these six things were fulfilled by Christ.

The last one is pointing to him going into the heavenly tabernacle, sprinkling his blood.

If you read John chapter 14, beginning in verses 4 through 7, it talks about him preparing a place for us.

This is him preparing that place for us. And if you follow the argument, it has

Jesus being the prince. It has the people of the prince is the Jews. And they're in the city and the sanctuary.

If one text is mentioning, so in verse 62, it says, and then after the 62 weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off.

All right, so you already have in this verse, speaking of the anointed one, which is Messiah, which is Christ, he will be cut off and have nothing.

And the people of the prince, this would be the Jews, who shall come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. So my problem is, is why in the same verse, is it referring to someone they call the anointed one, the

Messiah, the city and the sanctuary? When we have an actual history, the

Jews, the people of the prince, the Jews who actually started a revolt in 70 AD, and you see this and you see what's taking place here actually play out.

Verse 27, it is recapitulation of what was told, but it speaks about the covenant that the

Messiah fulfilled. And the argument that we were trying to make in the very beginning before we got on this was that he here is

Christ and how dispensationalists will say that he here is the Antichrist. The strong covenant that he makes with one week, this would be him, this is my body that was broken for you.

This is the blood that was shed for you. And in the middle of it, he puts an end to sacrifice and offerings because he is put to death.

Now, he was arguing, Braden was arguing that the people put him to death and which they did in a way, but in verse 27, it's he makes an end to sacrifice and offerings.

That is by his sacrifice that he made. And then on the wing of abomination, I'm still not 100 % sure where I would land the plane with that.

But I do know the abomination would be them after the once and for all sacrifice was made, they continue to sacrifice animals for sins.

Which would also be the Jews. Which would also be the Jews. So I'm saying that all that is typological to what's going to take place in our future.

He's saying that it was typological, if I'm not mistaken, he's saying that it's typological. I just don't understand where he's getting the tip or the logical.

So, okay. So I gotta say, Braden, that makes a lot of sense.

It makes a lot of sense. Now, let me hear yours. Okay. 70 weeks, 77s.

No, I need to talk. No, let me talk. 70 weeks does not make any sense in any mathematical scheme because this text of Ezra tells us that it was

Cyrus who was the fulfillment of Jeremiah and Isaac. Shut up. Shut him up.

I didn't talk at all. I'm gonna restart. I get my two minutes back. Speaking of Daniel.

Stop talking. Where are you at in the text? Stop talking, everyone.

Daniel, the text that we've been talking about. Daniel 9 verse 24. Dang it.

Let me talk now. 27, go. 24. The 70 weeks, there is no math that will fit with according to how the

Bible tells us that this was accomplished, which was that the decree of Cyrus. And that happened in 539

BC. And Ezra 1 .1 tells us this. Isaiah prophesies about it. When we look at the decree of 70 weeks, it's talking about the ultimate rest.

Christ says, I'm the Lord of Sabbath. I am the ultimate rest. He is the 77s.

When the covenant of grace is inaugurated, the covenant of grace is cut. We'll get to that in a moment.

But it is decreed for his people. Speaking of those in the city, the holy city, speaking of the body of Christ will finish the transgression, put an end to sin, meaning that there will no longer be a sacrifice that will be acceptable before God because the blood of Christ has been spilled, which is the better blood than even able.

And he will atone for iniquity to bring about everlasting righteousness. And that's talking about everything that Christ did in his ministry.

This is not sequential. This is talking about all of Christ's doings. To seal both vision and prophets, again, something that takes place in his baptism, something that takes place at his death and something that takes place at his resurrection.

He seals up both visions and prophecies in his ministry. And to anoint the most holy. Pay attention there.

Anoint. Go back down now with me. What is the most holy? I'm going to anoint in verse 25.

Anoint a prince, not a most holy, but it is the most holy because it is Christ Jesus, the prince of princes, the king of kings, the tabernacle of God, the most holies.

He was anointed at his baptism. And following this, we see that he is cut off.

That's talking about the fulfillment of the Mosaic law, covenant theology, baby 101. He is cut off from the people, his people, the people he came unto who did not receive him, who rejected him, the

Jews, who then following this in verse 26, it says, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

What was the anointed holy, the whole anointed sanctuary? It was the anointed prince who was the anointed prince.

That's the body of Christ. The body of Christ is also the people of God. Oh, my goodness. It all makes sense and typology and covenant language.

And I'm coming to an end, baby. But it says that the end will come with a flood. That's talking about, again, in first Peter three, it applies the days of Noah and equates it to the days of Christ and his death, taking the wrath of God for us.

Flood speaks about the language of wrath being poured out upon something. And then after that, it says that there will be an end.

There shall, and to the end of there shall be war. Desolations are decreed again. Christ then talks about this in Matthew 24 is talking about 70

AD. After the death of Christ, the, the, um, he destroys the physical temple.

In 70 AD. But the flood, the sanctuary, the city, the holy, the prince, it's all talking about Christ.

And then it is recapitulated that he'll make a strong covenant for, with many for one week. And then after that, it talks about then on the wing abomination, there will become a desolation, which is talking about Matthew 24.

It's all about the life, death, burial and resurrection. And then the recompense to the Jews of holiness. But it is not saying, it is not saying that the flood, the city and the sanctuary is talking about 70

AD. We're going to need charts. So I'm going to say this, because you guys both made some really good arguments.

I do think the city is talking about 70 AD, but I'm not 70

AD. It's just talking about the city of Jerusalem, the city of Jerusalem. That was the city of Jerusalem. But I'm going to say this, everything else, which is typology, which is typological.

I mean, Brayden made a great argument for typology through I said it was typological.

I said it was typological. Don't take my compliment, Jeff. He already said he likes your statement on that.

Let Tom talk. Go ahead, Tom. So, yeah,

I mean, all that Christ accomplished would be encompassed through the typology that he explained through this.

And not necessarily the order. I don't think you need to have an order. I think that just all of it was accomplished.

His baptism, his anointing, taking away the sin, his resurrection, his victory, all of it encompassed in that.

I do still think that there was the cutting off was the cutting off also was the

Jews in 70 AD. So I think that I'm cutting off of the

Jews. No, he's not. I'm not saying the cutting off of the Jews is 70 AD. Okay. What are you saying? The cutting off is when the

Jews rejected their Messiah and had him crucified. Okay. So you guys actually agree on that?

Well, so what I've been saying is that this right here is an actual event, historical event that's typological also of what

Christ has done. Okay. Here's the question. Why are you bringing in...

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm saying that he's disregarding the earthly type that points to the heaven.

No, I'm not. No, no, no. I just said that. Why are you inserting?

No, wait a minute. I want to know because the typology can be made without inserting

AD 70. Without making this about AD 70.

I don't know why y 'all keep saying AD 70. It begins... Listen, it begins at AD 30.

All right. Jesus is crucified. It was in AD 70.

I have Jesus crucified at AD 30. All right. The 70 weeks would be over around AD 34.

All right. And then there's this long span here. AD 66 is whenever the

Jews would have had the revolt. AD 70 is when the temple fell. Historical facts.

Is it a possibility that you guys are both right in that? Well, so my biggest argument with what he was saying...

Bradian, correct me if I'm wrong. You're wrong. We can argue about the whole numbers thing, like the 70 and who decreed.

It's important, but I don't think it's actually important for this conversation. Put the last comment up. I don't know which one.

Okay. Nicholas. Yeah. The destruction of the temple in AD 70 is the final earthly shadow, which was the anti -type shadowing the judgment of the dam.

I would also say amen to that. I agree with that. Would you agree and amen that this right here is the shadow of what's coming in our future?

Yes. Then yes. If that's what he's saying, I agree. I would agree with that. Yeah. I'm not denying 70

AD is talked about in this text because Christ in Matthew 24... What we're arguing about is who is the city and the sanctuary.

You're saying the city and the sanctuary is Christ, and I'm saying the city and the sanctuary is the actual city of Jerusalem and the sanctuary.

Listen, guys, we just had a freaking... You're saying it's Christ or his baptism. I'm saying it's the heavenly temple in heaven that the earthly temple was patterned after.

When Christ was buried, he sprinkled his blood. I would say that's a fine interpretation, and it doesn't ruin any of the stuff that I'm getting at.

It ruins what you're saying. Not the actual... Where we disagree about the years, but the fact of him being the city and the sanctuary.

No, it doesn't because he still is the city and the sanctuary. Maybe we need to write ourselves down because we keep speaking over each other. We write out what we think we believe, what we think.

You can't get the last word on that. I'm saying that even if it is... I'm not trying to get the last word. Why are you being a bag?

I'm not trying to get the last word. You want the last word? Let me finish. Let me finish. All I'm trying to say is that the city and sanctuary, even if it is talking about his burial and sprinkling the blood on the ark, it still doesn't alleviate that the city and sanctuary is

Christ. What do you get sprinkled on the blood of the ark?

I'm having a hard time understanding this. You said that in his burial that he anointed the most holy. I'm talking about the most holy place.

That's what I'm referring to. No, you said the city and the sanctuary. I'm saying that the city and the sanctuary is not...

Oh my gosh. You said it's not 80 to 70. You're saying it's not the city.

I'm saying it's not 70 AD and that interpretation is not dependent on the anointing of the most holy being the baptism of Christ or the burial of Christ.

That's what I'm saying. I'm still a little off.

I think I'm following your argument, but I'm still a little off. So anointing the prince.

Who is the anointing of the prince? Jesus is the prince. Christ. Okay. When was he anointed? At his baptism.

Okay. So the baptism is mentioned thereafter. It talks about the six things that take place. Yes. So I'm saying that you and I are both not arguing for a sequential reading of this text, right?

I'm saying that the most holy place is not... The anointing of the most holy place in verse 24 is not talking about his baptism.

The reason I would say that it is talking about his baptism is because where's the two times it talks about anointing? It's in those two verses, the most holy place and the prince.

And I want to divorce the anointing language that's in there and say, one's talking about a different event and one's talking more about one event.

I think they're both talking about the same event and that's at his baptism. Yeah, but you can say the same thing about holy city and most holy city.

And I would say it's two tier typology. That's right, dude. You just made a great case for what I'm trying to say.

That is my argument. The city. No, the holy city is the actual

Jerusalem. All right. You're divorcing it again. You're taking something

I say and you're making it sounds like I'm saying something I'm not saying. I feel like that's what you've been doing to me.

Something I'm not saying. I feel like that's what you're doing to me, dog.

Anyways, it's been two hours. We haven't even gotten the whole Oompa Loompa thing yet.

Really? Well, what was I going to say? Yeah, you did because you were talking about in the rapture.

Yeah, I guess someone's going to have small hands. If someone was the Oompa Loompa, they're going to be Oompa Loompa in heaven.

Is everybody going to be five, three, right? We don't know.

We don't know. What? We don't know this. We do know this, that when

Christ returned, he is going to judge the earth, raise the dead, and make all things new. It's one climactic event that when

Christ returns, that's a wrap. That's a wrap. There is no coming of the

Lord. We've explained that the trumpet is the last trumpet. It's all on the same day, that the last day is talking about the day of the

Lord where he's going to raise the dead. He's going to judge the earth and make all things new. And we both agree.

So, Brayden, you and I both agree that the he in verse 27 is

Christ and not the antichrist. I think it's 70 AD. Oh, my freaking goodness, man.

Actually, so what does he say? He goes, to correct myself, the establishment of the church may shadow the eternity to come.

If that is so, then that is the final shadow. Well, the final death to be, the final blow is to death itself.

I don't see how the establishment of the church shadows eternity to come.

We're given life. I would have to think about that. Yeah. And again, my answer could be wrong.

But I would argue. As everybody has seen tonight. Oh, whatever. Everybody agrees with me.

It's a historical fact. Dude, you argue for Adam being in hell and that this is 70

AD. I say you cannot prove to me that Adam is in heaven. And the Bible compares Adam to Christ.

Adam are those who are going to hell. Christ are those who are going to heaven. Y 'all, this is what we've just witnessed.

Is if let's say if I came on here talking about the importance of Joseph Smith, that would be like Mormonism reaching out and grabbing me, trying to pull me back in.

But we've just seen as preterism trying to reach out and grab Jeff and pull him back in.

I think to have the interpretation of preterism is false. Orthodox MacArthur says, Tom is making the all thing news that post mill.

No, that would be a consummation of things. So you, a post mill would look at that as actually happening before Christ comes back.

That's not the time all things are made new. I would disagree. All things are made new when Christ returns. Yeah. Yeah.

The flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. We read that earlier. First Corinthians chapter 15 verse 50.

That's right. The new heavens and new earth would consummate right now. Prior to the resurrection of the dead will melt like wax.

Absolutely. So here's the question too. We're going to get on another question, but I'm going to ask it.

Is it going to be this earth that is going to be restored or?

Let me ask you this. Is your body? I already know the answer. You have spoken 6 ,000 words.

I already know my answer. Go ahead. His brain is shaking his head.

Is this earth going to be renewed the same way it was destroyed in the flood and just being renewed?

Or is it going to be a brand new heavens and new earth? Go. The same way that your body that you have now when it goes into the dust is not going to come out the same body.

But it's going to be glorified. Same body, but glorified. It's not like you're going to put on a new a

Tom costume. Right, it's going to be a glorified body.

The earth is going to be the same body, but it's not like you're going to be renewed.

This earth, same thing, same thing, same thing. It's same earth, but imperishable.

Now it'll be restoring. All right, but it's not that the so the text tells us. It's not that the perishable inherits the imperishable.

So it's not like you're just putting on something that's going to protect the perishable. But the perishable becomes imperishable.

Made brand new. It will be made glorified, incorruptible. Right. Right. I agree.

But I wouldn't say he's going to go and put us on Mars or something like that, like a different. No, no, it's going to be this earth.

But it's going to be this earth. It's not going to be this earth. You have a new earth language. We're looking at a new earth coming down.

This earth made new. Jeff is just interrupting left and right today. No, I'm not. I'm answering the question.

So here's the new earth. This is the new earth coming down. It's going to replace the older. No, no,

I would agree with you guys. OK, no, it's the new earth. It's the old earth made new.

We will have a glorified human nature without sin. Well, y 'all better hope for the actual physical body without sin, too.

You better hope that I have small hands when I'm in heaven or else I would strangle y 'all.

Can't get those hands around your neck, guys. Daniel Harrison said, I'll have an imperishable body similar to the one I have now, just not fat.

I don't know. I think we're all going to be six foot. The guys are going to be six foot and thirty three years old.

Here's the good thing. Women are going to be five foot three. We aren't going to even know it's that.

We're going to look at him or he's going to go. Wow. Look at Sam. Fat and all. And we won't even know.

What did Tom do, Braden? Oy vey. What is Troy saying?

What did Tom do, Braden? I don't know. I don't know. Did you do something, Tom? I don't think I did.

Braden has to have a lot of small hands or not. What is it?

I'll pass it. Thank you,

Michelle. I feel like that was kind of a dig, but it was kind. It was a small handed compliment.

Is there any possibility? Oh, he strangled. Oh, he threatened to strangle you both. It's a false act.

It's a false threat. I'll give you guys a hug. I told you guys

I was going to strangle you out of frustration. Oh, well, I don't know. What did I do? Frankly, nothing.

I just get in these moods sometimes, guys. Braden wears his heart on his sleeve.

So I do. And he wears his black jacket and he looks like a pimp. I do. So I'm going to just say this, though.

Since I do kind of get heated sometimes. I'm in desperate need of sanctification, everyone.

And so I'm attending Tullahoma, Tennessee, February conference on sanctification.

War is the title of it. Go to OpenAirTheologyConference .org. Get your tickets today.

And I hope to see you there as you and I both work together with my sanctification as I become more and more conformed to the image of Christ.

And maybe instead of strangling these guys, maybe I'll get a whip and a cord and start hitting them like Jesus did.

I'm going to be there. And what's the guy's name who didn't like my cigar smoking? You're welcome to join me in a cigar to the glory of God.

I haven't seen him comment anymore. He might have got removed. I didn't remove him. I didn't remove him.

But he could come smoke a cigar with me. I'll even buy it. Yeah. Yeah. So if y 'all want to come and see us argue like this in person, it usually happens once a night, sometimes twice, sometimes twice.

But yeah, we are having that conference. And we just posted about the evangelism boot camp.

Right. And so I'm going to be teaching on when we talk about the command to go. Tom, you're going to be speaking on the mechanics of the gospel.

The tenets of the gospel. Brayden is going to teach us how to have awkward conversations. He's the king.

I'm pretty good at them. Yeah. Ryan Denton is going to be teaching on how to evangelize on college campuses.

And then we're going to have a open conversation with. Brian Ninde and Jimmy De Los Santos.

Yes. The loss of the loss. It's going to be fantastic to try to make that as well.

Oh, and it's going to be at the new church. We're hoping. Well, we can get it done.

I mean, because I don't want I'm going to be honest with you. You know, the state that it's in right now with the carpet and the paint.

Yeah, I'm just I'm not 100 percent sure. Yeah. I have

I have somewhere I have somewhere else to have it. So if we're able to get the work done.

Fine, great. But if not, we'll probably have to have somewhere else. Or the docs. MacArthur just figured out my topic for the pre evangelism conference.

What do you say? How to have a birds and be conversation with your children.

With Brayden. Walk the purple,

Jeff. Yeah, yeah. All right, well, let's shut this baby down, man.

We're way over two hours. If you have a topic for next week for us, shoot us a message.

Or do you already have a topic? Oh, I thought we had something picked out, didn't we? We could invite

Steve Richardson, Canadian pastor. He used to be a

Presbyterian. He is now a reformed Baptist. Huh?

We're going to shock him. I'm sure he's going to leave as soon as he gets on the show. Yeah, I mean, we probably need to have like a separate podcast where we're all calm, cool, and collected.

No, nobody would watch us then. Nobody watches. No, but so Steve Richardson was a

Canadian pastor. He was one of the faithful men out there. Matter of fact,

I think they call him the Billy Goats or something like that. They rose up against the government. They still had their church when they were commanded to close.

He had $600 ,000 worth of fines by staying open. And his presbytery told him that he needed to shut his doors.

And he refused his presbytery to close the doors. Still accumulated the $600 ,000 fine.

God was merciful on him and let him out of it with a $3 ,000 fine instead of $600 ,000.

Anyway, but the point of that would be to talk to him and talk about how he went from Presbyterianism to 1689 federalism.

I think he holds the federalism. He might just be Reformed Baptist. I'm not sure, but we'll have that conversation with him.

That might be next week, if that's okay with you guys.

I think it's great. I would love to have that. That'd be good. I would love to ask him questions about Presbyterianism and just get his takes on things.

Yeah, that'd be good. I think we should do that one. Sweet. I guess that's decided. Are we going to go at 830?

Nine. 830. 830. 830.

For 830, we didn't get on to 848. Well, that was somebody got in a car wreck,

Jeff. I couldn't get on. You forgave me already for that. 830. We're doing 830, everyone. 830.

All right. I'll give 830 one more shot, but if he's ready, I'm dumping him. Last words.

How he went from 1689 to Westminster. I have my thoughts on that.

Ryan. Last words. We got to get off here. Last words. Yeah, get out there this week.

Today was the Lord's day. Get out there this week and proclaim the gospel. Make it a point. Make it a point waking up in the morning to share the gospel with somebody.

Don't miss out. Don't look at somebody and you know you're supposed to share the gospel about somebody and then you don't because you're scared or you just don't want to have the conversation or whatever.

Make it a point to share the gospel with somebody today and glorify God. Brandon. Yeah, I feel bad.

I want to apologize to you guys. I love you guys. You guys know I get heated sometimes and it happens.

Oh, shut up. Listen, I love you guys. I love you when you get heated.

All right, well, then I'll get heated more. He's a little firecracker. You guys know

I get pretty fiery with things and I don't step down. Yeah, anyway,

I hope it was edifying to the audience. I hope they were able to hear through the interruptions and it was good.

I hope they were able to hear through your bad interpretation. Anyways, I hope everybody's having a good night.

Hope y 'all enjoyed. We love y 'all. If you're ever in Tallahoma, Tennessee, come check out your boy,