A Preterist Understanding Revelation

Four Views of Revelation and Why the Speaker Takes Partial Preterism

We are doing a special class tonight on the subject of revelation. This was specifically requested by the class because we just finished our survey of the New Testament and As we went through the survey in the New Testament, it was only an eight-week class.

Really, it's a if anything we call it a introduction. We talked about the authors of the books. We talked about the themes the major points looked at a few scripture passages but it was really a an overview of each of the major sections of the New Testament and The canon of the New Testament and the chronology that was our major focus but the last class we did was on the subject of revelation and So I was asked would I give a lecture on my?

Position on the book of Revelation and when I say my position, I want you to understand. My position is not mine uniquely it is simply the position that I take and and it is unique in the sense that of the major positions it is probably the Minority view the only one that I would say might be more in the minority view would be the idealist position but but that would probably be the majority view in the Liberal schools.

So depending on where you are here. Here are the four positions if you weren't here last week I I have to start with this because I have to give you at least something to frame tonight's conversation.

There are four positions on the book of Revelation. And all of this is how do we interpret it? What the four interpretive grids or what we call hermeneutical lenses. What lenses do we use to look at revelation?

Preterism says that revelation was fulfilled in the past. That is what the term means it means to be in the in the past or to happen in the past and so the idea of preterism is that Most of revelation has already been fulfilled.

The second position is historicism. Historicism is the idea that It is being fulfilled through time and it is not limited to a short time period. But is over long periods of time and is being fulfilled through history.

That's the term historicism and it is still being fulfilled this was the This was the most popular view among the reformers was the historic the historicist view and It makes sense If you read their writings that they saw themselves as actors on the stage of history and they saw history being Fulfilled as they were living and so it makes sense.

The third position is futurism, this is the view that revelation The vast majority of revelation is still yet to be fulfilled in the future the only thing they would say has been fulfilled is the first three chapters regarding the seven churches and even then some of them would see the seven churches as not Historical seven churches in Asia Minor, which we know they were but they would say those seven churches represented the church age.

So they would say the first three chapters of Revelation Represented the church age and then the future is Going to be Revelation 4 and beyond will will be the future at some time and depending on their view if they believe in a rapture that happens before Chapter 4 takes place.

They would say the church in church age ends with the rapture and then the rest of Revelation is fulfilled during the seven-year tribulation and then finally idealism idealism is Easiest way to understand that is it's the allegorical view.

It sees revelation very allegorically representing the ongoing battle between the evil and good the ongoing battle between light and darkness and as I said, you'll hear more of that in a more liberal school and so I Take the preterist position.

But it but I take a partial preterist or what I call orthodox preterist meaning that I Do not believe everything in Revelation was fulfilled in the past. Some people believe everything was fulfilled and those are called full preterist or I would call them hyper preterist.

I Take a what some would call partial preterist. I call it orthodox Preterist and I call it orthodox because it fits with the creeds of Christianity the Christian creeds such as the Apostles Creed the Nicene Creed.

All looked forward to something else that was going to happen. The Apostles Creed says Christ ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From there, he will come to judge the living and the dead.

So the Apostles Creed affirms are looking forward to something the Nicene Creed says very similar. We're looking forward to something the full preterist would say no everything has already been fulfilled and I would say that's unorthodox and even heretical.

These three bottom positions that I have listed here are what are known as the millennial positions that refers only to Revelation chapter 20 verses 1 to 10 where it talks about a thousand year period of Christ ruling and reigning.

The Amillennial position would say that Christ is currently ruling and reigning in the hearts of believers. It began with his Ascension where he was seated at the right hand of the Father and it will culminate in his second coming.

The post millennial position says there is going to come a time in the future where Christ will rule Through the church on earth prior to his second coming that there will be ultimately a Christianization of the world that the world itself will be evangelized and when that happens.

And they will still say it won't be a literal thousand years. But there will be a time of peace and prosperity on the earth prior to the return of Jesus Christ. And that's a very optimistic view and that's why I call post millennial ism Optimistic amillennial ism because both of these would say the the Millennium is not literal and They would both say that the Millennium precedes the coming of Christ.

Premillennial ism says Christ will come then the Millennium will begin and Christ will be here for a thousand years ruling and reigning from Jerusalem. Where he will at that time put all of his enemies under his feet.

But physically literally on this earth not the new heaven in the new earth. But on this earth for a thousand years and so on this position. I would also on this side I would take the on mill position.

So if somebody said please describe your personal Eschatology I would say I am an orthodox preterist Amillennialist with a hint of historicism because I gotta have a little little sauce on it. No, I do think there I think the historicists have a point and we'll talk about this in a little while how there are some things that seem to be cyclical in revelation that seem to work their way out in history such as the Antichrist being there's as John said there are many antichrists have come, you know.

So I think that I think that that idea can be seen from historicist perspective without denying the preterist perspective but I am NOT a Futurist so I would say not that and I am NOT a premillennialist.

Normally those two will go together and if you've ever heard revelation described this way Jesus is going to return and rapture the church. The church will then be taken away. There will be seven years of Tribulation during which Jews will be evangelized and they will produce a new Congregation of Israel which will serve the Messiah and then Jesus will return after seven years and set up his thousand-year millennial reign and he will reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years and At that time the end will come that is that's usually described as.

That's what I just described as dispensational premillennialism and I reject that I do not hold to that position. Now some very good Bible teachers do John MacArthur being probably the most noted Theologian today who holds to a dispensational premillennial view and as much as I care for dr. MacArthur I don't care for his eschatology and it does seem to work its way into a lot of his teaching.

Because I think he has a wrong view of Israel and a wrong view of the end so that being said I'm not in any way discouraging anyone from studying dr. MacArthur's materials. He is a wonderful man of God fair enough.

The Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 as the Key Historical Turning Point

All right. So let us then since you all came with bated breath to hear what I have to say why I hold to what I hold to. We're going to now that I've explained it begin my explanation of why I believe it.

Understanding partial preterism requires that we recognize and understand an important historical event the fall of Jerusalem. The fall of Jerusalem in 8070 is one of the best attested historical events of the ancient world and I want to take you through that event.

I Have extensive notes tonight. I don't normally read from notes this closely. But I do want you to listen to how the event unfolded. The Gospels wrote about the life of Jesus and Much of them took place in Jerusalem, which was under Roman occupation.

This began in 63 BC when the Roman general Pompei captured Jerusalem. The Jews despised the Romans for their oppressive taxation and occupation and in 866 about 33 years after the death burial and resurrection of Jesus the Jews revolted and This revolt was somewhat successful having established a revolutionary government.

In response to this revolutionary government the Emperor Nero sent general Vaspasian to meet the Jewish forces and the result was that the majority of the Jewish forces were pushed into Jerusalem. Vaspasian became Emperor in 869 and in April of 8070 the Roman general Titus son of Vaspasian besieged Jerusalem.

Josephus a Former commander among the Jewish forces was captured by Rome. You've all probably heard of Josephus, right? Yes, please open. Hey, brother Tim. I'm going over what happened in 8070. Josephus sometimes referred to as Josephus Was a former commander among the Jewish forces and he was captured by Rome and because of his position attempted to negotiate a settlement.

But this was resisted on both sides. The Romans encircled the city cut off the supplies and drove the people within the city to starvation. It was near the time of Passover and Therefore it was filled not only with the military, but it was also filled with visitors and They were starving and some of them even resorted to cannibalism by the month of August.

The Romans had breached the final defenses and They massacred those who remained and in total there were over 1 million dead in the city of Jerusalem. They destroyed the second temple they left only the Western Wall sometimes referred to as the Wailing Wall as The only trace of the second temple.

I want to read to you a quote from Josephus who was an eyewitness quote. The rebels shortly after attacked the Romans again and clash and a clash followed between the guards of the sanctuary and the troops who were putting out the fire inside the inner court.

The latter routed the Jews and Followed in hot pursuit right up to the temple itself. Then one of the soldiers without awaiting any orders and with no dread of so monstrous a deed but urged on by some supernatural force snatched a blazing piece of wood and Climbing on another soldiers back He hurled the flaming brand through a low golden window that gave access on the north side to the rooms that the sanctuary that Surrounded the sanctuary as the flame shot up the Jews let out a sort of dismay that matched the tragedy.

They flocked to the rescue With no thought of sparing their lives or husbanding their strength. For the sacred structure that they had constantly guarded with such devotion was vanishing before their eyes.

That was the moment that the temple began to burn. Now that's just a short explanation of what happened when Jerusalem was besieged and what's amazing about it is that event was prophesied by Jesus Christ.

Matthew 24 verse 1 Jesus left the temple and was going away and when the disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them you see all these do you not truly I say to you there will not be here one stone Left upon another that will not be torn down.

And Luke 21 says the same thing. And while some were speaking of the temple how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings He said as for these things that you see the days will come When there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.

Jesus told them this was going to happen 40 years before it did happen. This event was monumental in regard to its significance to the Jewish nation. They were now Without their sacred holy place where they worshiped and made sacrifices.

It would be impossible not to ascribe some special significance to this event on God's prophetic calendar. In fact, I mentioned this last week a Lot of people that I talked to who get all into in times stuff.

I'll say what do you think about 87? They'll say what happened in 87? Oh, yeah. You may seem surprised because I talk about it all the time. But it's not a big marker on a lot of people's calendars because their futurist view makes them see everything forward and So they don't put much stock in what has already taken place.

Preterism teaches That the fall of Jerusalem in 8070 was the major transitional moment in world history it was God's way of discontinuing the Old Covenant ceremonies the shadows and symbols and Giving way to the New Covenant realities, which had found their substance in Jesus Christ himself.

8070 closed the door on the Old Testament. Therefore the last days When you see the phrase last days is Not necessarily speaking of the end of the world But rather the end of the Jewish system. Which has now been made obsolete.

The writer of Hebrews tells us in chapter 8 verse 13 and Speaking of a new covenant He makes the first covenant obsolete and what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. When did it vanish away?

Ad 70. Now I want to Give you a little evidence as to why I think this is what Revelation is about now that we know the history. I Want to examine the evidence probably the most convincing evidence in my opinion.

For orthodox preterism Is found in what is called the time sensitive passages? Which are found in the New Testament most specifically in Revelation itself. Turn to Revelation chapter 1 and We're going to read Revelation chapter 1 verses 1 to 3.

Sorry, I keep reverting to my drink. I just got to keep my keep my throat moistened. All right. Revelation chapter 1. The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must what?

Soon take place. Do not miss the word soon. That is very important. Things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to a servant John who bore witness to the Word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ even to all that he saw.

Blessed is the one who reads aloud. The words of this prophecy and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written for the time is what? Near. The time is near. What's the opposite of near? 2 ,000 years is the opposite of near just so you know because that's the argument of the futurists, right?

These things weren't about to happen these things weren't soon to take place and Somebody says oh well with God Thousand years as a day this ain't written to God. It's written to us. That's an important hermeneutical principle.

When Peter tells us with God a year is as a thousand a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as his day. He's referring to God's timetable. But when these words are spoken these words are spoken with urgency for the reader.

These things are about to take place. Now If you want to write this down, you can you can turn there if you like. But in Revelation 22 the end of the book it says this. And he said to me these words are trustworthy and true and the Lord the God of the spirits of the prophets Has sent me to show his servants.

What must soon take place and In Revelation 22 10 and he said to them or he said to me do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book for the time is near so at both ends of Revelation Revelation 1 and Revelation 22 we have the same phrases used.

This month this must soon take place. This must soon take place. The time is near the time is near the if they literally book end the whole book to ignore that is Missing a major hermeneutical observation.

Remember when you studied with me those of you who did how to study the Bible and the first thing you do is make observations and Observe you observe times and people and places. That's that's what you do and there's the time soon and near now.

There are some other passages to consider. One of the most important is Matthew chapter 24 verse 34 when Jesus is talking about what I think is Some of what is spoken of in Revelation. This is called the Olivet discourse.

Where Jesus is speaking on the Mount of Olives speaking to his disciples. He said truly I say to you This generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Now I have heard many a Many a Bible teacher try to say that well what that's saying is Jesus is saying that this generation referring to believers.

That believers will not pass away until all this takes place, but I do not think that that is a right understanding. Because if that is the right way to understand that that would be the only Time in Scripture that that phrase is used to refer to believers in that way.

Generations were in Jewish terms periods of 40 years a generation was 40 years. How many years from 80 30 to 80 70? 40 years in that neat and when did Jesus say that? Around 80 30. He said this generation will not pass away.

Until all these things take place so I've even I've even heard some liberal theologians try to argue that Jesus is a false prophet. Because Jesus made a false prophecy. He said these things will take place within this generation and they'll say see it didn't happen.

I say no no no it did happen. Jesus is not a false prophet and we don't have to twist the meaning of generation. We just got to understand what he's talking about. It's going to take place. If the position of Orthodox preterism is correct.

It solves the dilemma that is posed by the question of is Jesus giving a false prophecy. No, obviously not. Jesus is providing a prophetic announcement not of his return but of the fall of Jerusalem. Therefore the statements regarding him coming in the clouds and people say well it talks about him coming in the clouds.

I do think there is a sense in which that is intended to be a picture not of his final consummation Necessarily but rather of his coming in judgment and later on we're going to talk about Some of the some of the things that were actually witnessed in 8070.

Some of the things that were actually seen by eyewitnesses now, nobody saw Jesus in the clouds understand but the idea that there would be. That there would be supernatural markers that would mark this event.

I believe there were. But we'll get to that in a moment. Now I want to anticipate a response very quickly. I Realize that for many people. Even those of you who may be listening via live stream. This wasn't even intended to be live stream.

You can blame Bobby Jones for that or Pat Foskey one of the responses that often comes up is that this is radically different than anything I've ever heard and Just because something is radically different than what you've heard doesn't mean it's not right.

It just means you haven't heard very much. I mean, it's Not being ugly. It just you know, most people haven't heard very much. It's like the it's like the Peanuts cartoon with Charlie Brown and Lucy and Lucy's writing a paper and Charlie Brown says what you're writing about.

She said I'm writing about church history. He said well, how does it begin and she goes? Well, my pastor was born in 1925. That's when church history began. My pastor was born 1925. You know, that's that's the way people have a view of Theology it's it's very very narrow and an understanding of Scripture that is very narrow.

Interpreting Revelation as Apocalyptic Literature Rather Than a Strictly Literal Timeline

So I want to anticipate some objections first does preterism Require abandoning a literal Interpretation. Because often the futurist will say we take the literal view. Well, I want to address That concept.

If somebody asked me if I interpret the Bible literally I typically say No, I interpret the Bible literarily. And there is a difference. Literarily means that I interpret the Bible according to the genre of literature Which it is written in.

So I interpret the Psalms as the Psalms. With the same rules that I would use for poetic literature I interpret historical narrative with the same rules that I would use for any historical narrative a Noun is a noun is a noun.

A verb is a verb. It's not some kind of Holy Spirit Greek. You know, it's it's words and it's to be interpreted according to what the Reformers called the census literalis. And the census literalis was the the literal sense or the sense in which it was written.

Therefore Every book of the Bible has to be interpreted in the sense that it was written an apocalyptic literature is meant to be understood in signs and symbols and No matter what position you take You will interpret those signs and symbols as signs and symbols.

Nobody even the most ardent dispensationalist Will say that the beast with ten horns in Revelation chapter 13 is a literal Godzilla figure. With ten horns. No, they always say see the beast here is a man.

I said, but wait a minute you said you were literal and If it's a beast and you're literal it be a beast. Not a man. You understand the point. I talked about this last week with the Apache helicopters.

They'll say see these see these locusts. They're actually not locusts. They're Apache helicopters. I say you just left the reservation of literal. I do not believe orthodox preterism requires any strenuous over spiritualization of the text but it does take the interpretation of the signs and the symbols as they are given in accordance to biblical Contexts the Bible gives us contexts for serpents.

What is the serpent? This the devil from the very first third chapter of the Bible first book of the Bible we have the devil. In fact in Revelation, what does it call him? The ancient serpent that old devil that.

Meaning the one that we you know that one you saw. He's back. You know, I mean, that's the description is you see these pictures and You know who it's referring to. But you still have to interpret the pictures you still have to interpret the signs.

And Not over spiritualizing. In fact, I would say it takes just as much spiritualization and whatever. To be a futurist as it does take a preterist because at least we have something to look back on and we can fit the pieces together.

Because we're looking on something that's already happened. Versus having to imagine have you listened to some of the guys who tried to describe revelation in a future context come up with all kinds of crazy stories.

Have you watched left behind? There's a lot of there's a lot of liberties. And it's not all literal. Be careful when somebody accuses you of not interpreting the Bible literally. Because oftentimes they're not either they're interpreting it according to the rules that they have set forth in their own mind as to what it should say and.

Then they're reading back their own interpretation into what it does say and they're becoming the standard. Which scripture must conform to rather than scripture being the standard to which they must conform.

So that's the first that people say do you take the do you take revelation? Literally? I say no, I read it apocalyptic ly. Number two. What about the date of revelation? We've talked about this a lot.

So because we have I'm not going to Spend a lot of our time on it. But this is the question of questions if it could be proven That revelation was written after 8070. Then I would concede The preterism is wrong and I Become a historicist to say, you know, I still wouldn't be a futurist.

I I I'm still not jumping off that cliff because I think there's so many holes in that dike. It's just saying it's just no we're not going we're not going there. We are going to look at it as I believe it is supposed to be understood but a Lot of people believe revelation was written in the 90s.

His Preterism requires that it was written prior to 8070 but not necessarily long before because how long Did he say it was about to take place soon near so we're not talking about written in the 40s or 50s we're talking about probably in the 60s as a warning there are reputable scholars who argue for a much earlier dating for revelation and there are external evidences and internal evidences.

And I want to read to you. One of the external evidences. For the late date now this I this is against my position. So understand what I'm about to read to you is is argument against me because I want to respond to it.

One of the arguments about that because you'll hear people say oh, we know revelation was written later because Irenaeus told us it was. Well, I want to quote what Irenaeus actually said. Okay. We will now however incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist for if it were Necessary for his name to be distinctly revealed in this present time.

It would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since but almost in our day toward the end of Domitian's reign. All right. So the quote by Irenaeus is saying it's referring to the Antichrist.

And he's saying we we know him because he's mentioned in the writings of John. He said the one who had the apocalyptic vision. That's John and he said. For that was seen no very long time since but almost in our day toward the end of Domitian's reign.

When was Domitian's reigned. The the reign of Domitian was in the later part of The First century so the argument is well Irenaeus is telling us Revelation is written later not necessarily the text of Irenaeus is An English translation of a Latin text of a Greek text that we no longer possess.

Furthermore Irenaeus is writing is not inspired and therefore it is possible that he is incorrect about the dating. But he also talks about ancient copies of Revelation something which would not have existed.

Where it written as late as he seems to indicate. So there's a lot of there's a lot of extra baggage that comes with Irenaeus's claim. I would like to suggest that Clement Should also be heard. Clement of Alexandria disagrees with Irenaeus and he says this.

For the teaching of our Lord at his advent beginning with Augustus and Tiberius Was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius and that of the Apostles embracing the ministry of Paul ends with Nero.

So what he's saying is all the books of the Bible were written by the time of Nero. So who we gonna believe at this point we have conflicting or at least possibly conflicting early church fathers and in my opinion, I Think that Clement is correct because he not only says that Revelation was written before 87.

He says all of it all of the writings Were but again Clement is not writing under the inspiration of God. So both of these men could be wrong. But that is the that's the only external evidence we have.

Referring to the dating is what other men said about the book what we do know this is it existed in their lifetime. As they're both talking about. So it was around. So anybody who says Revelation wasn't written until the 2nd century 3rd century 4th century, they're wrong.

Because we have men who are talking about the existence of this book at the end of the first century. So What are the internal evidences. Are there internal evidences. I think there are many. The internal evidences for the dating of Revelation number one Revelation makes several allusions to the existence of the temple.

There is not a hint anywhere that the temple is no longer standing. It speaks of the temple as having Presence during the prophecies and some would argue that's because the temple will be rebuilt. That is a argument yet unproven.

Here's the thing for futurism to Be correct. The temple must be rebuilt. Why do you think all of these dispensationalists get so excited every time they hear something about the temple being rebuilt? Then you know they do right every time somebody puts a brick on top of another brick in Jerusalem.

Everybody gets their their cackles in a bunch, you know, they get all excited because they think This is it they're going to rebuild the temple. Because it needs to happen if their position is correct.

But this book makes It clear the temple is standing. So I think that's evidence that it's being written while the temple is still standing. Not some future temple, but the temple that we knew stood at that time.

Revelation never never mentions a rebuilt temple. It is assumed There there will be a rebuilt temple because their position demanded remember what I said earlier they read back into the book their interpretation.

Because it demands it my position doesn't meant demand a rebuilt temple. Because my position is saying he's talking about the temple that had not yet fallen. Everybody with me so far. Yes. No, maybe so.

Okay good number two. This is my internal evidence. Is number one the book never. The book makes several allusions to an existing temple. That's one evidence of it written before number two. The book never mentions the destruction of the first temple or the the temple that was standing at the time of the writing.

Yeah. What did I say? What was my. I don't know if you remember this when I did the survey of the New Testament. What was my biggest argument for all of the New Testament books being written before 80 70?

None of them mentioned this huge event. None of them mentioned this world-changing event. None of them mentioned this thing that Jesus prophesied about you think that's significant. I think it's huge.

Jesus prophesied that this was gonna happen and none of them said hey guys look what happened. No Revelation never mentions the historic destruction of the temple because it was written beforehand. But the third thing the third reason third internal piece of internal evidence is found in Revelation 17.

Revelation 17 verses 9 and 10 Says this. This calls for a mind of wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated. They are also seven kings five of whom have fallen. One is the other.

One is the other has not yet come when he does come. He must remain only a little while. All right. You say what's that? What's that about? What's Revelation 17 9 and 10 in? Antiquity. Seven mountains or seven hills could have pointed to one of a few places.

Rome was known as the city on seven hills. But Jerusalem is also called the city on seven hills the harlot who rejected the Messiah. The Kings here are the are likely the emperors of Rome. Jerusalem was under Roman occupation as you remember and though not called Kings.

This is essentially what they were. Remember what the Jews said to Jesus or said to Pilate we have no king but Caesar so to call the Caesars Kings was not outside of the Realm of possibility. So we see here seven Kings, right?

It says there are seven Kings five have fallen one is and one is yet to come. What does this tell us? The book is being written in the time of the sixth King. If I've have come one is and one is yet to come right.

Now stick with me because this this is where it gets this where rubber meets road here. Julius Caesar Did not receive the title of Emperor. The first to receive the title of title of Emperor was Caesar Augustus.

Then came Tiberius Caligula Claudius Nero Galba followed by Otho Vitellius Vespasian Titan Titus and Domitian Galba. Otho and Vitellius all had very short reigns and may not be included. This could mean Vespasian was meant to be the sixth.

But you could begin counting with Julius Caesar. And if you do begin counting with Julius Caesar though He was never actually referred to as Emperor if you began counting with him. He would be the first.

And if you start with him Nero would be the sixth King the one who is. That would mean the book was written during the time of Nero. So a time frame I believe is given when it says there are Five Kings one is and one is yet to come so we have Julius Caesar one Tiberius to Caligula three Claudius.

I'm sorry. I got a Julius Caesar was one Caesar Augustus was to Tiberius was three Caligula was four. Claudius was five and Nero would be six. And then again If we don't count Otho Vitellius or Vespasian whose rule was very short.

The one who actually brought the Destruction would have been Titus. He would have been the seventh. I would encourage you if you have never read it to read The last days according to Jesus by R .C. Sproul.

He goes a little deeper into this particular Argument and I will also say this Ken Gentry's doctoral dissertation if you really want to be deep in your study. Ken Gentry makes this argument and and. Or makes arguments regarding the dating that I think are very are very convincing.

Tried to get him on my podcast, but he was Unwilling he was he was too busy. I understand. He's very busy, dude. All right, if we accept a pre dating or excuse me a pre 70 dating for revelation. We are able to interpret many of the events as it describes as being in their future, but our past.

Let me say that again the people reading it this this is in their future a few years, but it's in our past by 1900 years. But this leads to some questions number one, what about the Antichrist. What about the Antichrist?

I mean That's an important figure. Everybody wants to know who the Antichrist is. Well, the mysterious figure known as Antichrist has been a huge focus of futurist eschatology every time a new leader emerges.

Some will someone will accuse them of being the Antichrist. Somebody people thought Donald Trump was Antichrist. Some people thought Barack Obama was Antichrist. When Ronald Reagan was president Old Ronnie Reagan.

Some people accused him of being the Antichrist. I mean Ronald Wilson. Reagan six letters. Ronald Wilson six letters. Reagan six letters. He's proof. Or that's proof he is the Antichrist. All right. Some people argue that Preterism was actually invented by Catholics to get the Reformers off the back because the Reformers were always saying that the Pope was the Antichrist.

So people some people think preterism was invented by Catholics to. To just say no, it's already happened. Pope's not the Antichrist. And that's why I say I could I can get down with historicism because I do believe the post.

I do believe the Pope maintains an Antichrist position. In fact, I remember a few years ago, I was filling in for a Greek teacher at the seminary. I was asked to come in and teach Substitute teach and so as I was teaching I was talking to the class about my sermon for that week my sermon for that week was called the heresy of the papacy and They like were stunned.

There's a group of Baptists. And they were like, I can't believe you're gonna talk about the papacy. I was like, I can't believe you're Baptist and you're not Mean you can't believe it. I can't believe your people listen to that.