Dangers of Hyper-Preterism | w/ Dr. Sam Storms

Opening Announcements and the Coming Debate on Free Will

Hello, hello and welcome to the apologetic dog. This is apologetics ministry where we're guarding the deposit of grace and we do that by Worrying against pagan philosophy avoiding irreverent babble those things that claim to have knowledge, but really contain contradictions.

And so I'm so glad that you were able to join us this evening. Have a couple announcements that I want to Mention. I have a debate coming up just around the corner on June 24th at 6 p .m. It's going to be hosted here at 12 5 church where I serve as pastor and elder.

And it's going to be on the long debated topic of free will and what does that look like? I will be debating AK Richardson. Wonderful gentlemen, we've had the pleasure of just talking to one another over social media and getting used to One another he actually has visited 12 5 before when we had dr. James White come and teach on salvation by Faith alone, so be on the lookout for that debate.

We are going to be live and in person. Where we can hold up to a hundred and thirty people. This is going to be a free event and if you're interested in coming Please send me a message and we are going we would love to reserve a seat.

But like I said, we have a cap of a hundred and thirty seats. And so those are going to fill up fast and this debate will also be live stream. So you can come to the apologetic dog and have your questions ready there show your support.

I finally have a thousand subscribers so I'm able to have the super chat turned on and so questions from the audience will definitely be displayed for me and a K to Examine and talk about and so if you're not able to travel to Jonesboro, Arkansas.

You can definitely join us online. So be on the lookout coming up June 24th at 6 p .m. As a K and I debate about free will. One last announcement in September. This is a little bit ways away, but September 8th I've been invited to speak at the eschatology conference in Topeka, Indiana.

The topic that I've been assigned to talk about is the resurrection of the dead and so it's all Revolving around the question how then shall we live a lot of times? We're very comfortable talking about eschatology having coffee and just sharpening another over the nature of the Millennium or God's promises related to Israel and those are wonderful things that we can continue to sharpen one another about but this conference says what your eschatology is is going to impact how we live here and now and So it's a pleasure to be able to talk about the resurrection of the dead amongst these wonderful theologians and pastors.

Why Eschatology Matters and Why Hyper-Preterism Is a Problem

About our blessed hope things that we hold with a closed fist that are not up for debate. And so Eschatology is one of those things that I was so comfortable in my pre millennial Dispensational pre-trip rapture world and I thought you know, I got to start taking these things seriously.

Because I did not understand that eschatology can go wrong. There's eschatologies out there that actually try to take away our blessed. Hope in many different ways. And so as I began studying more and more and more about this, I thought man, there's so much that I've not uncovered.

So I had to contact One of the big guns out there Dr. Sam storms because I read your book and I loved it. Talking about the kingdom come and what that looks like here and now I reached out to dr. Storms and He's like, hey, I'd love to come on your show and talk about these important issues.

And I just said hey have a lot of questions and we need pastoral insight on how we're supposed to handle Eschatology that goes wrong. Can you hear me? Okay, dr. Storms perfectly. Now you like to be called Sam.

Is that right? Yes, please. Well, I appreciate you coming on the apologetic dog this is just an apologetics ministry that the Lord has really opened up doors for me to pursue and Sam my church family has been the biggest support.

And along with my beautiful bride Ally Nortier. And so that's why I'm able to break away this evening and have this conversation with you. Great. Let's do it. Yes. Well real quick. Tell us where people can find you at if you're on social media if you have a website a little bit more about your books things like that.

Actually, I'm not on social media. Never have been. I doubt if I ever will be. But they can find me at Sam storms dot o RG. So www .samstorms .org. And I blog there. Access to all my books is there. I have probably several thousand articles book reviews.

Commentaries on scripture you name it. It's all there free of charge. Access to anybody who wants to make use of it in any way. So that's probably the best way to do it is to is to go there. Most of my most of my sermons while I was at Bridgeway Church I think all of them in fact are available there either in audio or video form and Most of the sermon manuscripts, I would try it.

I would transcribe every sermon in advance. All those are available as well. So Sam storms dot o RG. That's the best way to do it.

Thank you so much for that. I started listening to you more and more From the remnant radio guys. I really appreciate their ministry and a lot of your wonderful insight there. And when I found your book, I want people to see this Kingdom come and this is definitely from an all-millennial Paradigm and so I love the angle that you Examine many of these things talking about eschatology, but I definitely wanted to recommend my audience go check out the remnant radio YouTube channel podcasts.

All those things you've been a frequent guest on there, haven't you?

Yes, in fact. Interestingly, I was with all three of them this morning for a couple of hours. No, they're all you know. They're all very very good friends, and I highly recommend the program. It's rich really really educational and entertaining at the same time.

Now before we hopped on here you told me you will actually be close to my neck of the woods. I'm in Jonesboro, Arkansas. In Northeast, Arkansas. But before too long you're gonna come and speak on the Holy Spirit.

Is that right? Yes, and That'll be in Perigold, Arkansas at the Crossing Church. I'm sure they won't mind me giving that plug. But that is cool. I may have to break away and see if I can grab a ticket or grab a seat or something.

I'm sure they'd welcome you. Yeah.

The Olivet Discourse and the Two Questions in Matthew 24

Well, once again, thanks for coming on. I loved your book here and one of my favorite things that you covered was the Olivet Discourse in Matthew chapter 124. I was hoping as we begin to talk about this I want you to be thinking about and our audience to be thinking about full preterism.

In your book you you reference it as an extreme view and have rightly recognized that. Rightly, so the historic faith has said this is actually hyper. This is outside the bounds of orthodoxy is as hyper preterism and Sam the reason why I'm having to really be you know, be on alert high alert is in Jonesboro.

There is a church that preaches full preterism from the pulpit and just barely outside of Jonesboro There is a Southern Baptist Church that teaches full preterism from the pulpit. And so I have a lot of the members at twelve five church asking questions.

Saying what do we do? How do we combat these things? And so it's in God's providence I've had to really take eschatology serious and realize you know what eschatology does matter. It actually does our view of the end times affects how we live here and now and so full preterism Looks at the Olivet Discourse and says it's all talking about the same event and they said and it was fulfilled at 70 AD.

Now in your book here You have a little bit different approach. Which I really would like for you to break down a little bit because you're almost saying well. Actually, there's two questions being asked to Jesus and so he's answering two separate questions.

Is that right?

Yes, I Hold to what might be called a partial preterist view of the Olivet Discourse. I do believe that verses 3 through 35 Are Jesus? Addressing the issue of what will transpire in 70 AD within the lifetime of that current generation culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

The most one of the most unbelievably massive slaughters that has had ever occurred up until that time and I do think that Jesus has drew. I mean they are asking him they said When will all these things come to pass they pointed at the buildings of the temple?

And Jesus said there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down. So it seems pretty clear that Jesus is at least addressing the events that will lead to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

Now there's a possibility. I'm still working through the through whether or not this is cogent. It's a possibility that the Olivet Discourse is describing both the events Leading up to 70 AD and what will transpire at the end of the age.

In other words some commentators and scholars have said that what we have in Matthew 24 is A description on a what we might call a microcosmic scale a limited local scale. These events which will take place on a macrocosmic or global scale at the end of the age.

So what transpired between the years basically 33 to 70? Will also occur on a global scale at the end of the age. Basically restricted Jerusalem in the first century will take place in the entire earth at the end of the age in conjunction with Christ's return.

Now I'm not totally convinced by that yet, but I'm certainly open to that. But then I think the the reference to the second coming begins in verse 36. So I think Jesus is answering two questions. When will the temple be destroyed?

And I think he answers that in verses 3 through 35 and then secondly, what will be the sign of your coming? When will you return the parousia of the second advent that I believe he addresses in verses 36 and following.

Timing Indicators, “This Generation,” and the End of the Age

Now in your book you made a point. I remember just stopping saying yes. This is what I've been talking about because you said look at all the timing indicators with this generation. I remember you grounded of saying if we're looking to the human writer Matthew.

He's used this generation earlier Matthew 23 with the the contemporaries the the Pharisees that are getting the most scathing rebuke that Jesus probably ever gave but he's talking to the people that are listening to him.

And When he's answering this first question You know about when when are these things going to take place the destruction of the temple? He's giving all the timing indicators and then you see a shift in verse 36 with no timing indicators.

No one knows the day of the hour not even the Sun which is a remarkable statement and so I really think you do see a Transition happen there with verse 36 and I read I believe it was Ken Gentry's book Have have we missed the second coming and he talked about the Greek there but concerning that day.

But concerning he makes a case that that's a transitional phrase we can see earlier in Matthew 22. He used the same transitional phrase to build arguments on top of one another so we see a shift.

And.

So do you think there's any connection with as you go into Matthew 25 with the the parable of the virgins of just saying? That's why we're to be ready for him to come at any moment.

Well, absolutely. And in fact that that bears directly on what you may come at you made earlier that there are massive practical ethical implications. For the whole idea of full preterism as over against I think is the biblical view because if full preterism is true There is no blessed.

Hope it's already come and gone. Full preterism is true. All the exhortations toward holiness of life based on our expectation of the return of Jesus are Meaningless, they're empty. So yes that it is massively important that we understand that our Lord is talking about his return at the end.

Of the age.

And of course again the full preterist view. I don't know if you want to jump into this right now, but they would argue that everything here becoming to the Son of Man everything associated with verses 36 and following all that transpired within the span of Years from 33 to 70 a .d. It's all past.

That's what the word preterism means is from the Latin prateritas, which means past. And so all of this is past history now. I believe that a large part of it is up through verse 35. But I also think Jesus is talking about his second coming from there on through into Matthew 25.

Yeah, how relevant do you think the phrase the end of the age which we see mentioned many times in? Matthew's gospel, I believe earlier Matthew chapter 13. We see it here in the Olivet Discourse and then at the end of the Great Commission.

I really think this is maybe a difference between all mill and post mill. They understand maybe these two phrases differently. And do you think this has a big bearing in the conversation with full preterism?

Yes, it does because they argue that the age that is in view in that phrase is the age of Judaism and the Mosaic Covenant and that what Jesus was saying is the end of that age will happen in 70 a be. I think the end of the age is a reference to the entire current period of church history in which we are living.

That is the age that will terminate with the second coming of Christ the visible personal physical return of Jesus to consummate his kingdom. So You know, there are variations among post-millennialists On what the end of the age is but again the full preterist view argues that it's Referring to specifically to the Mosaic era the Covenant Under which the the Jewish people in Israel lived that terminated in 70 ad, of course the problem with that.

Is that 70 ad really was at the end of the Mosaic Covenant? Book Hebrews tells us that happened with the death and resurrection of Jesus and When he established the new covenant in his blood and instituted the Lord's Supper so I don't know how you can extend the Mosaic Covenant and the age of Moses as it were beyond the time of the life death and resurrection of Jesus, but that's the way they understand it.

The Already and Not Yet, the Millennium, and the Intermediate State

Yeah, because Hebrews talks about how Christ is a perfect mediator. So his ascension plays a big role in him fulfilling. Or so he's showing how he's the the better high priest and that work is continual right now.

I mean, he's the sacrifice right, but he's also the perfect high priest. And so he sits down in the Holy of Holies, right? He's not like these imperfect priests that have to continually come and go so that's a good point of just saying to the full preterist why.

Why does everything end at 70 ad if you're being consistent with these Old Testament principles? Well, then it should have ended at his death.

Yeah, and now at the same time, I think we should acknowledge that 70 ad was a significant right termination of God's unique relationship with Israel because. The temple was destroyed. The city was reduced to rubble.

All the sacrifices ended. The Jewish people who survived it were sold into slavery. So yeah, it was a very visible.

Undeniable.

Kind of confirmation of the termination of that covenant. But I think the Hebrews indicates the covenant have been terminated, you know. Many years in advance of that with the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Now with the all-millennial paradigm because I've studied obviously your book I've read Rydel Barger and we actually did a full Eschatology series here at twelve five that I was able to teach and a member of twelve five Adam Carmichael.

Where I gave a positive presentation of the pre-millennial view that was the very typical Johnny Mac style. And I went ahead and preached post-millennial ism in a positive light. You know I mean so it's rightly trying to understand this age and the age to come and how to view the law of God going forth and how.

You're you're gonna have this kingdom Expanding being Christianized submitting to King Jesus in a very particular way. And then we did Adam preached on all-millennial ism and so the last sermon was about the death knell to Hyper-preterism and so I've just I've looked at their hermeneutic.

It seems so backwards to how you and I would approach the scripture really with this Christocentric understanding of how the New Testament just shines light on these Old Testament paradigms and you get into that a lot in your book and so With the a this age.

It seems to me. I really want to hear more from you on this. But this age is it really talking about this temporal age? Is this something that is unique to the all-millennial perspective? You got this age the temporal age and then you have this already not yet paradigm where the kingdom is inaugurated with Christ with his with his Resurrection his ascension and then you you have the overlap the age to come being inaugurated.

Well, yeah, I think I think most Eschatological views believe in the principle of already and not yet except for preterism full preterism for them. It's everything is already. There's there's no not yet to come.

There's nothing yet to be fulfilled. There's no prophecy that hasn't come to pass. Of course, we can go into more detail on that. They would include in that the resurrection the final judgment the new heavens and the new earth.

All these things have already been not just inaugurated but have come in their fullness in their consummate form. But yeah, an all-millennial is such as myself. I do believe that we are to understand this age in the age to come as a distinction between the church age in which we now live that spans between the exaltation of Jesus the right hand of the Father and his second coming at the end of history.

The age to come is the new heavens the new earth the eternal state. The pre-millennial view inserts in between this present age and the eternal state a thousand years of ongoing human history on the earth.

I Believe that that I believe by the way, I'm millennial. You may have addressed this before in other contexts. That's a very bad label. I don't like it. It's a misnomer. Yeah, because it suggests that I don't believe in a millennium like someone who's a political or a moral.

No, I believe very much in the millennium of Revelation 20. I just think that it's a reference to what we call the intermediate state. It's the reign of Christ together with his Saints. Extending from his exaltation to the second coming.

So just to give an example I believe that Augustine and Calvin and Luther and my mom and dad. All of whom have lived and died as believers are now reigning with Christ the right hand.

And.

They are experiencing the first resurrection the life in the intermediate state that will be consummated Obviously by the return of Christ and the bodily resurrection of all Saints. So so again, yeah the already not yet very much the kingdom has been inaugurated.

Jesus made that very clear all through the Gospels and part of what that means is many of the blessings and the realities of the age to come have Intruded into the present. Now, but again, it's already but not yet.

So we have been regenerated, right? We're new creatures in Christ 2nd Corinthians 5 17, but we haven't completely been Regenerated in the sense that our bodies still suffer. Paul talks about the redemption of our bodies in Romans 8 that we await.

So you mean that's not corporate Israel according to the full protest. No, I don't believe so.

Point is there are a number of things we've been we've been forgiven of our sins. But we still have to wrestle with the reality of indwelling sin. That's part of the already and the not yet.

Satan, Spiritual Warfare, and Revelation 20

You mentioned a second ago about the intermediate state and I had flashbacks to where Dr. John Piper was having an evening of eschatology and I seem to remember you being there and you want to know what I was.

Premillennialist pretty hardcore at the time so I'm listening to you make points because you and the the Historic premillennialist and you had Doug Wilson there too, right? He was the other person I remember pausing it and arguing with you.

I'm trying to go back and I was like, oh man I wish I could have answered that better. So You caught me when I was a little bit caged aged pre mill back then. But it was so good because I was able to see these conflicting eschatologies that are all orthodox, right?

Sharpening one another in the nature of the Millennium and how God fulfills his promises to Israel yet. Retaining our blessed hope and so I remember y 'all talked a little bit about that. So I got flashbacks there for a second.

How long ago is that's been a number of years, hasn't it?

No, it's 2009. It was in conjunction with the conference that John hosted on the was it I guess the I'm trying to think get my dates correct here. Is that the Five. Wait a second. Calvin was born in 1509.

So this was the 500th anniversary of his birth. And so it was it was the conference on that and then after that was concluded. That's when we gathered at Bethlehem Baptist Church for this very special night of eschatology.

Not to derail too far off a shining moment I thought you had in that Conversation is I remember you and the historic pre mill were talking about the end of Revelation 19. About everyone being wiped off the planet essentially and you're like, where's your kingdom?

That's gonna be populated and the gentleman said it's not comprehensive now. I remember I was like MacArthur has taught me how to answer this question. I wish I could help so I just it was such a good video.

And it was about two hours long. So I'm definitely gonna include somewhere and encourage people to go listen to that Long but wonderful conversation that y 'all had. It was fun. Yeah, I really enjoyed it.

It was great. And I just want to encourage people. These are good conversations to have and sometimes it's hard to talk with people that you disagree with and typically what I tell people is Eschatology is third tier you can have coffee shake hands.

Agree to disagree and it's great full preterism. Just totally flips everything upside down and you were talking some of the the ethical implications or byproducts of full preterism at large and one of those things that maybe you can help me out here with is Satan is already thrown into the Gehenna.

And so virtually there is no spiritual warfare. Yeah, I know you may have a few things to say about that. Oh.

My yes, well as an amillennialist I do believe that Satan is in one sense bound during this present age. But I think the mistake my premillennial friends make is that they universalize what John? Restricts John very specifically says and you can read Revelation 20 verse 3 and then again in verse 7 That Satan is bound so that he might not orchestrate the unbelieving nations of the earth in a premature Provocation of Armageddon, that's what he's kept from doing.

Nowhere, does it say that he's kept or prevented from tempting or harassing or prowling about like a roaring lion? Like Peter says in first Peter 5. Or blinding the minds of the unbelieving. He simply hindered completely from provoking Armageddon prematurely and when he's released from his prison, what does he do?

He immediately goes out gathers the unbelieving nations of the earth to launch this final assault against the kingdom of Christ. So yeah, the idea that somehow Satan has been thrown into the lake of fire.

I mean that There it just renders utterly Irrelevant so much of the New Testament Ephesians 6 why bother with the armor of God because there are no principalities and powers. There are no spiritual forces of darkness.

There are no firing missiles being launched at us. Why bother with You know with first Peter 5 and be aware of the of the prowling lion who's seeking someone to devour. I mean.

First Peter 5 was right before 70 AD. So he was being released at the very end. That was to come. I know it.

I'm aware. I'm aware of that argument. But again, all of that is tied up in a single package. You have to believe that all of these things Transpired pre 70 AD and none of them extend beyond that point, which I just think mutes so much of the of the New Testament and furthermore is totally inconsistent with what the New Testament says about the nature of Judgment the nature of the bodily resurrection the nature of the second coming the nature of the new heavens in the new earth.

All of those things are undermined by the full preterist perspective.

Isaiah 65, Daniel 12, and the New Heavens and New Earth

Yeah, so I have ongoing conversations with the full preterist and I know Isaiah chapter 65 which I mentioned mentions the new heavens new Earth which you do spend some time in your book. I'm talking about some of the the hyperbolic language that goes on there.

I believe it's around verse 20 with an infant will die yet at a hundred years of age things like that and the full preterist would look to Isaiah 65 as procreation. Happening in the new heavens in the new earth.

And so what's what's so troublesome to me is. They say we're living in the new heavens new earth now in total. Right, not a culmination of all things or Christ coming to do away with sin and death. But everything that you see now evil will continue on into infinity you see physical death that's going to continue on into infinity because they've boxed themselves in to reading Isaiah 65 in a very Literalistic fashion and then I'd like to hear your thoughts on this too.

And then they take Daniel 12 this this understanding about the resurrection of the dead final judgment. Having to also happen right here. So I've noticed those are two chapters that they bring together and saying The parrhesia has to happen with the resurrection we agree in principle.

But they're saying all that's at 70 AD and then at the new heavens the new earth as we see it now. They say it's code for you know, spiritual life faith in Christ. But this is the new heavens and new earth now no resurrection of the dead.

How in the world can you say this is the new heavens new earth as it is described in Revelation 21 and 22. I mean, I'm serious. If if this is the new heavens and new earth spiritual, right? I give up.

I See, you know. Are we really forced to say this is as good as it gets if it is. Man, I think I bought into the wrong religion. I'm following the wrong Savior. I that's just as beyond my comprehension.

And I know what they do. They spiritualize everything. Yeah, just like the resurrection. There's no physical resurrection body. It's very Gnostic in its orientation as well, it's very, you know, almost Demonizing and vilifying physical reality when in fact God is the author of it all.

Mmm. Yeah, it's a it's a dangerous doctrine. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that full preterism as you said earlier is outside the boundaries of orthodoxy any other eschatology. Dispensational pre-trib post-trib mid-trib pre meal Amil post meal they're all within the bounds of orthodoxy.

As long as they affirm the literal physical visible personal return of Jesus to consummate his kingdom. But when you deny that latter doctrine. You're running counter to the entire history of Christianity at least up until full preterism emerged and that wasn't until about the 17th or 18th century.

Every creed every confession would run counter to it and I know what they say. They say well creeds and confessions aren't inspired and infallible. You're right, but doesn't mean we can ignore them, right?

It strikes me as a bit on the arrogant side to suggest that The entire Christian Church for 1700 years got it wrong and then suddenly a very small little select few have insight into the nature of Biblical eschatology, I find that very hard to swallow.

1 Corinthians 15, Romans 6, and the Bodily Resurrection

Yeah, and I love what you said we're not bringing the the confessions and the creeds on par with Scripture but we're saying we have a historic faith and You know at 12 5 I encourage people. The right parameters is at least stepping into studying this saying okay, Jesus is coming to return in the future.

Bodily because full preterism says that happened all spiritually at 7 a .d. But Jesus is coming in the future bodily. He's gonna judge the living and the dead. He's going to restore all things and we're going to be resurrected to new life to rule and reign with him.

We are stepping into the the topic of eschatology with those things in view and. So I've often said full preterism fails historically, but I also think full preterism fails Logically because the way that they've articulated the new heavens and new earth doesn't go on eternally.

But it goes on into infinity because this is a created world. And so when you start having evil procreation going on into infinity this is actually going to Contradict necessary attributes of God with his omniscience and his sovereignty because God never truly knows all who are who are his.

Right because you could always add one more it's going on infinitum. Well evil is not going to be ultimately vanquished or destroyed a lot of their complaint is well. The scripture just doesn't really address that any time that you see the end.

It's talking about the end of the Jewish Covenant age so anyway, I think there's some logical problems to say that procreation goes on into infinity or these events go on into infinity because God doesn't truly know these things, right?

So you kind of give up a necessary attribute of who God is and I think and this goes back to the creeds and confessions. Yes, we say these are wonderful and good, but they should always be tested with Scripture.

And so tell what you think. I think one of the clearest passages that goes against full preterism Exegetically is 1st Corinthians 15 Beautiful chapter talking about the the very essentials of the gospel rooted in Jesus's physical death and his physical bodily resurrection.

And then we're we're promised to have a resurrection like that.

You know, it's this in fact, but in fact Christ has been raised from the dead and we know that that was physical. He's the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. So in other words, he was the first of the rest of us who have died physically.

We will be raised like him. I mean, I think also of Romans 6 5. If we have been united with him in a death like his we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. Well, his was a physical bodily resurrection.

You know, you have very similar statements in Romans 8 11. Real quickly I can flip over there and and. Because I've been immersed in Romans lately in Romans 8 11. Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you.

He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his spirit who dwells in you. We go on and on you know, I think of Philippians 3 20 and 21 where our bodies will be made like unto his.

Well, he was raised physically. He was glorified physically. God the Son lives in a glorified physical body even now and will forever and so will we. So again, you know 1st John 3 1 2 3. We will be made like him when he returns and that's not just morally or spiritually.

It's physically. We will be raised physically. So yeah, just on and on so many texts that That full preterism has to dismiss. I don't know what they do with acts 1 9 through 11 for the angels.

I figured this out. So what you saw Jesus ascend angel says is really he's ascending authoritatively and he's going to return authoritatively at the end of the age.

Spiritually, so. Question then is did he ascend go up? I mean, I'm looking at it. They were looking on as he was lifted up and a cloud took him out of their sight and they were gazing into heaven and The angel said he's gonna come back the same way.

Acts 1, the Second Coming, and the Historic Faith

Yeah, no, I do. I Agree, that's one of those hard pills to swallow is to try to take away the immediate context of what the Apostles were witnessing. They got to spiritualize it like you were saying earlier and I remember talking to Dr. Sam Frost who was a leader in full preterism for a decade and came out of it.

He was one of the first guests I had on the apologetic dog saying dr. Frost. I need help here. I'm getting a lot of questions and this is starting to spawn in my front yard. And he said one of the things that led him out was the verse that you read in Acts 1 11 around there saying Yeah, that's that's a hard one to try to get around.