Truth Unites - The Antichrist, Great Tribulation, and Millennium: End Times Triage

Episode Date: August 23, 2022

In this video I do theological triage in the realm of eschatology, or  the doctrine of last things. I argue that Christians should divide over  the second coming, final resurrection, and final judgment, but not over  differences concerning the millennium, the Antichrist, or the Great  Tribulation.    Original theological triage video: https://youtu.be/B2Dy85m9rUU  My theological triage book: https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-Hills-Die-Theological/dp/1433567423 Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

I'm doing a series of videos on theological triage, which if you're new to that idea, this is the idea of ranking different doctrines, kind of majoring on the majors, trying to have wisdom and proportion to focus upon the main points and not get too hung up on the details, but also not becoming a minimalist that doesn't care enough about theology. And then I'm just working, and I put out one video on the philosophy of this or the idea of this, and I'll link to that, the idea of theological triage, and then I'm just working through different issues. probably do another one on spiritual gifts. So speaking in tongues and now those kinds of cessationism versus continuationism. Another one on, what's the other one? There's going to be another one.

Oh, complementarian versus egalitarian versus other views about men and women, their relationship in the church, their roles in the church, that kind of thing. These are, you know, but that's precisely why we need to do triage because these things are so controversial. So that'll be another interesting one. And then I've done one on Calvinism. I've done one on baptism. Speaking especially to Baptist churches arguing for open membership and open communion, that was the most recent one. On Calvinism, I was trying to make an appeal to people not to see Calvinism is this bizarre, crazy thing, hoping that there'll be less suspicion and pride between Calvinists and non-Calvinists and the way we relate to each other. This video is going to be a fun one.

This is going to be on eschatology, which is the doctrine. of last things or the end times, and won't try to be exhaustive here. It won't cover every area within this realm of doctrine. But I want to propose there are three areas that are what we call first-ranked doctrines. This is where we should divide from other Christians. These are kind of cardinal boundary markers of orthodoxy that are setting off what's distinctively Christian. And these three, I would say, are the second coming of Christ as a future.

event, a bodily, second coming. Second, the final resurrection, and third, the final judgment resulting in the final state. And then I want to argue that there are two areas, really, I guess you could say three areas, though I'll cover them in two sections, where we should not divide. And I'd put these in the realm of what we call or what I call in my book on this. I'll link to that to. Third rank doctrines, okay? And this would be different views of the millennium in Revelation, 20, and I'll explain what those are. Secondly, different views of the Great Tribulation, and thirdly, different views of the Antichrist, the nature, timing, and identity of the Antichrist. I'll explain those two second two all kind of cover together. Now, again, there's other issues

out there. This video won't be comprehensive, but these have been some of the main areas where there's been a lot of controversy, especially within evangelical churches in recent history, and these issues, the millennium, Antichrist, Great Tribulation, these have been way more divisive than they need to be, in my opinion. And then, the other thing that happens, again, part of the goal here is balance. Other people react to that by totally neglecting them. And so it's like, you know, any sort of thought about it, we just avoid, we steer away from them.

And I think that's a problem as well, because this is part of Holy Scripture that we want to try to understand. So let me work through what I'll do is I'll cover first the millennium and then I'll cover the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation. And I want to give an argument for why we shouldn't divide over these areas. And so hopefully by the end of this video, you'll get a sense of not only that, but also just an introduction to what these issues are. This would be fun to get into things like, you know, who was Nero the Antichrist and things like this. And the goal with this is, again, just wisdom and that our theological convictions would be held in a spirit that is honoring to other Christians and is conducive to our mission so that we're not watering down doctrine,

but we're also not fighting too much. We're finding the healthy balance there. So let's talk about the millennium first. This has been a huge issue, and incredibly, kind of an identity marker within evangelical Protestants in recent generations. So what we have here, just to define these really quickly, this will be a drive-by, by the way. This is not in-depth. If someone's expecting this video to cover everything, you know, that's just a quick overview.

So Revelation chapter 20, toward the very end of the Bible, John sees this vision, and there's this reference to this thousand-year period. Now, there's basically three different options, so somewhat, you could say four, I'll put up a graph that shows some of the major differences. You've got pre-millennialism, which believes that the second coming of Christ will be before the millennium. So Christ returns, then the millennium happens.

Post-millennialism, the millennium happens, then Christ returns. Ah millennialism is very similar in some respects to various kinds of post-millennialism, except the difference here is that the millennium is the entire church age. Now, some, there are a few post-mills who see it, like the millennialism, like the time. that, but usually post-millennialists see the millennium as this golden era toward the end of the church age, something that's gradually, eventually ushered in and then gradually unfolding. And post-millennialists usually see it as focused upon earth, whereas on millennialsists think that the focus of Revelation 20 is in heaven, deceased Christians reigning with Christ in heaven.

Now, what gets really complicated is within pre-millennialism, there's all these kinds of subdivisions. You've got historic premillennialism, and then you've got the more recent kind. That's the default view among evangelicals. I think that's fair to say. I did some research on that. It's certainly a majority view. And that's dispensational premillennialism, and then you've got differences within there. In terms of where do you put the rapture, the calling up of Christians up to be with Christ in the air.

So is it before, during, or after the Great Tribulation, that the rapture happens? So you've got post-trib, mid-trib, pre-trib, I'll put up a graphic of that as well. Now, I'm not trying to canvas every little nuance there. Another description that might be helpful for people to understand is that post-millennialism tends to be the most optimistic about how things are going. Premalennialism tends to be the most pessimistic. So that's another general, I think that's a true observation. Another would be that premillennialism, especially dispensational pre-millennialism,

tends to be more literal and it's hermeneutic and it tends to be more detailed. Ammillanialism is pretty simple. It's a relatively simple eschatology. You know, you don't have to have as complicated a graph to understand it. Now here's what I want to observe is that far more so than Christians throughout history previously, American evangelicals have thought about these things more and have different instincts about them. I remember reading through Carl Henry's autobiography, really fascinating book. And he describes several occasions when this was a point of division within the neo-evangelical movement.

So in the 1940s, 1950s, you've got Billy Graham and Carl Henry and many others were kind of emerging as this distinct movement from the fundamentalists and the liberals. And so many of us, like myself, trace our heritage back to that time period. And this was an identity marker, okay, not just being pre-mill. But what kind of pre-mill you are? One of the ways you can see this, too, is George Marston wrote a fascinating book, chronicling the early years of Fuller Theological Seminary, where I went for my Ph.D. And he calls a leading issue that split the faculty differences within the pre-millennial camp, whether you're post-trib or pre-trib.

And so George Ladd was a faculty member who in 1956 published a book called The Blessed hope, which was a case for historic pre-millennialism. And it was really controversial. I mean, you know, that was like really out there at that time in that context, whereas post-mill and Amel would have been like, you know, way out of bounds. And so it's just interesting to observe that what is assumed as kind of the safe and standard view for many of us coming from evangelical circles is actually historically the more controversial view. And the real rare review. What's assumed as the default for us is the opposite of what was the default for most Christians at most times and in most places. And so that's interesting to realize that. My experience

has been, and this is why I wanted to talk about this, make a video about this, how this is helpful for the church to think about this, is that a lot of people simply assume that the only way to think about the end times is within a dispensational pre-millennial framework. So what I I want to do is offer three really quick, simple reasons why we should make a lot. I'm not saying you can't hold that view, but what I'm trying to argue in this video is that it shouldn't be a point of division. We shouldn't require that view of other Christians. We should give open space for Christians to disagree about any of those options, pre-mill, post-mill, ah-mill, or any species of premil. So whatever your views are, how this is all going

to work out with the Ida professor used to say, I'm pan-mill, which means I don't know, but it's all going to pan out in the end. And I always thought that was kind of funny. But there is something to that, just that ability to say. In fact, the differences here are so complicated. I actually think it can be a mark of godliness to admit that none of the views triumphantly explain every text. There's problem passages for every view. I personally take that view. Maybe others don't agree, but I just think it's complicated. That's why there's all these disagreements. So let me give three reasons why we shouldn't divide over this. One is biblically. a biblical, practical, and then historical appeal. Biblically, I would just argue that this is less

clear in Scripture than so many other issues that are sort of central to our faith, that are kind of basic Christian identity. And the great thing to notice here is that the only passage that mentions a millennium is, it's just one passage. Now, other passages are involved, but the only one that explicitly says 1,000 years, i.e. a millennium, is in Revelation 20. And Revelation is an incredibly hard book to interpret. I mean, I don't think anybody can work their way through Revelation. And you see these, and not realize, like, this is tough. And you see the greatest minds in church history puzzling over this book and how to interpret it. And that doesn't mean that, like, premail couldn't be true or something like that. But it's just a caution to say,

wait a second, let's kind of focus on the things that are really emphasized in scripture. They're taught in numerous passages. They're clearly a point of emphasis and so forth. And I think we should be careful in dividing over issues that have a more slender biblical foundation. Secondly, practically, the doctrine of the millennium just has less consequence for Christian living and for how we function as the church. A lot of the doctrines we'd put in like the second rank category would be pertaining to say like the sacraments or church government. And what we're trying to get at here is these issues are not so central to the gospel that we say the other side is not part of the Christian church. But we also recognize these are practically important. Like you

kind of have to choose one way or the other. Who are you going to baptize? How are you going to organize your church? You can't just, it's just, you know, it's impossible to do everything. You have to choose something. And by choosing something, you're then separating from those who do it differently. Even if you try to have a dual practice in some way, that's a choice. That's a distinct choice from an alternative, from doing it one way. So that's how a lot of these other things get into the second-rank category is they're practically significant for how we function as Christians or as the church. Views of the millennium are less so. I don't want to say there's no consequence, but it's like to me, I think you could have a pastor, two pastors on staff at a large church.

Let's see you've got like a megachurch and you've got a staff of like 12 pastors. I would think that you could have a pre-millennialist on staff and a post-millennialist on staff. And they'd basically be doing the same things as pastors. You know, you evangelize the same. You shepherd the flock pretty similarly. You know, it's not going to crop up and make this huge difference in terms of how you're actually functioning day to day as the church. Now, some will say, well, there's these different postures of pessimism and optimism. Okay, but those aren't actually logically required of the different views.

And again, I don't really see that as having a massive difference for basic Christian responsibilities. Another concern that some will have from the pre-millennial campus, I'll say, no, these are, this is really important because of the feared hermeneutical implications. And they'll make this appeal that if you start spiritualizing one passage, then you're going to start spiritualizing other passage. messages, and they regard AhMil and PostMil as spiritualizing Revelation 20. That's why I want to get to my third reason, because I think this pushes against that idea that this is in some way kind of an aberrant hermeneutic, or it's playing fast and loose with Scripture to be Amel or Post-Mill or something like that. And the point to recognize here is that pre-millennialism has been the controversial view

in the main throughout church history. You do have that. sometimes people are not aware, but it was back, especially among the earliest Christians, like Justin Martyr, Iranes, sometimes it's called Kileasm or millinarianism, and sometimes then it crops up among more apocalyptic-type groups and the kind of separatist groups in the early and medieval church. But pretty much it goes out the window with Augustine. Augustine changes his mind basically becomes a millennial in the city of God, early 5th century. And from that time, for over a millennium. Any sort of pre-millennialism is really not in the picture to my awareness.

I don't really see it anywhere. The prevailing view would probably be more amil. You can see this expressed by Thomas Aquinas. He argued that the thousand years of Revelation 20 refers to the whole time of the church in which the martyrs, as well as other saints, reign with Christ, both in the present church, which is called the kingdom of God, and also, as far as souls are concerned, in the heavenly country. For the thousand means perfection. That's one of the things with Amil. The thousand years there was a round or approximate number just representing a long period of time. And that's not a crazy idea because Revelation uses images and symbols like that a lot. And then when you get the Protestant Reformation, most of the reformers and their subsequent generations of Protestant traditions tended to be more Amil and post-mill.

the Puritans who were mostly post-mill, Jonathan Edwards, people like that. You get all the way up to the old Princeton theologians, these kind of stalwart, conservative, reformed theologians like Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield, who are defending biblical inerrancy against theological liberalism, they're post-mill. And so you get to a point where you'd say, okay, wait a second, if post-millism and or our millennialism represent a suspicious and dangerous hermeneutic, are we really going to want to say that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Edwards, and B.B. Warfield, all were hermeneutically suspicious. This is where the testimony of church history can caution us, because again, our

instincts about what's hermeneutically acceptable today are pretty different from how most Christians have approached this issue. So let me conclude this section on the millennium by quoting J. Gresham-Machin, he wrote a famous book, Christianity and Liberalism. If you think of anybody who comes up as like a stalwart defender of Orthodox Christianity over and against theological modernism, you think of Machen, you know. And he had concerns. He actually expressed in the book Christianity and liberalism strong concerns about pre-millennialism. So he was concerned about that view. He was Amil. I think he was Amel. Maybe he was post-mail, actually. I'm suddenly doubting that, even though I wrote a bunch about this.

That always happens in my videos. I'll be in the middle of something and I'll just be stricken with a sudden memory loss. So I don't know, somebody will look it up and put it in the comments. I think he was Amel. But at any rate, here's what he had to say. Because he's saying, I'm concerned about that view, but he's saying we don't need to divide over it. He says, yet how great is our agreement with those who hold the pre-millennial view? They share to the full our reverence for the authority of the Bible and differ from us only in the interpretation of the Bible. They share ascription of deity to the Lord Jesus and our supernaturalistic conception, both of the entrance of Jesus into the world and of the consummation when he shall come again. Certainly then from our point of view, their error, serious though it may be, is not

deadly error and Christian fellowship with loyalty, not only to the Bible but to the great creeds of the church can still unite us to them. Nobody can say Machen was afraid of polemics or unwilling to separate if you know his life and what he's famous for. But he's able to look at an issue like this and say, no, no, no, no, no, this is not where we are divided from one Christian to another. Christian fellowship can still obtain. And I would just say, if I could just make the appeal, we live in some crazy times. We have a lot of challenges we're facing. in the broader world and within the church right now, this isn't where we should be dividing. We got a lot of issues we do need to divide over.

But we got bigger fish to fry than the millennium, in my opinion. Important as it is. I'm not saying it's not important. By the way, third rank doesn't mean Adiophara, which means things indifferent. That's fourth rank. Third rank means you debate over it. You study it. You argue about it.

You just don't divide over it. Okay. All right. So that's my appeal on the millennium. Now let's talk about the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation, and specifically the difference between a preterist interpretation and a futurist interpretation of these. Preterism means it's in the past. Futurism means it's in the future.

So with the Antichrist, there's three main options of what is the Antichrist throughout church history. Now, already, this term is very problematic. Let me put up on the screen, 1 John 218. Children, it is the last hour, as you've heard that Antichrist is coming. so now many antichrists have come, therefore we know it is the last hour. So you've got plural antichrists already there in the first century. He just says it plainly, many antichrists have come past tense. And what that tells us is we need to be careful about the vocabulary.

Well, it tells us a lot, actually, but one thing it tells us, we have to be careful about the vocabulary. We don't want to get to a point where we're always using a technical meaning for these terms. The terms, even the term great tribulation can refer to things other than this technical thing that we mean. The great tribulation. There can be many tribulations that are great. And there can be many things that are Antichrist. So we want to be careful with the terms here.

But what a lot of people do is they look in the New Testament and they say, look, we've got not just this reference to Antichrist, but we've got this man of lawlessness in Second Thessalonians, too. And we've got this beast in Revelation 13. some people want to draw in the little horn in the book of Daniel as well and say it's got to be talking about something right and most most people I think it's fair to say would see these is all pointing to one particular person and we use the term antichrist for this person there are other views sometimes it's not seen as a person sometimes don't people don't draw all these passages together so three main options though for who is the antichrist one would be a roman emperor usually Nero but sometimes Domitian or others, or the Roman Empire generally. And there were people in the early church who held this view. I think the first person that I'm aware of who wrote a full commentary on the book of Revelation, Victorianus of Petow in the third century identified Nero as the Antichrist. There's lots of church fathers who just don't tell you exactly who it is. They'll just talk about it. But a second major

option is the papacy. That was huge among the early historic Protestants up through like Jonathan Edberts and people like that. And then there's a major option. And then there's a second major option is the papacy. That was huge among the early historic Protestants up through, And then there's a third option would be the kind of, again, the assumed default among modern evangelicals, and that's a future world politician. Those are the main three options. So you can see there there's a difference between two of these which would be past, at least starting in the past, and one which would be in the future. Similarly with the Great Tribulation, this is one of the great divides.

Is it in the past or is it in the future? Evangelicals tend to assume it's some future event from our vantage point, way out ahead or sometime soon ahead. But that's not the only option. A lot of people think that the Great Tribulation, which is referenced in the Olivet discourse, spoken by Jesus in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21. And a lot of people will also want to bring in many of the middle chapters of the book

of Revelation, like Revelation 6 through 19, that area, as referring to something that happened in the past. And there's a couple different options, but the main one is the Roman siege of Jerusalem toward the end of the first Roman Jewish war, culminating in the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 AD. So a partial preterist is someone who believes that the coming of the Antichrist, the great tribulation, the destruction of Jerusalem, and then a judgment coming of Christ. are past events. They will not happen in the future. They happen in the first century.

But a partial preterist still thinks of the second coming and the final judgment, final resurrection, et cetera, all those main ascotological events are still future. So that's partial prederism. Now, we need to be so clear here. When I was so just, I don't know, full disclosure here, and I'm not mainly trying to convince people of my views in this video as much as do triage with them. But I'm a partial preterist. And when I was going through my ordination process, I remember the term preterism was used, just general prederism.

And this is where, you know, people get very nervous about this. That's why in this video I want to try to explain why I don't think this is a crazy idea and need not be one to divide over. But we have to be so clear and careful because there's a difference, all the difference in the world between partial predorism and full preterism. If you just say those words, it sounds like, oh, partial preterism, full preterism sounds like they're basically the same thing, but one is just goes a little further. But they're not. They're completely different. I would say it's the difference between orthodoxy and heresy.

Partial prederism is very modest. Full prederism is extremely ambitious. Full preterism says everything's in the past. We're currently living in the new heavens and the new earth. And I would categorize that as outside of orthodoxy. I would use the H word for this, heresy. I just, I think based upon how Paul in 2 Timothy 2.18 describes this view as destroying the faith of some as it cropped up at that time. And then just, you know, it's outside the Apostles' Creed. You can't say Christ will come to judge the quick and the dead, future tense. And it just practically, it just completely vitiates and changes the nature of Christian hope. If you think, think about it. So partial preterism is, you know, I would say it's heretical. And I would say it undermines

the gospel. But full preterism does that. But partial preterism, totally different matter. I understand that partial preterism can be really weird for people at first. They can think, why would anyone hold this? What is the idea behind this? But again, I want to make an appeal that our instincts to just assume this certain kind of eschatology that often is very similar to what you see in the Left Behind series, that's not the general Christian instinct throughout history, and so we need to be careful. So let me propose a couple reasons why I think the precise view you take on this is a third-rank issue, the nature and timing of the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation. By the way, preterism and futurism are not the only two options. There's also historicism, which holds that

views in the events in the Olivet discourse and the middle portions of Revelation are being fulfilled throughout church history. And then there's idealism, which thinks that they are not so much targeted at specific

occurrences, but more the general and timeless unfolding of God's purposes throughout history. So keep in mind, it's not just these two. So then we say, okay, Why is the nature and timing of the Antichrist, an identity of the Antichrist, the nature and timing of the Great Tribulation, whether you're a partial preterist or a futurist for these things? Why is that a third rank?

Well, a lot of the same principles for the millennium, we could go through biblically and say this is tricky. We could say practically it is less consequential. It has an impact, but sometimes the impact would be greater based upon the spirit, with which the view is held, not just the view itself. And it's not that big of an impact. You know, you never want to divide unless you absolutely have to. And then historically, we see a lot more diversity on these issues. So let me just walk through specifically four reasons why I think partial preterism is a really reasonable view. And I'm in that camp. Though I, more than some other partial preterists, I tend to put more emphasis on things like telescoping and dual fulfillment and

that kind of thing, these complexities of how prophecy is fulfilled. And I want to say, I'm not a 100% sure. These are tricky issues. There are passages in the book of Daniel and in the New Testament that I'm not sure how to interpret. So I'm not necessarily saying, you know, this is simple or something like that. But this is my best effort, and I think it makes a lot of sense. By the way, another thing that might help people, partial preterism is not unheard of. It's a rapidly growing view. The fastest growing eschatological views are preterist views. And, it's held by some pretty conservative people. I mean, some partial preterists would be, so R. C. Sprole, senior, the late R.C. Sprole, you know, he was basically a partial preterist. I don't know that he

used that terminology, but reading through his book, The Last Days, According to Jesus, that's the camp I would put him in, really. And then, you know, the leading partial preterists are pretty conservative people. It's not way out there, you know. Ken Gentry is one of the leading voices in this. He's done a lot of scholarship arguing for a pre-70 AD date for the book of Revelation and the entire New Testament. And he's a very, you know, he's in a conservative Presbyterian denomination. He's a young recreationist. He's relatively conservative, evangelical, but he's a partial preterist. So that might help some people. But let me give four reasons why I think it's partial prederism is not a crazy idea and shouldn't be regarded as like a heresy or

something at a first or second rank level. Number one is it's got a pretty strong textual basis. Let me put up these three statements in the gospel of Matthew, and Jesus is sending out the 12, chapter 10, verse 23. He says, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the son of man comes. While teaching about discipleship in chapter 16, he says, the son of man is going to come in his father's glory with his angels, and he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before. before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. And then most climatically, in the climactic moment of the Olivet discourse,

after mentioning his glorious coming, he says, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened. Now, what people think is that this is not the second coming. This is a judgment coming of Christ upon the city of Jerusalem. Now, some people argue that the word, well, this generation is, I think it's Hussein. something like that, the Greek word genoa. And this can be translated as race. So some people think, well, maybe it's talking about this rate, but it really doesn't work.

Number one, contextually, all the previous references, the uses of that term, this generation, like chapter 23 of Matthew, we're talking about the blood, all the blood of the martyrs. It will all come upon this generation. No one ever thinks it means this race, you know? And that would just, it wouldn't make any sense. It would put the timetable so far out in the future that it would be a meaningless prophecy. It would be like saying some great thing is going to happen before the Anglo-Saxon race has passed away or something like that. And you're like, well, that's not going to be for a while. So it really doesn't make sense.

So it seems like Jesus is trying to give us a timetable. And the force of these passages is increased by a couple of facts. Number one, they express nearness and imminence in these variously different ways. It'd be one thing if you just had one reference, but it's like, before you go through the cities of Israel, some of you not tasting death, this generation not passing away. So they all corroborates that, okay, so that's like 30, 40 years, you know. And you kind of have to, there's ways harmonetically futurists can try to interpret it to, but you have to say, you know, how would the original hearers have taken this? Could they be expected to understand this in a futurist sense? Also, these passages that are more specific timetable references are consistent with this more

general sense of nearness and imminence throughout the New Testament. Revelation chapter 1, verses 1 through 3. What must soon take place, verse 1, verse 3, the time is near. There's such a sense of nearness in the New Testament elsewhere. Many other passages you could say that with as well. And then you think of all the parables and statements of Jesus against this generation, where he's promising judgment upon this generation. And the great strength of a preterist view of these verses is just a common sense appeal of just how would the original hearers have taken this. The second factor is the nature of biblical prophecy.

Too often people interpret New Testament apocalyptic literature like the Olivet discourse differently than we interpret Old Testament apocalyptic literature like the book of Daniel or the book of Zechariah, for example, or other various passages. And the New Testament is consciously operating in this tradition of Old Testament prophecy. So we have to try to interpret it similarly. So, for example, a lot of people will read through Matthew 24, and they'll say, the Olivet discourse, and they'll say, wow, this can't possibly be referring to a historical judgment upon Jerusalem. The language is too exalted, the imagery is too bombastic and so forth. So for example, in Matthew 2429, it talks about the suns no longer shining and the heavens melting and the moon turning to blood and all this kind of stuff.

And people say, well, that can't be talking about a historical judgment upon Jerusalem. But if you read Isaiah 13, 10 to 13, and Ezekiel 32, 7 to 8, it's the same imagery or a very similar imagery used to describe other historical judgments upon Babylon and Egypt. So if you say, if this imagery can function like that for the Old Testament, for historical events, why can't it in the New Testament? Also, you have to appreciate that, and this is a real hurdle for people, but the idea of a coming of Christ, we can speak of a coming of Christ that's not the second coming. There's the second coming, but then there are judgment comings that are typological anticipations of the second coming. Little foretests of the second coming. I used to really struggle

with that, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Number one, we just have, you know, Jesus in Revelation 2 and 3 will threaten to come to a particular church. Again, this is in judgment. I will come to you, he says, well, that's not the second coming. This language is from the Old Testament where the Lord threatening to come to a city is an act of judgment. And this is just treating the second coming of Christ like other events. You know, if we take the Day of the Lord, all throughout the Old Testament, that can have a final reference, but then also typological anticipations of that final reference.

Like the Day of the Lord ultimately is judgment day, but it can also be the locusts in Joel too. So we're trying to interpret this language of coming in line with Old Testament biblical prophecy. Okay, third factor for why partial prederism is not crazy is there's some pretty amazing points of congruence between historical accounts of the siege of Jerusalem in the first century and the biblical testimony. I will never forget reading through Ken Gentry's line-by-line comparison of Josephus' account of the destruction of Jerusalem and Revelation 8 and 9, and the events leading up to its destruction. it's just amazing. I mean, if nothing else, it would be great for people to grow in their appreciation of how significant this event was, the destruction of Jerusalem. I'll put up a picture from 1850 at

David Roberts' painting of this event. I think that often we underappreciate how absolutely world-shattering and cataclysmic this event was. And if you just put yourself in that time in history, you can think that would be a game changer. And it's, And here's the thing is the destruction of the temple is clearly anticipated in some of these New Testament passages. In fact, the whole occasion for the Olivet discourse is the disciples talking about the temple. Jesus says, not one stone will be left upon another, and then he goes on. And then throughout the Olivet discourse, references to the destruction of the temple are interwoven with all these other eschatological events. So I'll put up some verses from Luke 21, where he's in verse 6.

That's the initial statement, the summary statement that leads him on as Jesus saying, not one stone will be left upon another. And then he's talking about specifically Jerusalem, verse 20, surrounded by armies. Verse 24, Jerusalem trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. And then I'll put up Revelation 11, 2, and 3, which talks about specific timeframes, 42 months, and the two witnesses prophesying for 1, 260 days. and notice the reference to trampling the holy city. That's Jerusalem.

Okay. Those time frames, by the way, reference both add up to three and a half years. A lot of people think this is the time, times, and half a time referenced in the book of Daniel. Well, guess how long it was from the Great Revolt in the year 66 AD during the 12th year of the reign of Nero to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD? Three and a half years. How interesting. And there's lots of other fascinating points of congruence where it's like, oh, I can see how that could that could fit.

But I'm not claiming I can solve everything or that everything fits neatly. But I think the idea that Nero is this person and this three and a half terrible, unimaginably terrible period of time culminating in the destruction of the temple is what is envisaged in the middle portions of Revelation and the Olivet discourse, it makes a lot of sense. I won't say every piece of the puzzle fits neatly, but I'll say it has a lot of explanatory power. It makes sense of a lot. Lastly, a fourth factor that I think makes partial prederism a pretty reasonable idea is situational specificity. The language in the Olivet discourse seems geographically and temporarily focused upon the people he's talking to. I'll put up some of these verses where he's talking about you, when you hear of wars and tumults, don't be terrified. You will be persecuted.

When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you know, and then verse 21, let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Those inside the city go, those out of the country not enter. In other words, get out of town. You know, if you see Vespasian coming in 70 AD, get out of town. It's going to get ugly. It's going to be bad, you know. And you say, okay, if that is talking about something that's thousands of years into the future, what would be the meaning of these words and how would his original hearers have taken that?

Okay. So then we say, all right. So maybe somebody could say, okay, I can see how partial predorism could be sensible. Why not full preterism? Because here's my experience with this as I talk to people about this. A lot of people, you know, they go from skeptical of any kind of prederism, but then sometimes we overreact and a lot of people become full preterists. through partial preterism. They start, and there's this kind of allure to preterism.

Once the initial shock wears off, you start to see how much explanatory power it has. You start reading text in a different way, and then some people go so far, they read every text in this way. And this is really problematic. I'm really concerned about full preterism. I think it's a serious problem, and it is out there a lot. So let me give a counter argument against full preterism. I want to quote from Jay Stewart Russell.

he was like the, he wrote the classic text on preterism, okay, in the 19th century. When he's talking about Matthew 24, 24, all this will happen before this generation passes away. Listen to his appeal. He says, words have no meaning if this language uttered on so solemn an occasion and so precise and express in its import does not affirm the near approach of the great event, which occupies the whole discourse of our Lord. 99 persons in every hundred would undoubtedly understand his words as meaning that the predicted catastrophe would fall within the limits of the lifetime of the existing generation. Unless, therefore, our Lord intended to mystify his disciples, he gave them plainly to understand

that his coming, the judgment of the Jewish nation, and the close of the age, would come to pass before the existing generation had wholly passed away. Now, that's the powerful appeal of preterism. Common sense hermeneutics. plain reading of the language. But here's the problem with full preterism is they're not consistent with that. Because we've got passages that have a long period of time referenced. This is actually why Revelation 20 is one of my favorite passages in the Bible.

It helps us understand what's going on. Why are we in this like 2,000-year process between the two comings of Christ? And what happens where you see the inconsistency of full preterists is when they get to those passages. And it's fascinating to watch Russell struggle with Revelation 20 because he's trying to say it's all. So then you have to cram Revelation 20 down into this short period of time somehow. So among full preterists, Revelation 20 is usually identified with one of the following, either from, and I'll put these up, 30 to 70 AD, or so Christ's ministry inaugurated to the fall of the temple, or 70 to 73, or 70 to 132, which are basically two other significant events in Jewish.

history there. And the whole problem is those interpretations go against the whole appeal of predorism, which is common sense hermeneutics. Can you really imagine someone hearing a thousand years and thinking, well, that's just a symbolic number for three or even 62? A thousand years always refers to a long time. And so what they're doing is they're taking, they're saying you can't stretch out one generation into thousands of years, but then they take a thousand years and cram it down to a short period of time. Here's how Keith Matheson puts it. Hyperpreterists continually argue that a generation cannot be stretched to 2,000 years or more, and yet they take the thousand years of Revelation 20 and compress it to a generation. So what I would say is, in other words, I think

full preterism and full futurism are both too simple. And I think that the ascotology we have in the New Testament is this more complicated, naughty thing that's similar to the prophecies of the Old Testament. You have both this profound sense of imminent expectation and nearness. You read the New Testament. You have this overwhelming feeling. Something's about to go down. A coming of the Lord is at hand. But you also have this long, far off expectation. A thousand years, you know, in Revelation 20. And so that fits with a more complicated view of simple and far. Some things are soon, other things are lighter. So to sum up, what do we do with all of this?

I would say four things. Number one, don't neglect eschatology. It's in the Bible. It's there for our edification. Number two, don't over-focus on eschatology, especially the details that create hype and sensationalism. A lot of people find it so exciting to think about these things, and sometimes it can get unhealthy because you're focused so much on these little details,

and you're kind of missing the whole practical point. Number three, don't fight too much about these third-rank issues. Give people some breathing room about these more peripheral matters that godly Christians have disagreed upon. Let's not major on the minors. And number four, think about the first-rank issues every day. Make that your main focus. Jesus is coming again. The dead will be raised and God will execute perfect justice upon every human being and every angel

and it will be like the ultimate resolution and closure. Like the way a movie feels at the end when everything comes a right, it will be like that for all of reality. And we will be, we who know Jesus will be with the Lord forever. So in fact, the memorial acclaim has been something I've been in my preaching, emphasizing and using in my daily life, something to recall. Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. Boy, that sums up a lot.

See, a full preterist can't say that. But that should be our eschatological focus. Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again. And that's a hope we have every single day, which is a wonderful thing. All right, I hope this video was of interest. Maybe kind of a fun, different one.

Maybe it sparked some thoughts about preterism and all these things. But the main thing I hope is that it'll help us major on the majors. Let me know what you think in the comments. Any feedback you have? if there's other topics you want me to cover on triage other than spiritual gifts and complementarian egalitarian differences there's only the time planning on at this point but I can do others I did a few others in the book but if there's other topics you think it'd be helpful let me know in the comments all right thanks for watching everybody God bless you