Michael Heiser Eschatology Overview 01 End Times

Uh, for those of you, you you got me? We're all good. We're okay. A little bit of self-introduction. Um, true confessions, I guess would be a better way to put this. I I have to tell you up front that end times is probably my least favorite subject in biblical theology. But, that's sort of relative. It is interesting. The reason I say that is because, and I'm going to try to make this clear, I'm not married to any of the positions. Uh, I want to say this not in a negative way, but a positive way. I don't really care. Okay, I don't really care what position you have. I'm not going to try to disabuse you of anything that you already think. Okay, so the the ambition of this, the goal of this, and this is why Dax and I talked about doing this, is that I honestly am just willing to let all the positions be what they are, and let you be happy with them. I'm not going to critique anybody's position, and I'm going to do my best to get through all four weeks without telling you what I think. I don't know if I can pull that off or not. Uh, cuz to be honest with you, there are a lot of things about eschatology that I think are really indeterminate. You really can't know. Uh, you can guess. Some guesses might be better than others, but we really can't even tell that in some places.

What I'm more interested in is when you think about your position. Think about things you've heard. Think about things you embrace. Think about things that are really important to you as far as your position. That's great, but I want you to go away understanding why it is you have that position. And, if you understand that, you'll also be able to tell, to some degree, where you could switch, or shift, or how you could be something else if you made one or two really seemingly small decisions about certain passages. You do that, you're going to wind up somewhere completely different than where you are. So, those are sort of my two goals. I want, as Dax said, you know, charity is the number one thing, and I'm not going to try to change anybody's mind on anything. What I will try to get you to think about is, "Well, I have this position, but how do I get there? How did I get there?" And let me telegraph it by saying this. The answer to the question of how you get there is not that I know this verse over here, and I can quote it. What you're going to see, hopefully, is that all of the positions, this is why people write books on them. They all look beautiful. They all look perfectly coherent. You can pick up a a book on, you know, you can pick up a hundred books on any of these positions, and they have an answer for everything, even though they're diametrically opposed. Well, the reason for that is because they've systematized, and they prepared their thoughts to defend their position. What they're not necessarily telling you is there's a set of decisions that you make prior to even going to any passage that help you filter passages in such a way that they steer your interpretation in one direction or another. A lot of this is just subconscious. Uh, we we pick these things up because of what we've heard in a sermon or on the radio or read in a book, and we've never really examined sort of the filters that we use, and everybody uses one. Okay, including me. So, I know it's a little ambiguous. I know it's a little vague, and that's deliberate. I am going to go through some terminology. I don't care about the terms. I I I would rather have you fixate on the ideas. The other thing I want to say before going to the next slide is I'm hoping that I get a lot of interaction, because what I want is I want to hear from you where why you are where you are, and then we'll sort of use some of that to go in different places. So, some of this can be completely ad hoc. I do have more than one slide, so I actually did prepare something. I'm not trying to fake my way through it by saying, "Let's just have audience participation." Uh, I can go through, and I want to go through a few things, but I I'm I'm really hoping that you're able to steer me in different places. So, the basic question is, why are you where you are? Why do you land where you land?

Now, this is probably familiar to most of you. I'm going to hit this because you might be in here that just I'm totally new to prophecy, uh, new believer, or I'm not a new believer, and I've never really bothered to get into this. This is sort of representative of a a large segment of what we call popular Christianity, popular evangelicalism, Tim LaHaye, Ryrie, MacArthur, Scofield. The view of end times is this, that we're living in a church age now. This is now. Somewhere down the road there's going to be this thing called the rapture. That's when Jesus descends in the clouds and takes believers, living and dead, up with him, presumably back to heaven. After that event, there's a seven-year period that's known as the tribulation. It's literally hell on earth. At the end of that, Jesus returns to earth, so we have actually two sort of return events. They are different, but related in this scheme. After that, we have a thousand-year kingdom on earth. It's known as the millennium. And after that, we transition from this to the new heaven and new earth. Heaven, or there's different conceptions of it, but it's the eternal state. Let's put it that way. Now, the real question is, why does anybody believe any of that? For instance, why do we believe that today should be known as a church age? Like, where does that come from, other than the Scofield Reference Bible? Okay, where does that come from? It's an idea that has a foundation from from somewhere. Why do we dis- why do we separate the coming, the second coming, into two phases or two events? Why? Why do we do that? Okay, if you hold this position. Why do we think that this tribulation thing occurs on earth literally? Why do we look at the kingdom as literal? Now, again, where most people are at is, "Oh, I know. That's Revelation 20. There's a verse that that uses the word thousand years in it six times." People who don't believe in an earthly millennium know that that verse is there. They're fully aware that that verse is in Revelation 20. But, they look at it an entirely different way. Why? Why is it one and not the other? And why do we, now in this diagram, why do we sort of make a distinction between the eternal state and this kingdom? Why? Why can't they be the same? Must they be different? Why? The reason is we make decisions about how we're going to look at passages before we ever even get there. Example. We need to interpret prophecy literally. Well, like, what does literal mean? For one thing. Do the New Testament authors always do that? Have you ever asked yourself that question? Every time a New Testament writer cites the Old Testament, is it a literal one-to-one correspondence? Sometimes the New Testament authors cite passages that aren't even prophecies at all, but they treat them like prophecies. Example. Matthew, in chapter 2, refers to Jesus coming up out of Egypt with Joseph and Mary as a fulfillment of Hosea chapter 11, verse 1. If you look at Hosea 11:1, it's not a prophecy. Hosea is referring backward in time to Israel coming out of Egypt. He's not looking forward. He's looking backward. And he doesn't say anything about that event having any future significance. It's an observation. Hey, God took Israel out of Egypt. Israel was known as my son. God refers to Israel as my son. That's it. So, why does Matthew treat that like it's a prophecy to be fulfilled? Hey, these are questions. You look at what the New Testament writers are doing, and it should raise questions like, "Well, do they always do the same thing every time?" You know, what is this literal uh, hermeneutic? But, we've heard the words literal hermeneutic often enough that we just sort of it it seeps into our mind, and then we go to prophecy, and that's and we feel compelled to apply it to end times stuff, because we've heard it somewhere, instead of actually asking ourselves, "Well, maybe I should take the next two or three months out of my life, and look at the way the New Testament writers quote everything, and see if there's a consistent pattern, or if they do three or four different things." And then I got a different problem if they do that. Then I got to sort all that out. That's an example of one sort of mental decision that we we have made subconsciously that we bring to the Bible, specifically with end times.

Now, your other views, real quickly, this is what's known as historic premillennialism. Notice there's no rapture. They'll still refer to the church age, and then there's a second coming, and then there's a literal millennium, then we get the eternal state. This is what used to be known as premillennialism. Jesus comes pre, before the millennium. Position back here is premillennial, too. Okay, but we have two stages before a millennium. Question again is, why? Why is there only one of these instead of two? Because this person has made certain decisions that result in not having two events. We'll talk about that in week specifically. Amillennialism The church age now, right now, where we're living right now is the kingdom. It is what it is, okay? It is the kingdom. Now, Jesus will return at some point, and then we'll have the eternal state. Now, some of you might be familiar with preterism. Preterism refers to the question of are all prophecies uh fulfilled already, or are there some remaining? You think, "Well, what a stupid question. Of course they How could we even talk about prophecy if there's nothing out there to be fulfilled?" Well, there are there are some believers who believe that either all prophecies in in the in the New Testament are already fulfilled, even the return of Jesus. And that is a surprise. Like, how did we miss that? Okay, well, they would say, "You didn't miss it. You just You just weren't looking for it in the right way." Those would be full preterists. Everything's fulfilled fully. Partial preterists would say, "Yeah, there's still a second coming out here, but everything else in the Book of Revelation is already fulfilled." Okay, so there's some overlap there. Again, why do they look at it this way? Why don't they make a distinction between the church age and some future rule of Jesus on Earth? Why? You know, why is it the same with them? Same reason. They've made certain decisions. Partial, again, in postmillennialism, we have the church age not equal to the kingdom, but the church age transforms society in such a way that it ushers in the kingdom, the rule of God on Earth. And once that's achieved, of course, it's a little nebulous on how you know when you're transitioning to it, but once that's achieved, there's some sort of golden age for an indeterminate time. There's sort of a utopia on Earth. And then after that is established, then Jesus comes. So, you actually have a kingdom without Jesus at all. Okay, in a postmillennial scheme. It's our job to to get him to come back. To to work here on Earth so that he will return. Okay, so we have a postmillennial return. Okay? Again, why do they think this? Because they made certain decisions.

So, we've already talked about goals. I do want you to realize that none of these views is self-evident. You can't just open your Bible and one of them is just so crystal clear that all these other positions, all these other Christians must be just a little loopy, or they just haven't studied enough, or they haven't read the right books, or they haven't fill in the blank. Okay? None of them are self-evident. They're all going to have points of clarity, and then they're going to have points of unclarity where it takes a theologian to write a book and come up with answers to all the places where it's kind of rough to make it work. But everybody does that. Everybody has a way to make their system look completely beautiful. Again, we want to talk about assumptions, and knowing your assumptions will help. Now, tonight's topic is the kingdom. If you didn't notice looking at those slides back there, it's really important whether you believe that there's going to be a kingdom on Earth or not. And if you believe there's a kingdom on Earth, what its nature is. If you don't believe in a literal future, not today, but future kingdom, if that's not part of your end-time scheme, then you really don't need a lot of this other stuff. You don't need a tribulation that's literal. You don't need a rapture. Uh you may or may not have a second coming. I mean, it really affects other things. So, if you do, then all those other things are become important, too. So, what is your view? What's the basis, and what would it take to change your mind? We're going to start with the kingdom. So, here's the question. Does the second coming of Christ result in an earthly reign of Jesus for a thousand years? Yes or no? This is a first fundamental question. Does it result in an earthly reign of a thousand years? Yes or no? And then why do you decide yes or no? If you say yes, then you're going to be in this camp. You're going to be a premillennialist. Okay, because Jesus returns, and then we have a kingdom on Earth. If you say no, you're either an amillennialist, cuz the kingdom's already here. It doesn't result from Jesus coming. Or you would be the postmillennialist. Okay? Again, there you have a kingdom ushered in before Jesus even gets here. So, it's the reverse. So, yes or no?

Now, I want to stop here and ask you. Here's the question. You tell me. Now, you can you can ask me questions, or I want to hear responses based on either what you think, or you can pretend to be somebody. You can pretend to be a position and be safe. Uh Some of you have to believe in a literal kingdom. I want to know why you do. Anybody? See, now you're trapping yourselves into being all amillennialists, and I'm just going to change the question. Okay, so why? Give me an answer, and tell me why. Yes. That's not a very good answer. I was waiting for that. But I mean, that's honest. That's an honest answer. Um So, you're I'm going to play devil's advocate with you. You Steve If I see Steve get up, I'll know when to stop. So, you base your theology on your feelings. Is that what I'm hearing? You're no fun. Uh I mean, again, that's honest, cuz you know, we we've all we've all done that. You know, we Yeah. I have greatly huge charts Mhm. by these really, you know, that's really, really long and you just I don't know what it's called. for you. Keep practicing. Mhm. So, are you saying that people who don't take that view, they really they really either don't have a reason to hope, or they have less of a reason to hope? Uh-huh. Do we have any amillennialists here? Anyone wants to defend the amillennialist? How does the amillennialist have any hope? Well, I I'm I don't I'm not an amillennialist, actually, but they think that they are. You want to ask my mom. I mean, you're you're asking me. Now, we're in Now, our kingdom now. If you It's true. It's true. Take it a little further. If you're an amillennialist, what are you hoping for? The return of Christ. In other words, does not believe Does believing or not believing that when Jesus returns, then we get a kingdom, does that dampen your hope? I would say, "Well, if I'm an amillennialist, I'd say, 'Well, of course it doesn't, because when he returns, we're out of here, okay? It's the eternal state, so I'm very hopeful that Jesus is going to return. It's just that you think when he returns, we're going to be here for another thousand years.' And that'll be great, partially, cuz there's a lot of bad stuff happening in the in the premillennial system, it it's not quite heaven on Earth. Um In fact, there's a lot of non-heaven on Earth at that point. But the amillennialists would say, "Man, I'm just relieved. I don't have any of that nasty stuff going on during the kingdom, like the satanic rebellion that Scofield or Ryrie talks about." Like, he's coming back, and we're out of here. It's great. You're not alone. Somebody We'll we'll we'll hit the rapture next week. But the the the the the short answer is to that, the the the whole timing issue depends on how you define, you know, first of all, you got to get over this question. Okay, you got to accept a literal kingdom, literal tribulation. Now, when you're beyond that, the timing issue depends in part on questions like tribulation. Is that word ever used of a seven-year period in the Old Testament? And does it matter? The reason that question is asked is because of something called the 70th week of Daniel. In Daniel chapter 9. Again, we'll hit that in week three. Now now catch this. This is just a little little prep. It's assumed Here we go back to presuppositions and assumptions. It's assumed by everyone who takes any view of the rapture, except for maybe the pre-wrath people. It's assumed that the 70th week of Daniel, which is seven years, is the tribulation period. There isn't a single verse in the Bible that says that. You will not find that anywhere, but that's assumed. It's an important part of the system. Now, if you make that assumption, then other things fall into place. But you don't actually have any textual evidence for it. It might be a good guess. It might be completely correct. And then you have to move on to some other things that the view depends on. But you're down to things like parsing terminology, making educated, reasonable to you guesses between how two passages relate to each other. First of all, you're assuming that they do, and then you're assuming that they do in a certain way, even if you don't have anything to actually hang it on. It just It looks like it really works. And every system does that somewhere. Okay? Every system does that somewhere. Because you're you're you're you're trying to comb through the Bible and you've got all sorts of statements about the future and about disaster and apocalypse and the the return of Christ and all this stuff and you're trying to bring it all together and you're trying to make some coherent thing out of it. Trying to put a puzzle back together without the box lid, okay? And you think you know where everything's supposed to go and it a couple pieces are a little rough over here. Oh, that fits. It works. It looks it looks good. Looks fine. I'm happy. Every view does that somewhere.

Now, back to the kingdom. I I I would still like other answers. Why do you think might sound like a dumb question. Cuz we assume that they're going to be this this kingdom of God out there or that that there is this kingdom of God. Why do you if you say yes, is there anything more to it than that? Is it hope? Is it I was taught that? And there's there's got to be something more to it. In my experience, it's more than faith, yes. That's what you the church is exposed to Mhm. I think that's largely true. And then there's that the other side. Like Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. You know what? I think that's fair because the it's sort of a true is in the that if you if you look across the board the the the pastors, you know, TV pastors, TV preachers, public figures, the ones that that sort of get more notoriety happen to be, you know, the pre-millennial, you know, often pre-trib position. And so you get a you get a saturation in that sense, too. Let's talk Go ahead, Dax. I thought you're I'm I'm glad you didn't say Harold Camping. Thank you for that. Uh No, it it it's true. Uh sometimes I wonder if uh I don't know what Driscoll is, but I know he's a Spurgeon fan, so that might might be coaxing him a little bit. Uh Kingdom. Okay, there's got to be more to it. Go ahead, Dax. I mean, just because if you mark the beginning of the my entry to that when I was in seminary, but but even more than that, if you study and then the switches I'm making, for example, specific prophecies in the New Testament. Mhm. You have to say Jesus will literally return. Mhm. Talking about, for example, in Zechariah, remember about him putting his feet on the Mount of Olives. Mhm. The Jews kind of running to the hills or something like that. It's very specific. When he puts his feet on the Mount of Olives, does he start a kingdom? I don't know, but he he appears to be literally back now. Mhm. The And the amillennialists would say, yeah, and he leaves. Right. Right. But but yeah, there there's that contact thing. Yeah. That's part of it. And so some of the over overwhelming pieces of the Old Testament prophecy that it doesn't necessarily say kingdom. And then some of the passages in Matthew are very interesting Have you interacted much with like a Calvin Blaine or the greatest of the kingdom? A a little bit. I I tend to not I tend to not read theologians. I mean, I I I spent years reading them and then I just quit. Uh I I This is going to sound kind of silly. I just preferred the text. I I don't know how else to say it. I would I would just rather be buried in the text and then sort it out. Um Uh with with everybody I see I see again things that that look that have a a high degree of a higher degree of clarity than others. And and I'm not And and that that comes from everywhere for me. Let me ask you this way. What do you have in the kingdom? Let's imagine that you have a literal kingdom. What what what's going to be there? And we've got sort of got the king, that this touching thing, okay? And go ahead. And I'm Okay, so I don't know a lot about Revelation and I've never really Mhm. Good. That's my understandings of the, you know, different views from that. But if you're I would think that you're going to answer this question based off of what you think the kingdom of God is what it would be. Mhm. Um cuz if you're That's a good place to start. many of them in the kingdom now. I personally don't think this is the kingdom. Um but, you know, I would think that, you know, Jesus would reign or would be honored during the kingdom of God. So you're you're just to to break in here, it makes more sense to have a king and have a kingdom at the same time, okay? Just something simple like that. It is beauty I mean, there's more than I think what this world is now. Mhm. people dying and all that in the midst of all the beauty and everything. And I don't see the kingdom of God as really having I don't know if they have that. You know, maybe it's more of a For me, maybe it's more of that heaven on earth. So I just don't I wouldn't see this as being the kingdom of God now. So I know that kind of takes me out of Mhm. And then the post-millennialism, I believe you know, when you put established the church established the kingdom, I feel we are taking that upon ourselves to establish something that God is supposed to be establishing. It's kind of taking it out of God's hands. Mhm. You know, now then that leaves historic and pre-mil and Mhm. I think in in my decision in answering that question, that's where I start. Okay, now all those things that that you mentioned, you didn't you didn't sever them from an attachment to earth. You you more or less said it's it's better than earth now, okay? So you still have an attachment to earth, which would fit with the pre-millennial, you know, kind of thing. If we have a kingdom on earth in a future sense, again, with a king ruling here, what else is here? The These are things that drive people to pre-millennialism. What what's it like? Like in heaven? A temple. Okay. Do we need a temple? No, we need God's throne. Right, because, you know, the temple comes into the question because, well, if if the Lord is here, he like needs a house. Okay, again, these are these are just these are simple thoughts, but we're starting to put them together. So Old Testament statements about a temple become important in the discussion. And you have to go you go to a a passage like Ezekiel 40 to 48, which describes a grand super temple at a time, okay, this is Ezekiel, the temple has just been destroyed. So Ezekiel is envisioning this super-duper temple of God. And so for those who would say, well, it makes sense to have if you're going to have a king and he's going to he's going to come back, and, you know, he if he comes back, he's going to be somewhere, and somewhere would be like Jerusalem. And Jerusalem was where God lived and okay, if got if if he's living there, he'd need a house. You see how all these ideas get tied together? So we have a king, a place, Okay, the place is on earth. Let's just make it big now, you know, the earth the earth is is the kingdom after Jesus comes back. Now we have a temple as part of the discussion. Why would we assume that we need a temple? What do you do at a temple? You worship. What else did was done at a temple? Kill animals. Well, there's a point of incongruence. But there are there are many who are pre-millennialists that that will say, to be consistent, that we have a temple and animal sacrifices are done again. They come back. Because why else would you got a temple? That's what you do at a temple. You you do sacrifice. And then there's a big fight over that. The temple temple, to me, it would be a secret government. In other words, Christ Christ has got a kingdom, which is the earth. He rules from Jerusalem, if I So it's a sphere of authority. Yes. Yeah. Christ has got he's got the whole the whole earth. He's coming through the way God wants him to do. But the kingdom of God, in other words, Do you need a structure for that? A building? Well, I'm I'm not I'm not sure because I wonder to myself after this this this um kingdom has been created by by Christ Mhm. and he's created all the different um rulers of all the different parts of of the kingdom. Mhm. What happens at the end? I mean, why are we doing it? I mean, why What's the point? All right, this This is really Now, this is a good example. Now, listen to the question I'm going to ask. You you heard that he's defining temple as authority and not quite sure whether it you need a building or not. Now, listen to my question. Is he a literalist or not? Okay, what does literalism mean? I I I'll I'll tell you what many people think non-literal means not real. And that is not the case. Non-literal does not mean not real. I like to put it this way. Okay, let let I'll pretend I'm an amillennialist now. I don't believe we're going to have a literal temple. I don't believe we're going to have a literal kingdom. And you're coming back to me and saying, well, you just, you know, you're just spiritualizing everything. You're not interpreting scripture literally. And then I would ask you, does are you saying that I don't believe that the kingdom is real? Do you believe God is real? Do you believe God is more or less or equal real than you are? He's at least as real as you are. Is the spiritual world less real than our world? If you answer no, I've got you. Because then my spiritual view is just as real as your view. I can't knock on it. It doesn't have a door that I can knock on it. But it's real. So this all this discussion about interpreting the Bible literally, well, I won't say it's a useless term cuz it's not. I mean, it There's there's probably better words to use. But if you're dividing literal and spiritualized interpretation into real and not real, then you need to examine what you think about the unseen world, then what you think about non-material things. Are they real or not? It's a trap. Hope you can see that it's a trap that I've that I've just set for you. Cuz if you say yes, you're with me. If you say no, my next question is, well, are you an atheist? Are you a materialist atheist? I mean, come on. How can you believe in a God if you don't believe the unseen world is real? You have to be a materialist. The only thing that's real is what I can touch and detect with my five senses. Okay, so it's a trap. But again, we we we don't really think about it that way. Let's go back to king, place, building. Sphere of authority is still on earth, even if it's not a building. Let's talk about the place. Where would the kingdom be? And I say, well, it's earth. But is it really? Okay, you think about Revelation 20. It's the earth, but more specifically, where is the kingdom at? You know, where's the authority? Jerusalem, okay? Why would we expect a kingdom in Jerusalem? Somebody, why why would we expect that? Ah, yes. That's the promised land. That's where the first and the second temple was. And it was there because that's the land given. It was occupied because that's the land given. So now here's my next question. What's the basis for expecting or presuming that the promise of a land is still intact? Wasn't Israel driven out of the land? I mean, there's this thing called the exile in the Old Testament. What does the gathering mean? Does he have to gather them to that spot? Or can he gather them from the four corners of the earth? Here's Now I'm I'll be the amillennialist again. Go you there or make disciples of all nations. Okay? We're going to We're going to gather the harvest from all nations. And the world is the kingdom. Why do we all have to gather in this one spot that's less than the size of New Jersey? Why? Somebody Somebody should have an answer for that. I'll give you a hint. It's because of something in the Old Testament. Why would the presumption be that we need the promised land promises to be still in effect? Ah. Where does that come from? He's going to get mad. Come on, you you know where it's You know where it come It's It's It's in here cuz you just You just quoted part of it. The whole part about God getting mad at people who are after Israel. Where does that come from? It's in Genesis somewhere. Two places, actually. Actually, more than two places, but two two primary places. Genesis 12, first three verses. You might as well go there. Genesis 12. This is when God gives Abraham three promises. You know, he's going to have children. They're going to be like the sand of the sea. You know, we're going to have I'm going to take you to a land. I'm giving you this land. And of course, the land turns out to be Canaan, which is Israel and all that stuff. Then in Genesis 15, that promise is repeated. It's repeated in several places. And so here's the assumption. The thinking goes like this. This is one of your assumptions, your pre- your presuppositions. You make a decision on this before you ever go anywhere in Revelation in the New Testament. Here's Here's the assumption. God gave promises to Abraham. You know, they cut up animals and walked through them on the you know, only God did. So God initiated it. God was the one that took the responsibility. One of those promises was a land. Israel got in the land. They had a lot of fighting. You know, they had you know, the 12 tribes reunited under Saul, David, and Solomon, and everything just blew apart. And eventually, they got kicked out of the land. And they got brought back. They built a temple another temple again. But then they got overrun by the Greeks and the Romans, you know, it just it it just went bad again. And the Jews were scattered everywhere until 1948. Then they get a nation again. They come back. But there's actually still more Jews in New York City than there are in Israel. So they're not really re-gathered. They're kind of re-gathered. The assumption there is that the nation of Israel needs to exist because of what God told Abraham. And that when they got kicked out of the land, that wasn't a final punishment. And they never actually really had all the land. All three of those ideas are fundamental to premillennialism. For that promise to be fulfilled, there has to be the full You know, we have a down payment, but there's got to be the full fulfillment. The total landmass under control of God, the rule of God re-established on earth because if it doesn't happen, then the promise failed. Okay? Those are assumptions. Now the amillennialists will say, they did get the land. And God would have blessed them. They sinned. God had warned them back in the days of Moses. When I take you to the land and I put you in the land and you go off and you worship other gods, I'm going to kick you out. That's it. It's actually in the Old Testament in the Torah itself. You get kicked out. Then the question becomes, well, why did they Why did God bring them back? Cuz he's nice. You know, no, he has compassion. He brings them back. Hey, build a temple. Worship me. I'm still your God. There's still a remnant here. But then the question becomes, why didn't that work? Because they lost it all under again, the Greeks and the Romans and all the way up to, you know, the 20th century. Like is there something in the Old Testament that talks about all these intermediate periods and, you know, all that kind of stuff? Uh it's a debate. Some people would say yes. Other people would say no. Have you ever heard of the idea that Israel did get the land? Okay, a couple of you have heard that. I want to talk a little bit about that with the kingdom because if you don't catch this, if you don't need the promises to Abraham to be fulfilled anymore. In other words, if they were fulfilled and then God sort of wiped the slate clean when they when they went into apostasy. If you don't need the land anymore, you don't need a kingdom. You don't need the premillennial position. That's one of the key ideas there. So we've covered a a bunch of questions. What does literal mean? You got to make a decision on that. Are the Is the Abrahamic covenant the promise still in effect? Was it sinned away? Or here's the other option. The church inherited it. The church inherits the promises of Abraham. The church is global. The kingdom didn't fail. It's bigger than Israel. It succeeded even bigger than one little place the size of New Jersey. Okay? The amillennialist is going to say, the kingdom is here. We are it. It didn't fail. It'll never go away. It's here to stay. So you got to make a decision there. Some of these we can defer till next week about tribulations and all that sort of stuff. So I'm hoping you see you got a few things to think about before you even, you know, crack the New Testament open. Here is the Abrahamic covenant. Yeah, and you'll notice here we've got the land right there with the other blessings. Genesis 15, the same thing except we get a little more detail. I'm going to go through some passages now that again, you need to think about to answer these questions. I realize we we've sort of gone through a smattering of views. And again, I I don't I don't care what your view is. I want you to be able to detect, okay, he said that. I need to go back and look at that. And this thought form over here, I need to go back and look at that. I need to think about these questions. That's what we're trying to do tonight. Let's look at a few passages and I'll see I'll try to show you why it matters that you think about these questions. It's repeated, but look what we got here. To your offspring I will give this land from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates. Now, without going into all the boring geographical reasons why, this is not the Nile. There's a different word used for the Nile in the Old Testament. This is a a river northeast of the delta. If you know where Gaza is today, sort of around there. But it's a lot of land. Genesis 17:1 Abram was 99 years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said, "I am God Almighty. Walk before me and be blameless." Now, wait a minute. If we go back here, it looks like God's saying, "Hey, I'm going to do this, that, and the other thing for you here." And there's no conditions set. God just says, "Hey, I like you. I'm going to do these things for you. No strings attached. It doesn't matter. Why is that important? The implication, if you don't see strings attached, is that even if your people sin, I'm still going to give you that stuff. But what if there were conditions and they failed? Be blameless. Verse one, verse two. Why be blameless? That I may make my covenant between me and you. And may multiply you greatly. That looks like a string. And it's kind of a big one. Blameless? Boy, I don't know if I can do that. And I will give to you, same chapter, verse 8, 9, and 10. I will give to you and your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. Abraham, all you got to do is be blameless. What kind of a deal is that? All you got to do is be blameless and it'll all be yours. And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant." I mean, how much clearer can that be? Which you shall keep between me and you and your offspring after you. Every male among you shall be circumcised. So, now he narrows it a little bit to circumcision. He still has to do something. Genesis 22 This is the Abraham offering Isaac chapter. The angel of the Lord calls to Abraham a second time, you know, "Don't don't slay Isaac." And then he goes into this covenant language again. And down here, "In your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." That's Genesis 12:3 repeated. Because why? Because you obeyed. Not because I like you. But because you obeyed. What did he obey God in? Well, he took Isaac and he was going to sacrifice him. You don't really know what you know, what that was all about, but but Abraham said, "I'll do it cuz God told me to do it." Because, you know, back a ways he told me I had to be blameless. So, I don't get it, but I'm going to do it. Now, we know the story, you know, Abraham sort of there implications there that he believed that God would raise Isaac even if he killed him. Uh but he nevertheless obeys. Exodus 23. Odd place to have the covenant again. "I will set your border from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines and from the wilderness to the Euphrates." Again, he talks about sending the the people into the land. Here's the condition. You got to kick those nasty Canaanites out. And if you do that, then this is what you're going to get. Now, the question is, did they ever do that? Well, they kind of did it in Joshua, but they took two steps back under the judges. You know, you might argue that they finally defeated all of the Canaanites in the days of David with the Philistines being taken care of. That'll That'll might become important later. But again, there's a little condition there. Deuteronomy 11 "Lay up these words in mind and in your heart so on and so forth that your days your days the days of your children may be multiplied in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers to give them. For if you will be careful to do all this commandment, then the Lord will drive out these nations." Now, we know that they blew it. The nations weren't driven out for a long, long, long, long time. And maybe maybe not ever. So, we have a connection here between doing the commandment, driving the nations out, and look, here we go again. Lebanon, wilderness of Lebanon from the river the river Euphrates to the Western Sea. Again, the land is linked to certain things that they have to do. Now, look at these passages. Genesis 15, river of Egypt, Exodus 23 Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, which is the Mediterranean. That the Philistines lived in the five Philistine cities here on the coast. From the wilderness to the Euphrates, blah blah blah blah blah. Can any of you read what this map is of? These are the parameters, the orange lines, of the land promised to Abraham. Is it important? Does it matter that these are also the boundary markers of Solomon's kingdom? First Kings 4. Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life. The amillennialists would say, "There's your kingdom right there." And the reason we don't have the kingdom now is because Israel sinned. God abandoned them. God was merciful, he allowed them to come back cuz he said he would. He's a good God. Said, "Worship me, I will still be your God." But God had a plan in the back of his head. His plan was to reclaim not just the Jew, but everyone who would believe in him from every place on the globe. And he needed the Jew to fulfill that plan. Why? Cuz we got to have a Messiah. It's Jewish. Okay? Through the exile, think of the book of Acts now. Why is it kind of neat? I don't know if I was a Jew back then I wouldn't think it was neat. Why is it kind of neat that the Jews got scattered all over the world? Because in Acts chapter 2, they're there. And they come to Pentecost from every part of the known world. And what happens at Pentecost? They hear the gospel, they see the Holy Spirit, and they believe. And then what do they do? Let's stay here. No. They go back home. And they tell everybody. They tell their friends and they tell more friends and they tell more friends. The survival of the Jew I'm again, I'm speaking I have my amillennialist hat on now. The survival of the Jew is important because it was the key to bringing the Messiah and the gospel to every nation. And God didn't forget them. This is why Paul said to the Jew first and then to the Greek then to the barbarian. Paul looks for two places in every town he goes in. The synagogue because that's where he's starting and the jail cuz that's where he's ending. What can I say? That's just what he does. I mean, his mission Paul looked at himself There are passages in Isaiah 66 that are really interesting. Paul looked at himself as the key instrument to reclaim the nations. He is the He is the apostle to the Gentile. And he's a Jew. Now, if I'm a an amillennialist, I'd say, "Look, we don't need a future kingdom out there. We are the kingdom. In fact, we are global. We're bigger. We don't need this." Now, the problem is there are other passages, again, that talk about this earthly presence, this touching, this sort of he's like there, okay? But Jerusalem still pops up in places in the New Testament and Paul still talks about his hope for Israel. And the question is, does he mean the church that's replacing Israel or or Israel as a as a nation, as an ethic, you know, as a nation that has identity? People fight over that. People who would say it's it's an ethnic entity, they're going to be, you know, sort of the Jews for Jesus people, you know, the the premillennialist, you know, very much in favor of Zionism and all that kind of stuff. And then there'll be other Christian groups who use terms like replacement theology. The church replaces Israel. And I don't really care what goes on in Israel. They served their purpose. If they want to become Christians, that's wonderful. We need to evangelize them. But we don't need to worry about them politically because that isn't their purpose. Their Their purpose is done. They're just any other nation now. So, this this has a ripple effect into politics and other things. But a lot of it goes back to this. Leviticus 26. Bet you didn't think we'd get into Leviticus tonight. Look at what it says. "You

shall not make idols for yourselves, okay? Keep my sabbaths, revere my sanctuary, walk in my statutes, observe my commands, then you will eat your bread of the full and dwell in your land securely.

Okay, so, keep the laws and you'll dwell in your land securely securely. Not only that, I'll make my dwelling among you and you'll be my people.

But if you won't listen to me and will not do all these commandments, if you spurn my statutes, if you just do what you want, I'll set my face against you, you'll be struck down before your enemies, those who hate you will rule over you. So on and so forth. I myself will discipline you sevenfold for your sins. You're in big trouble.

I myself will devastate the land so that your enemies who settle in it shall be appalled at it. I'll scatter you among the nations. Does this sound familiar? Yeah, I will scatter you among the nations. I will unsheathe the sword after you. Your land shall be a desolation, your cities shall be a waste. I mean, it can't be any clearer. You shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up. Those of you who are left shall rot.

Okay, I've heard enough, you know, it it just goes on and on and on and on. You know, for the bad consequences. Shift. Shift. The premillennialists will like this.

But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers and their treachery that they committed against me, also in walking contrary to me, so that I walk contrary to them, okay? I will remember my covenant with Jacob. Well, if it's over, like like when they did all that and God kicked them out of the land, if it was over, why would God remember it? I'll remember my covenant with Isaac, my covenant with Abraham. I will remember the land.

Now, the question is, has Israel met these conditions? Have they come back to Yahweh? And in today's day and age, that might be defined a little differently than it would have been pre-Jesus. I will remember the land, but the land shall be abandoned by them and enjoy its Sabbath while it lies desolate. So on and so forth.

Yet for all that, when they're in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them, for I am the Lord their God. So I will not break my covenant with them. I will for their sake remember the covenant with their forefathers, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God.

So, does Leviticus 26 favor the amillennialist or the premillennialist? I don't know. I mean, that that's the issue. You have to decide. You have to try to come up with an answer to that, because your answer to this will dictate how you interpret a host of passages in the New Testament.

All right. When did you get that to settle in your mind? Mhm. And what when did start to what to what was Palestine at the end of the 19th century? Mhm. That land was desolate. Now, oh, that's when they started cultivating Mhm. and now it's the most productive part of the least. I mean, I my belief is that that's when the Lord started to bring them back. So, in in the language of Leviticus 26, that would be the time that he remembered the covenant. Yes. Okay. So, there there you go. The you you're you're seeing a living illustration of how we're parsing Leviticus 26, and that matters. Okay, because that gives you a frame of reference for other passages, other other questions that you have to hit and you have to answer in the course of creating your own framework for end times. It's actually really fundamental.

This whole question of is the covenant still in effect? Does the land still matter? Did Did God revisit the covenant? It's pretty clear that they had the land. I mean, that's that's just what 1 Kings 4 says. It's no accident that the same parameters are given. Okay, that wasn't just like a blunder of a scribe. Oh, I I'm too bad I put that. Somebody will think we got the land. Well, I can't change it now. No, I mean, it's there for a reason. The issue then becomes when when they they lose it, when they get kicked out, has God remembered the covenant? Is it still in effect at that point? That's the ambiguity. That's the fuzzy area that your end times position depends on. That's just one question. There's a good half dozen other questions that are just sort of that murky uh that are going to drive you in different directions.

You look at how the New Testament actually refers to Leviticus 26, here's a twist. So, we have here, I'll make my dwelling among you, my soul will not abhor you. I'm going to like you again, okay? Look at that. I will make my dwelling among you. Now, the premillennialists will say, yeah, we're going to have the we're going to have the temple again. Those are all temples. Going to be back. Look what Paul does with it. What accord has Christ with Belial? What portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? Well, wait a minute. Is he talking about the temple or, you know, back in Jerusalem? You know, we're we're here in the Corinthians here. No, for we oops are the temple of the living God. As it is written. He even says, I'll prove it to you. I'm going to quote Leviticus 26. I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people. Did Paul help the amillennialist or the premillennialist? Or both? Here's a better question. Is that literal or not? Is Paul a literalist or not? Where it says we are the So, like before Christ, it was different. They thought of that different. And you have Christ, then where does this that's like one era, another era, and so the kingdom and Leo kingdom would be like another era. So, maybe it's one thing. And and that that is precisely how a premillennialist would what Let me say it better. That's one of the ways that a premillennialist will address what's happening here. The amillennialist would say, you're only dividing it up into eras because you need to get back to the literalism. You know, in other words, they're they're going to say you're doing that because you need to do that. Whereas you could say, well, you're not doing that because you you need to not do that, you know. So, you get this again, this little turf war over it. Uh by the way, in Corinthians, Paul says this, you are the temple. He says it two places. One, it's plural you, the whole body. The other is singular, individual Christians. What is the temple? Temple was where God lived. Does it make any sense to have believers and the church be a temple? If you believe the Holy Spirit's living within you, it does. It makes perfect sense. Because the same glory that and Paul even uses this language, the same glory that was back there in the Old Testament, the tabernacle, now tabernacle's in you. That's why he's he's looking at you like you're a temple, because you are. Now, again, the issue is, does it end there with Paul? Is it a both/and or an either/or? for Paul. You know, if he were here, he'd say, do I have to choose one or the other, Paul, or can I have them both? You know, that that's the hard part for Hold on. Dax, you had a So, you you can do better than Paul. No. Right? No, that's the reverse. That's the reverse. Yeah. Let Let me Let me give you the amillennialist response, and you can decide whether it's cheesy or not. All right. But for for the rest of you, you can decide whether this is cheesy or not. I'm just going to go with what Paul says. I'm not going to say any more than what Paul says. And Paul says we're the temple. Well, that's great, but you didn't answer the two or three questions I had after that. You know, it But again, this is this is the kind of thing, you know, can can we really know with precision what is in Paul's head when he says or doesn't say something? I don't know. Wish he were here. Um again, you have to decide, here we are again, presuppositions, you have to decide yes, based on what Paul says, I'm going to lock him in and I'm and I'm and I believe I know what he was thinking. And then if it says this and nothing else, then that's where I'm going to be. That's that's an honorable position. Another person would say, well, Paul said that, but he didn't address this thing over here. So, and I and I don't really want to apply this and move it over here to answer this question, because Paul didn't really address that question. So, this is still an outlier for me. I'm going to leave it there, too. It's just hard to know. It's hard to know how to how to think their thoughts after them.

I'll remember my covenant with Jacob, remember my covenant with Isaac, so on and so forth. That's quoted in Luke 1. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited redeemed his people, raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke with the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies, from the hands of those who hate us, to show the mercy promised to our fathers, remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear.

So, you have this remembering theme. You don't have an explicit citation here, but you do have this. Okay, the idea of remembering his covenant. Now, if you're in Luke chapter 1, well, what's Luke thinking? How's he How did God remember his covenant? Uh he's writing about what in Luke chapter 1, first chapter of the Gospels. Uh Yeah. Zechariah. He's putting it in the mouth of Zechariah. What is Zechariah thinking, living in the first century? So, now you got to psychologize people. Here's Zechariah priest, you know, he he's old. And he sees, you know, he he witnesses, you know, the Messiah and he hearkens back to this remembering of the covenant. So, we know at least this that in his mind there was a connection between God remembering his covenant and this baby, okay? That much he knows. That that much we got. Now, fill in all the blanks. I mean, what are you going to do? You know, you can you really take what he says here and erect a whole theology out of it. You know, you you can't. People do. Amillennialists do. Premillennialists do. Uh it's just hard to know what was really floating around in his head.

Acts 1 Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? Now, the premillennialists will say, "That's a great question." See, they were thinking of a literal kingdom. They're thinking of, you know, bringing it right here on Earth, get rid of the Romans, establish the the literal physical kingdom of God. Yay for the premillennialists. What will the amillennialists do? They'll say, "What was his answer?" I mean, you you can't win. You know, he says, "No. No, I'm I'm not. I'm going to leave now and then I'm going to send the spirit to tabernacle with you because you're the temple, you know, you have all these other passages that that fit into that. So, the premillennialist gets points for the question. The amillennialist gets points for the answer or the non-answer. What are you what are you going to do with that?

Last slide, I think. Either one or two. Kingdom in the New Testament. Here's a few things that you're going to have to struggle with one way or the other. Acts 8:12. When they believed Philip as he preached the good news about the kingdom of God well, what was Philip preaching? He's preaching about Jesus. He's preaching He's preaching the gospel. What's the relationship of the gospel to the kingdom? Try to imagine Philip's conversation with this unbeliever. Is he really saying, "Hey, you know, someday Jesus is going to come back and he's going to set up a kingdom, we're going to rebuild the temple, we're going to kill some animals." I mean, is that what he's saying? Maybe. I mean, we don't we don't know the conversation. Cuz the amillennialist would say, "It says kingdom of God because to be a Christian is to be in the kingdom now." It it's as simple as that. And the premillennialists would say, "Well, we have to assume that that was part of it, but there's more." And who's right? I don't know.

He entered the synagogue and for 3 months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. Here's a good one. Paul says to the Colossians, "He has delivered us It's a past tense in the Greek. from the domain of darkness and transferred us also a past tense to the kingdom of his beloved son." Now, how can you be a Christian and be already transferred into the kingdom of his beloved son if the kingdom's future? Now, the amillennialists would say, "You can't. The kingdom is now." The premillennialist who has his thinking cap on will say, "I think it's both. I think we already are in the kingdom. But I think there's more coming." That's what's known in theological parlance as the already but not yet view. There are a lot of things that are that are true of you already as a Christian. Don't think about this. Are you sanctified? Are you elect? You know, are you saved? Are you you know, you know, trying to think of another another one about the Christian life. Are you Are you a child of God? We would say, "Well, yeah, I'm all those things." Well, when do we really know that you're all those things? You would say, "Right now." Well, what about the Christian life? What about sanctification? What about the book of James? Cuz there's this here and now, you know, Christian, do you know who you are and what you are, you will be. Okay? The Christian life is the process of becoming what you are. Okay? That's what it is. It's the process of becoming what you are because there's these this dual aspect. I am these things now, but I will be them at some point. And God, you know, God can look at it that way because he's he doesn't need time. He doesn't have any issues with time. Tenses don't mean a whole lot to him.

2 Timothy 4:18. The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. Well, that sounds future, doesn't it? Would Paul and Paul Would Paul fight Paul's? Paul like schizophrenic? You know, there's good Paul and bad Paul or you know, what what is that? Paul wrote them both. This one sounds a lot like an already reality and this one is future. Boy, Paul, you're just weird. Well, maybe he believed both.

Made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father. To him be glory and dominion forever and ever. So, that even in the book of Revelation it sounds a little past there or a little already. Even in a book like that. You have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, they shall reign on the earth. Well, wait a minute. How come they're not reigning now? If they're a kingdom, aren't they reigning now? What's this shall reign? How can you be a king and not reign? I mean, what what is that? How can you have one without the other? You know, you have these questions if you really look at what's being said. Looks like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth and maybe that's the case.

Again, my goal is I want you to go away. I want you to go away confused every night. I'm succeeding. You know, I and I'm I'm unrepentant. Okay? If that's the case, I'm unrepentant. Because you need to struggle. You will not know it better if you don't struggle. Okay? Take it from one who knows, right? You will not learn it better if you don't embrace the messiness and try to parse it out. You can You can go buy a book, pick your You can go buy a book, someone will present it canned to you. It'll look beautiful. It'll answer every question you have until you pick up the next one. Okay? You need to know where the trouble spots are. You need to know that there there are key issues.

When I post this, I mean, I'll I'll post these on my own website, too, but you'll have the video. By the end of this, my plan is to have a summary, a list of of questions for you to think about if you want to sort of get into end times. The questions are not going to be like, "What verses do I need to prove that there's a 7-year tribulation?" I don't care. The verses will be things like, "Are you sure there is one when you don't have two verses that connect?" I mean, how How are you going to frame that argument? That's the kind of thing you need to do. You need to get into the text and start embracing the messiness and wondering about it and going at it, doing the best you can. And that may solidify a position you already have. It may introduce you to a new one you like better. But you should still do the same thing even with the one you like better. Okay? And it's it's not uh it's not easy. It's It's a lot of work to do that. But I'm just hoping that you again see that you're not just going to flip open your Bible and, you know, the harps are going to sound off and there there there's my position. It's just not that easy. This is one of those areas in theology where you you don't have the clarity you have with some other things.

Okay? Questions. Unless you just want to take off, that's fine. If you If you have to leave, you're not going to offend me by leaving, by the way. You want to take a few questions, Dax, or you want to get out of here? Anybody Anybody with questions? And by By the way, I don't mind heretical questions. Okay? I teach uh Israelite history at Western. Okay? I get lots of good questions. Okay? So, the the the more the more pugnacious the question, the it it the discussion is is almost invariably better. So, don't be afraid to ask me.

Right. If If they use the word kingdom, that sounds postmillennial. Cuz we need that convert to to get the kingdom here, okay? And then Jesus can come back. So, it sounds postmillennial the way you articulated it. I don't know. See, now you're baiting me. So, what what's the connection then between the church and the kingdom of God? We you and the saints we don't know the I I know. We and all the other churches that believe Jesus Christ is we're all part of that church. And my my own belief is right my understanding is more of the moment. Mhm. Is that there will be a rapture and we will be born up. Mhm. And those who the dead will raise first. We will go up there with Christ and then he will he will come back with us all and establish that kingdom. Mhm. That's my understanding. So, where does that church fit? I'm Luke 1:32. Yeah, you would you would have to you would have to ask yourself and and answer for your own satisfaction whether you want to reserve kingdom talk for after the second coming or if you're okay with using it before and after. Now, earlier when you connected kingdom to I'll use another word, dominion, authority. If you're going to think of the kingdom in that way, you don't need to reserve your kingdom language for later. You can use it now and later. Because there's a certain the the there's a certain sense where because we are the temple, you know, we are the people of God and and the some of these biblical phrases, we do have authority. And Jesus assumed that the disciples had authority. When he said the gates of hell will not prevail against you. Hope you realize that that's a defensive statement. It means that the gates of hell won't be able to withstand the church. The gates of the the forces of evil aren't the ones on the offensive in that statement. It's the church. The gates of hell will give way to you. So, when Jesus is around saying stuff like that, he assumes authority and dominion right now. Okay, in some sense through the church, which is his body. But, you have these again future statements out there. So, I I personally I'll tell you this much. I think the already but not yet idea helps a lot. Rather than having to pick what cuz what what you have in theological systems, honestly, with eschatology is you can look at scripture and you can see where there's a lot of spiritual fulfillment. And again, that doesn't mean not real. It's just as real, maybe more real than our real. Okay? So, there's a lot of this stuff going on in the unseen realm. And you also have a lot of earthly oriented talk as well. So, what systems do is one says, "Man, I sure like that spiritual stuff. That it that explains a lot, you know, to me. I'm going to become an amillennialist. I'm going to take that aspect and that's what I'm going to champion." And another person comes along and says, "I like that earthly stuff, man. That's where I'm at. I'm going to that's going to be my orienting point. And I'm going to develop the system from that." The systems just pick one aspect and it becomes the orienting thing for them. It becomes what guides them through all of of the text, through all of the passages. And what I would would suggest to you is, why do you need to pick? I actually see a lot of both going on. Because I think to paraphrase, you know, something in the gospels here, I think when Jesus said and when you know, the Lord's Prayer and and other passages talk about as in heaven, the unseen realm, the realm that we don't inhabit, okay? God's realm, as in heaven, so on earth. I think there's a symbiotic relationship to what happens in the seen and unseen worlds. And could it be that prophecy works on both realms, in both spheres? I think it does. So, that that helps me. Now, I don't have a name for that. I don't have a a system name for it. It doesn't fit any of the other systems, but I don't really care, okay? Uh I think the reason why all the systems are beautiful is because they've latched onto something that's true, but they've sort of married it a little too much to the neglect of of this other stuff over here. And maybe maybe we ought to start thinking how to fit everything together. So, I like your dominion idea a lot. See what a different the difference a word makes. Instead of structure temple temple meaning dominion. That's what interpretation's about. I mean, and and if if we see words used in by the apostles that seem to refer to buildings and then over here the same word seems to refer to authority, you know, that's important. Maybe we should think about both possibilities wherever we're at, you know, whatever passage we're at. There was another question over here somewhere. Yes. Mhm. Right. And there's they're still tilting one way or the other, yeah. Right, Jake. Mhm. Yeah, they the it depends obviously on what this generation is. Is it the one that he's speaking to? Is it the one that he's referring to in the abstract in some future time? Those are your two main options. If it's the if it's the generation he's speaking to, then you got preterism. If you project it as an abstraction, the generation that I'm talking about and and you're assuming that he's talking about a future reality, that generation. Well, that rules out preterism from the get-go. So, that's really where it sort of the the battle is on that. Is it is it concrete, situated in time, you know, to Jesus' time, or is it abstract? So, I that's that's a long way of saying I don't think the verse proves either. I don't think it proves anything. It just gives you something else to to sort of think about. You know, the real the real issue with preterism is is the temple. And that takes you into the question of when was the Book of Revelation written? And that takes you into the question of of here's the key question. Are there temple references in the Book of Revelation? There are. Sort of inferred. Is John writing about a a structure still standing or is he referring to something that will be rebuilt or something abstract? I don't know. Because if it's something if it's still standing when Revelation is written, Revelation would have to have been written before 70 AD. Cuz that's when the temple was destroyed. And if that's the case, then pretty much everything in there's already fulfilled. If it's not, if it's post 70 AD, then the game is wide open. Okay, then then it's like we don't know what, you know, John could possibly be referring to. Cuz he can't be referring back there. I mean, so the argument goes. He must be referring to something, you know, out in the future. Be nice if Revelation just told us. It doesn't. You know, it's not self-evident either.

Yes. What if you put Genesis 12 on the screen without Galatians 3 side by side? Uh And if you wanted to mix things up I Yeah. Yeah, I know. Maybe maybe I maybe I should have maybe I just assumed that or I thought I would I would hit it in the in the course of the discussion. What Bradley's talking about is in Galatians 3 at the end of the chapter and and a little bit in the beginning, Paul point-blank says that believers, Christians, have inherited the Abrahamic covenant. Now, what he doesn't say there in Galatians 3 is he doesn't Here we go. Here we go with the with the interpretive games. He doesn't specifically mention the land. Now, you'd say, "Well, it was part of the covenant. I mean, what does he have to mention everything in there for it to to be fulfilled in the church?" The premillennialists would say, "You bet it does." If Paul doesn't connect the land to the church, I'm not with you, Mr. Amillennialist. And the amillennialists would say, "Come on, you know, it it says point-blank, if you are, you know, in Christ, you are Abraham's seed and heir according to the promise. What more could Paul say?" I'll tell you what more he could have said. He could have said something about the land. You see how it just goes back and forth? Uh cuz if the amillennialists would say, "If the church inherits that covenant, then then the covenant is fulfilled in the church. That's that's what it was looking forward to. We don't need to look any further out there for a kingdom. The answer to the Abrahamic covenant is the church. And Galatians 3 is a is a key text for that, but it does not specifically mention the land. And so, the premillennialists will will bring that up. Say, "It's already, but it ain't yet. The land is still out there."

Another question. There was one over here. Wouldn't a lot of these distinctions between pre and amillennial really be between dispensational pre millennial and historic pre millennial? Some of them would be um the the real fight over that, you know, I sort of wanted to reserve that for the rapture issue cuz that's the big battleground there, but that that's fair. That's fair. Some of them the your amillennialist is going to feel more I don't know if I want to use the word comfortable, but he's probably got more in common with the historic premillennial and the dispensational premillennial. Uh there there are fewer things they disagree about, but they're still not terribly compatible. But, there is there is some overlap. If you're if you do the already not yet, then you embrace a lot of amillennialism, but you don't buy amillennialism. You know, because you're you're saying, "I like what you say, but you don't say enough." Okay, that that's really where you're at there. And you know, you get with historic premillennial, there is an already not not yet sense. So, there is there is some camaraderie there. Um so, they'd be closer than your standard dispensational position which includes the rapture. Anybody else? Okay, thank you for coming.