Evening of Eschatology

Well, good evening, everybody. It's good to see you all here. Hopefully, the technology we have set up will work the way I have planned. I'm glad you could all come out tonight. This is something I have been thinking about doing for a while. The reason I've been considering it is that I've had a lot of different questions over the last year about this specific topic. Normally, it has more to do not just with the things going on in the world, but with people asking me, "What is your view on these things?"

As we're going to see tonight, there are a lot of different views related to the study of eschatology. The word "eschatology" comes from two Greek words, which you can see at the bottom of the screen: "eschatos" and "logia." We are talking about "eschatos," which has to do with the end and the last things or the final things, and "logia," which pertains to the study of or the thought around those things. So that's really what we will be considering tonight.

I want to start with what I always begin with when I talk about this. Just so you know, I have discussed these topics for a long time, but not necessarily here. For almost 20 years, I taught at Calvary Chapel Bible College up in Murrieta. Two of the main classes I taught there were on the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah. We had 16 weeks to go through the 66 chapters of Isaiah and the 45 or 50 chapters of Jeremiah. Covering all of that in 16 weeks is quite a challenge.

When discussing Isaiah and Jeremiah, there are many eschatological themes that arise. Both of those books contain a lot of what is called apocalyptic language, especially when you consider what Isaiah and Jeremiah were facing. They were confronting apocalyptic ends for their nations. The problem is that the word "apocalyptic," as we understand it today, is not what it originally meant. For us, "apocalyptic" signifies the end, with all the drama wrapping up—wars, rumors of wars, and so on. However, "apocalyptic" actually means "the revelation."

When the Book of Revelation is referred to as the "apocalypse of John," it is the revelation of John, or more accurately, the "apocalypse of Jesus Christ," which reveals Christ. Yet, we often connect that word with events related to the end, everything coming to a close.

Isaiah was facing significant challenges. He lived before Jeremiah, in the 8th century BC, during a time when the Assyrian Empire was on the move. This ultimately led to the complete destruction of the northern ten tribes. Israel had been split by a civil war after the reign of Solomon. When Solomon died, his son Rehoboam became king. Rehoboam was not a wise leader, which led to a split in the nation.

The southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin formed the nation of Judah, with Jerusalem as their capital and the temple at its center. In contrast, the northern ten tribes, which included all the other tribes, had their center in the north of Israel, around a town called Dan. This division persisted for several hundred years until the 8th century, when the Assyrian Empire rose to power. A series of Assyrian kings, known both in secular and biblical history, resulted in the destruction of the northern ten tribes and nearly led to the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem. In fact, 46 of the major walled cities of Judah were destroyed, with Jerusalem being the only city that escaped disaster due to divine intervention.

The impending doom of that era prompted a lot of apocalyptic language. Fast forward to Jeremiah's time: during Isaiah's reign, after the Assyrians were pushed away by God's divine initiative, Isaiah prophesied that the Babylonians would eventually destroy Jerusalem. This prophecy came to pass in the 6th century BC, and Jeremiah was alive to witness it.

Understanding the conditions of the world during the times of Jeremiah and Isaiah is crucial, as these circumstances influenced their apocalyptic language. They were expecting doom, and their writings reflected that expectation. This is an important aspect to grasp when discussing eschatology. Major shifts in eschatological language and significance often occur in response to the conditions of the world at that time. The tumultuous events during Isaiah's era motivated the language he used. However, it is essential to recognize that God was speaking through him; his words were indeed inspired.

It even has future implications, but the immediate language was for what was happening during His time, and it is compelled by the conditions of the world at that time. The same thing applies to Jeremiah.

One of the things we will see tonight as we go through some discussions about eschatology is that all the major moves of eschatological perspective—there are about four major perspectives on things related to the second coming of Christ and the end of all things—are significantly influenced by the events happening during the time of the key thinkers or theologians who introduced these ideas. The circumstances in their world affect the way they interpret the Scriptures. It is nearly impossible for us not to read the Scriptures through the lens of our experiences in our time. God speaks to us in that way for sure.

However, we need to recognize that when we talk about the different major significant views of eschatology, which we will go through in a few minutes, these perspectives were motivated in a big way by the events occurring to the theologians who proposed these ideas in their day. This means, and I always start with this when I talk about eschatology, that I want us to have what I call a humble orthodoxy. This is really important. The issues of significance related to eschatology are what we call non-essential doctrines.

When I say non-essential, I know some people may be upset by that because they believe these are very important. I don't disagree; these are important, but they are not salvifically important. What do I mean? It does not affect your salvation if you hold a premillennial position versus an amillennial position. Just saying that may upset someone who thinks, "I'm out. I'm done. I'm leaving."

But these are what we would call open-hand issues. These are the non-essential ideas and concepts of theology that do not affect your standing in the church or your standing with God and salvation. This is really important because I guarantee you there are people in this room who disagree with your interpretation. By the end of this night, you might disagree with my interpretation of eschatology. It should not be that which determines whether or not you are part of Cross Connection Church or whether you have fellowship with me or other Christians in this room. There are people who disagree with you and do not see things the way you do or understand them as you do.

And I'm perfectly fine with that. Some of my closest friends in the ministry have a totally different eschatological view than I do. They pick on me, and I pick on them. I explain to them that they will figure it out when they meet Jesus, and they will see that I am right.

It's really important that you maintain a humble attitude. I came up with this word a number of years ago. We did a series here at the church on the seven churches of Revelation called "Cross-Examined," and this was the title of the first message that I gave. It has everything to do with this idea.

There’s an old saying, which is frequently attributed to Augustine, but it actually doesn't connect to him. It's not found in his writings and doesn't really surface until about 1,200 years after Augustine, so it couldn't have been from him. The saying is this: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." Some of you I heard saying it, so you know this one. You should all keep this in mind because you're going to discover that there are people who disagree with you on theological issues that are not essential.

These issues are still important, and you can still be passionate about them. You can hold your position firmly but with an open hand, recognizing that you could be wrong on these things. I like to say that we are not speculators of the Bible. We are not Bible code cryptographers, which I hate to tell you, but a lot of dispensational theology looks more like Bible code cryptography than it does biblical interpretation.

We are students of the Bible. We want to be disciples of Christ and seek to establish what we believe and why we believe it based on the Scriptures. We should hold these things with a real humble position. If you find that you're having a conversation with someone about end times issues and your blood pressure is increasing, and you feel a little flush in the face and are starting to get louder, you should probably take a break. It's not helpful for you or for that person.

It's highly likely that the positions you hold with great passion might not be entirely right. There may be some areas where you're wrong. So, I'm going to propose a way of interpreting the Scripture tonight that is going to bother some of you. I recognize that this is the case, and I'm perfectly fine with it. Like I said, my very closest friends in the Bible teaching community hold different views. When I go out to Kentucky and I'm in a seminar...

Different people working on their PhD pretty much all disagree with my position, and I'm perfectly fine with that. It's not a major issue for me. However, when we're talking about things related to eschatology, we are discussing matters that come from the Bible. These are not concepts that we've added to the Scriptures. What we're doing is our best to comprehend what the Scriptures say, to find the plain meaning of the text, and to opt for that plain meaning.

With all these theological positions, I always like to start with Jesus because I believe He is the best place to begin when discussing theology. To do that, we can look at a passage that some of you might know well: Matthew chapter 24. Matthew 24 and 25, along with Luke 17, are what are called the Olivet Discourse. They are named that because they were delivered by Jesus on the Mount of Olives. The context of when this happened is important.

If you read the previous chapter before Matthew 24, that would be Matthew chapter 23. What does Jesus do in Matthew 23? He is on the Temple Mount for what seems to be his last time in the Gospels, arguing with the religious leaders. He calls them hypocrites and liars multiple times. You can see He is winning friends and influencing people. As He is leaving, His disciples come to Him, seemingly trying to bring down the temperature of a very heated conversation.

In Matthew 24:1, it says, "Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple." His disciples came to Him to show Him the buildings of the temple. You can almost sense that they are trying to ease the tension after a difficult discussion with the religious leaders. They say, "Yes, we understand that the scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians are hypocrites and liars, but look at this beautiful temple! It's so nice. Herod has built this place up; it's wonderful. It's the center of our nation."

Jesus responds to them, "Do you not see all of these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down." That's a heavy prediction. The temple was the center of Jewish life for Peter, James, John, Bartholomew, Thomas, and the rest.

Jewish life had been destroyed by the Babylonians. It had been rebuilt during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. It had been further expanded and turned into a glorious temple, one of the wonders of the world, by Herod. Then Jesus said, "It's all going to be thrown down." That was striking. It was like someone giving you a prophecy that the World Trade Centers were going to tumble to the ground when they were still standing. You would think that was insane; it could never happen. What would the world be like if it did happen? Well, we've all experienced that.

For them, the idea of that thing falling down, the center of their life and their nation, meant that Jerusalem was no more. It meant the nation of Israel was no more, exiled again throughout their history. This had happened multiple times. So, he dropped this bomb on them while they were next to the temple. Most Bible teachers imagine the place where he was when he said this was just south of what we know today as the Western Wall. You can go and visit the Wailing Wall and pray there. Just south of that, at the ground level where it would have been during that time, you can go down to the excavated ground level today. I've been there, and he was probably in that very area where the stones were ultimately pushed off by the Romans in 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed.

He was likely in that place or at the southern steps going out the southern part of the temple. Then he went where he normally would go. They were probably heading back to the town of Bethany, which seems to be the place that Jesus would stay when he was in Jerusalem. He would stay at the house of his friend Lazarus, who lived on the eastern backside of the Mount of Olives in the city of Bethany, outside of Jerusalem.

As Jesus started to go that way, east through the Kidron Valley, he ascended the Mount of Olives. Eventually, as he sat on the Mount of Olives, his disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be?" This was question number one. "What will be the sign of your coming?" This was question number two, and of the end of the age.

Notice that they equated what he just predicted—the fall of Jerusalem—with the end of the age. They figured that was one and the same. We know, because we sit now 2,000 years after that, that they are not one and the same. There is something different. But they wanted to know, "When is this going to happen? You just made this prediction. We want to know when will these things be? What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

And this leads to the longest discourse of Jesus on eschatological events in the Gospels, specifically in Matthew 24 and 25. There is a lot of significant information that Jesus shares during that passage, which I believe is important because of the interpretive model or lens through which I view the Scriptures. This prophecy that Jesus gives, like many prophecies in the Bible, has multiple fulfillments.

One of the key things to understand when studying Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, or Revelation, as well as the Olivet Discourse, is that many of these prophecies have early and latter fulfillments or multiple fulfillments. Therefore, it is sometimes necessary to look at them through different lenses. Jesus obviously had an early fulfillment in mind when he spoke about the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred literally in 70 AD. However, he also seems to be addressing future events that I believe have not yet happened.

There are some who hold a different interpretive model for understanding the Scriptures, believing that all the prophecies of Matthew 24 were fulfilled 2,000 years ago during the time of Nero or when Titus destroyed Jerusalem. This view asserts that those events are already completed. In contrast, the view I hold suggests that these prophecies are still yet to be fulfilled.

What we do know for certain in history is that in the summer of 70 AD, specifically in August of that year, the Roman general Titus, after laying siege to Jerusalem, destroyed the temple. Jesus's words were literally fulfilled within 40 years of him delivering them.

We also have evidence in Rome today. One of the great ruins of the old city of Rome is the Triumph, which consists of three grand archways leading into the city. On one of these triumphal arches, the Arch of Titus, there is an image depicting the spoils of the temple, including the large golden candlestick, being brought back in triumph to Rome. This concept of a triumph is significant, especially in apocalyptic literature. When a Roman general was successful in a military campaign, he would return to Rome after laying siege to a people group and taking control of them. He would be welcomed by the citizens of Rome with a grand parade known as a triumph.

Go out and meet him, and they would come in with a parade as he brought in all the prisoners of war and the great spoils of war. They would treat him on that day as one of their deities because he had won for Rome. It's called a Roman triumph.

Understand that Paul employs Roman triumphalist language when he talks about Jesus's second coming. When he says, "We shall meet him in the air and return with him," he is using Roman triumphalist language. He is using the language of the day that all the people would have understood. They would have thought, "Oh, that's what he's talking about. Jesus is going to come as the victorious king, triumphing and bringing his kingdom." That's the picture that we often associate with something we call the rapture, but it's Roman triumphalist language. It goes back to the same imagery here.

These are the stones. This is just south. If you were to angle the camera up, you would see the Western Wall. If you were to look high up to the right, where this wall is on the side, that is the Temple Mount. You would see the Al-Aqsa Mosque. If you step back a little bit, you could see the Golden Dome. All of these stones and the huge depressions in the pathway are part of the first-century Jerusalem road that has been excavated.

What do we find? The stones of the temple. When Jesus said, "Not one stone will be left upon another; they will all be cast down," he was referring to the stones that were cast down from the Temple Mount. And there the stones lie. I've walked there multiple times. This is exactly a fulfillment of Jesus's words.

So, Jesus told his disciples as he was leaving the city of Jerusalem, maybe even walking on that road, "Do you see these stones? Not one stone will be left upon another. All will be cast down." It was literally fulfilled within 40 years. This is one of the reasons that skeptical scholars of the New Testament, such as one of the main skeptical scholars, New Testament scholar Brett Bartman, say the gospels must have been written later than 70 AD. They question how Jesus could have known this.

Well, he could have known this because we believe that he is God incarnate. Therefore, I believe the gospels were written prior to 70 AD. Every internal indication suggests that, and history supports it as well. Jesus is making a prediction, which is an amazing prediction because it was perfectly fulfilled.

Now the question then is, if Jesus predicted the fall, what else did he say? If he was able to tell...

We would like to know more about what Jesus has to say in response to the questions his disciples give him. In Matthew 24, Jesus states, "For as lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will be the coming of the Son of Man." He is referring to his second coming.

A key verse in this passage is, "For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together." However, the word "eagles" is a poor translation; it can also be translated as "vultures." Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light. The stars will fall from the heavens, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

Note the language used here: the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light. This can be considered a prophetic landmark that points to the Day of the Lord. This language is employed by prophets like Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah, among others, to describe the Day of the Lord.

So, what is the Day of the Lord? It refers to any time in history when God intervenes in the realm of man for judgment. For example, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a Day of the Lord. The flood during the time of Noah was also a Day of the Lord. There are minor fulfillments of the Day of the Lord, where a city or a small group of people experience God's intervention for judgment. Then, there is the great and terrible Day of the Lord, which prophets like Joel and Isaiah look forward to—a time when the whole earth comes under God's judgment. Isaiah 24 is a great passage to read on this topic.

The language of the sun being darkened and the moon not giving its light is significant. The most literal fulfillment of this occurs when a city was destroyed in ancient times; the city would be burned. Archaeological evidence shows us the different layers in the strata when a city was destroyed, often marked by layers of charcoal. When the smoke rises, the sun is darkened, and the moon does not give its light.

Some people interpret this as referring to solar and lunar eclipses, but that misses the biblical motif language. While it may not be entirely incorrect, this interpretation does not capture the essence of the destruction of a city under the great and terrible Day of the Lord. So, immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light.

Will fall from the heavens. This is language pointing to something else that's connected with Revelation and other passages. The powers of the heavens will be shaken. This has to do with spiritual entities that are involved in this. I'm thoroughly convinced that when we see the manifestation on earth of evil, it is the physical manifestation of spiritual wickedness.

Here we see the powers of the heavens, these spiritual entities that are shaken. He goes on, "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the heaven." You have to understand that when Jesus says these things, he's connecting this back to other things that are said by other prophets. The sign of the Son of Man in heaven is in the book of Daniel. So now he's reaching back to the book of Daniel. This is why it's so important for you to read the Bible. You may not feel like you're understanding or getting it, but you're going to see these different language markers, these prophetic landmarks, and you're going to go, "I remember reading that somewhere." Jesus just said, "You're going to see the sign of the Son of Man appearing in the heaven." Daniel talked about that.

Then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. This is going back to Daniel; it's a messianic prophecy. Jesus uses this same language when he's on trial before the high priest. The high priest asks him, "Are you the Messiah?" He answers in the affirmative and says, "And you will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great glory." He is saying, "I am the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy." Then the priest smacks him, accuses him of blasphemy, and they condemn him to die.

This is important language. You have to key into these things. They will see the sign of the Son of Man coming in the clouds with power and great glory. He will send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet. This shows up frequently as a prophetic landmark. They will gather together his elect from the four winds, from all over the earth, from one end of heaven to the other.

So Jesus is talking about his return. He's talking about the events that surround his return. He's talking about how all of his people are going to be gathered together with him. Paul employs the language of a triumph of all the people gathering together with him as he returns to usher in his kingdom. We see these things throughout the scriptures.

Based on these passages and others, for 2,000 years, Christians have affirmed what we affirmed together all summer long when we did the Nicene Creed. We said, "We believe he will come again."

In glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end. You all said that with me all summer long as we were studying the Nicene Creed. Going back to the fourth century, Christians have affirmed this belief. Even before that, Christians made the statement that they believe Jesus will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

Why do we believe this? Well, because John, the Apostle John, had a revelation, an apocalypse. At the end of his apocalypse, Jesus said to him, "Behold, I am coming quickly. My reward is with me to give everyone according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Surely, Revelation 22:20 states, "I am coming quickly." He told us through John's revelation that He will come again.

The problem is that was a while ago. For 2,000 years, we've been waiting. During that time, we have developed different lenses through which we view prophecy and theories about Christ's return. When you look at these things, whether it's the book of Revelation or other prophetic texts, it's easy to get tripped up on the crazy imagery of Revelation.

However, when studying the book of Revelation, if you don't consider the different models, frameworks, or lenses for interpretation, you may misunderstand the text. You need to consider how Christians have generally or traditionally viewed these things. Generally speaking, Christians have four lenses through which they view prophecy.

When I come to a text, especially when studying the book of Isaiah to teach it, I try to employ all four lenses, even though I have a primary lens that I lean towards. The primary lens I lean towards is called the futurist lens. The futurist lens looks at biblical prophecy and believes that there are still prophetic events that have yet to come to pass and will happen in the future. Thus, I hold a futurist position on Bible prophecy, believing there are still things that are yet to come to pass.

After the futurist lens is the historicist lens, which is a view commonly held by...

There are a number of different groups, but those who hold a dispensational view maintain both a futurist and a historicist lens. The historicist lens believes that the Book of Revelation describes a series of events that have occurred throughout church history over the last 2,000 years, especially the seven letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3. If you've ever read Revelation, you know the letters to the church at Sardis, the church at Philadelphia, and the church at Laodicea, as well as Ephesus and so forth.

The historicist lens posits that these different letters were written to various churches throughout church history, with each one representing a different period of the church's history. According to this view, we are currently living in the Laodicean lukewarm church. Welcome to it. That's one way to view it. Do I hold that view? Not necessarily, but I understand the perspective, and you should understand it as well.

The next perspective is called the preterist lens. The preterist lens comes from the Latin word "praeter," which means "past." The preterist view is generally held by those who subscribe to a more amillennial or postmillennial interpretation. They believe that all of the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse, specifically Jesus' teachings in Matthew 24 and 25, occurred in the lead-up to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD under Nero, whom they consider the Antichrist. His name, when calculated using Hebrew Gematria, equals 666.

Many people interpret these events as having already been fulfilled, with the only thing the church still looking forward to being the second coming of Jesus. We affirm together that whether we are futurist, historicist, preterist, or idealist, we believe in the second coming.

The idealists see the great battle between good and evil, as represented in apocalyptic literature like the Book of Revelation, as something that is happening in the world at all times. There is always a struggle between good and evil, between God and the spiritual entities that oppose Him. Revelation illustrates this idealist struggle.

So, I am of the opinion that when you come to these interpretations, it is essential to understand the various perspectives and their implications.

Biblical scriptures related to apocalyptic drama literature present various interpretations that are worth considering. Even if you have a predominant view, it is beneficial to explore what the Preterist thinks about a passage and what the Idealist's perspective might be. This exploration can provide a broader understanding of the scripture, even if you do not agree with their views. Regardless of the perspective you hold, all of these interpretations within the Protestant tradition of Christianity center around a key event in the Book of Revelation.

The theories surrounding Christ's return focus on the millennium. Whether you identify as a Futurist, an Idealist, a Historicist, or a Preterist, the millennium plays an important role in your interpretation. So, what is the millennium? It is a thousand-year period described in Revelation 20.

Let’s look at some passages from Revelation 20:1-6. "Then I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan. And he bound him for a thousand years. And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. And then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast nor his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. There is that millennial period. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such, the second death has no power. But they shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years."

In Revelation 20, we see the repeated phrase "a thousand years," which Christians have focused on as significant to the discussion of the second coming of Christ. Surrounding the millennium are four different theories about Christ's return. I have provided four lenses of interpretation, and depending on which one you choose to study the texts, different millennial positions emerge. People often categorize themselves into these positions as they relate to their views on the end times.

As I discuss this, you can scan the QR code if you haven't already. It will take you to a screen called Slido, where you can send in your questions, as we will be addressing them shortly.

Do questions at the end of this. I'm going to look at my phone and see what questions are there, and I'll try to answer them.

Surrounding the millennium are four theories about Christ's return, which arise at different points in Christian history over the last 2,000 years. The first view is called premillennialism, today referred to as historic premillennialism. This view was prevalent from the first to the third century.

Remember when I said a few minutes ago that the apocalyptic literature of individuals like Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel was heavily influenced by the things they experienced in their lives? This is true about these views as well. The premillennial and other millennial positions that grow out of this are not so much an interpretation of Scripture as they are an interpretation of what is happening in the world. They are trying to understand the events of their time in light of what the Scriptures say.

The first view that Christians held for the first 300 years of Christianity is called premillennialism or historic premillennialism. It has a literal interpretation of Revelation 20. This view believes that there is a literal future thousand-year reign where Jesus will return to the earth triumphantly and establish His kingdom here for a thousand years. During this time, Satan will be bound, and His people will rule and reign with Him.

There are many questions that they try to answer, but they do not always have answers for them. This is why there are other views, and people push back against their perspective. However, the historic position of the church, which it appears the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John held, is supported by many early church fathers, such as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, who are important to church history.

In the early years of the church, they all believed in a literal second coming. Jesus said, "I will come quickly." So what do you think they were waiting for? They were waiting for Him to come quickly. He told them, "You are going to go through great tribulation." What were they experiencing? They were experiencing persecution, being dispersed from their homelands, being on the run, and being fed to the lions. All these different things were happening under Nero, Domitian, and Decius, among other Roman emperors.

In the midst of that, what was their hope? Jesus was going to come and vindicate them. They anticipated a literal return.

A literal thousand-year reign is what Jesus would rule upon the earth, and that is what they were looking forward to. They were premillennial, meaning they believed the millennium, that thousand years, would occur after Christ's return.

Then, something phenomenal happened in the fourth century. Constantine became a Christian. The Roman emperor was no longer chasing the church, persecuting them, and killing them. In 313, with the Edict of Milan, Christianity was made legal in the Roman Empire. The Roman emperor called for a gathering of Christian bishops to establish what our doctrine would be. This gathering took place in 325 AD in Nicaea, resulting in the Nicene Creed.

When you see these things happen and you are no longer living under the threat of persecution and tribulation, how do you interpret what happened as it relates to prophetic scripture? Your interpretation is going to change because the conditions of the world have changed.

Shortly after this, a very interesting figure named Augustine wrote "The City of God." He made a contrast between the city of God and the city of man, establishing a new interpretive theory about the end times that came to be known as amillennialism. He didn't call it that; it became known as such afterward.

What is amillennialism? The Greek letter alpha is put at the beginning of a word to negate something, so it asserts that there is no such thing as a literal millennium. Augustine and others with him, from about the third and fourth centuries until the fifteenth century, reoriented our perspective from being literal to being more spiritualized. They argued that there is no literal millennium but that Jesus is reigning now from heaven and has suppressed the works of darkness.

Why would Augustine think this? Because he was no longer under the threat of persecution. The Roman Empire, which had once tried to destroy the church, was now its friend. This change in circumstances led to a shift in theological perspective.

Do you see how the events happening in the world can change theological perspectives? I think this is so important because many people, often ignorantly, believe that these theologians were just so incredible that they discovered something the premillennialists did not understand. In reality, they were simply observing the world around them and concluding that their experiences did not seem to fit with tribulation and persecution.

Longer, so it must mean something different than we thought it meant. And that was the case for 1,100 years. Then something amazing happened. In the 16th and 17th centuries, there was this enlightenment. The world came out of the medieval and dark ages. The light seemed bright, and there was an optimism in the world. Scientific advancement led to an understanding of all kinds of things, and there was a great missions movement during the Reformation and post-Reformation period. The church was now moving missionaries into the world.

We needed a new optimistic vision called postmillennialism from about the 16th to the 19th centuries. The conditions of the world changed. There was optimism, and this new world that had been discovered was seen as a new spiritual Jerusalem, referred to as the colonies. There was freedom there, religious freedom, and all kinds of advancement. People were thriving, and many great things were happening. It just seemed like a new day. So, we must be living after the millennium, and the tribulation is behind us. It is the purpose and job of the church to establish Christ's kingdom through their missionary efforts, through the move of liberty and freedom and Western ideals. We were going to expand the kingdom of God and establish it throughout all the nations, and then Jesus would come. This is the postmillennial view.

That optimism lasted until the 1860s. What happened in the 1860s? A civil war. Then, moving into the 20th century, we had two world wars. Those two world wars and the civil war brought about a very interesting development that started in 1890: the Zionist movement. Abraham Turtzel, I believe it was, went back to the land of Israel and began to lead Jews back to their homeland. Israel had not been a people since 120 AD, following the Bar Kokhba revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Now, there was a re-gathering of Jewish people, the Zionist movement in Jerusalem and Israel.

All of a sudden, all those texts that were spiritualized by Augustine and by the postmillennial brothers, who said that Jerusalem must be the new Jerusalem, the spiritual Jerusalem, and that the church fulfills the role of Jerusalem and Israel, were challenged. Israel was not really a people, but now the people of Israel were back.

The scene sure seems like a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. In the late 1860s, on the heels of the Civil War and all the cataclysms happening in the world, there was a Zionist movement. Individuals like John Nelson Darby and the Scofield Bible played significant roles during this time. Their views on interpretation changed from postmillennialism to dispensationalism.

I need to emphasize that the conditions in the world affect the way people see prophecy. Many people like to say that dispensationalists are newspaper eschatologists, or today we might say YouTube eschatologists. Every one of them, going all the way back to Augustine, looks at what is happening in the world and thinks, "This doesn't seem to fit with the way I thought these passages would be interpreted, so there must be a different meaning." As a result, they adapt their interpretation to align with current events.

This has led to a new kind of theology emerging in the study of eschatology, transitioning from historic premillennialism to amillennialism, postmillennialism, and now dispensationalism. I would suggest that we might be witnessing the emergence of a new form right now, as there are many new developments affecting how people interpret these matters. Tom Shriner, a professor at Southern Seminary, switched from being amillennial to partially dispensational and is now promoting an inaugurated eschatology, which seems to be a new form that amalgamates different perspectives.

These movements or interpretive models change based on the events occurring in the world. This does not mean they are completely wrong; we just need to understand their origins.

So, what is dispensationalism? Dispensationalism captures much of the futurist drama of premillennialism. It reignites the old view of premillennialism by envisioning history climaxing in a series of dramatic divine interventions. A sudden gathering of the church is a new addition to the traditional premillennialism. What is this gathering of the church called? You know that one: the rapture. This is followed by a period of tribulation.

Christ's victorious return and His reign over a restored Israel are significant themes in Christian eschatology. Remember, Israel was not a nation, and there was no Zionist movement until the 1890s. Then, suddenly, on May 14th, 1948, Israel was given the opportunity to declare its independence. About six months before that, in the fall of 1947, the League of Nations facilitated this process. Subsequently, the newly created United Nations helped bring forth and declare Israel's independence. David Ben-Gurion, if you've ever heard that name before, proclaimed this momentous event just outside of Tel Aviv. Israel became a nation again.

Central to the dispensationalist view are the concepts of the rapture and the tribulation. I asked ChatGPT last night to capture for me the image of the rapture. I said, "Oh, that's great." I also asked, "Can you capture for me the drama of the tribulation?" The AI is hilariously good at this.

This brings us to the question of Cross Connection's position. Our position is one of humble orthodoxy. Cross Connection's statement of faith makes it very clear that we hold a futurist view. Let me read to you from our website: we believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ, as all Christians throughout history have. We believe in His personal, visible return to the earth and the establishment of His millennial kingdom.

By stating this, we imply that we are futurists and hold a millennial position, as well as a belief in the bodily resurrection of all humanity unto final judgment, resulting in the eternal blessing of the righteous and the eternal suffering of the wicked. That being the case, we maintain a humble orthodoxy and an open hand on these issues.

There are people who attend our church who are amillennial, and there are some who are postmillennial. There are probably many, as we grew out of the Calvary Chapel Movement of Churches and are connected with the Southern Baptist Convention. Both groups of churches are heavily dispensational. That said, and this may be a surprise to some, I am not a dispensationalist. I do not follow the dispensational view.

Now, I grew up under that. Does anybody remember Left Behind? I read the entire Left Behind series of books. So did my mom, and so did my sister. I remember we were on a vacation in southern Oregon, and we were all reading them the entire time. Nikolai Carpathia—oh my gosh! They were like page burners. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins made a fortune. Most people's interpretation of eschatology is more based on the Left Behind series or Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth from the 1970s than it is on the Bible. I know that'll bother you.

I grew up in this church and was basically under the impression until I was about 20 that the only view was the pre-tribulational rapture view, the dispensational view. Then, when I was in my early 20s, I started to study the Bible and not just Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins, and Chuck Smith. I love Chuck Smith, but let me tell you, he had an interpretive model.

As I started to study the Scriptures, something began to really concern me as a young person, 20 years old, looking forward to maybe one day getting married and having a family. I would listen to the teachers that I respected talk about the end times, and they would have this gleeful excitement when they discussed two-thirds of the world being suddenly judged and destroyed. I thought, that doesn't seem to jive with the Scriptures. I don't think we should be excited about that. Yes, billions of people suddenly annihilated—this just seems off.

So, I continued to study the Scriptures. I realized I was still premillennial, but I was not dispensational. I came to the realization that there is this historic premillennial position, which was the position of the early church and the early church fathers. It has a lot of similarities to dispensationalism, but there are some key differences. It was the view of the early church and maintains a futurist perspective, which I think you can see in the Scriptures. It seeks an optimistic eschatology.

The first statement on our website about our values here says, "We want everything we do to be done with joy because we have an optimistic vision of..."

I was really concerned by the pessimistic glee that I would see from my dispensational friends when they talked about the end of the world. I thought that we have an optimistic vision of the future. Jesus is going to come and rule and reign. He is going to wipe away every tear. There will be no more sickness or suffering. That's my joyful optimism.

I have an optimistic vision of the future that looks forward to the second coming and the advent of Christ's kingdom. The historic premillennial position seeks to not be distracted by speculative or imaginative interpretations of apocalyptic texts. It tries to let the text speak for itself.

These four views—premillennial, amillennial, postmillennial, and dispensational—allow for a biblically faithful Christian to hold any one of them. It's interesting when I go to Southern Seminary and find myself in a room with a group of different people. There are individuals from every one of these groups, and we all get along. We tell each other, "Well, you're going to figure it out. You'll see."

I will say that the two positions in the middle, the amillennial and postmillennial views, require an early authorship of the Book of Revelation. What do I mean? For the amillennial or postmillennial position, which is largely preterist, they believe that Revelation was fulfilled by Nero and the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, the Book of Revelation has to be written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Unfortunately for them, the historic and internal external evidence supports a writing of the Book of Revelation around 95 AD.

If Revelation was written in 95 AD, which all the evidence seems to support, those two positions don't work. An honest amillennialist or postmillennialist will tell you that. In fact, I just saw a conversation involving Benny Hinn's son, Costi Hinn, who is a phenomenally strong, right-on Christian and pastors a church in Phoenix. He recently had a conversation with a postmillennial guy named Jeff Durbin, who is also in Phoenix. They were sharing their views and positions, discussing the problems with each other's perspectives. Jeff Durbin said, "If the early date of Revelation is wrong, then my position is..."

That's true. I think the later date of Revelation is what the internal, external, and historic evidence points to. Irenaeus, one of the early church fathers from the early second century, said that John wrote it during the time of Domitian's reign in 95 AD. He seems to be the closest to the situation, and that appears to be the best evidence.

The premillennial and dispensational views are the ones that fit with this later writing. They are futurist in their interpretation, and there is a lot of similarity between them. However, in the post-Civil War, post-World War I, and post-World War II cataclysmic world that we live in, there are some interesting additions in the dispensational view. Dispensationalism is premillennial with a rapture twist.

So, what is this? If you're dispensational, you hold to one of, say, four or maybe five different views on the second coming. All of these views relate to the rapture and the tribulation because the Scriptures indicate a time of great trouble leading up to the second coming of Christ, which Christians have traditionally referred to as the tribulation. This tribulation period seems to be, according to the Scriptures, one week of years, or seven years, and it can be divided into two three-and-a-half-year periods, or 42-month periods. You can actually calculate the days; the Scripture does this. This is why we have this seven-year period, with one portion of it often pointed to as the second half being the great tribulation, while the first part is just the tribulation—three and a half years and three and a half years, totaling seven years of tribulation.

The dispensational view is premillennial. It believes that Jesus is going to return in a very visible, bodily return to the earth in His second coming, just as the angels told the early disciples as they watched Jesus ascend into heaven. They said, "This same Jesus, who you have seen ascend into heaven, will so come again." So, they believe He will come again. However, before that, dispensationalists believe He is going to come secretly to gather His church to Himself, an event that we refer to as the rapture.

If you're dispensational, you probably hold one of four different views. You might be pre-tribulational, meaning you believe that before the seven-year tribulation, Jesus is going to gather His church suddenly and secretly.

Mid-tribulation, before the Great Tribulation, three and a half years in, Jesus is going to gather His church. Or you might be post-tribulation; right before Jesus returns, He is going to gather His church. You might also say, "I'm pre-wrath." What in the world is pre-wrath? I'll tell you in just a moment. Alternatively, you might say, "I'm pan-tribulation." It'll all pan out. Those are the views. Every one of these views is pre-wrath.

Why is that? Jesus, through Paul, said in 1 Thessalonians 5:9, "God did not appoint us to wrath." In the context of this passage, He is speaking about Jesus taking His church like a thief in the night. He emphasizes that "God has not appointed us to wrath." So the question for the dispensationalist—whether you are pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, pre-wrath, or pan-trib—is: When is wrath poured out? That's the question. If Jesus has not appointed us to wrath, when is wrath poured out?

This is where the dividing of hairs happens in the dispensational account. For the pre-tribulational rapture believer, the entire tribulation is considered wrath. However, there's a problem with this perspective. Christians have experienced tribulation for the last 1,900 years. You are the blessed, privileged ones in America who have had freedom of religion and have not suffered persecution. So you have developed an escapist mindset. What you have experienced, you think is normal. It's not. You are privileged. Count your blessings. You are not fearful to gather together to discuss these challenging topics on a Sunday night.

Consequently, you might think that if you ever suffer, that is tribulation, and God would never let you suffer tribulation because He has not appointed you to wrath. Therefore, He is clearly not going to let you go through tribulation. However, all Christians in every place other than this, throughout all of history, have experienced tribulation. You are the abnormal ones.

So, does tribulation equal wrath? I suggest no. The mid-tribulation people argue, "Well, wrath is poured out during the Great Tribulation, so we are not appointed to wrath; therefore, the Lord is going to take us out." The questions that must be answered are: Does tribulation equal wrath? And when is wrath poured out? Those are the critical questions.

The two big questions arise for those who are premillennial, like I am, and for those who are dispensational. These are the questions you should answer. Do a Bible study, look at the Scriptures, and try to determine when wrath is poured out. I think we have to accept that tribulation and wrath are not the same thing.

If you go through the Book of Revelation, which many dispensationalists and premillennial believers take literally, you will find that one of the hallmarks of premillennialism and dispensationalism is a literalist interpretation of the Book of Revelation, as literal as possible within the genre. What do I mean? Well, Revelation is an apocalyptic genre that uses all kinds of poetic imagery, and you can't take everything literally. For example, there is not going to be a beast with seven heads that shows up on the scene literally; it represents something. Therefore, there are things we have to understand in the genre of the language.

For the most part, dispensationalists or premillennialists hold a literal timeline of the Book of Revelation. So, go through the Book of Revelation and try to identify when wrath is poured out. This is pretty simple to do. Go to Blue Letter Bible, type in "wrath," and look at all the uses of it in the Book of Revelation. You can do a study, or I can do it for you. The first time "wrath" shows up is in Revelation 6. This would seem to be right at the very beginning of all the events of Revelation, suggesting a pre-tribulation rapture.

However, you have to be a good student. Read the text and consider what it is saying. What is the perspective being given? Who is saying these things? The kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men—do you think these are the ones who really love, honor, serve, and follow God? No. Every slave and every free man hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains. Why? Because there is this great time of tribulation. They said to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne." They are trying to get away from God, from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of His wrath has come. And who is able to stand?

This is not God saying, "I'm pouring out my wrath." This is from the perspective of humanity as they are going through difficulty. They perceive this as the wrath of God. I suggest to you that this is not the wrath of God. Another time we see it is when the seventh angel sounded, and there was a loud voice in heaven saying, "The kingdoms of this world have..."

"Become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever." This is all millennial language. The twenty-four elders, who represent the church, seem to be in the text sitting before God on their thrones. They fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying, "We give you thanks, O Lord, Almighty God, the one who is and who was and who is to come, because you have taken your great power and reigned." The nations were angry, and your wrath has come. The time of God's wrath is approaching, as well as the time of the dead, that they should be judged. This is at the end when the time of judgment is coming, and you should reward your servants, the prophets, and the saints, and those who fear your name, small and great, and should destroy those who destroy the earth. This is towards the end, just before Jesus's return.

Now, the church, who is gathered with Him, or the ones who are in heaven waiting for the coming of His kingdom, are saying that now wrath is going to be poured out. This takes us to an important passage, which I think is key in Revelation. This is where my view really comes from. In Revelation 14, John says, "Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat one like the Son of Man." Who do you suppose the one like the Son of Man sitting on the cloud is? He is the same one that Daniel talked about, and He is the same one that Jesus spoke about. At the end of all these things, Jesus said, "You shall see the sign of the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great glory."

John continues, "I saw Him. He had on His head a golden crown, and in His hand, He had a sharp sickle." Now, another angel came out of the temple. This is in heaven. There is a temple in heaven and a temple on earth. John is in heaven at this point, seeing the perspective of Jesus in the clouds, and he sees the temple in heaven. Who is in the temple in heaven? God the Father. Jesus the Son is on the cloud. Now, a messenger, which means angel, comes from the Father out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud. Who is the one in the cloud? Jesus.

So, get this: a messenger is coming from the Father and saying to the Son on the cloud, "Thrust in your sickle and reap, for the time has come for you to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe." Have you ever read that parable of the reapers reaping the grain and the tares together? The harvest has come. He is thrusting in the sickle to gather the elect of the earth. So, He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped of what? The harvest of grain. But the passage continues. Then another angel came out, another messenger from the temple, which is in...

Heaven also has a sharp sickle. So imagine the scene: there's Jesus on the cloud, a crown on His head and a sickle in His hand. An angel comes out from the Father and says, "Now's the time. You did not know the hour, but this is it. Gather the elect." So He gathers His people to Himself.

Then immediately, another angel comes out with a sharp sickle. A third angel comes out from the altar, who has power over fire. He cries with a loud voice to the second angel with the sickle, saying, "Thrust in your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of the vine." Notice the difference between the harvest of the grain and the clusters of the vine of the earth, for her grapes are fully ripe.

There are two gatherings; there are two, shall I say, raptures. I hate to say it, but it might freak some people out. There is a gathering of the righteous, and there is a gathering of the grapes. The grapes of what? The angel thrusts in the sickle into the earth, gathers the vine of the earth, and throws it into the great winepress of what? Oh, the wrath of God. The winepress was trampled outside the city, and the blood came out of the winepress up to the horse's bridles for 1,600 furlongs.

So the grapes of wrath are gathered to wrath, and those of God's elect, who are not appointed to wrath, are gathered to be protected. Do you see these two gatherings here?

Now let me show you another connected passage: Isaiah 63. This is 700 to 800 years before John's revelation. Isaiah has a vision. He is not in heaven; his perspective is in Jerusalem. Imagine you are standing in Jerusalem, on the Temple Mount. Isaiah has this vision and says, "Who is this who comes from Edom?" If I am standing on the Temple Mount, where am I looking? If I am watching someone come from Edom, I am looking to the southeast. Edom, during that time, is what we know as the southern part of Jordan.

So I am looking southeast and I see one coming from that direction with dyed garments of Basra. Basra is the capital of Edom. Isaiah is standing in Jerusalem; he sees this figure coming, and his garments are dyed. He is coming from the direction of Edom and Basra, the one who is glorious in His apparel, traveling in the greatness of His strength. Who do you think is glorious in His apparel, traveling in the greatness of His strength?

Does Isaiah see? He sees Jesus. He says, "Who is this?" And Jesus responds, "I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save." Gosh, if that's not Jesus, I don't know who it could be. Isaiah asks, "Why is your apparel red and your garments like one who has tread the wine press?"

Jesus replies, "I have trodden the wine press alone, and from the peoples no one was with me. For I have trodden them in my anger and trampled them in my fury. Their blood is sprinkled upon my garments, and I have stained all my robes. For the day of vengeance is in my heart, and the year of the redeemed has come."

Jesus is now being seen by Isaiah here on earth, just as John has seen Him in heaven, just before Jesus comes and tramples the wine press of the wrath of God. Isaiah sees Him coming over the Mount of Olives, interestingly, because that is to the east. He says, "Well, there He is, returning after He has had the day of vengeance. I looked, but there was no one to help, and I wondered that there was no one to uphold. Therefore, my own arm brought salvation for me, and my own fury that sustained me. I have trodden down the peoples in my anger and made them drunk in my fury, and brought down their strength to the earth."

This is why it's so important to see the crossover in language between Isaiah, Daniel, Jeremiah, and Revelation. You will not understand Revelation if you don't read and study the Old Testament prophets, because there are hundreds and hundreds of references in Revelation to Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel. It only makes sense if you read it through the lens of Old Testament scripture.

Now, we jump back to Revelation. After Revelation 14, John has another vision in Revelation 19. He writes, "Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on him was called Faithful and True." Who do you think the guy riding the white horse is? "In righteousness, He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire. On His head were many crowns. He had a name written on that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called the Word

The written King of Kings and Lord of Lords. So how do I read the prophetic passages? I'm sure you've seen the passages in Luke 17 and Matthew 24, where Jesus says, "Two will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, the other left. Two will be in bed; one will be taken, the other left. Two will be on the roof; one will be taken, the other left."

How many of you have read that passage? You will commonly be told that this is a reference to the rapture. However, did you know that Jesus's disciples asked Him, "Where are they going to be taken, Lord?" He replied, "Where the carcass is, there the vultures will be gathered together." Those who are taken are taken as the grapes of wrath to the judgment. The next portion, after Revelation 19:16, tells that the birds will be eating upon the flesh of those who have been judged for a period of time afterward.

So, what’s my interpretation? I believe that there will be a time of great trouble leading up to the Second Coming. Jesus will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and the trumpet of God. The dead in Christ will rise to be with Him, and we who are alive and remain during that period of time will be caught up to meet Him in the air in His triumphant victory to return to the earth, just like the Roman triumph that Paul is speaking of. We will not be appointed to wrath, but we look forward to the Second Coming.

Do I think that there is a secret rapture seven years prior? I don't think there is. If you think there is, God bless you. If I'm wrong, you can tell me on our way up, "You were wrong," and I'll say, "You're right." Praise God. But I think the church has experienced tribulation throughout all its history.

Now, my interpretation may differ from yours, and that's perfectly fine. I hold it with an open hand, and you should hold it with an open hand as well. You should not divide over these issues. If you do, I don't think you're walking in line with Christ. Very solid, good, faithful Christians believe differently than I do. David Guzik does not hold my position, and we jokingly talk about it. My friend Lance Rston doesn't hold my position either. A lot of different people I know don't hold my position, and that's perfectly fine. I don't care. If you have a different view, you better know your view and be able to explain it with Scripture. Don't tell me about Nikolai Carpathia, because I might smack you.

I probably won't, but I might. Okay, let's see if anybody sent any questions in. Did I just answer everything so perfectly that you have no questions? Oh no, I got questions.

Will the third temple be built before or after the rapture? Well, you already know that I don't hold a rapture position. Is there a necessity for a third temple prior to the coming of Christ? It sure seems like it.

You should know that Israel could institute temple practices pretty much immediately if they wanted to, using a tabernacle. They already have all of the tabernacle instruments and everything built. They could put it up in an afternoon and could be offering sacrifices by the end of the week easily. They don't need a temple to offer sacrifices. They also do not need the Temple Mount. The tabernacle was in Shiloh for centuries before it moved to the temple in Jerusalem.

Now, you'll hear about the red heifer and the need for this red heifer and all this stuff. Again, this gets into all kinds of speculative things that people get freaked out about. Will there need to be a temple before the second coming? It sure seems like it.

What happened to people before Jesus came down and died for our sins? So, what happened to people who were faithful, shall we say, if they died prior to the coming of Christ? First, there's no salvation apart from the sacrifice of Christ, so His salvation is necessary. Faithful followers of God before His sacrifice in time were awaiting the coming fulfillment of the sacrifice and looked forward to the resurrection.

The best indication about what happens to them is Jesus's story in Luke 16, I believe, about the rich man and Lazarus. Jesus tells a story about a rich man who fared sumptuously. He was adorned in fine linen and purple, which means fine linen is the clothing of the priests and purple is royalty. This is the high priest's family that's being spoken of; it's very clear what He's saying.

A member of the high priest's family dies and goes to torment. I mean, if that wasn't a really crazy thing for Jesus to say, I don't know what was. Then this poor, sickly man, Lazarus, who was overlooked by the rich man, died. He was carried to a place of comfort that is referred to in the text as Abraham's.

Bosom or a place of paradise. Between torment and paradise was this gulf that no one could cross, except that the rich man was there in torment in the flames, as it says. He was able to see Abraham and the man Lazarus. This is the picture we have.

The rich man says, "Just allow Lazarus to dip his finger into the water and put one drop in my mouth because I am in torment." But he is told, "No, we can't do that. We can't cross. You had all the sumptuous things in your lifetime, and now he is comforted while you are judged." The rich man then asks, "Well, send him back so that my brothers will not come to this place." He is told, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them."

Now, the interesting thing is that Jesus raises a man named Lazarus from the dead. What does the high priest's family do? They want to kill Lazarus a second time, so they obviously didn't get the message. What happened to those people who died in faith? They went to a place of comfort. It seems that after His crucifixion, some people believe in what is called the harrowing of hell. After Jesus died, during the three days He was in the tomb, He actually goes down to this place of comfort, sets the captives free, and takes them to be with Him because to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

Next, it's true that at the rapture, God will defeat evil for good. However, Revelation makes it sound like evil will be temporarily defeated. I am not 100% sure how to answer this, other than to say this: If you hold a millennial position that Jesus will rule and reign for a thousand years, the text says that Satan is bound for a thousand years. At the end of the thousand years, he is loosed and brings back one last final battle against God. At the end, he is completely judged.

There seems to be sanctioned righteousness and no evil upon the earth during that period of time. But then there is this rise at the end, which a lot of people have many ideas about. I do not have a perfectly built theology on all that because it is a crazy thing that happens when Satan comes back and leads this army against God. Where do these people come from? That is one of the big questions that premillennialists wrestle with.

Ultimately, at the end of the thousand years comes the judgment seat of Christ, where the final judgment is brought about, and evil, death, and hell are cast into the lake that burns with fire. That is the second death. Then we live in the eternal kingdom.

There is no more sin and suffering after the millennial reign. Why is it good or useful to talk about eschatology when the Bible says we will not know the hour nor the day? That's a great question. Eschatology should inspire our hope. It should inspire our continued, persistent work for the kingdom and our honoring of the glory of God.

Jesus answers this question at the end of the discourse with three parables. He tells three parables that teach three lessons: that we, in the interim time between Jesus's ascension and His return, should be waiting, watching, and working for His kingdom. Blessed are those whom He finds doing so when He returns, that we might hear Him say, "Well done, good and faithful servant." We live in anticipation of His coming, and this is one of the keys of premillennialism. Premillennialists live in anticipation of the coming of the Lord; postmillennialists do not. They see it as their task and job to establish the kingdom here on earth.

How many of you have heard the term "Christian nationalism" in recent times? Christian nationalists generally fall into a postmillennial view, and they believe it is the job and task of the church to take over the roles of leadership of nations and to bring about Christ's rule and kingdom here on earth by their own initiative. I have real concerns about that as a Baptist because Baptists believe in the separation of church and state. We believe that we are ambassadors of the kingdom of God here on earth. This is not our eternal home; we are citizens of heaven, and we are here as persuasive ambassadors seeking to win people to Christ's kingdom, not seeking to establish His kingdom by our efforts or force. Therefore, I have a strong aversion to Christian nationalism and have real concerns about it.

Next, how should we understand the difference between Jesus's teaching in Matthew 24 and John's vision in Revelation? I think you should look for the similarities. Try to see where the overlap is between the things that Jesus is saying and the overlap with Revelation, Ezekiel, and Daniel. You could spend an awful lot of time going through the Scriptures and seeing the connection between the language, where there is prophetic language that is used.

Landmarks help us connect ideas, and as we explore these connections, things start to become a little clearer. I don't see a massive difference; rather, I see a lot of overlap between these concepts.

How has your eschatological view changed or evolved in the last 20 years, and what or who influenced that change? I think I answered that in the things I’ve said. We truly believe Christ could return at any time. How should that change the way we treat others, handle resources, and prioritize ministry? Well, that's exactly the answer that Jesus gives to that question in those three parables in Matthew 24 and 25. I would say go read Matthew 24 and 25.

I will say this: many Christians in our circle, or family of Christians—specifically Protestant evangelical post-Reformation Christians—have a lot of agreement. Even if there are differences of views on soteriology and similar topics, we share a lot of common ground. One of the things we have is an aversion to social justice. However, we must understand what Jesus says in one of His parables. Whoever gives a cup of cold water to him who is thirsty does so unto me. Those who take care of the sick, clothe the naked, or visit orphans and widows, or those in prison, as you did so unto one of the least of these, you did so unto me.

One of the things the church should do is engage in social involvement, sharing the goods of the gospel kingdom with the world. This should never negate the preaching of the gospel, but we must understand that some people argue we should simply separate ourselves from the world. They believe we should set up conclaves of Christians, isolating ourselves while they remain out there, and only when they submit to our rule can they be a part of this. I don't think that follows the impulse of the gospel. That's not what Jesus called us to do.

I have real issues with this perspective, and I have some good friends who are postmillennial. We have some good arguments.

Do you believe that once a person passes away, you can pray for them, or is their fate sealed forever? We have to go on what the Scriptures say. It is appointed to man to die once, and then comes judgment. So, either we believe what the author of the book of Hebrews says, or we don't.

I will say, and I am convinced more and more of this by the stories that I've read of near-death experiences, that God is incredibly gracious to people. Even until the last possible opportunity or moment, He is seeking to be merciful to them. However, there is a judgment, and I think we should acknowledge that the Bible makes it very clear there is a judgment and calls us to live as if that judgment is real. I don't think Jesus would teach that if it wasn't a reality.

Now, does the reality of judgment cause us to be a little bit on edge? Yes, that makes sense. Why? Because we have been created in the image and likeness of God. God is merciful and gracious, but He is also just. Therefore, justice, judgment, and wrath should be within us. It can be bothersome, and it's in that area where I say, well, I believe that God is incredibly merciful—merciful beyond what I can imagine. Yet, He will still be just.

I find it interesting that prophetic literature talks about the year of the redeemed and the day of His wrath. This clues us into something about the nature of God: His wrath is brief. It is total, but it is brief. His opportunity for mercy and grace has been very long. Why has He waited 2,000 years? He is slow to anger, and I appreciate that about God.

We won't know the day or the hour, but can we know the season? Jesus does say something about the times and the seasons. Do you think Rosh Hashanah, the end of the harvest, is the season? I think there can be a good argument for that. I won't say it is a perfect argument, but I believe there is a good argument that the feasts of the Lord described in Leviticus 23 seem to indicate the seasons of God's moving and the way in which God operates.

For example, the spring feasts that start out the year include seven total feasts. The spring feasts are the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Passover, and the Feast of First Fruits. These seem to mirror Jesus's first coming and the work that He does in His crucifixion. He is the Passover Lamb, the First Fruits from the resurrection of the dead, and He is the sinless offering—the unleavened bread, which speaks of no sin. So, that's the spring feasts.

The summer feast is the Feast of Pentecost. What happened on...

The Feast of Pentecost is when the Holy Spirit is poured out. The fall feasts, such as Rosh Hashanah, the Feast of Trumpets, and the Feast of Tabernacles, seem to have some connection to the Second Coming. I understand the argument for that, and I think there are some valid points. However, all these things break down at a certain point. At some point, it feels like they don't answer the question, so while they may be important, they also raise more questions.

Premillennialism, which refers to the thousand-year period of time, raises the question of whether it provides a second chance for people after Christ's return or if salvation is already closed. The biggest hurdle for premillennial believers, like myself, is understanding where the people who are ruled under the Church and under Christ come from when it says we will rule and reign with Him for a thousand years. That's the big question. You'll hear premillennial people give all kinds of theories about this. My friend Justin Alfred was once asked that question, and in his thick Southern accent from Mississippi, he simply said, "The back door." I thought, well, I don't think that's the answer.

The predominant view is that the judgment on the grapes of wrath applies only to those who opposed the work of Christ. However, there are many other people who are apathetic or indifferent, not actively working against Him, and they are allowed to enter this millennial reign and live under His rule. The crazy thing is that at the end of the thousand years, those same people are given an opportunity to rebel against a released devil, and they do rebel against the Lord and are judged.

So, are they given a second chance to believe in Christ? It certainly doesn't require much faith if Jesus is physically present on Earth, but apparently, they are still given the opportunity to reject Him. Again, there are many questions that remain unanswered. The Bible does not address every single question about these matters, leaving us with theories and educated guesses.

This leads to another important question: sometimes believers have used the end times to scare people into becoming believers. How do we repair the damage and share the gospel with these individuals? This is such a good question.

One of my concerns, and I thought about writing on this for a class I did years ago, is that I think there's something significant here. How many of you have been a part of Calvary Chapel for a long time? Lift up your hand. Okay. How many of you were a part of Calvary Chapel pre-1973? A few of you were a part of it.

There is a very distinct difference between Calvary Chapel from 1965 to 1972. I would call this the first version, if you will, of Calvary Chapel under Chuck Smith. The message was very evangelistic. Then something significant happened in 1972, specifically in 1973. Some of you may remember it; it's called the Yom Kippur War. The Yom Kippur War happened in 1973, and Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" came out. Not just Calvary Chapel, but many evangelical churches were impacted by this. That was the bestselling book of the 1970s.

How many of you have read it? A number of you have. I have it, and it's an interesting read. Chuck Smith's teaching dramatically changed during that period and became very eschatology-focused. The impetus for coming to Jesus shifted to escaping the coming judgment. He firmly believed and publicly stated in 1980 to 1981 that the rapture of the church was going to happen in 1981. He also believed that the second coming would occur in 1988. There was a book that came out titled "88 Reasons Why the Second Coming is in 1988."

Why did they believe this? Well, you know the parable of the fig tree: "This generation will not pass away before they see the end of these things." They interpreted a generation as being 40 years. Israel became a nation, which they considered the fig tree, on May 14, 1948. So, they believed the second coming would happen 40 years later, in 1988. Back up 7 years, and they concluded that the rapture would happen in 1981, which Chuck Smith affirmed.

There was a significant change during this time. I have talked with some friends in the fellowship who lived through that period, and they shared that they had friends who quit college, left their jobs, and put their lives on hold because they believed the end of the world was imminent. It was the end of the world as we know it. Many of that same cohort of people are not...

I am really walking strong with the Lord today. The date-setting thing really concerns me, and the fear-mongering about these events is troubling as well. Our hope and our joy are in the second coming. Our gospel initiative should not be about the end of the world coming and urging people to repent quickly. That's not the way we should approach it.

How then does the abomination of desolation play into the tribulation? It indicates that there will probably be a temple, and there will be an individual that we identify as the Antichrist who will go and desecrate a future Jewish temple at some point during that period. If you follow the timing and the days mentioned—1260 days, 42 months—the middle point of the tribulation is when that seems to happen. So, take it for what it's worth; the abomination of desolation does play into it.

Will a third temple be built before or after the rapture? I think we already addressed that one.

Now, this is a good question: will there be animals in heaven? I am going to assume yes, but the Bible is silent on this matter. Normally, we say that where the Bible is silent, we should be silent as well. However, Isaiah 11 depicts the millennial kingdom and talks about lions and lambs, and a little child playing next to a cobra's den. There appears to be animals in that future glorious time, so maybe your pet will be there waiting for you. Praise the Lord if it is! Some of you are hoping your pet will go to hell; I think that's how my wife thinks about my dog, Watson.

He'll behave nicer now. Yes, he better. He needs Jesus. I need to go preach to him.

I think I have touched on most of these topics. Oh, should we look at what goes on in Israel for future biblical events? I am trying to figure out how best to answer this because this is a hot-button issue.

The issue at this moment is understandably difficult for a number of reasons. Let me outline some of them. First, there is the Holocaust. The modern state of Israel presents a complex situation. Additionally, being Jewish encompasses a religion, a nationality, and today, a state government. This is not true for any other identity.

In America, if you speak against the American government, you are not speaking against a people by nationality. For example, if I criticize what Congress is doing or what the president is doing, which we all have the freedom of speech to do, it is not perceived as being anti-American or anti-Christian. However, if you speak against the Knesset, the Jewish ruling body of the modern state of Israel, or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, you are immediately labeled as anti-Semitic.

The problem is that there are Jewish people who speak against the Knesset and Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel because they are a democratic government, and they are a contentious government. They attempted to overthrow him two and a half years ago, and there were huge protests in the streets during that period. So, is it anti-Semitic for them to speak against him? No. This is where it gets into a very challenging area.

As a premillennial Christian, I believe that the references to Israel in the Book of Revelation should be taken literally as connected to the Jewish people, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If we hold a premillennial position, we believe that the indications regarding the nation-state of Israel will come to pass. Now, we live post-1948, so there is a nation-state of Israel.

If you look at the writings of Christians from around 1820, all references to Israel were spiritualized in the church in America, as there was no existence of a state of Israel at that time. However, we now live in a time where Israel is one of the most secular states in the world, extremely pro-LGBTQ marriage and pro-abortion. Should we say that all those things are good simply because they are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? No, we should speak out against that. Is it anti-Semitic to say that is wrong? No. These issues are really delicate.

I would be very careful about how I, as a public individual, speak about these things. You don't have to do that, but I have to be very careful because people don't hear what you say; they hear what they think you said. There's no way to explain to them what you mean.

I think we all should be a little concerned about the way things are happening with what's going on in Gaza. That is not a pro-Palestinian statement. You should have the same concern for how things are going on in Ukraine. This is a terrible thing that's happening whenever we see war played out before us.

Do the people of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Jewish people, have a right to the land? Yes, they do. It's a biblical right, and they can show clear indication going back for millennia to that. But do they get a pass for everything they do? Well, do they get a pass for their views on abortion?

Good. I'm glad to hear that. So, they clearly don't get a pass for everything they do. That doesn't mean that you're anti-Semitic to say it. It means that you're a Christian to say that's wrong.

Are they going to play a part in everything that's going to unfold before the coming of Christ? Yes, they are. And will many of them come to faith in Christ? Yes. That's the whole prayer. They will look on Him whom they have pierced, as Zechariah says.

During the millennium, will people live a thousand years, or will there be several generations of people? The passages that deal with that period of time are speaking in poetic language, so we have to understand the genre of the literature. However, it does say that like one who dies at 100 years will be thought a child. There does seem to be an indication of extended life during that period.

How should we read that? I don't know. Should we read it perfectly literally? I'm not sure. I guess we'll see. That's what we're hoping for.

Because I said that we would end at seven, I'm going to end at seven. It's over seven, but I'm going to pray and close us out tonight. I hope this has been helpful. If you have questions and want to talk to me, I'll stick around as long as you want to talk. I find this stuff pretty interesting. Thank you, John. You're very kind.

So let's pray. God, I ask that You would help us to have a humble orthodoxy in the way that we think about these things. When we have conversations with people, I pray, God, that we wouldn't be seduced into a sensational reading of these matters. We should not fall into the pattern that led to the shift from premillennialism to amillennialism, which involves this weird setting of dates.

Lord, help us to be diligent students of the Scriptures, rightly dividing the word of truth. May we hold these things with biblical reasons, but with an open hand, and not bludgeon or beat people up with them, nor divide over them. Help us to be faithful to the Scriptures and to fulfill what You've called us to do.

We should be waiting, watching, and working, so that we may hear You say, "Well done, good and faithful servants." We look forward to Your coming back. Maybe it happens in our lifetime; maybe it happens 500 years from now. We have no idea. But, Lord, to be absent from the body is to be present with You. Each of us will have our own personal second coming when we meet You, and we look forward to being in Your presence and in Your kingdom.

Until then, help us to be ambassadors of Your kingdom here and now. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen. God bless you guys. As I said, I'll stick around. If you have any questions, I would love to answer them for you. Have a wonderful week.