One of the biggest confusions I see among Christians is the way we conflate the roles of pastor, pastor-teacher and academic/professor. We take the biblical word teacher and automatically assume it means “shepherd of souls,” “moral guide,” or “discipler.” And in many passages of the Bible itself, that is indeed the intended meaning (see John 21:15–17; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 4:11–12; 1 Peter 5:2–3; Hebrews 13:17).

But that’s not the only kind of teacher there is. And it’s not the lane I’m called to walk in.

You won’t find much, if any, direct biblical support for the academic researcher type of teacher, the kind who focuses on study and instruction without the shepherding or discipling element. And that’s okay. The Bible doesn’t claim to address every vocation or role in life (though Christians often conflate that point too, which can be frustrating). We do however, see this in history and as part of the process of inspiration (think scribes and scholars involved in the process of writing the Bible or sources that the biblical writers used). And so this idea can be derived from Scripture, albeit in a somewhat indirect way.

Many people also assume that biblical studies professors or academics must be skeptics, secularists, or even hostile to the faith. Sometimes that’s true. But in many cases, it isn’t. There are faithful scholars who love Christ and the Church deeply, and their vocation is to research, study, and teach — not to pastor. Their contribution is different but still essential.

That’s where I stand.

I’m not a pastor, nor do I believe I am called to be one. My “ministry” work (which I dislike even calling it a ministry), whether through God Makes New (this personal blog where I write whatever is on my mind) or through Sanctum Priscae Fidei (my forthcoming research and learning project), is not about shepherding souls. It’s not discipleship. It’s not counseling. And honestly, I’m rethinking whether I even want Sanctum to grow into a “community,” because I’ve seen how complicated people can make that.

Instead, I see myself as a teacher in the academic sense. More like a professor. Better yet, I see myself as a fellow student who is excited about what he is learning and wants to share it. I want to discuss it. I want others to learn from me and I want to learn from others.

But my task is not to shepherd your heart.1 It’s to help you engage your mind as a fellow traveler. To research. To probe. To present. To think. And to think better, about the Bible.

That doesn’t mean I’m not a Christian. I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in the cross and the resurrection. I’m doing my best, however imperfectly, to follow him. I practice devotional reading, prayer and other spiritual disciplines. I also believe every Christian has a responsibility to disciple others and to be discipled themselves as they grow throughout life. But my way of living this out is not through pastoring. My contribution comes through research, writing, and teaching. It’s the intellectual work that builds up the Church in a different way.

And I’m not a “teacher” in the rabbinic or “master” sense. I don’t claim some hidden spiritual insight or superior moral standing. I’m as flawed and human as anyone else.

On a personal and spiritual level I do want my readers to come to or grow in Christ. But my way of doing that is, at least through this medium, to put a stone in your shoe that makes you stop, wrestle, and seek God more deeply through the use of your mind.

It’s not my job to “close the sale” or impart some wisdom for living. That’s not my focus. But people tend to treat me like that sometimes and it’s annoying as hell. Do not put me on a pedestal.

Furthermore, why must every endeavor in the Church be reduced to evangelism, discipleship, or pastoring? If no one had taken up the work of helping believers think critically about Scripture, we would have no Church fathers, no theologians, no professors in our seminaries. How do you think we came to possess our theology? It was forged by Christians gifted in the use of their minds. Men and women who studied the texts deeply, sought their meaning with rigor, and approached them not only from a spiritual or devotional angle but also with an academically disciplined, emotionally detached lens.

So here’s my request: when you read my blog, talk with me, or hear that I hold a seminary degree, don’t assume I’m your pastor. Writing about God and the Bible doesn’t mean I’m here to serve as your moral compass or spiritual guide. That kind of care and direction belongs to a shepherd. If you’re looking for discipleship, counsel, or pastoral care, seek out your pastor — that’s their calling, not mine.

If you want to learn, to stretch your mind, to explore the strange and beautiful world that shaped the Bible, then I have something to offer. Not as your shepherd, but as your guide into the texts, cultures, religions and histories that make Scripture come alive.

And that’s not because I’m some expert. Yes I have spent a fair amount of time learning and have earned some official credentials. But it’s really because I have joy in learning these things and I want others to share in that joy. People are all at different levels of learning and experience. Fellow travelers, join me to learn from each other as students of the ancient Near East and Scripture.

From strange encounters to terrifying real-life mysteries, these narratives aren’t just entertainment — they’ll haunt your imagination long after you’ve finished reading.

I have again had the pleasure of joining Niko on Myths, Mysteries and Majesty to read and discuss these true scary stories :)

I’ve been on sabbatical since June (more on that in a future post). To mark the start of it, I took a solo Jeeping and hiking trip to Sedona, AZ. But while I was there, something unexpected happened: I had a paranormal experience. If you’ve already watched the video above, you know what I’m talking about. After being reminded by a friend that I had yet to explain my story, I thought it would make a great blog post :)

When I think back on that experience, because of my training1, I can’t help but view it through the framework Dr. Michael Heiser outlined in his Aliens and Demons documentary.2

Heiser argued that what we often call “aliens” are not visitors from other planets at all, but intelligent, non-human spiritual beings. That is, members of the unseen realm (call it the spiritual realm or another dimension). These are what the Bible calls elohim (Psalm 82). Beings created by God, some loyal, others rebellious. Scripture portrays them as regional rulers or principalities and powers (Ephesians 6:12), overseeing nations or territories after God divided the peoples at Babel (Genesis 11:1-9; Deuteronomy 32:8–9). As controversial as this sounds to many Christians, the ancient people who produced the Bible (including Jesus)3 believed that these were/are powerful spiritual beings, almost like gods — more than what we think of when we think “angels” or “demons,” but not all-powerful like the triune God we trust in (they are powerful created beings).4

That means when people in Sedona sense something beyond the ordinary (which is constantly…there are some weird ducks in Sedona!) — whether they call it alien, otherworldly, or mystical — they may actually be having an encounter with these disgraced divine council members. In biblical terms, they’re not enlightened guides but corrupted spiritual rulers who seek worship, manipulate human imagination, and twist theology. They may also have certain attributes that are unique to the region they dominate (like the color green) — but that’s my own wild speculation (if you think about it, this would make sense given that the Watchers each had their specialties in knowledge that they passed on to humanity in antediluvian times — see Reversing Hermon).5

Heiser also noted that the “alien contact” movement often carries messaging that is anti-Christian: downplaying Jesus, offering hidden “gnosis,” or presenting humanity as divine. This is nothing new. It’s the old Gnostic lie repackaged in UFO language. In fact, Sedona’s blend of mysticism, New Age spirituality, and “star being” narratives6 sounds strikingly similar to the messaging Heiser warned about: a sinister reframing of spirituality that denies the uniqueness of Christ.

Even the “alien abduction” parallels such as the trauma, control and screen memories7, echo what Heiser tied to Satanic ritual abuse and demonic deception, rather than extraterrestrials conducting experiments on humans. And tellingly, he pointed out that when victims invoke the name of Christ, the experiences often stop completely, as testified to at various times (see example below from a Roswell conference).8 That fits the biblical pattern of authority over hostile spiritual forces.

“Joe Jordan and those dozen or so people who testified personally at the event… that their abduction experiences stopped when they became Christians or prayed for the experience to cease, then AT LEAST IN PART, the abduction experience is a spiritual or religious EVIL.”
— Michael S. Heiser, “Stopping Abductions with Prayer?” UFO Religions Blog, July 12, 20089

Having pointed this out, Heiser was always careful not to oversimplify by acknowledging that it is nonsense to believe millions of people worldwide who report these experiences are just lying. Something real is happening, but that doesn’t mean it’s extraterrestrial:

“It is silly to believe that the millions of people worldwide who claim to have had such experiences are ALL lying. That’s nonsense. I think they truly experienced something, but without any real evidence that can ONLY be processed as extraterrestrial, why should that be the explanation I adopt? It isn’t going to get my approval without evidence. Hence, it must be something else, and a malevolent spiritual entity is on that list.”
— Michael S. Heiser, “Stopping Abductions with Prayer?” UFO Religions Blog, July 12, 200810

At the same time, he was also cautious about turning prayer into a sort of guaranteed escape hatch. He reminded readers that Christians are not exempt from evil or suffering:

“Christians are not immune from evil in life and are given no such guarantee in the Bible. Rather, they are frequently the target and are given the promises that God will turn all such things into good (Romans 8:28–30)… The biblical picture is one of a spiritual and earthly death match being played out in symbiosis. It’s a war for hearts, minds, AND lives.”
— Michael S. Heiser, “Stopping Abductions with Prayer?” UFO Religions Blog, July 12, 200811

That perspective helps frame my own experience. If what I felt there was tied to regional spiritual rulers—the “principalities and powers” of the Bible —then it makes sense that prayer, faith, and allegiance to Christ would expose the true nature of the encounter. And yet, I also believe that Christians are not immune to darkness, but we are promised that God uses suffering and confrontation with evil as part of his greater story.

So what happened to me in Sedona? I really don’t know for sure. It felt more curious than evil. And it happened more inside my head than in the waking world (except for the voices, I heard those with my ears). I did pray for anything evil to depart in the name of Jesus Christ. And after that I did not experience anymore phenomena.

It does seem likely to me that it was part of the larger conflict Heiser described and the reality that this world is not neutral. Places can be influenced by territorial powers, and Sedona’s fascination with “aliens” may be evidence of those very powers at work.

The Bible says that while the nations are under these corrupt rulers, Israel is Yahweh’s portion12 (Deut 32:9), and through Christ, believers are rescued from the dominion of darkness (Colossians 1:13). That means the aliens of Sedona may not point to outer space at all, but to the unseen spiritual conflict described in Scripture.

In the end, Sedona reminded me of something Heiser always emphasized: the world is stranger than we think…but it is not random. Behind the “alien” stories are ancient powers still vying for influence.

.

I even remember a coworker once trying to convince me that Genesis was just a reworked Egyptian Book of the Dead. As a new Christian, I had no idea what to say. I didn’t know a thing about Egyptian funerary texts, so I stayed quiet (feeling embarrassed) and walked away unsettled, determined to do some research later.

That moment stuck with me, because the fear beneath it (and the embarrassment) was real. I was afraid of losing my faith, though I didn’t want to admit it. And I had such a high opinion of the infallibility of the Bible that I didn’t want to admit that it may not have the answers for every problem or be totally unique and better than other ancient literature.1 These fears turned into a drive to prove that the Bible was “right,” “unique,” or “better,” leading me to study apologetics. However, after being introduced to Dr. Michael S. Heiser’s content, I quickly learned that some of the logic I was using to “prove” the Bible was actually not sound (and sometimes rather ridiculous — like claims that the Bible was older than certain pagan texts — which in many cases it is clearly not — and that older meant “truer”, which is a logical fallacy, that is, chronological snobbery, i.e. appeal to tradition).2

Subscribe now

What Comparative Studies Is (and Isn’t)

Comparative study of the Bible began (more or less) in the 19th century when discoveries of Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts led some scholars to argue that Israel simply “borrowed” its stories, a view known as Pan-Babylonianism. This extreme claim was later rejected, and more balanced voices like W. W. Hallo pointed out that considering both similarities and differences between Israel and its neighbors yielded more realistic conclusions.

In the 20th century, scholars such as Hermann Gunkel and William F. Albright developed methods that highlighted Israel’s shared cultural world while also noting its distinct theology. Today, following voices like John Walton and Michael Heiser, comparative studies are understood not as a way to undermine the Bible but as a tool for recovering the ancient cognitive environment3 in which it was written. This results in helping modern readers grasp its meaning in its own world before applying it to ours.

This is why Heiser’s content was such a breakthrough for me. By way of Walton, Heiser made the case that comparative study is not about disproving the Bible. While some have used it that way, many biblical scholars now use it to recover the world the Bible came from, that is, the ideas, symbols, and categories its first hearers would have instantly recognized, but we often miss.

In his book Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, Walton writes that the Bible was not delivered in a cultural vacuum. God chose to reveal himself in a particular time, place, and world — the ancient Near East. That means Israel’s Scriptures use the language and worldviews of that time, even while often reframing them to declare something radically different about God.

Comparative study, then, isn’t about showing the Bible is “just like other ancient myths.” It’s about seeing both the shared language and the unique claims.

Why This Matters

If we forget that the Bible was written for us but not to us (a concept I will discuss in subsequent posts), we risk flattening it into our own cultural categories. That leads to things like:

• Misapplied commands — treating Israel’s ancient laws as if they were aimed directly at modern Christians.

• Distorted theology — reading Hebrew words as though their English equivalents capture the full meaning (Hebrew words often convey concepts and rich contextual meaning).

• Shallow faith — reducing concepts like covenant loyalty to modern “niceness” or “positivity.”

• Confusion and doubt — when the Bible feels “weird” or contradictory because we expect it to speak in our categories.

A First Glimpse at the Principles

In this blog series, I’ll explore some guiding principles that flow out of comparative study (many of which come from the work of scholars like John Walton and Michael Heiser). For now, here are a few to set the stage:

1. The Bible Was Written for Us but Not to Us4
   God’s Word speaks to every generation, but it was first addressed to ancient peoples in their own context.

2. Meaning Resides in the Ancient Context
   The message of Scripture emerges from the world of its first audience. We can’t shortcut that step.

3. Parallels Don’t Equal Dependence
   Similarities to surrounding cultures don’t prove copying. They show Israel lived in the same world, and sometimes God used that world as the backdrop for His revelation.

4. The Bible Engages Its World
   Sometimes it agrees with the views of neighboring cultures, sometimes it criticizes and sometimes it radically redefines, but it always speaks in terms the original audience would have understood.

Closing Thought

Think of comparative study like learning a new language. The more we enter the thought-world of the Bible’s first hearers, the more Scripture expands and becomes richer, stranger, and more alive.

This series is part of the work I’m beginning with Sanctum Priscae Fidei — a new project dedicated to exploring Scripture through ancient Near Eastern comparative studies. The goal isn’t to water down the Bible but to recover its world and its meaning as the original hearers would have understood it. By seeing Israel in conversation with cultures like Egypt, Babylon, and Canaan, we begin to hear the Bible more clearly as God’s Word spoken in the language of its time, yet carrying truth for all time.

Further Reading

Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd edition. Baker Academic, 2018.

Heiser, Michael S. The Bible Unfiltered: Approaching Scripture on Its Own Terms. Lexham Press, 2017.

Hindson, Ed, and Gary Yates, eds. The Essence of the Old Testament: A Survey. B&H Publishing Group, 2012.

Andrews, Carol, J. Daniel Gunther, and James Wasserman. The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by DayThe Complete Papyrus of Ani Featuring Integrated Text and Full-Color Images. Translated by Dr Raymond Faulkner and Ogden Goelet. Chronicle Books, 2015.

Subscribe now

Share

Just a quick note to let you know that the blog formerly known as God Makes New | The Vlogcast is now officially God Makes New | Becoming Sanctum.

Why the change?

This shift reflects the launch of Sanctum Priscae Fidei, a forthcoming dedicated research organization under the broader umbrella of God Makes New | Ministries. As the founder, I wanted to carve out a space for my voice — something more personal, more raw, and more reflective. I will officially launch Sanctum Priscae Fidei — which has a focus on ancient Near Eastern studies — in the near future.

This blog will now serve as:

• My personal blog as founder of the God Makes New ecosystem

• A space for reflection — where I wrestle with truth, meaning, and the shape of my own life

• A journal of healing — continuing the tone set by recent posts like Sitting on an Angry Chair, diving deeper into childhood trauma, reconstruction, and the slow, sacred work of becoming

The Aleph-Tav logo stays—a symbol I’ll unpack more fully later—but for now, it’s a reminder that even as names evolve, the core truth holds: God Makes New.

Thanks for walking this road with me.

— Dain

I used to play this song in my band as a teenager. I’ve listened to it hundreds of times over the years. Never really thought about what it meant. I just liked it. But this morning, on a walk — during this season of sabbatical, where I’m finally facing the weight of childhood pain and asking myself “who I want to be when I grow up” — the lyrics suddenly came alive. And they basically describe my inner world.

This angry chair — it’s where I live.
I’m angry. About a lot of things. But it’s the kind of anger that simmers just below the surface, the kind you don’t even realize is there until something wakes it up. For some of us, surviving psychologically meant toughening up — as kids, as young adults, really all throughout life. That armor helped us endure, but it came at a cost. The emotions we shoved down didn’t vanish; they just waited. And eventually, they come back — not always as memories, but as anger, depression, body aches, fatigue, autoimmune issues and more. Still, we push on. March forward. Numb. Distracted. Unaware. Always sitting in the angry chair.

But then something shifts.
I see something — that is, I become aware of something.

A figure. Familiar but distorted.
Is it me?
No… it only looks like me.

It’s a golem — in Jewish Folklore, a golem was an artificial being formed from clay and brought to life through mystical means to protect its creator, often in times of danger. Though powerful, it lacked a soul, emotional depth, or self-awareness—and over time, it could become unstable or harmful, requiring deactivation. This mirrors the psychological "false self" created in response to trauma: a protective persona designed to endure pain but disconnected from the vulnerable true self. Like the golem, this construct helps us survive but often leads to emotional numbness, identity confusion, and eventual breakdown.2

And so my subconscious created this twisted version of myself. A “thing” — to survive trauma — to be strong when I couldn’t afford to be vulnerable. But somewhere along the way, the golem took over. It began living my life: making friends, building a career, being in relationships. All while the real me — little Dain — stayed behind. Stuck. Silent. Sitting in that angry chair. Hurt. Disappointed. Hopes dashed. Betrayed. Abandoned. And furious.
Angry as hell.

This isn’t just poetic metaphor — psychology backs it up. When we’re traumatized, especially as children, a part of our subconscious can get frozen at the age when the pain occurred. To cope, we create a “false self” — a golem — to face the world. He’s charming. Adaptable. A people-pleaser. A chameleon who can read the room and become whatever is safest.3 But he’s not whole. He’s reactive. He lives to protect that wounded child, even if it means sabotaging us with behaviors that don’t serve us anymore.

And the real tragedy is that most of us have no idea we’re doing this.

For most of my life, I didn’t. I couldn’t have told you about the golem, or the false self, or the abandoned child. But now I see it. And suddenly, so much makes sense — the coping patterns, the emotional outbursts, the poor choices, the self-sabotage. I lived boxed in by pain I didn’t know I still carried, sitting in a prison of my own design. An angry box. With an angry chair. And I sat there, unknowingly ruled by the very thing I once created to save myself.

To me, this verse captures the rising intensity of my buried anger, sadness, and hurt — all of it just beneath the surface.
I’m angry because I was once innocent. I was just a little boy. Like my precious little grandson. Joyful. Free. Expressive. Happy. Protected. Loved.
Back then, life felt like a pink cloud — soft, bright, full of possibility.
But then something happened. Probably not just one thing.

Somethings that changed everything. I’m sure there are many things I can’t even remember. But little Dain remembers.

The little boy didn’t understand. He thought it was his fault — that he had made a mistake. That’s what children do in the face of trauma or abuse: they don’t know how to make sense of what’s happening, so they turn inward. They assume the blame, because believing they did something wrong is easier than facing the terrifying truth that the world isn’t safe and the people meant to protect them didn’t.

And so, from that point on, a grey cloud hung over his life.
The pink cloud vanished.
The world got serious. And so did he.
No more playtime.

But I didn’t want playtime to end. I didn’t want to grow up so fast.
But traumatized children don’t get to decide.
We grow up too soon, long before we’re ready.

And as we age, we eventually begin to understand that it wasn’t our fault. And that realization can bring a new wave of rage — not just at what happened, but at how we were left to carry it alone. Angry that no one stepped in. That no one shouldered the burden or protected us when we were too small to handle it. We had to survive on our own. And so, we did what we had to do.

But we paid for it.

Now, looking back on a lifetime, I can see it clearly:
I never really had a chance.
Pain was always waiting.
And when it finally arrived, I had to build a golem just to endure it.
A false self. A protector.
But one born from sorrow, not strength.

This is truly the experience of many. I’ve learned it’s pretty common. And that’s incredibly sad.

“I don’t mind.”
As in: Let’s just shove all this pain down where no one can see it.
We’ve got the golem now. He’s got this.
No need for help. No need to feel. No need to remember.
Just pretend it never happened.
“I don’t mind.”

And so we go on — living in a kind of false hope, clinging to the illusion that we can survive with a fractured subconscious and not have it catch up to us. But it does.
Oh, it does.

I—I—I…
The machine stutters. The record skips.
Little Dain is cracked and glitching, barely holding together.
You can see it if you look closely — the way he malfunctions around the edges.
I’ve lost my mind. And I know it.

But still, the golem? He’s a master of disguise.
He makes sure everyone thinks Dain is fine. Thriving, even.
Good enough to perform. To crush it at work.
To build a family.
To wear the titles — husband, father, professional — like armor.

And look at this life the golem has built.
It’s impressive, right?
Everything looks amazing.

I—I—I…

And so the golem builds a great life — at least on paper.
A thirty-year career in IT, marked by success, respect, and financial security.
He fathers five beautiful daughters.
But somehow, the career always seems to come first.
Maybe that’s because the golem was never built to love —
He was built to survive.

His mission was simple: protect little Dain at all costs.
But little Dain knows love.
He longs for it.
He aches to connect with these incredible girls — his own daughters —
But the golem only allows glimpses.
A few precious, fleeting moments where the real Dain shines through.

But then it’s back to business.
Back to performance.
Back to the mask.

Dain becomes dull. Numb. Bored.
Because the golem has made life into a machine —
A machine powered by productivity, achievement, and control.

And so little Dain cries in the shadows,
starving for love,
aching for affection,
longing to just be.

But the golem doesn’t know how to give love.
He only knows how to pacify pain.
So he reaches for whatever works.
Whatever it takes to keep little Dain from feeling too much.
Whatever keeps the ache at bay.

The golem ensures we’re always “strung out” on something.
Because that’s what survival looks like to him.

I think it’s interesting where the guitar solo is placed.
It sounds like all those years — from my early twenties to now — just stretching on…
long, sad, numbing years of living behind the mask.

And over time, it gets lonely.
There’s only so much the golem can do to cover it up — to pacify the ache.
Eventually, you start feeling alone in your own life.
Not just occasionally… but constantly.
Chronically.

You begin to notice the pain again, even if it’s still just under the surface.
Those old go-to solutions — the distractions, the escapes, the indulgences that used to numb you — they don’t work anymore.
Peace slips through your fingers.
Joy feels unreachable. Distant. Foreign.

I will say this, though: knowing Christ does anchor a deep, unshakable joy somewhere at the bottom of all this.
And I can’t imagine surviving this long without that foundation.
I’d hate to be someone in my shoes without Christ.

But let’s be real: simply knowing Christ doesn’t make all our pain vanish.
And I wish more people would admit that.

Too many pretend that Jesus is the magic fix for everything.
But trauma doesn’t dissolve just because you pray.4
Wounds don’t heal just because you know theology.
And pretending otherwise only adds shame to those already suffering.

I’ve been there.
After years of trying to fill the void — chasing every external thing imaginable to soothe the ache — you reach a point where you start to wonder who you’ve become.
You look in the mirror and think, “What happened to me?”
You’re not happy with what you see.
And it’s not just the physical reflection — it’s the emotional exhaustion, the mental weight, the choices you’ve made… and the regrets that won’t let go.

I’ve prayed for God to just take me.
There was a time when I wanted to die.
I didn’t see a way forward.

But thank God I kept going.
And honestly, I believe that without Christ, I might not be here.
I don’t know for sure. But He’s been the thread holding me together when everything else unraveled.

Still, what do you do when you reach that point?

Yes, I have regrets. A lot of them.
But I also know I have a big heart.
I’m not evil. I’m not beyond redemption.
It’s just that I’ve been carrying the weight of grief and pain since childhood.
And to survive, I created the golem.

But the golem made choices I wouldn’t have.
He believed lies I wish I hadn’t.
And those choices — they led to more pain.

Sometimes I look back and feel like I wasn’t even in agreement with myself.
Like Paul says in Romans 7:
“What I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do.”

So now what?
Go back to denial?
I can’t — it doesn’t work anymore.
Praying it away didn’t fix it either. Prayer helps me endure, yes, but it hasn’t erased the pain.

I’ve tried so many things — therapy, distraction, discipline, escape — all of it.
And still, here I am.
What am I supposed to do?
Stumble through life like a broken toy, painfully aware of the damage but powerless to fix it?

The old coping mechanisms are losing their grip.
They don’t numb like they used to.
And my options… they’re running out.

And the song ends here — with the boy fixated on what he’s lost.
That pink cloud of innocence he still remembers but knows he’ll never get back.
I think it’s pretty clearly a metaphor for sin and the loss of Eden.
And I believe every human being “remembers” Eden in their heart.
What I mean is: deep down, all people yearn for wholeness — for the peace of that original harmony, and ultimately, for union with their Creator.

The loss of our “pink cloud,” and the weight of life under this grey one, should drive us back home — back to God through Christ. And to solutions.
But often, it doesn’t.

Instead, our golem keeps working.
Still trying to protect the vulnerable self.
Still distracting us from the ache.
Still convincing us to chase after anything and everything “under the sun” — as Ecclesiastes puts it — just to avoid the yearning.

As I’ve said before, I don’t believe Christianity always offers a quick fix for human suffering — not in this life. In fact, it often brings more suffering. And I believe Christ warned us about that - even demonstrated to us how we might suffer well.
But it does offer something even more profound: an existential hope, and a joy that transcends our present pain.
A promise.
Christ promises to come for us — to lead us out of the angry chair, out of the angry room, out beyond the dark clouds…
And into a new, more vivid and beautiful reality than anything we’ve ever known.

That’s the new creation.
And it will come, when Christ returns.

But what about now?

Am I doomed to just keep plodding along in a broken state?

I don’t think so.
I believe there are tools — psychological, emotional, spiritual — that can help us heal even now.
Some of those tools have already helped me gain the insight I’m sharing here.
They’ve helped me name things.
See things.
Feel things.

And I know I still have a lot of work ahead of me.
But for the first time in a long time…

I feel hopeful.

Through the influence of scholars like Michael Heiser, Judd Burton, Bruce Waltke and John Walton, I’ve learned that understanding the Bible requires more than just studying it in different versions of English, or even with a knowledge of the original languages. It requires an effort to immerse ourselves in the ancient world the authors inhabited. While we cannot do this perfectly, being separated by thousands of years and because we exist in a very different culture, we can gain much benefit from the attempt.

That conviction has grown into something I’m excited to finally share.

After my graduation in August (hopefully not too long after), I’m launching a new research initiative focused on biblical context and ancient studies. It’s not a ministry, but a scholarly resource and community for anyone - pastors, students, scholars, or curious laypeople, who wants to recover the original context of Scripture and let it speak more clearly.

More soon.

~ Dain

Please like, subscribe and comment on his video. Thank you!

In this apologetic episode, we welcome Dain back on the podcast. He will help us analyze and exegete the Gospel of Mark (only the first 4 chapters for now because a thorough analysis of the whole Gospel will take a few episodes). Why Mark though? Well, there are two reasons. First - for many biblical scholars, this gospel is the oldest one so to our Muslim and skeptic friends, it makes sense to go back to it and see if Mark was teaching that Jesus was/is God. Second - If one takes into account the fact that there is a shorter version of the last chapter of Mark (16:1-8), which is understood by many to be the original one, and the longer version (verses 9-20), which is thought of as being expanded later by a scribe, then we ought to check if the first eight verses of Mark 16 teach Jesus' divinity. For whatever reason, our atheists and Muslim friends do not see one can conclude that Jesus = God unless one accepts the longer ending of Mark 16 (1-20), which is a highly erroneous conclusion since Mark speaks of Jesus' divine attributes in EACH chapter and the omitted resurrection event in Mark 16:1-8 (the shorter ending) does not affect Jesus's divinity at all!

“Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of Ish-Hai, was a great man of deeds from Kabzeel. He struck down two sons of Ariel of Moab, and he went down and killed a lion in the middle of a pit on a snowy day.” - 2 Samuel 23:20

Lion or Lioness Symbolism in Ancient Mesopotamia

In the ancient Near East, lions symbolized war, kingship, divine power, and magical protection. It was closely associated with deities, demons, and mythological creatures across various periods. Lions often served as protective guardians at temple entrances, divine messengers, or even manifestations of deities themselves. Their presence across Mesopotamian mythology reinforced their role as both feared and revered symbols of divine power.

What we see in 2 Samuel 23:20 & 1 Chronicles 11:22 seems to be elite warrior class men, who have taken on the image or attributes of a lion as part of their fierce countenance. This verbiage of "two lion-hearted men" of Moab (הָאֲרִיאֵל מוֹאָב, ha'ari’el Mo’av) could be taken as literal nephilim-style lion-like warriors or a reference to a legendary class of human warriors.

• The meaning of Ariel disputed amongst scholars

• “אראל is a term for a distinguished warrior even though the more obvious literal rendering might be “lion of God” or “very great lion” - a “technical term applied to military leaders.”1

Join Niko, Shaun and I as we discuss this topic on Myths, Mysteries and Majesty.

“The etymology of this word might suggest a translation ‘lion of god.’2 - Hebrew words ʾărî and ʾēl, ‘the-lion-of-God.’”3

“warrior from Moab, lion-like person, i.e., a very great ferocious warrior…brave formidable soldier, i.e., the best, champion warriors”4

Lions & Lioness Deities, Images, etc.

• Symbol of Warlike Deities and Kings – The lion was a metaphor for warrior-kings and fierce gods, especially Ninurta (Nisroch) and Inana (Ishtar). It was also linked to Ningirsu in Sumerian tradition.5

• Magical Protection – The lion was viewed as a protective force. Lion figurines were buried in foundations or placed in homes for magical defense against sickness and evil.

• Lion-Hybrid Creatures:

  • Lion-Centaur (Urmahlullu) – A lion-bodied, human-torso creature protecting against demons.

  • Lion-Demon – A hybrid with a lion's head, donkey ears, and bird feet.

  • Lion-Dragon (Lion-Griffin) – Male deity or demon appearing possibly linked to certain gods.

  • Lion-Humanoid (Uridimmu) – lion's lower body and a human upper body, connected to a god (Marduk) as a protective minor deity.

  • Lion Skins in Rituals – Priests may have worn lion skins in rituals, possibly imitating certain gods - Gilgamesh. Dain - is there an element of transformational-shape shifting? Shamanism? Heracles (Hercules), from Greek mythology, gains invulnerability after slaying the Nemean lion and wearing its skin.

For more sources and information refer to the video.

My long term goal is to achieve at least a master’s degree in biblical studies and then go on to a ministry in research, writing and teaching. It is possible that a PhD is included in that long term goal, but I do not want to get ahead of myself.

Drilling down on that a bit more, I have received training from a number of schools, but it is primarily two institutions where I am focusing; Christian Leaders Institute (CLI) and Redemption Seminary. My current goal is to achieve an Associates of Divinity from CLI and a Master of Arts in Biblical Studies from Redemption Seminary before the end of 2025.

I will be receiving mentoring for the discipleship and church history courses at Redemption Seminary beginning in January. Then I will begin my final project, which will be focused on ministry planning, by mid-August. After that, I will finish up the ADiv at CLI.

My ministry purpose is slowly taking shape. It’s focus will be around the life of the Christian mind. In other words, intellectual pursuits in biblical studies. This might involve teaching biblical interpretation, apologetics or comparative studies to name a few areas. The goal is to equip believers with better tools for Bible study and better thinking about the Bible, all towards the end of producing maturity and a better understanding, including skills for extracting meaning from the text and discovering how to apply it. It’s still taking shape and these are only high level thoughts of mine at this time. It could definitely change and will become more specific and narrow.

There are three primary reasons for the delay (as I was planning to finish up in 2024). First, is that I had to find a new job. The company I had worked for was acquired and the changes were not acceptable to me, so I found something more in line with my goals. Of course, changing jobs can be disruptive and I am having to do a lot of learning, which of course, expends mental energy. Second, is that I have had a number of health issues that have resulted in chronic fatigue. It makes it hard to find the energy for all that I have to do. Third, is that I have been working through some childhood trauma issues and relationships with my family of origin. It’s been quite difficult, and I have had to make some difficult decisions. Once I am finished with my degrees, I plan to take some time to write about some of that here. And healing from childhood trauma might be a focus area or a second offshoot ministry. Will see what happens.

If the reader is so inclined, I would appreciate your prayers. Thank you for reading, and please reach out to me with any questions/comments etc.

~ Dain

Summary

2Dr. Michael Heiser discusses the roots of the deity of Christ in the Old Testament, emphasizing the concept of binitarianism and its evolution to trinitarianism. He highlights the Jewish theological notion of Two Powers in Heaven, where one figure is identified with Yahweh, creating a "two but yet one" dynamic. Heiser examines passages from the Old Testament, such as the Angel of the Lord and the Word of God, which suggest a divine presence in human form. He also explores the use of the term "name" to refer to Yahweh and the interchangeable use of Yahweh and the Holy Spirit. These biblical themes influenced early Christian theology and the understanding of Jesus as God incarnate.

Insights

• How could a Jew affirm the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) and also believe that Jesus was God?

• Who was in the burning bush in Exodus 3?

• Why would Israelites look at the Ark of the Covenant and call it "Hashem" (the Name)?

• How would a Jew imagine the other two persons of a Trinity without Jesus?

Outline

Deity of Christ and Old Testament Roots

• Michael Heiser introduces the topic of the deity of Christ and its roots in the Old Testament.

• Heiser emphasizes that the concept of the deity of Christ is not new but has strong roots in the Old Testament.

• The discussion will cover binitarianism in the Old Testament and its connection to trinitarianism.

• Heiser plans to show how Jews and early Christians viewed the Old Testament and the concept of the Godhead.

Divine Plurality and Monotheism

• Heiser reviews the concept of divine plurality and its compatibility with monotheism.

• He explains that for Jews, the idea of divine plurality did not conflict with monotheism.

• The discussion will explore how Jews could mentally reconcile the claims of the apostles about Jesus being God incarnate.

• Heiser reiterates that Yahweh was unique among Elohim and that one of the Elohim would be identified with Yahweh.

Jewish Theology and Two Powers in Heaven

• Heiser introduces the concept of Judaism's two powers in heaven doctrine.

• He explains that Jewish theology before Christianity had the notion of two powers in heaven.

• The Israelite Godhead and the Shema are discussed, highlighting the tension between monotheism and the concept of two powers.

• Heiser uses John 118 to illustrate the complexity of affirming both the Shema and the deity of Jesus.

Angel of the Lord and the Name of God

• Heiser discusses the Angel of the Lord and the use of the name of God in the Old Testament.

• He explains that the Angel of the Lord is often identified with Yahweh, creating a sense of two but yet one.

• The concept of the name of God being another way to refer to Yahweh is explored.

• Heiser uses examples from the Old Testament to illustrate the interchangeable use of Yahweh and the Angel of the Lord.

Theological Implications and Jewish Perspectives

• Heiser discusses the theological implications of the Angel of the Lord and the name of God.

• He explains that the Angel of the Lord is Yahweh in human form, creating a sense of divine embodiment.

• The concept of the Word of God being visible and embodied is explored.

• Heiser introduces the idea that the Old Testament contains suggestions of a Godhead that is Yahweh, two but yet one.

Biblical Passages and Their Implications

• Heiser reviews various biblical passages that suggest a Godhead in the Old Testament.

• He discusses the use of the term "Word" in the Old Testament and its implications for Christology.

• The concept of Yahweh riding the clouds is explored, highlighting its use in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

• Heiser explains how the Old Testament writers used titles and phrases to make theological statements about Yahweh.

Daniel 7 and Its Significance

• Heiser discusses the significance of Daniel 7 in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

• He explains how the passage is used to illustrate the concept of two powers in heaven.

• The use of the term "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 and its implications for Christology are explored.

• Heiser explains how Jesus quotes Daniel 7 during his trial, highlighting its theological importance.

Theological Speculation and Early Christian Thought

• Heiser discusses the theological speculation among Jews before Christianity about the identity of the second Yahweh.

• He explains that early Christians used the Old Testament to articulate their beliefs about Jesus.

• The concept of the Holy Spirit being interchangeable with Yahweh and the Angel of the Lord is explored.

• Heiser explains that the Old Testament provides a foundation for understanding the Trinity in the New Testament.

Implications for Modern Theology

• Heiser discusses the implications of the Old Testament's Godhead concept for modern theology.

• He explains that the concept of divine plurality does not contradict monotheism.

• The discussion includes the implications for Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses.

• Heiser emphasizes the importance of understanding the Old Testament's contributions to Christian theology.

Conclusion and Teaser for Next Session

• Heiser concludes by summarizing the key points of the discussion.

• He emphasizes the importance of understanding the Old Testament's contributions to the concept of the deity of Christ.

• A teaser for next week's discussion is provided, focusing on Jewish speculation about the identity of the second Yahweh.

• Heiser encourages participants to think about how Jews might have imagined the Trinity without Jesus.

Summary

2Dr. Michael Heiser discusses the concept of the Jewish Godhead as depicted in the Old Testament, challenging the assumption that the Old Testament cannot support the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. He argues that the term Elohim, commonly translated as "God," is used in the Hebrew Bible to describe multiple divine beings, including angels, demons, and the divine council. He highlights the importance of understanding the context in which these terms are used, emphasizing that the placement of a being in the spiritual realm determines whether they are considered an Elohim. Heiser contends that recognizing divine plurality within the Old Testament can facilitate Jewish evangelism and provide a foundation for understanding the transition from Jewish to Christian theology.

Insights

• The challenge of reconciling divine plurality with monotheism in the Old Testament.

• The difficulty in explaining Jesus as God to Jewish people while maintaining monotheism.

• The issue of English translations obscuring the use of the term "Elohim" in the Old Testament.

• The concern that traditional understanding of monotheism doesn't align with the Old Testament usage of "Elohim".

• Is there more than one Elohim that is real or that exists?

• Are you a monotheist if you believed in more than one Elohim?

• Do you believe in a single unique Elohim in the entire spiritual world?

Outline

Understanding the Jewish Trinity: Introduction and Aims

• Michael Heiser introduces the topic of the Old Testament and the Jewish Godhead, emphasizing the aim to explore this concept without reference to the New Testament.

• Heiser outlines the benefits of understanding this concept, including Jewish evangelism, apologetics, theology, and continuity between the Testaments.

• Heiser explains the challenge of divine plurality and its historical context in Judaism, noting that belief in two powers in heaven was normative until the end of the second century.

• Heiser mentions various groups, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, who present challenges to the Christian understanding of the Godhead, and how the Old Testament can be used to address these challenges.

• Challenges from Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons

• Heiser discusses the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, who deny that Jesus is a deity, and Mormons, who see many gods in their Bible.

• Heiser criticizes the academic view that the New Testament authors invented the concept of the Trinity, arguing that it is consistent with the Old Testament.

• Heiser emphasizes the importance of biblical continuity and interpretive clarity, suggesting that the Old Testament provides context for understanding the New Testament.

• Heiser mentions the need to address weird passages and the importance of contextualized theology, which involves thinking like an ancient Israelite.

The Concept of Elohim and Monotheism

• Heiser introduces the term Elohim, explaining its frequent use in the Old Testament and its various applications, including the God of Israel, gods of the nations, and demons.

• Heiser presents a monotheism test, asking if there is more than one Elohim that exists, and discusses the tension between the use of the term Elohim and monotheism.

• Heiser explains that Elohim refers to the spiritual world and is not tied to a specific set of attributes, which is why more than one thing can be called Elohim.

• Heiser argues that the biblical writers did not attach a specific set of attributes to the word Elohim, and that understanding this can help Christians communicate with Jews about the concept of Jesus as God.

Divine Plurality and the Shema

• Heiser discusses the concept of divine plurality and its relationship to the Shema, emphasizing that Yahweh is inherently superior and in command.

• Heiser explains the sonship language used in the Old Testament, which applies to both Israel and the king, and how this language can be used to introduce the concept of Jesus as the Son of God to Jews.

• Heiser references Psalm 82, explaining that the Elohim in this psalm are not the Trinity but divine beings who are judged by Yahweh.

• Heiser argues that the Shema does not contradict divine plurality, as it is a statement of Yahweh's uniqueness and incomparability, not a denial of the existence of other elohim.

The Role of Yahweh and Other Divine Beings

• Heiser explains that Yahweh is the supreme Elohim and that other divine beings are subject to him, emphasizing that this does not threaten monotheism.

• Heiser discusses the concept of Yahweh as both invisible and visible, and how this is reflected in the Old Testament.

• Heiser argues that the Old Testament provides categories for understanding the concept of two divine beings, which can help Jews understand the Christian concept of the Trinity.

• Heiser criticizes scholars who present the New Testament as an invention of the early church, arguing that they are ignorant of the Old Testament context.

Conclusion and Teaser for Next Week

• Heiser summarizes the key points discussed, including the importance of understanding divine plurality and the uniqueness of Yahweh.

• Heiser teases the next week's topic, which will explore the concept of the two powers in heaven and how it relates to the Old Testament.

• Heiser emphasizes the importance of contextualized theology and understanding the biblical writers' use of terms like Elohim.

• Heiser concludes by encouraging participants to think like ancient Israelites and to use the Old Testament to address challenges to the Christian understanding of the Godhead.

This is a conversation space in the Substack app that I set up exclusively for my subscribers — kind of like a group chat or live hangout. I’ll post short prompts, thoughts, and updates that come my way, and you can jump into the discussion.

To join our chat, you’ll need to download the Substack app, now available for both iOS and Android. Chats are sent via the app, not email, so turn on push notifications so you don’t miss conversation as it happens.

How to get started

1. Download the app by clicking this link or the button below. Substack Chat is now available on both iOS and Android.

Get app

2. Open the app and tap the Chat icon. It looks like two bubbles in the bottom bar, and you’ll see a row for my chat inside.

3. That’s it! Jump into my thread to say hi, and if you have any issues, check out Substack’s FAQ.

Join chat

Carey does an amazing job comparing aspects of the White Fang story to the idea of allegiance in evil/rebellious gods of the nations vs faithfulness or believing loyalty in the one true God. There is a summary of the episode farther down this page. To listen to the full episode, simply click play:

Carey talks about the Divine Council, which is a theme in biblical theology made popular by Dr. Michael S. Heiser. You can learn more about this particular thread of theology on Heiser’s website and in earlier episodes on Carey’s podcast.

Bible Passages:

Genesis 1:1; 26-28; 2:7; 2:15-17; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; 10:19-21; 1 Thessalonians 1:9

Summary:

Show notes and the full transcript can be found here. This summary was generated with the help of ChatGPT.

The podcast "Genesis Marks the Spot" hosted by Carey Griffel delves into various aspects of biblical theology, “raiding the ivory tower” if you will, without undermining faith.1 In this episode, Carey discusses monotheism, the Divine Council, believing loyalty, and even references the book "White Fang" in connection with biblical theology.

Carey addresses concerns some may have about the Divine Council impinging on God's character or sovereignty but emphasizes the importance of interpreting scripture accurately without imposing personal biases. She introduces concepts like hermeneutics and exegesis to explain the methods of interpreting biblical texts and emphasizes the necessity of understanding the cultural context of ancient literature.

Carey also touches on the multifaceted usage of the English word "god" in different contexts and its significance in biblical interpretation, emphasizing how our understanding of the term varies depending on the context in which it's used. When encountered in biblical texts, "god" typically invokes the idea of the supreme creator, while in other contexts like mythology or cartoons, it may carry different connotations. However, Carey points out that the Bible doesn't make this distinction inherently.

She delves into the Hebrew Bible, where the most common term for God is "Elohim," seen in Genesis 1. Moving into Genesis 2, the term shifts to "Lord God," with "Lord" representing "Yahweh." This transition signifies a shift from a general relationship of God to creation in Genesis 1 to a more specific, covenantal relationship with Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. Carey suggests that this change reflects God's interaction with humans within a covenantal framework.

Next, Carey goes deeper into the term "Elohim," challenging common interpretations by providing a detailed word study. Again, she warns that without understanding the ancient context, it's easy to misinterpret the term. Carey highlights an outlier in its usage when it refers to the spirit of the deceased Samuel in 1 Kings 28, causing confusion regarding its application to humans.

Carey proposes viewing "Elohim" not as an ontological term defining creatures but as a place of residence term, implying beings dwelling in the spiritual realm rather than the mortal realm.2 This perspective helps reconcile seemingly contradictory uses of the term, such as referring to humans as "Elohim" in certain contexts, particularly human judges in Exodus. Carey argues that this usage doesn't equate humans with God but rather indicates a representation of God's interests on Earth.

Despite discomfort with using "Elohim" for both God and other spiritual beings, Carey asserts that it doesn't imply equivalence. She defends the English translation of "god" for both Yahweh and other divine beings, emphasizing that the word "god" holds specific meaning in language and context, as illustrated through the example of Jack London's "White Fang."

Carey then provides a detailed synopsis of Jack London's "White Fang" and draws parallels to biblical theology. White Fang, a wild-born part-dog part-wolf, survives in the wilderness with his mother, Kiche, until they encounter Gray Beaver and his tribe. Kiche's loyalty to Gray Beaver prompts her return to the tribe, and White Fang follows suit. However, life among the tribe is harsh for White Fang, as he faces persecution from other dogs and cruel treatment from humans.

Despite the hardships, White Fang's loyalty to Gray Beaver persists due to the power the humans hold over him. This loyalty is what truly makes them his "gods," rather than just their power. Carey highlights passages from the book that depict White Fang's obedience and attachment to Gray Beaver, showing how his bondage to the humans shapes his behavior and worldview.

Ultimately, White Fang's bond with Gray Beaver softens him and weakens his ability to fend for himself when he is left behind by the tribe. Carey emphasizes White Fang's loss of independence and his struggle to adapt to life outside the human camp, drawing attention to themes of loyalty, power dynamics, and the impact of bondage on identity and behavior.

Carey then explores the relationship between White Fang and his human masters, drawing parallels to the concept of faithfulness and allegiance in biblical theology.

White Fang's submission and loyalty to his human masters, whom he refers to as gods, are highlighted as fundamental aspects of his relationship with them. Carey emphasizes that it's not merely their power over him that makes them gods, but rather White Fang's willingness to offer his loyalty and obedience to them.

The distinction between faith as a mental agreement and faith as believing loyalty or allegiance is discussed, with Carey suggesting that the latter perspective aligns more closely with biblical teachings. This concept is likened to the relationship between White Fang and his gods, where obedience and loyalty play a central role.

Carey also explores the idea of symbiosis in religious relationships, contrasting it with the grace-based relationship Christians have with God. White Fang's interaction with his gods is portrayed as transactional, with each party fulfilling certain needs of the other. However, Carey emphasizes that the Christian concept of grace stems from a relational, rather than transactional, dynamic with God.

Furthermore, Carey reflects on how White Fang's experiences with his gods shape his personality, particularly his aggression, highlighting the profound influence that relationships and experiences can have on one's character.

Finally, a question posed by Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass regarding the nature of God and the existence of other gods in different religious traditions, and an analysis of Dr. William Lane Craig's response, provides further insight into theological discourse and its implications for missions and apologetics.

Overall, Carey’s examination of different theological terms such as monotheism, polytheism, henotheism, and monolatry, and their application to the biblical context, sheds light on the complexity of understanding divine beings in various religious frameworks. The discussion on worship versus veneration adds another layer to the understanding of devotion and allegiance. Carey uses the story of White Fang to explore themes of loyalty, obedience, and the nature of religious relationships, drawing insightful parallels to biblical theology and the concept of faithfulness. Her exploration of the protagonist's journey from loyalty to false gods to finding true loyalty and understanding of love is thought-provoking.

Episode 25 of Genesis Marks the Spot offers a rich exploration of theological concepts and their practical implications for believers. Please head over to genesismarksthespot.com and subscribe!

This last session focuses on possible timing of the Rapture followed by a question and answer session. These videos were obtained from the Salvation Through Faith YouTube Channel. Please go out to their channel, subscribe and like some videos to show your support. Transcript is below. Enjoy!

Transcript:

Michael Heiser 0:12

Let's pray. And then we will jump in our Father, we thank you for receiving for those who were able to come, pray that You would give me clarity of thought. And that we would be able to think through some of these things. Help us in our own minds to parse these things out and deepen our interest, our commitment to finding the information, we need to know that the things that you've put in your word for us to discover, help us to be energized, again, just be driven to tap into those truths. And then to apply them to ourselves, but always be charitable toward others. Your name we pray, amen. Okay, the first slide, of course, tells you what we're going to talk about tonight, I decided after, I can't say much deliberation, it just sort of hit me today. At the end, if we have time, I have a couple of slides that I will share a few you know what to call them? A few thoughts with you, sort of by way of summary, but also to, to let you know, a little bit of the things that I feel I'm able to tell you that I'm fairly convinced of you're pretty well convinced. And then, you know, some of the things I'm still waffling on as far as some aspects of at times, because you know, a number of people have asked, you know, we, you know, what do I think so I'll give you a few of those. And I'll try to walk you through why I put the things in the list that I did a little, it'll just be a few points. It's not going to be a full blown. Here's what what Mike thinks. But I think it might be a little helpful. And we can catch a few things, too, that we only really touched on in passing. But I think there's some core ideas that that are pretty evident in Scripture. And if we sort of zero in on those, you can sort of build on them as well. We'll get to that at the end. And hopefully we'll have a little more time for q&a If there is if there are any questions. So I want to sort of approach the rapture timing issue from the perspective of what is the hope of each system. So again, if you, if you're someone here who doesn't believe in a rapture, I don't want you to feel left out of the discussion. So I wanted to have this slide so that you can sort of compare and contrast where everybody's at. Because in the first week, I thought, a good way to frame the question someone asked, well, you know what, you know, what is someone who doesn't, you know, leaving a rapture believe in the kingdom or whatever? What is their hope? You know, what are they looking forward to? So I want to start here and give you that brief overview. And then we'll zero in on the systems that split this the coming of Christ, the return of Christ into two events, like we talked about, on the second week, are you a splitter Joiner. And then last week, we hit the seventh eighth week of Daniel, which ties into that, and both of those things will factor into very naturally what we talked about tonight. So the first position here, preacher and pre mille, I'm guessing most of you are probably that it's very common tradition within evangelicalism. That view says, well, here I am, and we're somewhere in the here and now and somewhere out there, there's going to be a rapture. And then after the rapture, there will be this seven year period. We'll call it tribulation. After that is the second coming. And then there is a 1000 year millennial kingdom on earth. And then after that, we have the eternal state, new heaven and new earth, whatever it is, you want to call it, by whatever phrase and so the hope of this system is a rapture that is preceded by nothing in the way of signs. Remember, last week, we talked a little bit about imminence. It's easy to sort of define imminence. One way if you have this seven year period that you think is the last week of a 70 week cycle. Okay, there's a certain timing that goes with that. And if you see clear borders here, there are things that you associate with the prior event and the second event. And really the signs that Jesus talks about, this system puts in here, preceding the second coming, but nothing preceding the rapture. This is the only system that defines eminence as nothing needs to occur before this event in the prophetic calendar, all the other systems would say that some of the signs that the preacher pre mill puts in here, if we remove this event, then very naturally, there are things to look for, on the way to, you know, the blessed hope, which would be, you know, their systems, their rapture event in here or no rapture at all in a second coming. But in this system here is what is usually thought of as the blessed hope being removed from the tribulation taken with the Lord. And then the events here play out on earth. And the Lord returns seven years later. Now, the mid trib position has the seven year block and right in the middle is when they say the rapture happens. So in this system again, you will you will read those who take this position as describing certain things that you could possibly detect in terms of signs and things that will happen to let you know that the tribulation has begun. And once you see the beginning of the Tribulation, then you know, it's three and a half years from that point. So you know when the rapture is going to happen, and then obviously, because you can do the math, okay, three and a half and three and a half, you know, when the Second Coming is coming right after the seven year expires. So this system would not define imminence as there's nothing to look for blink of an eye, okay, this is the this here is the only system that does that. Then of course we have the kingdom and the new heaven and new Earth eternal state. Now, this one you may not have heard of the most familiar positions of rapture positions are pre trib, mid trib, and then post trib. I'd say in the last maybe 2025 years, maybe a little longer. Mar Marv Rosenthal, who was very active in ministry to Jews and Jewish Christians came up with a different view called the pre wrath Rapture. It's sort of like the mid trib, there are a few differences. We have a tribulation period, just after the midpoint, after the midpoint sometime after the midpoint, we don't really know that second, three and a half years, in that second, three and a half years, then the rapture can happen at any time, any moment. So we have to have, we have to pass the midpoint. The Rapture occurs after the three and a half years expires. And then we have a second coming millennial kingdom and then the eternal state now, this is called pre wrath because it does not equate the full seven years with the Great Tribulation. The Great Tribulation in this system is a smaller unit of time that begins and is really triggered by events in the middle of the 17th week of Daniel, namely the abomination of desolation. So once that happens, once you pass the midpoint, then the Lord can kind of come back at any time. And he's coming back again with the purpose of taking the Christians off the earth. Because there's going to be a terrible, terrible time of extreme persecution within the second three and a half years but not equated to the second three and a half because then he'd be a mid tripper. He's a he has a pre wrath theorist, hence the name. Post trib again has the seven year tribulation. At the very end of it, we have the rapture comes down in the air takes believers up and comes right back down again. In the second coming, so that happened, that transpires right at the end of the seventh eighth week of Daniel, again, all these systems assume that the tribulation period is the seventh eighth week. We talked about that assumption last week. And there's no verse for it. But it's it's an argument built on other considerations. So right at the end, we have the second coming and again, the kingdom and the eternal state. All of these positions are splitters. They have two events wrapped your second coming. The difference between them is the timing and the spacing between the two events.

They will I largely make the same assumptions, they will take certain passages, slightly different ways to get this variance, as far as the timing and the spacing. This view down here, referred to as the historic pre millennial position, does not believe in a rapture. The blessed hope for this position is the second coming a single event. Again, be here, it's the rapture it, the hope is that I'll be out of here, when all this bad stuffs happening. Now, you know, when you get to the post trip, it's like, well, you know, we went through it anyway, you know. So you can't really call the rapture the blast at Hope. But the hope really, you know, focuses on the end, like the historic primo position, what the differences are, you still have two events here, even though they're virtually back, you only have one here. And there's really no interest or no need is probably a better way to say it. There's no need to have a precise seven year period preceding Second Coming. It's a lot more variable or flexible. But you have the second coming kingdom, and new heaven and new earth, the our millennialist. Same hope as the historic pre mill, the second coming. And then after that is the new heaven and new earth that we don't have a 1000 year kingdom set up and then the eternal state, it's all the same thing. So this is mill now. These two are somewhat close. But what the fundamental division is, is that since the historic pre mill position has this little element, this millennial kingdom, they're going to insist that when Jesus returns, he actually governs on Earth, again for the specified 1000 years hence, it's a it's a millennial position. It's one of the millennial positions in the Amil system. They view the millennial language as referring to the here and now the church the age we're in now is the kingdom. And that's all there is. Whereas the historic PRI mill says, Well, yeah, you know, we're, in some sense, the kingdom is here, but there's going to be a future time after Jesus comes back, that he will actually set up a system of government honors and rule on the earth. And that's sort of the fundamental distinction, even though there's there's a lot of overlap here. Now, all rapture positions, presume certain things, they need to split second coming passages into two events. That was week two. They all characteristically have, again, this literal Millennial Kingdom idea, historic pre milled does to without a rapture, but all the rapture positions are going to have that the prophetic tribulation period, what I mean by that is, again, some, they're going to take some statements in the Old Testament, Daniel nine is probably the most obvious but they're going to take language in the Old Testament as specifying a specific period on Earth, as a time of great tribulation that could essentially be mapped out and the 73 could Daniel's really important for that, because of the whole timetable that it is presumed to lay out. The other thing they assume is a mostly, there's some variants here. And this is part of the reason why you get a pre amid a pre wrath or a post trib Rapture. The progression of events in the book of Revelation, if you've read the book of Revelation, I imagine most of you have probably a number of times, there are sealed trumpet and bowl judgments. There's a difference of opinion as to whether they're all in linear sequence. You got the seals, and then the trumpets of interval, you know, just the whole sequence? Or if some of them overlap with each other. And then the question becomes, which ones and how many. But all of those positions have the assumption that there is indeed a linear progression of events in the book of Revelation that you're supposed to read Revelation, as though it is unfolding linear time, but in the future. Now, you can catch that. I'm saying it that way, because a lot of people don't think revelation is supposed to be read in a linear fashion. Most of those, I don't want to say all but I'm almost willing to say anyone who takes that sort of position You can pretty much rule a rapture out, they're going to be Amil or historic pre mill, because they do something different with the Book of Revelation, I'll show you in a moment. Now, most rapture positions, presumed the following. So this isn't, we're not unanimous here, but most of them will make an equation of the seventh eighth week with the tribulation period. The exception is the pre wrath view. For them term tribulation, or Great Tribulation is not seven years. It's a portion within the 70th week of Daniel. So there's not a one to one equation there. Also, most rapture positions do acknowledge that there will be signs to look for either before the rapture, depending on how far into the 70th week you put the rapture, there might be things to look for. Or the second common again, the exception is the pre trib pre mil, that's the only view that's going to define imminent says, there is just nothing that needs to happen before the rapture could happen. That view is is the exception. Timing factors. Here, we sort of get into what we'll take a brief look at tonight. The belief that the tribulation period judgment is only for the Jews is an important factor. In the timing question, you know, in other words, how is any of it for Christians? Or is none of it for Christians? And this is a period of judgment. Okay. And so, does the church go through any of it? Or part of it? And which part? How long? Okay. So this whole issue is, is is quite significant. As far as what you think, what's the relationship between these two events, the rapture, and the second coming. This is again, tied to the seventh eighth week, again, the presumed quest connection, because for some, this period is seven years and the church is entirely divorced from it. For others, it's part and the church, either is still divorced from it or goes through part of it again, it just, it just depends. Now, here, here's why the questions raised if you link, the seventh eighth week, to the tribulation, think about what we looked at last week, what Daniel nine says in verse 2470, weeks are determined upon who somebody fill in the blank for me, determined upon thy people. And I city. Okay, and speaking of Daniel, it has to be for the Jews and for Jerusalem. So the assumption is that, as the angel describes, the seventh eighth week in verse 2027, is when we have the abomination and all this terrible destruction happens. That if all the other weeks were for Israel, and for Jerusalem, that stands to reason that the 70th week, which again, is presumed to be this tribulation time, it stands to reason that that week also is predictive of events that will happen specifically to national Israel. And its people. That's very logical thing to presume, because that's true. And because we can't equate national key term national Israel and the church, because those are two different things. The assumption is that the church is not going to endure the suffering of the Tribulation, it's somehow out of the picture. There are rapture positions that don't buy that entirely. Again, if you move the rapture into the tribulation, then you either have to redefine the tribulation, like the pre wrath position does as a little part of the second half. Or you have to say, you know, I think the church is going to suffer too. You got to make one of those two choices. But the question is raised because of Daniel 924 70, weeks determined upon by people and thy city, and then you extrapolate from that. So this is a big deal, and an area where there's going to be disagreement.

Again, the issue of the sequence and overlap of the judgments in the book of Revelation is going to Have you factor presence or absence of the church in Revelation four through 18. And here's what I mean by this in Revelation one through three. That is the message that Jesus gives to John about the various churches in Asia Minor. So a lot of the discussion is about churches. One of the arguments I'll show you in a second is that after chapters four, you don't have the word church, show up in the book of Revelation. In fact, verse one of chapter four says, After these things I saw and and stuff going on in heaven. And so the assumption is that there's a transition in Time and events where the church was part of the picture here. And then once we hit chapter four, when John starts getting information about the future, the church is not in the picture anymore. So this issue is the church present or absent? There's other views, you're gonna say it is in chapters four through 18, I'll show you why. This question is sort of dovetails with this one, that it would make sense to not have the church in these chapters when all the bad stuffs happening. That would make sense because the tribulation period is for the Jews, not the church. So these these ideas go hand in hand. I'm just trying to distill them here. The last issue we'll touch on tonight is how to interpret Matthew 24. Matthew 24 is in the New Testament, so every rapture position has to say something about it. But Matthew 24, it's Jesus longest sermon, other than the Olivet Discourse, or excuse me, the Sermon on the Mount. It's his longest sermon, maybe a little bit longer than that. Definitely his longest sermon on prophecy. There, there's actually a lot said in that chapter that allows you to create a chronology of events. There's a lot of ambiguities in it too. But because you're looking at a basic chronology, there's a disagreement over how that chapter influences the whole issue of the timing of again, the presumably separate events of the rapture in the Second Coming. You know, people who don't believe in a rapture are going to look at Matthew 24, an entirely different way, they're gonna say, it's all about second coming. It's all about second comic, it's all about saying how they're going to filter it through that decision that we talked about in week two. If you're splitting the events, you got to do something with the passage. You've got to here's the problem. You've got to find some explanation for the passage that matches that you're at least you're comfortable with the match, matches what said in First Thessalonians, four in First Corinthians 15. And we talked about those two weeks ago, too. So here are your major factors. Let's take a brief look at them. Is the church removed before the wrath of God and I put wrath so that I sort of account for the pre wrath or is here, but is the church removed from the prophetic picture? Before things get bad done before this great tribulation before the wrath of God? Embracing or rejecting that idea influences how you look at other passages, key text, here's one of the key sort of proof text. Everybody has to do something with. You turn to God from idols versus lines. This is Paul, to serve the living and true God and to wait for his Son from heaven. Now he's already talking to Christians, he's already talking to the church. So it's not referring to the first coming. It's obviously referring to the second coming, because it's Paul, he's living in light of with the hope of the Second Coming or whatever prophetic events that are out there. So you're waiting for his Son from heaven whom he raised from the dead Jesus who delivers us from the Greek preposition is EQ can mean from or out of. That's the rub. Who delivers us from the wrath to come? Now let, there's two things to think about here. If I translate it delivers us from the wrath to come. That sounds like I'm delivered before I get tangled up in it. Before I encounter it, I'm delivered From the wrath become if I translate this out of, oh, the mid tripperz Like that one, because then you're already in it and you're delivered out of it. So which one is just a rule of thumb for Bible interpretation? Do not base any doctrine on a preposition. You should never base any position on a preposition, because they are no aureus ly elastic in meaning and translation. The short answer is, who knows? Could be either, both are completely possible. But that's only the first thing to think about. The second thing to think about is the wrath to come. Can anyone suggest more than one way to take that phrase? I've casted as referring to the tribulation, a prophetic period out there, that's really bad. What else might it mean? Yes. Judgment. You bet. Aren't haven't we been had been delivered from the wrath to come? Most of your Christian you have. In other words, it may not have anything to do with the tribulation period at all. Zero. It might just refer to hell. Who knows? You can go either way. Another verse, same epistle. But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love. And for a helmet the hope of salvation for God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. Now this one sounds more like hell. Okay, but there are those who say, God hasn't destined to us the church to go through the Tribulation. And salvation is not ultimate here. Again, to those who make this argument. It's not the ultimate salvation. It's salvation from this hell on earth, known as the tribulation. So here, it's just it's a semantic issue. Again, which one is which wrath? Is it? Who knows? The logical question is, if if you're going to take, you almost got to take them both the same way to be consistent? Because you got the same letter and same writer First Thessalonians. If you think this one refers to hell than what's keeping you from thinking the other one does? Well, I need that one to get out of the tribulation. Well, at least you're honest. You know, and you might be right. You might be right. You know, setting aside the whole idea of, of I'm going to articulate a theology, because what I want to happen is that, you know, is a problem, but, again, everybody does that somewhere. Setting that aside, you know, you have to either say, you know, I think I can have one and the other, I think it's six of one half is another, I'm just going to make it in this passage, it means this and that passage means that or I'm going to be consistent and have the same approach the same interpretation for both and then that'll take you somewhere else again, in your in your view, go ahead.

Speaker 1 28:37

Consistent with prior internal to the passage to salvation from tribulation are gone, if you took that to mean deliverance from tribulation, the salvation to with the reduced in significance to salvation.

Michael Heiser 29:07

You're right, you're right. If if you're gonna take them the same way, then then all the elements surrounding them, yeah, you would need to be consistent. At least, it feels like you would need to be consistent. To me it feels that way. Yeah, I mean, but But Mike didn't write the rules, you know, for cosmic Bible interpretation, either. Okay. You know, I'm very fond, especially when I get into it on the internet with critics who say, they give you either or fallacies all the time till it just makes your eyes bleed. Okay. You know, I'm not I'm gonna reject what you say and then that the truth must be what I say well, like, Why do I only get two choices? I don't want to do that either. You know, they're just because to me, it feels like boy, you know, I think I need to be consistent here. That doesn't mean that it's required. I don't I can't Tell you can't point to any any passage that says thou shalt take this word consistently everywhere. I don't have anything like that. But for me, I, I like to feel like I'm being consistent. Across the board, I like to probe things that way. Is the church present or absent? from Revelation four through eight in argument, the word church occurs 19 times in Revelation one through three. And once in chapter 22, it does not appear even once in chapters four through 18, which describe the tribulation period. And again, this is taken from Ryrie Ryrie is a pre trib pre mil, that's his position. So he makes this observation and on the basis of this observation, not only this, but this is a this a significant derived on the basis of this absence, the absence of this word at Clay sia in Greek, he says, Look, that has to mean something. And for iria, it means that the church is out of the picture in these chapters. And since what happens in these chapters is all this bad tribulation stuff. His conclusion, based on that and some other things is that the church is removed, it's raptured off planet prior to the tribulation. Now, alternatives will say this, or anyway, this, this is, again a text Ryrie will refer to, after this, I looked like chapter four, and come up here and then the reference to a trumpet. So he said, the rapture happens right here in chapter four. And that's why we don't have the church there. Now, the other view is this. While the word church doesn't show up, the occurrence of the word saints feel like it like in Paul's epistles, this does occur in chapters four through 18. Here reference references. So the other view says, look, okay, at Clay, see it doesn't show up. But hoggy, Oi saints, the word that the New Testament uses for New Testament Church believers that does show up. So to this view that suggests that the church is on earth, think and Ryrie points this out. He's being honest, he's not going to hide anything. But to go back here. So which is is the church present or absent? I don't know. Can you have to make a decision? Which argument do you think is more compelling? You can't really have both. So again, you have to make a decision. If you have the church in, in these chapters, then that opens the door to other possible views of Rapture. But if you'll notice, the distribution. Here we have chapter 1316, and 18. So it kind of goes toward the end. So even positions that don't have a pre trib rapture are prone, especially when you get toward the end again, if you think revelations a linear sequence, and that writer on chapter 18, you're getting close now to the end of the tribulation period. If you want to Rapture before this, if this argument really matters, then you might have to fudge on what you think STS means at any given point, again, to make the system work, you know, whatever system it is you prefer, and you might have good arguments for that. You know, they might be arbitrary. It just depends. On is the book of Revelation linear? In other words, when I open the book of Revelation, am I correct in assuming that the writer is giving me a flow of time that proceeds in a straight line? Now, most people are certainly used to reading the book that way, because that's kind of how we read books. Okay, it's just one thing happens. And then the next thing happens, the next thing happens and you're just used to reading things in linear fashion. So proceeding from that, again, if you want to make an argument about the absence of the church, you really do need some sort of linear flow. So you can say, these chapters right here or church isn't there it's before and it's after, when you start using words like before and after, you are thinking in a linear fashion. So this is important. chapters six through 16 are where you get these judgments. And here's how the linear view looks at things, the seals, seal judgments start, and then there's seven of those. And when the seventh one is up, then the first trumpet, then you have a succession. When that one's over, then you have the first bowl. And the seventh bowl is the end of the final day of the Lord. So you have 21 judgments in a row in linear sequence. This is how your standard pre millennial position takes it. And certainly all of your wraps your positions will take it in linear fashion. But is that right? Well, not everybody thinks so. Fact, a lot of people don't think so. I don't know who would be in the majority here, probably pretty close. Most, the most widely known non chronological view is something called the recapitulation review. It's basically a repetition of cycles. So the view is that all those judgments, seals, trumpets bowls actually convey the same set of events, the same set of ideas in different ways. And they cycle through each other. They're repetitive, there are three, instead of three sets of seven linear judgments, there's three sets of seven, each of them is a cycle that tells the same story each time, but in slightly different ways. If you take that view, you do not have a linear time sequence and Revelation, it undermines it. Here's what it looks like, I couldn't really find a good graphic of this. This is from Beals commentary, when you can always get the slides and look at it more closely. But when the seals start in chapter six, you have certain elements, you've got the horse, some something about conquest here, and the sword taking piece from the earth and another horse, you have these horses and all this bad stuff going on fam and blah, blah, blah. So you have four catastrophes, you got to invent a really broad term for this for catastrophes. And then you have the woes intensify, approaching the end, so you have more catastrophes here, then there's some sort of interlude about the 144,000 in the two witnesses, and whatever that is, and then you have a final end. So here's one cycling through catastrophe level one, catastrophe level two interlude and the final battle, the final conflict, and then the trumpets will give you four catastrophes, and then you have these woes, then an interlude then the end, you know, you get the idea. So some people are, are not disturbed by the fact that this three sets of bold judgments do not use the same terms a lot. Remember, the splitting or joining session we did two weeks ago? Some, some people really need the exact same vocabulary used for every n times event to feel that it's one event. As soon as you have differences. It must be to I'm going to split them.

I use the illustration of the harmony. The situation with the four gospels don't agree. Do we harmonize? Or do we keep apart? And then we talked about do I harmonize the Second Coming passages? Or do I divide them into two events? It's the same issue here. When when the vocabulary is different for these catastrophes? Are they completely different events? Or are they the same events just using different words and different symbols and different images? Some people are thinking, yeah, sure, why not? You know, they're all sort of same general kind of category, I'm fine with seeing cycles repeated. Bible does that lots of places like Book of Judges, you know, you have this sort of endless cycle of judgment and oppression and God raises up a judge and they go off the deep end again. And so there's an analogy to the idea. But the idea is taken to the book of Revelation. And that influences the way you look at the whole book. Is that right? I don't know. Rapture elements? This one was a slide we looked at two weeks ago. Everybody who espouses a rapture is going to take First Thessalonians four as the rapture. That's sort of like the go to passage. So let's look at it, you got to shout, an angel trumpet, and something going on in the clouds. So we have these elements right here. Okay, fix those in your mind once again. So we got certain set of rapture elements, we've got Daniel nine. And the seventh eighth week, is described this way. He this this bad guy prints, which most people assume as the Antichrist, he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week, going one week, at seven years, half of the week, first three and a half, he shall put an end to the sacrifice and offering and on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate until the decreed and is poured out on the Desolator. So in the middle of the seventh eighth week, something that Jesus and other people call the abomination of desolation happens. So let's fix in our minds, we've got certain elements for Rapture. Right here, shout Angel, trumpet clouds, somewhere up in the sky. And we've got a seven year tribulation with the abomination happening in the middle. Got it. Matthew 24, why don't you turn to Matthew 24. Because again, everybody who who has a rapture and a second coming has to do something with this passage. Matthew 24, give me a chance to get there. You want to start at verse 15? Again, the whole chapter is essentially Jesus answering the question, hey, you know what's going to happen at the time of the end? And what will be the signs of you're coming? And so Jesus launches into this long discussion. What do you see in verse 15? Anybody keep going. Go ahead, you can read it

Unknown Speaker 42:25

will be the time because

Speaker 1 42:28

you'd have to escape from this

Speaker 2 42:38

terrible time it will be for pregnant women and nursing mothers will not have this escaping.

Unknown Speaker 42:46

There will be trouble that is beginning.

Michael Heiser 42:52

To stop there. It sounds like sounds like it's bad. Okay, so it sounds like the tribulation keep going.

Speaker 2 43:01

It again, and at this time, no one would survive. But for the sake of those who have been chosen, it's linked. Because that time someone says to you look, here's the Messiah or don't believe there will appear multiple signs and false prophets performing great, amazing things. So it's even possible there. Some people say to you, listen, he's out in the desert. Don't go. Or look, he's hidden away in a secret. Don't believe it. Man does come, there'll be like lightning, flashes and East and fills the sky for western horizon. Wherever there's a dead body. That's where you find that immediately following the trouble of those times,

Michael Heiser 43:51

immediately following the trouble of those times keep going. Some of our dark

Speaker 2 44:02

stars will fall from the sky ours attempting to escape in the sign of the sun of manual here in the sky. All the tribes in the land will warn the snowman coming

Michael Heiser 44:22

so we have the clouds coming in the clouds we've got the shofar which is the trumpet. And we have an angel keep going

Unknown Speaker 44:32

gather together his chosen people are gathering

Michael Heiser 44:35

that sounds like a rapture doesn't it? Doesn't have a rapture is it's not a dispersing it's a gathering keep going.

Speaker 2 44:51

Creepy Brenda's began to scrub leaves appears notice summer has proven in the same way when you see all these Things You are familiar with time is near, right at the door. Yes, I tell you that this people will certainly not pass away before all these things happen. Heaven and earth are passed away in my work whenever possible. That day and hour will come. No one knows, I think angels in heaven, not the sun, only the Father, the Son of Man's coming up just as it was in the days of Noah. Then people went on eating and drinking, taking wives becoming Rachel today, there's no interviewer. And they didn't know what was happening until the flood came and spoke to them all away.

Michael Heiser 45:38

Go back to the reference to the I don't know what terminology used right around verse 29. Is that the abomination reference? Or something like that? Go ahead and read that.

Unknown Speaker 45:48

Immediately following those times.

Michael Heiser 45:53

Yeah, what is what version Do you have, by the way? Anybody else have have the word abomination in there so we can get a feel for how it's translated in a couple of versions. I can open it up. I don't want to take the time. Somebody read Matthew 2429.

Back up a little bit. 15. Okay. Yeah, read that then. Seven. Yeah. Okay. All right. Yeah, that one, okay.

Okay, so we have a reference to the abomination. That was faster, and I thought it would be verse 15, so when you see the abomination spoken of, and then all this bad stuff happens when is the abomination happened according to the seventh eighth week, in the middle, right. So this must be the midpoint of the Tribulation, if we're going to take seventh eighth week Daniel as Catch this. If you take the seventh eighth week as a synonym for the tribulation, then you have a seven year tribulation and this must be the middle point. And what that means is, you don't get the language about the gathering the angel, the trumpet, you don't get any of the stuff you find in First Thessalonians. Four until after the midpoint. So that creates an issue. If you're a pre trib, pre Miller, what do you do with that? Well, what you do with it, is you have to back here, I have choices right here, you got some choices to make. Either you have to have those set of signs in the angel, the gathering the trumpet, all that stuff, you either have to argue that both of those signs are sort of both the rapture and the second coming. You have to argue that the imagery is the same. But as soon as you do that, the other side, your opponent is going to say, Well, why don't you just have one? In other words, if you're going to use the same images for two events, what's wrong, which is saying that those two events are actually the same event? And the answer is, nothing's wrong with that. It's a decision you have to make you again, either split them, you're firmly convinced that a split is necessary. And therefore, you have to look at the imagery and apply it to both and say Matthew 24 is talking about the Second Coming. It's not talking about a rapture, the context is the second coming. And it just so happens that those images in First Thessalonians four are also relevant there. I just did it. I just made that argument for you. And then I would defend that argument. Whereas the other side's gonna say, Oh, give it up. Okay, just it's just, it's the same thing. Just one event. You know, so the struggle is really going to be other passages where you're either persuaded you gotta have to events, or you still have one. But no matter what your view is, and there are plenty of pre trib, pre Miller's out there who will have a view of Matthew 24. Same thing for your pre wrath there's your pre your mid triggers your post harbor ZZ, because that's basically to event to events that are really want anyway. But all the other rapture positions that are not post trib have a way of dealing with Matthew 24. So that their system is intact. Everybody does that. I just want you to be alerted to the fact that again, we have this marriage between the 70th week and the tribulation, like they're synonymous terms. If you do that, you're going to have trouble here. Okay, if you don't do that, if you do something different, be creative. I mean, think about it, do something different with the 78th week and the tribulation like like the pre rafters do, they don't equate them and they still have a rapture, it's just a different time. But be creative, you have to have some relationship between the two, the Daniel issue, and then the Matthew 24 issue, every position is going to have to create some sort of coherent alignment of those two passages. And the different ways you do that will produce different systems, different timings. Now, what time is it? What is it? Five to? Okay, I do have five minutes. All right, since since I've been asked a lot, you know, what do you think I threw in two slides down here. I'm not going to tell you my positions, because, you know, I'm still thinking about things. I will sort of by way of summary tell you the things that I think you can sort of really latch on to that have a high degree of certainty is one of the questions last week was, you know, do we sort of have a hermeneutic of despair? Is there anything you know, we can know about? And times for sure, yeah, there's some things. There are some things that are, you know, have more clarity than others. And I want to I want to share for me what a few of those are. So in this column, I have strong suspicions. We'll just call them that. I don't want to call them absolute certainties. But strong positions, I would say this much stuff over here. This much, at least is true. And over here, there are points of uncertainty, things that I'm not so sure about. First one, I would say that the kingdom of God is here in some way. Definitely. Colossians 113. I don't know how much clearer Paul could make this. He Jesus has transferred you into the kingdom of his dear son. He's using the past tense. He's speaking to Christians. Right, then. How much cleric can it be? So the kingdom can't be totally future in some way it is here. But the question is, is that all it is? In other words, if I was an armed millennialist, I would say, I stopped right here. Churches a kingdom. That's it. End of discussion. That's all there is. It's all there's going to be. Move on to the next topic. I'm not so sure about that. Fact. I, you know, I'm I really, really doubt that this is all there is to the kingdom. I do think we will see an earthly rule. But beyond that, you know, terminology. I would quibble about. Next one. I think we have to affirm that the church and this is consistent with this one. The church does inherit the Abrahamic covenant. Why do I say that? Because Paul does. And I don't want to disagree with Paul. A, Paul says point blank in these four verses, that if your Christ's you are Abraham's seed and air according to the promise, how much clearer can he be? We do inherit the covenant and if you remember the first week, this is a big deal, because the covenant is for concluding that Israel is still going to get the land and the kingdom of God Jesus is going to return to Israel. Temple is going to be rebuilt, and there will be a literal kingship of Christ in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. So all millennials will say Nope, none of that's going to happen because the church inherits the covenant? Well, I think it does. But again, my question is, does that really rule out a future for national Israel? Ultimately, it depends how you read this passage right here. Because this is Paul's wish and hope for the salvation of Israel. Does his hope for the salvation of Israel include or exclude the land? He's not clear? So I think it very well could. I just don't know. That's why it's in the uncertain column. This is real clear, that isn't that we also have to agree that the church is the household of David. Go to x 15 1617 set the stage for you. This is the so called Jerusalem Council, where they have to meet about you know, do we have any rules that apply to the Gentiles you know, Paul's come back here and told us about all these Gentiles being saved and Wow, isn't that an amazing thing? I never would have seen that come in. Because you know, we're Israel were Jews. It was our Messiah and all this kingdom stuff and while the Gentiles are being brought in, and we believe that this is really of God, and but now like, you know, we got this mixed church thing and some of the stuff that Gentiles do really bothers Jews and vice versa, what do we do? So they meet here. And James, in these two verses, quotes a certain passage. Okay, let's hear it in Acts 15. For somebody want to read those two verses. After this, I will return you know, we build a tandem database. I will be building rather than magnify the CV for my name.

I will rebuild what is the word tabernacle their tent, I'll rebuild the tent of David. salvation of mankind as somebody go to Amos. Amos 910 through 12, I believe is the passage. This is the passage that James is quoting. It'll read a little differently than James CITES. Somebody want to read that when they get it

Speaker 2 57:43

people sort of, say disasters not overtake Ermita. That day will raise up the booth of David and his hall and repair its branches, reaches arrays of its ruins and rebuild it and possess the remnants of Eden. All the nations who are called, declares the Lord.

Michael Heiser 58:04

Sounds real similar except the Edom part. remnant of Edom, in Amos and an x we get the remnant of mankind or something like that. Problem is Edom and a DOM mankind are spelled exactly the same way in Hebrew. But James takes that reference, again, mankind sort of if we want to think of Edom Edom was attached to Israel peripherally It was sort of an outsider, but not an outsider. It could they were descendants of Aesop's. So they were outside the chosen line, but they were still related. And so James is taking that idea. And sifting that through Paul's testimony of the salvation of the Gentile and lots of other Old Testament passages about salvation, the Gentile, Isaiah 66. And he's like, man, we didn't see this coming. But there it is. But the part I want you to focus on is this tent of David. If you were Amos and you were living in Amos this time, okay. You've seen the kingdom split. You got part of the kingdom is history. And then you got the little kingdom of Judah struggling along the dynasties. Wicked. You got a bunch of bad kings. And then Amos comes along and says, you know, God says he's going to rebuild the tabernacle of David, what do you think that is? Think it means the church. James did. I mean, that's what he does with it. He views that passage as proof that God was bringing in the Gentile. And if that's the case, and it is because that's what he says. Then the church is the household of David, in some sense. out. Does that rule out a visible kingdom? Ruled by the Davidic Messiah when He returns? I don't think so. Because he's gonna return doesn't rule out of return. That's for sure. Because Paul talked about the return Blooding at times too. And so did Luke. So that everybody, but again, the millennialist will take this and say that don't need a kingdom. I'm just not sure. Because, you know, it doesn't really say that that's that. That's something you're that's a conclusion you're drawing from it. And it doesn't really say that. It says this much. But it doesn't really say what you're extrapolating the church, I think, again, transparently, the church is the temple of God. How do I know that? First Corinthians 316, First Corinthians 619, one of these references is singular, the other is plural. Paul says, Don't you know that you, either singular or plural? are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you? How clear Could he be? Why would he say that? Because the presence of God, the glory cloud of the Old Testament, lives in each believer, and each believer collectively forms the church. The body of Christ. Body of Christ is what who is Christ? What was he he was the in Flashman, the incarnation of what deity? What he is very consistent. But if we affirm with Paul, this, because that's what he says, does that mean there's no need to rebuild the temple? Personally, I don't really see any need to have a Temple rebuilt, doesn't mean it won't be. And I don't think this rules it out. I think you can have your standard premillennial system without a temple. I don't think it's essential, but a lot of people want it. So it's okay. I don't think this rules out that but this I'm more sure of that I am that. There will be discernible signs prior to the Second Coming. astronomical. I say that because of Matthew 24, signs in the sky and all that kind of stuff. And historical stuff happening on the earth, like the Antichrist and all that kind of stuff. So regardless of what position you take, even if you're pre trib pre mill, I found that the pre trib pre mill people are the ones that are most tuned in to reading the newspaper and figuring out where we're at. And they're the ones that are saying nothing needs to happen. But they're the ones that just they're just right there. Every news event, where does that fit into the prophetic timeline? Where are you worried about it? It's not that needs to happen. I mean, I don't get it. Even even that system, even though in theory, there's nothing that needs to happen. You can tell that there is a sense when Jesus in Matthew 24, starts talking about all this stuff going on, even though they'll they'll put the signs into the tribulation period, close to the second coming, because that's, that's kind of where they're at. If you do that, why would you do that as a pre tripper? Because if you can pin that down, and he can do the math and work backwards, and you'll know when the rapture is fair, it's Harold Camping. Okay, you know, the whole spiel. This is what everybody's doing, even though they believe in imminence. Boy, they sure want to know. And so we're looking for signs that will appear later, I won't be here at church won't be here. It'll be off planet will be with the Lord. But man, if I can pin something down over here that I just get out my calculator and work back. I know when it's gonna happen. That's really cheating. But there is truth in the sense that, yeah, there are passages that say that begin if you're pre trib, none of this is before the rapture. All of its before the second coming somehow in the seven year period. If you're not a pre tripper, then you know this takes on a different meaning to you. You're plotting out you're looking for different things for different reasons, you know, different parts of the tribulation. This obviously, I don't know if I want to call it a I think I would call it a sort of a kind of a lesson in futility. Maybe not a complete waste of time. It is interesting, to some extent, but you're guessing where plus you have genius Just saying, look, the day of the hour. No man knows. Now, I'll grant you. If you guess they're there, I don't want to get into it. But the big one is, what is the sign of the Son of Man? We know astronomically speaking, that there were signs that accompanied and map with extraordinary precision, like down to a 90 minute window, the first coming the birth of Christ. Okay. The question is, is that what the sign of the Son of Man means? In other words, is the same set of circumstances that were at the first coming in the sky? Is that going to repeat? And is that what mean the sign of the Son of Man means? Who knows? Nothing ever says that. But if you guessed right, you could map this to within six months or a few months. You can map it all out. But you're guessing, like attend other different places too. And I think this is what Jesus is getting at. Look, you're not going to know. Here's some things to look for so that you're ready. But you're not going to know. So don't worry about it. I mean, just be be satisfied with what I'm giving you a few last things. These are things I would I would say just don't have a prayer of being right. Okay, so we're gonna, we're gonna have the negative perspective here. I don't see how you can get a partial Rapture. Okay, rapture is tough enough. You got enough questions there. But to say that the rapture is only for the holiest people in the church. That when I'm real skeptical of I think you can rule out Gog and Magog as Russia. This is one of the things that I just love to hate. Hebrew is not Russian. Roche does not mean Russia to balls does not mean you know, whatever. to Garma. Semitic is not indo European, because there's just no relationship at all. I think we can rule that one out. This one is a little more interesting. Go to Revelation 20. I would say we need to rule out Gog and Magog, whatever that is, as an event separate from either the Second Coming or the day of the Lord. The only other place in the Bible where God and or Magog are mentioned, is Revelation 20. And it occurs after the 1000 years. Nevertheless, you will read all sorts of books that have Gog and Magog happening somewhere in the tribulation with amazing precision, somehow completely ignoring revelation 20, which is over here. So you literally and I have seen people do this, you literally have to say things like, Well, I just think that's another Gog and Magog.

Really? Like there's one in the old time, the only other time it's referred to as here. And that's just like another one completely different than the other why? They had the answer is I need it for my system to work. I think we can rule that one out. And lastly, I think there's a last one on here. People will take sides on this, that the antichrist must be a Jew. And then you'll have other people who are flipped over and say he must be a Gentile. He can be either. There's actually a there's actually a long line of tradition that argues either way, if you think the Daniel 11 and Tikus you have to be sort of into prophecy to follow this, but I'm gonna throw it out here. If you think that that anti against the fourth what he did, in committing the abomination in the middle of the second century BCE, if you think that that was sort of a blueprint for the abomination that you imagined yet future. That's great, because there's a lot to suggest that but he was a Gentile. Very clearly. On the other side, there is a long line of tradition. Let me put it this way. There's a Jewish line of tradition that looked at the tribe of Dan very suspiciously very negatively. And that was picked up on in the early church by Irenaeus. And a few others got him Hippolytus who believed that certain passages indicated a great enemy will rise from Dan and be a rival to Judah because Dan and Judah are often diametrically opposed in certain genealogies and there are other weird things going on with Dan. So there was There was a tradition shared by Jews and Christians that the Antichrist would come from either the tribe or the region of Dan. I'll give you one sort of oddity in the book of Revelation with 144,000. Where do we get the number 12,000? From? How many tribes foe? How many tribes are there in Israel? 12. Look at the list. Dan is not there. But it's still 12 tribes. Dan is omitted from the list, Dan's omitted in different places in the Bible for for inexplicable reasons. And so the rabbi's in the early early church noticed these anomalies. And also the location of Dan, in the far north, there's, there's a whole Old Testament tradition called the enemy from the North. It's a motif that repeats, it's also it's in Ezekiel 38, and 39. By the way, this northern enemy that comes down, attacks, Jerusalem, and all this kind of stuff. Dan is part of that because of where Dan moves, Dan's tribe originally was in the South. I know I'm getting into these boring passages in the Old Testament, like tribal allotments, man, that's exciting reading there. But if you look at it, some of the some of the best stuff is in these odd passes. If you look at it, the tribe of Dan originally was in the south right about Judah, like near Jerusalem. They move they leave, they leave their tribal allotment, and they migrate north into a region called Buchon. Which was viewed in the Bible and outside the Bible as the gates of hell. Is that a coincidence? I don't know. But there's again, some Jewish thinkers and some early Christian thinkers that notice stuff like that and go, oh, there's something up with Dan just doesn't look good. So you actually have a long line of tradition, that will go either way, on this issue. So I don't think I have it in this list. Because you can't really be dogmatic. There's just no way to say it must be this or that. But that's it. Any questions? I'm actually a little over which I did not anticipate that. Any questions? Yes.

Speaker 3 1:12:26

For example, in the Evangelical Church of God and Church of God who don't believe in a rapture, they kind of substitute in the place of safety. And I came in first grade, and it's the one that says, Watch and pray always, that you might be accounted for these things that are scanned before the sun.

Michael Heiser 1:12:48

So even safety within within on the earth

Speaker 3 1:12:54

kind of goes along like this, or gressenhall is a place of safety. And let's see. So it appears that there's going to be a place of deliverance minister, either blessing. Revelation is not this great, going out and encountering some resistance, and not being able to penetrate to a certain area of frustration gives out and then goes out on the whole earth and spewing out His wrath on the entire population. Does

Michael Heiser 1:13:34

that does that have a name or it's just you're just associated with that with those groups? Okay. Interesting.

Speaker 3 1:13:42

That's basically the evangelical church.

Michael Heiser 1:13:48

What's, what's the history of that? Is that is that an offshoot of Armstrong's old worldwide? Because I know I know, they had sort of an evangelical derivative of that. Okay. Anybody else?

Speaker 2 1:14:15

All the time. And before that it doesn't come straight. Notice the Zachariah is clearly talking about the land of Israel, not really another conference.

Michael Heiser 1:14:31

So how does it does it apply it to either the rapture or the second coming in the note?

Why would they mourn? I guess if it was the tribes of Israel Think with me here. I don't I don't know how it could be a rapture event because if the rapture is the removal of the church, then you'd have to invent some You know, or discern or create some sort of argument, why that would make them mourn? And if it's toward the end of the tribulation, they've had lots of reasons to mourn before that. So why single that out? You know, I don't? I don't know, I'd have, I'd have to see how it's plugged in to know what I think of it. But those are just those are two or three things I'd want to know right off the bat. Sure, it doesn't say anything. It doesn't apply it in some way there.

Speaker 2 1:15:37

I'll see you later. This is Emma stood out with me. Contrasting the erroneous translation.

Michael Heiser 1:15:53

It's interesting, you'd also have to know what what the word there is for tribe? Because, you know, I don't I don't know if Tom had how much precision there is between tribe and nation. In other words, is, is a word that could be used for an Israelite tribe, is that ever used of a non Israelite nation? And I don't have that in my head. But if it was, that might be a reason why other translators would actually choose world there. And they would have to take the 12? Well, there's no there is no 12. It just says, All right, all the tribes or all the nations, that would have to be part of the rationale for choosing the translation world, or nations instead of tribe. But that's a really good example. Because I mean, if that's the case, you're getting into word usage. And you can tell by virtue of the translation choice there, that really takes you in different directions. And I'm not saying that the translator is being a trader here or anything like that. You just have to make those choices because you can't, you can't put both in your translation. You got to choose one. So I'd be interested in in doing a word study on that and see if there's any usage that's non non Israelite, for that. Anybody else? Sure, go ahead.

Speaker 2 1:17:27

Notes on that when he was putting on the bed was used for i o these days. David had a friend who once thought that the rapture was synthetic would hopefully occur on crucifixes for the Day of Atonement just because Corinthians referred to as tracing through the eye.

Michael Heiser 1:17:58

Do you have your Lagace open? Because I'd like to know if that's a transliteration shofar. I'll tell you why. If that really is the shofar in other words, if that's not just an interpretive translation, if you can establish that a shofar, since that's connected with the sign of the Son of Man, that takes on importance because if you take revelation 12 as a series of astronomical signs, and you literally take that as a Celeste as a series of celestial events. You can pinpoint the birth of Christ again to within a 90 minute window and that event coincides with the blowing of the shofar okay, it's Rosh Hashana as well, in other words, everything in the Jewish calendar and everything in the Greco Roman Astro theological calendar aligns at that moment. So if that is the shofar that would suggest it certainly doesn't prove. It would it would be one argument that you would use to suggest that what's going on in Revelation 12 is the sign of the Son of Man. And so the question is, can you really is that a legitimate assumption to make? Because if it is that suggests that the same concatenation of events is associated with the Second Coming as was as they were with the first you see all the extrapolations I just made there. Okay, but the fact that you can do that, I actually have that on my computer. I have that mapped out. I can tell you what it is. But is there any point to it? You know, I just made two or three not leaps of logic, but leaps of faith. You know, I guessed at that. I mean, who knows? So this is one of the reasons why I say, you know, I know, I know prophecy is interesting, but there are people who would hear what I just said, and literally spend the next 25 years of their life trying, trying to prove that trying to nail that down. Why? I mean, at the end of the day, what you have is one big really cool guess. That's all you got. It's what it'll be 25 years from now. It'll be a guess it'll be what it is today. It's a guess. So I would be interested if that's I don't want to hold you guys about I'll look when we sit down. I want to know if that's a translation or a transliteration of shofar. Anybody else? Any other question? Seeing none, thank you for coming.

In this lecture, Dr. Heiser covers issues surrounding interpretation of the 70 Weeks of Daniel (Daniel 9:24-27) as it relates to eschatology.

Transcript:

Michael Heiser 0:00

How

many of you

have seen the movie? The Princess Bride?

Okay, most of you.

Do you remember the albino in The Princess Bride?

Okay, who can tell me who the albino was? You remember the albino was?

I know, you know?

What was the albino in charge of

the pit of despair.

Okay, otherwise known as Daniel nine

verses 2427. Okay.

This is I know, I'm joking, but I've actually seen this passage referred to

in scholarly articles as things like a dismal swamp,

and basically no man's land.

So my goal tonight is not to straighten all that out, because I'm not about to straighten all that out.

The whole point is that it can't be

known with certainty.

But this passage is a key element

for prophetic views in general, but especially when people start talking about a tribulation period, and a rapture, and even things as esoteric as signs in the heavens and biblical chronology and Jubilee years and all sorts of weird stuff associated with prophecy. My goal tonight is to tell you expose you to some things that you probably haven't been exposed to you or to. Because when you pick up a typical book on prophecy, again, like I said, a couple of weeks ago, and last week, I guess, you pick up one of these books and everything looks beautiful. It all fits together. Just this wonderfully coherent, every question addressed sort of thing. That is, and all of the views are subject to this. It's contrived, in places it works, because it needs to work. Everybody cheats, and this is one of the playgrounds for cheating. Okay, and what I mean by that is, this is so complicated, and so obtuse. And so mind bending and even mind numbing, that I hope that you go away thinking, Man, this was so clear when I walked in, and I don't know what the thing, they all have done my job then because there's a lot of things you just are not told about the difficulties in this verse. And I'm going to give you a few of them, not all of them. I'm gonna give you a few of them. And hopefully, you'll see how, again, as we other two weeks, you'll see how your view works. And you'll see how other views work, and what decisions are made with respect to what questions and at what points in the passage, you have to stop, think about something and then decide something, everybody does it. The variety of views come from raising different questions at different points and giving different answers to them. So with that said, let's jump in here. I was dreading popped off on me. There we go. You saw this diagram earlier. And this is your standard pre mill, a return of Christ right here prior to the millennium, so pre mill, pre trib prior to the tribulation rapture, pre mill, pre trib Rapture. So we have two events. The person who holds this position is going to be a splitter. As we learned last week, are you a splitter or a joiner, you have one event associated with a second coming or two. So here we have a splitter. We've got two events rapture, second coming, here's our millennial kingdom. And we have the eternal state out here. And then there's this thing called the Tribulation. And that's where we're going to park tonight because what many familiar voices familiar writers and prophecy talk about when they talk about the tribulation? Is they connect this thing called the tribulation to the 70th week of Daniel and that's why this period is considered to be seven years long. Now the term primarily comes from passages like Matthew 24. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now. Immediately after the tribulation, in those days the sun will be darkened moon will not give it slight stars fall from heaven, so on and so forth, then will appear in heaven, the sign of the Son of Man, and all the tribes is Earth, one more, they'll see the Son of man coming upon the cloud. So this is parsed as the Second Coming. In this view, which is after this tribulation thing, you say, well, the seven years where does that come from? It comes from Daniel nine. And the passage is familiar. We have 70 weeks. A week is a period of seven days. So a week in Scripture is often but we'll find out tonight not always described as a period of seven, this case period of seven years, so 70 weeks or decreed about your people, your holy city. Can the angels speaking to Daniel, to do these things, finish the transgression, put an end to Sanatana for iniquity, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal the vision and the Prophet and the most holy place. We have here after the 62 weeks, and anointed one shall be cut off this word is mushiya, which is the Hebrew word for Messiah Anointed One. It's not a very common word in the Old Testament. It can be used if a Jew or a Gentile, Isaiah 45. One is the best example for a Gentile Cyrus the Persian who was a pagan is called God's mushiya Because he's the one shows and release the Jews and send them back. Cool. Let's think about some assumptions. We've got going back here, this 70 week thing looks like we've got something messianic going on course, I'll come back and ask if that's the case or not. Let's start simply, we've got the seventh eighth week thing is it the tribulation? The reasoning goes as follows 70 weeks or 770 periods of seven years, almost everybody's going to agree on that. There's one exception I'll share with you tonight. So almost everybody is going to agree with that. And since these weeks are seven years, it makes sense that the 70 at the week would also be seven years. Right? Simple. It's fair, it's coherent. It's very understandable. But you'll notice in Daniel nine, you could go there to just keep tracking as I proceed. There's no reference here to a tribulation. So what happens is we go from these two obvious points to these. Well, if these are true, the Great Tribulation is seven years long. That's just assumed. Therefore the seventh eighth week of Daniel is the Great Tribulation. Now why is this assumed? Well, if we go back, it's assumed. Because we have this event here, we've got some messianic events, Messiah, Messiah, Messiah, Messiah. And so the reasoning is, well, all the weeks that have come to this point had something to do with the Messiah. So the last one must do. So let's go back here. We have a series of four thoughts that go into this equation. And the question is, does it work? Is there any evidence for it? Well, these two I think are fairly secure. These are the two that are the problem. If we run a search and Dale cover your eyes here you'll know why. If I can get my mouse here, you'll know why I'm saying that in a moment. This better work. Let's go back here. Come on.

Okay, we got here. The highlights not show up and on my desktop. So right here's our word tribulation. Phillipses, we're in Matthew 13. Okay. So what do you see that that's the word and if we, let's Well, let's go back there. Let's just run a search on that one. So I can show you something here.

Okay, everywhere that this word occurs, I want you to see something that's kind of interesting. It's maybe a little smaller, we can get more on here. You can see the green highlighting here. If you go through, there's 45 hits, if you go through these, all the occurrences of this word tribulation. And it's the same as in Matthew 24. Right? Here's our Matthew 24 Verse down here, several of them that we started with, you'll find that this word never occurs with the word seven. And it never occurs with the word weak. Ever. So if you're going to make that equation, you have to either you have to say, I know that the words never match up, I know that there's no actual verse that equates the seventh eighth week with the tribulation. But it makes sense for other reasons. Okay, that's that's how you have to argue. If you're on the other side, you say, that's all I need. There is no verse connecting them. That's where I'm stopping. So this is decision one. Do I accept this equation? If you do, and again, the way you have to argue with argument is it makes sense on other grounds other than having a verse for it. If you do accept this, then it's going to take you in a certain direction in regard to interpreting the seventh eighth week, when you go back to Daniel, if you don't, that's going to take you in a different direction. assumption to this one's kind of mind blowing. Is there one set of 70 weeks? I think, of course, there's only one. What kind of a dumb question is that? I've never heard of anything else. There's only of course, there's seven weeks. Look at Daniel nine, it gives you 70 Right in there. Yeah, it does. But watch. Here's what we usually do with Daniel 770 weeks are decreed about your people, your holy city, so on and so forth. So there's our first reference to 70. Now we have seven weeks down here, and then 62. And then one, what we'll usually do is we go okay, he gave us the 70 here. And now he's just breaking them up, and we add them up. And we see that that equals 70. So this and this are talking about the same thing. Sure, you can that's completely possible to do that. This is the normal way of looking at it. If you look at it that way. Then you make some other assumptions you assume. And we'll come back to this one later. You assume that verse 24. Here is talking about atonement in the sense of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. As soon as you assume that, and you assume one set, then the issue comes to verse 25, where it says from the from the going forth of the decree to rebuild the city. You have these these weeks coming out. So then you have a choice, where do I start the 70 weeks? Where do I start the 490, or countdown, the only one you can choose to make it end in 33 ad, which is a viable crucifixion date. It's not the only one, but it's probably the most popular. The only way you can make this equation 490. It's about Jesus work on the cross. And it ends at a date that works in chronology is to choose number three. This is where you have to start. Just by definition, you can't even think about these other options. Because you need it to work in conjunction with the crucifixion. Again, so what are the assumptions we've made? We're assuming we've got one set, that's 490 years we only have to think about 490 years. We're assuming that verse 24 is about Jesus work on the cross. That means we have to start here to make it work here. And that's the that's pretty much what you're going to see in You know, most study Bibles or you know, at least in terms of have a favorable pre trib pre male position and other other people who have other positions will represent this fairly I don't want to say that they don't. But that's that's probably the most common way of looking at it. Now, number three here aren't a Xerxes commissioned to Ezra. Remember Ezra was a leader of one of the returns from captivity back to the promised land. If you actually read as a seven to 11, verse 26, you can go there if you want. I'm not going to flip there, if you read that. There is nothing in the passage about rebuilding anything. Now what that does, is it forces you to look back at Daniel nine. And I know I know it has to be about Jesus, and others 490 years and there's this thing about from the going forth of the decree to rebuild the city. rebuilding the city must not be literal, it must be referring to like rebuilding the people to repopulating the land. That way, it doesn't matter if Ezra 711 to 26 really says anything about building any structures. I'm off the hook. My view works. Well, if it's me, if I was over the shoulder, that person I would say, that's a great cheat. Because I'm going to say that to everybody. Okay, everybody's going to have their way to cheat through the passage when they need to, because not it never works in any view really tightly. You have to make certain little jumps of faith to make it work. What if there's two sets? Two sets in the world? Would you do that? For my next trick, watch 70 weeks or decreed, got that down? It's easy. What if we separate verse 24? From the rest? We have 70 weeks here, that result in this anointing the most holy place or whatever. And then we've got another sequence of 70. Well, never thought of that. Very few people have, but there is one chronologist, who takes this view. So I thought I would throw it in. Because it's kind of interesting. If you take that view, here's what you come out with. The first 70 weeks are 70 years, a catch that the first 70 weeks or 70 years, that means a week is only one year. But the second set is 490. That means those weeks or seven years is a lot. It's kind of cheating. I mean, it's the same phrase, why does it? You know, why do I have to say the first set is 71 week per year, and then the second set, I get to make that seven a pop. So I get my 490. And here's what it looks like you have the exile. And right here. That's a biblical date. We can be relatively sure about seven years, we get the coming of Nehemiah. And then from Nehemiah is trip down here to ad 25 which is a possible crucifixion date. Guess how many years? That is? 490. Wow, isn't that neat? To see, well, that just looks like it's cheating. Yeah, I know. There's actually a way to argue it. Again, all the views are trying to work from the text. Nobody's just like, hey, I don't like that one. Let's like have a game of marbles or checkers and come out with another view. No, they're all trying to do something with the text in front of them. Now the first option here, this 70 the weeks are just one a pop one year per week. There is chronological evidence and I'll show you in a second that seven in this phrase 70 weeks could refer to every seventh year, one year out of seven, one year out of a week.

If the person believes that the reference in Daniel Is to a sabbatical cycle, sabbatical cycle something that's discussed in Leviticus 25. There is also evidence that the sabbatical cycle was multiplied by seven. Getting out of the very next chapter in Leviticus, Leviticus 26, which we looked at the first week. That was the passage that talked about that linked the Abrahamic covenant to the obedience of the Sinai covenant. And the whole question of do we have a kingdom or not? Is the Abrahamic Covenant still in effect or not? Illustration, Leviticus 25 talks about sabbatical years, there are certain things in the Israelite religious calendar. There were not a sabbatical years, they were every seven year, seven year cycle, every seven years something special was called for seven sabbatical cycles, or 49 years was called the Jubilee, the great Jubilee cycle. The Jubilee was the maximum period of time where Israelite land could be retained by someone else other than its original owner. So in the Jubilee Year, everybody got their land back, it went back to the original owner, and you had to release your slaves and stuff like this there. This is out of Leviticus. In Second Chronicles, 36, which many would say Daniel nine is tracking on we read this. It's about the exile, all the vessels of the house of God, you know, sent into Babylon right there. He took into exile in Babylon, those who had escaped from the sword, they became servants to him talking about Nebuchadnezzar God's instrument here. They became servants to him and his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia. Persia was the one that got rid of the Babylonians to fulfill the word of the Lord, by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbath. All the days that it laid desolate all the days that the land of Israel was unpopulated because of the exile. We're 70 years. Now we know the exile was 77 years they were in Babylon seven years. But this passage, and it's alluding to something that Jeremiah said, citing the Jubilee cycle, not the Jubilee cycle, but the sabbatical cycle. Apparently, it connects the exile to the seven years back to this whole Leviticus thing of every seventh year. From the chroniclers notion that the desolation made up the sabbatical rest of the lead, it might be inferred that the reference was to 70, sabbatical years from a famous commentary on Daniel. So the 70 weeks might be 70, and not for 90. Now, if you believe in only one set, if you take this view, you're done with 70 years. If you take two views, then you can have the 70 and the 490. Or you can just decide to junk, the whole sabbatical year thing and go with your traditional 490. Up to the crucifixion, thinking that verse 24 is about Jesus. So you got a lot of options here. This is why it's the pit of despair. Okay, because it's like well, what's wrong? What's why and I'm I'm only tonight, I'm only going to give you three or four things to think about. In the annual i This is this, it doesn't get much more complicated than this. I don't know if it's a relief or not. Now, go back here the second option, what about the foreign ID? Well, now we go to Leviticus 26. If you will not listen to me and do all these commandments, you're going to be in big trouble. Okay, to sow your seed in vain your enemies believe that I will set my face against you used to be struck down before your enemies. Again, this is forecasting the exile. Those who hate you shall rule over you you will flee. When none pursues you you're going to be skittish. And if in spite of this, you will not listen to me I will discipline you again seven fold for your sins. So some people look at this verse and say, okay, Leviticus 26 is about the exile. And I know that 70 sabbatical year thing because this prior chapter, I read about that, but I think what God's saying here is I'm gonna multiply it by seven. Now you got 490 Now the pre mill pre trib errs, love this passage, but they don't do much with Leviticus 25. And the reverse is true for the other positions like that one, not that one. Give me that one. Don't worry about that one. And some will actually say, hey, I want them all. Okay, I want two sets of 70. So I don't offend anyone, the writer of Leviticus 25 and 26. Okay? You're happy with me because I'm taking both. So that's why you would come out to this. If you take both. It still ends in Jesus. But guess what? The seven years are done with Jesus, there is no 70 a week future tribulation out there. That's connected with the rapture and a second coming. If you tie it into it to this to this to Leviticus 26. You are done right here. There ain't no seven more remaining. So again, you've I know this is quick, but I've given you like three or four options. That all compete in what's published and what's preached. I mean, none of none of this is like Mike's making it up. So you can fill airtime here, okay, this is all out there. You're going to depending on which study Bible you'd buy, you'd you'd run into one, two, or maybe all of them. Assumption three. Verse 24, is about Jesus atoning sacrifice. Okay, give me a chance to rehearse verse 24, in your mind again. Look at the phrasing, finish the transgression, put an end to sin, atone for iniquity, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal up the vision and the Prophet anoint a most holy place. What do you think? Is that about the crucifixion? Well, assuming we have 490 years, let's go with that. And then it has something to do with the end with the crucifixion. How does verse 24 If it speaks, how does it work? If it speaks of Jesus atoning death? Let's take them one by one. What is the scope of Jesus atoning death? You tell me? What to do? It's not a trick question. What did it do?

For the sins of the elect, there's a brave soul right there

were the Alexa saved? Oh, I can. Don't go there. Don't hold yourself in here. Okay. I'm all right now. Who else? Come on, volunteer? Well, let's play with the elect a little bit. I won't go work. I'm not gonna go there. I'm not gonna go there. We're the elect Jews. Does it include Gentiles? All the elect Jew or Gentile? Okay. We can live with that for the sake of the illustration. Anybody else want to say it differently? Are we content with that? It's okay with me.

70 weeks are decreeing about your people in your holy city? Oh, you better be careful here. Who's your people? Israel, who's What's your city? Jerusalem? Is there a disconnect there? Here's why I have to be careful. It's very obvious that we have Jews in Jerusalem right here. Gabriel is talking to Daniel, who else would it be talking about? You know? If what's going on is about the death of Jesus. And we don't want to apply it just to Jews. And I don't see how we could I mean, come on. We got this thing called the New Testament. And there's this thing called at church. Do you realize what that does, though? That puts that makes an equation that draws an equation. That's a strong word equation. We could say it creates an analogy to make it weaker between the church and Israel. Oh, we were down that road in week one. Where is the church distinct from Israel? Or isn't it if it's not there? The Church inherits the promises given to Abraham. And you don't really need an earthly millennium. So do you want your church's really equation here? But not with the Abrahamic covenant? I'm sorry, but you can't have both. Here's where I am the game show hosts and I have to say you got to pick door number one or door number two. Okay, you don't get to pick door number one and five minutes later pick door number two. You've got to make a choice

put an end to sin. Did Jesus put an end to sin?

The pit of despair. That's what you'll go away with the albino and the pit of despair. Did he make an end of sin? This is what Daniel 924 says. did Jesus do that? Come on, somebody argue for it. I mean, I'll grant you it. You can sort of make an argument you got to play with words. Well, that's, I mean, that's really bad to just play with the text. Yeah. Everybody does it. Say it again.

So you would prefer the word conquered sin? If it's if it's if it Okay, well, see, now you're adding over, I'm trying to I'm trying to get you to not add one and still get your boy. If we change this, put it into if we make it conquer? Does that make anybody feel better? Okay. So now you're adding a word to? You got the point, though you have it depends how you define the terms. You really have to play with them. You got to massage them. Or if you're a scholar, you say things like, I'm just doing exegesis. I'm using semantic reasoning. What you're doing is you're playing with the text. Okay, let that's what you're doing. You're doing what everybody else does. So just admit it. Well, if you think, you know, it's about, you know, ending transgression, putting it into sin that nobody ever sins anymore. Well, the obvious answer is no. He doesn't put it into sin. But if you define it a different way, conquering the problem of sin or something like that. Oh, and you can kind of get there, you know?

I would say you couldn't be saved by hearing 100% of the Mosaic Law. I know. I know. I know where you're going. Here's another one. Another question did the death of Jesus atone for iniquity? Now this is the one that lowers everybody in? Well, sure, you know, of course it atone for iniquity. So this phrase in Daniel 924 That's the one that makes us latch on to the crucifixion. We almost don't even see these and even ask about we're just drawn to that atone word Yeah, I know what that's about. We get tunnel vision there. Did the death of Jesus do the rest of the stuff in Daniel nine? Did it bring in everlasting righteousness did it anoint the most holy place? It seal up the vision and the prophecy. Well, it just a term it just depends on what you mean. Yep, it sure does. Dogs

Unknown Speaker 34:20

things we have to have the years and sort of standard.

Michael Heiser 34:27

You'd have to have the 483 and whether

Unknown Speaker 34:37

to start with

Michael Heiser 34:42

that's the easiest fit. Some would say it's the only fit depending on how time

Speaker 1 34:54

but then you're taking the next position to your leapfrogging to do

Unknown Speaker 35:06

later in the game,

Michael Heiser 35:09

it's it's later, it's later in the game, depending on where you start and how you define the weeks.

Speaker 2 35:15

So what you're saying is, what if you didn't come out? differently? Medical years? Your second guy didn't handle this, like as people who, right,

Michael Heiser 35:31

because what you're saying is going to factor into the next assumption, the princess, because that's going to decide whether you take the seven year you cut them up 6767 Right. That's what DAX is saying it depends on if you view them as a unit, or if you view as a separation between the 69th and the 78th. And that, in turn depends on what you do with the prints that's coming up. We'll get there. Here's another view. And this one will take the 70 as complete 70 weeks are determined for your holy city, okay, or your people. To finish the transgression, putting into sin, tone for iniquity and do all this other stuff. Some would say that it was about the end of the exile. So let's plug that in 70 weeks, and that assumes that it's 70 years to remember the Leviticus 25 thing. Or decree decreed about your people in your holy city. Okay, to finish the transgression, okay, what transgression Well, the reason they got sent into exile, right, they're done now, put an end to that sin. That particular one where you're forgiven. Now, atone for inequity, it's another way of saying transgressions forgiven, bringing everlasting righteousness. Now this one, you have to assume that the Jew thought and here's the assumption for the non pre trib, pre male view, you have to assume that the Jew thought when we go back, we are reestablishing the kingdom of God on earth. Because we're the we're the chosen people, we're gonna go back to the land that God gave us the covenant, God was remembering the covenant. God is going to be there with us, the kingdom of God is gonna be there on earth. And since we're forgiven, and the Lord is back with us, he's not going to leave again. It's going to be everlasting. And you have to you have to think in these terms to make this view word. Seal both vision of the Prophet Well, whose vision which Prophet? It depends, is he talking about Daniel? Is the angel Gabriel talking about Jeremiah, who prophesied the 70 year, captivity, seal it up? It's done now. Vision is all over with, is he talking about that? Maybe he's talking about the passage in Chronicles. I mean, who knows, but that's how you have to think about it. Anointed most holy place, oh, we got the temple back. This is an easier fit. But it still has as many guesses you're guessing that this is sort of the consciousness, that that the thing that would be in the head of the of the writer, and of course, would correspond to the reality. You can make that work nicely, but you have to assume that's how to parse the words. That's how to go through the passage. That's the filter you create to go through the passage in your head. Here's our fourth one, the prince issue. The Anointed One, a verse 26. A is not the prints of 26 B. Same verse. You assume that these characters are distinct and different, as opposed to talking about the same guy. So you got to make a choice here. Notice in this verse, you know, therefore understand the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince notice that Anointed One and Prince are juxtaposed. They're oppositional. The Anointed One is the prince is the same guy, when they occur right next to each other, it's a way of redefining the prior term. That one is fairly straightforward. He's associated with the first seven weeks. So this one, you know, we can pretty much dispense with because we want to know if the end of the 70 weeks or future, you know where that happens the first seven, who cares, okay? The issue is right here, verse 26, after the 62, and now we have seven and 62. So after the 69, the week is done. After the 62, an anointed one shall be cut off. Anointed One is MASHIAC, same as back here. And this is again is assumed to be the crucifixion by many views, this would be at the end of the 69th week, the other views are going to be at the end of the total 70. What we have here, an anointed one gets cut off. And many people assume that refers to put to death. Okay, or crucifixion. So people look at this and they see the Messiah, in this verse because of this phrase. Now, here's the trick, that's 26, A, the people of the prince who has to come shall destroy the city. And the sanctuary. So the assumption is, this guy can't be this guy. Even though both terms anointed and prints were fused back here. Here, we separate them into two guys. So that's, that's one view one assumption, even though they're joined here, I need to split them here. So that one of them is crucified. And the other one is some future, the Antichrist. Okay, is what is how this is usually applied? Well, again, you can create a scenario where that works and needs to work and flows nicely. What if they're not different? Okay. And this is what the second prince does, again, this is why we associated with the Antichrist, the abomination down here. What if it's the same guy? If it's the same guy, then this can't be the Messiah, because obviously, Jesus didn't walk in there and destroy the city and the temple and all that stuff. So if you think, you know, I feel compelled to catch my wording here, because this is where some people are at, I feel compelled to treat them as the same because the terms are fused back here, I have no right to split them here. And so I'm going to make it all the same. And therefore, Daniel nine cannot be talking about the crucifixion. And if you make that choice, it's going to take you in a completely different direction, than if you see Jesus here. In terms of the timing with the weeks. Day one view, you have a crucifixion event at the 483 and then you have seven years yet future. Okay with the preacher premier view, that would be the future tribulation. The other view doesn't have anything like that, because Jesus is not even in the passage at all. It's a bad guy. It's a real nasty, dude. It's not the Messiah. Say, Well, how can happen, you know? How can you get an evil guy called, you know, anointed, because you got people like Cyrus, who was a pagan, he's not a believer, the guy's a pagan king, pagan emperor. He's anointed because he's God's instrument. It's all it means. I've chosen you to do a task, you're anointed to do that task, and I'll get off your butt and do it. That's what it means. And you can have a bad guy do that because you've had a bad guy before. In fact, Isaiah, you know, some will try to unite those two to this. I don't think you can really get away with that. But there's at least a precedent here for a pagan person being called anointed, God's chosen to do whatever it is God wants him to do. And those are our four assumptions. Yes, tax. You're gonna, you're gonna you're gonna press it, you're going to press it all into anti Vegas. And you're going to say anti Vegas is a type of probably Titus, you know, again, if you're gonna press it all into antike as the propensity is that you're going to be a preterist. Anyway, when you get to Revelation, do you all know what I mean by a type? By the way, some of you okay, let me let me explain it this way. When we talk about prophecy, we usually think of things that are written out or uttered a prophetic utterance that says the Lord bla bla bla bla bla, and then that stuff that said is a prophecy. That's easy. A type is a non verbal prediction.

A type is an event, a person, an institution, that prefigures something that will come down the road. Best example is the Passover lamb, Passover lambs not laying there uttering prophecy. He's just laying there dead. Okay. The Passover lamb, though, is a prefigured, it's, it's a foretelling. It's a pattern. It's a prefiguring of something that's going to happen in the future. And what is that? It's Jesus on the cross. Paul says pet Christ is our Passover lamb. So it sometimes in the Old Testament actually have a fair number of them. You have a personal event or an institution whose life or circumstances forecasts something greater. And so many people will take the Daniel nine thing and say, all the events of Daniel nine are fulfilled in Daniel 11. Because Daniel 11 is a description of things that happen. In the mid one hundreds, BC remember, Daniel had those four kingdoms, okay, Babylon, the media person and the Greeks and then the Romans. Well, if you actually track that through the rest of the book, when you get to the third king in the Greco Roman period, that's in the mid one hundreds BCE. It's not in biblical history. It's in the intertestamental period, there was a guy named Dan Tikus epiphanies who was the ruler of 1/4 of Alexandria degrades empire. He lived up in Syria in the north, he came down and cutting to the chase. desecrated the temple, slew a pig on the altar, you know, made it a death penalty offense to circumcise and to observe that the Passover and all this kind of stuff. He was viewed as the great cosmic enemy that Daniel was talking about. The one who commits the abomination. If you're going to take that view, and practically everybody thinks anti, this is important. You're going to say all of Daniel nines fulfilled with anti Vegas, but what he does is a prefiguring. It's a type of something that's going to get happen. Because when Jesus is here, in Matthew 24, he says, You've heard it spoken up by Daniel the prophet, okay, and he talks about the abomination that Jesus knows what happened 150 years prior to him being there, he knows about anti Vegas, but he still says, That's the future. And so what many predators do is they'll say, what anti Vegas did and to fulfill Daniel line was sort of a warm up or a prefiguring of what Titus will do in 70. Destroying the temple, this time for good, destroying the city. So that's how you would you would stay in the passage but not be, you know, future tribulation Go ahead.

It Yeah, it depends where it would depend on your starting point. And, and the amount of literalness you attribute to the numbers to make it work. Other questions? If that's gonna work for me I'm getting a red circle. That's not good. Okay, we already talked about, there's no verse that makes the equation but again, maybe that equation deserves to be made on the on the basis of other things. So it's an open question. Other questions would be why is there no mention of seven years in the book of Revelation? So that's kind of odd. If you actually search for the number seven, you won't you won't, you won't find it associated with the years and the book of Revelation. You will find three and a half years. Well, that's half a seven, so sevens floating around there somewhere. Again, maybe you can make the argument and other bases but you don't actually have a reference to seven years. Why is there no mention of weeks in Revelation? Well, you don't need them. No, it's just seven years, we don't have seven, we got the three and a half a couple times. So it's good enough for me. Maybe it is. Why is Daniel 924 to 27? Not quoted in the book of Revelation? That one's kind of odd. Who cares if the events are described, you don't need the verse quoted, if, if lots of things are described that sort of go with Daniel nine, it's good enough. Maybe it is. Can you just have to come down somewhere. Now the other side. We just sort of warmed up to this the seventh eighth week, if you're a preterist. preterist, means you believe that most, and perhaps all prophecy has already been fulfilled. The only ambiguity is really the Second Coming. So you believe all the events of Daniel nine have been fulfilled, and a lot of Preterists are on Miller's. So I've lumped them together for the sake of the of the slide. Seven Youth Week expires around the crucifixion. So they're going to take that view, or maybe around the time of Paul's conversion, give or take. It's not too many years different. So most preterist are going to take this view seven, eight weeks over with crucifixion of Jesus, some say, seventh eighth week refers to this period here 66 to 73. It's when rom takes over and destroys a lot of Jews and the temple because halfway, you get the temple destroyed 70 ad, and isn't that kind of coincidental? 66 to 73, three and a half years, then you get the temple destroyed, and three half years later, it's all over. Okay, so some of them are gonna go there. The key verse for any of these views, is 926. Because there's a reference to the destruction of the city in the sanctuary. And everybody knows that happened in 70. And so they'll say, that's when the passage was finally fulfilled, could have been fulfilled with anti Vegas. antagonists, this kind of a war of opinion, destroy the whole city, but he stood a lot of things. And, you know, salute the leader say Antichrist was a warm up a type to Titus, or they'll put off the seventh eighth week to right here, and then get the destruction of the sanctuary there. Either way, this depends on really one thing. Well, not not only one thing, but really, really, really vital. When the book of Revelation was written, and the key passages revelation 11, two, if you want to flip there, you could, I'll show it to you, but you might want to keep your might want to have in front of you. Then I was given a measuring rod, like a staff and I was told, rise and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and those who worship there, but do not measure the cord outside the temple. Leave that out for it is given over to the nations and they will trample the holy city for 42 months, maybe three and a half years. Here's a reference to the temple, right there. Now, here are the two views. Some believe that the book of Revelation was written prior to 70 ad. And everything in the book of Revelation, except maybe the second coming, is already fulfilled. They think that the events of the book of Revelation are a way of describing the destruction of 70 ad. And to do that, you know, it helps if it's written before, here are the arguments that are used. Whoever's writing, this would have been crazy to mention the temple. If there was no tumble. Why would they do that? Because somebody like living after 70 ad would read that and go, what does that really mean to have a temple? What's that? Let's be an error. It assumes the reference is literal, that the temple here is like the structure. They also would argue on the basis of 666, and some manuscripts read 616 They don't all read 666 for the number of the beast. But both numbers are ciphers for the name of Nero. You can make both numbers work with Nero's name because Nero had a couple of names you know and depends how you spell them and how long they are used the abbreviated form or not. Again, you're cheating the whole way. So Nero live before 70. So the book had to be written before 70. They'll also argue that Babylon, the great whore, represents apostate Jerusalem, not Rome. So that the pictures of Babylons destruction throughout the book portray the destruction of Jerusalem. That's one view. The other view that you're probably more familiar with, because this is the one that is held by, I think it's fair to say all futurists when it comes to looking at things like a rapture and a tribulation, they're all going to interpret the Revelation, the book of Revelation as forecasting a distant future, or perhaps an imminent future set of prophecies. That view has the book written in the 90s. Here's the evidence after 70 ad, Babylon, used by Jewish writers for Rome exclusively. In other words, in all the other ancient literature out there, outside of the New Testament, Babylon, is used by Jewish writers and the writer of revelation would have been Jewish, only for Rome. So it's completely opposed to this point here. You will not find a Jewish writer using the term of Jerusalem, you find it a lot used of Rome. And the reason they do that is because as Babylon destroyed the temple, and Jerusalem, so did the Romans back back in 70 ad, because the author's writing in the 90s he sees a clear analogy there. So for him, Babylon is Rome, it's the Roman Empire. It's not the Catholic Church, by the way. There was no Catholic Church. In the 90s. AD, it didn't exist. The Roman Empire existed, but the Catholic Church did not. There's no instance before or after 70 ad for Babylon being symbolic for Jerusalem, just more generally. This this point is really lacking on the other side. And probably the one piece of evidence that is most used is this one, the Church Fathers Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius. All say it was written in the 90s. Irenaeus discusses 666. And the beast, he goes through a number of interpretations as to what this beast thing means with the 666. He doesn't even consider Nero as an option. In fact, he rejects any equation with any Roman Emperor. If you're living in the 90s, that would make sense, you'd have to go and look historically as to why that is because the Roman Empire was in turmoil. You pretty much had Roman emperors like we had Soviet premieres back in the 80s. You know, they last about two weeks, and they're gone kind of thing. They just kept dying like flies. So there's no powerful Emperor until you get around 100 or so then you have some serious power, with throne, but up until this point, during the 90s, it's like, you got to be kidding. One of these guys was the beast, I mean, good grief. You know, he was weak, it didn't last long. So rRNAs doesn't even have any time for it at all.

That's your trip to the pit of despair. This is probably the most complicated gets. But I think you can see, this is really important that any of you have prophecy, where in the world am I going to land. And it's not that you have to pick. It's not that you have to make four or five separate decisions. What you may have caught, what I didn't really stress was, as soon as you make one, it kind of forces you to make this one over here. And if you put those two together, well, then I gotta take this one back in number, you're sort of trapped you. There's only a finite number of ways that all of the decisions work together. So you have to it's kind of a dicey proposition as to where you're going to land because everybody wants to be consistent in what they're doing, the way they approach Daniel and all these other passages. And that's tricky. Even getting past the fact that I'm making these decisions because I think it's the best guess It's a reasonable gas, it looks, I feel like I can defend that gas pretty well. And that's okay. Everybody has to defend their gas. What what I don't want you to go away with is thinking that your guess is somehow more biblical than somebody else's guess. Or you have some sort of inside track that makes your guess better. Everybody's guessing they're just trying to do the best they can. So that's why we got here last year with the elders. You know, this is no hill to die on. None of these are hills to die on it. You just need to be charitable. I don't know where anybody's out here. Except me my wife. But she doesn't. So, any questions? Any pleas for mercy? Me Please for help. Okay, no questions. You're free to go. Thanks for coming.

How do we account for variations in the gospel accounts? Especially with something like what was written on the sign nailed to Jesus’ cross? (Matt 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19). This is a good example of how we need to think carefully about the text. Think about it and comment below!

Transcript:

Michael Heiser 0:01

These are the slides to the second session of the series four week series on prophecy that I'm doing at my church. And since the audio was not recorded for my session, and hence the video wasn't posted, I thought I would make a quick screen capture of the slides. Now, the session was about an hour, I'm going to try to cut that in half here, and take about half an hour to go through the slides. But I wanted you to at least have something in relationship to the topic. And this first slide is how I began. So I'm just going to jump right in by way of a preliminary quiz, and there is a point to this. So bear with me. If you have someone you're trying to disciple, they stop you after church. And they ask you why the Gospels don't agree on what was written on the sign nailed Jesus cross. The point is, you know, what would you do with that? So you have this person come up to you, and ask you about this. And she wonders how in the world the gospel writers couldn't get something like that right? one or all of them must be wrong. And that's her presupposition. So how would you answer? Well, let's take a look at the superscription ones. Here they are, you might not be aware of this issue. And all four gospels disagree in some way. In terms of the superscription, on the cross, you'll notice Matthew, Mark, Luke, John there. Now they all have King of the Jews, as a phrase, you might notice that as you go through. But the other elements, there's some sort of variation going on. So the question is, what do you do with this? Well, I would suggest that all of them could be right instead of one of them being wrong. In other words, the Gospels are like the life of Jesus in stereo, there's no reason to think that all of the words in all of the superscription is here, could not have been on the superscription itself. And the gospel writers are just either recording part of it maybe for a literary reason, you know, some sort of authorial intention for literary purposes, or they're just remembering only part of it. But there's no reason to say that all of the words could not have been there. Let me give you a contemporary illustration. Now, we've had a lot of brouhaha over the House budget deal, or we did recently, at least for the timing of this session. So Speaker Boehner on the House budget deal, I've gone through three news sources took me about five minutes to find these. And here's what Speaker Bonner was quoted as saying about the house budget deal. All of these entities, these news entities read the same press conference. But look at the quotations. They're all quite a bit different. And so I'll ask the same question that we asked if the four Gospels, which one of these is wrong? Well, the obvious answer is that none of them are wrong. They're just recording part of a greater whole. And that would be the point with the gospel writers as well. And for whatever reason, they chose the wording that they did, or, again, it might just be memory. But there's nothing to say, in this instance, with Speaker Bonner, that all of these things were not said by him at that single event. And going back to the Gospels, there's no reason to suspect that all of those words could not have been on the superscription. It's just a selective citation. Now, why am I bringing this up? Because what you've just seen me do both to the Gospels, and to these news sources is harmonize them. Okay, bring them together, I'm joining them into a coherent whole. Now, this actually applies to the whole question of the rapture, which is what was the topic in session two? Does does the Bible teach a rapture or not? Now up here we have the standard pre mil pre trib view, this is the left behind view. You'll notice at the top here, I have some representative authors les Ryrie, MacArthur Schofield, your standard pretrib view is that we're living in the church age here. At some point we'll have a rapture where Jesus will descend and take believers up with him. After that, there will be seven years of hell on earth, the tribulation, at the end of that Jesus will return Second Coming, then we have a 1000 year kingdom and then the eternal state, the new heaven and new earth. Now, you'll look at this we have two separate events, rapture, second coming. They are both returns of Jesus in some way. But there are two distinct events. So that's the question for tonight or it was the return of Christ. Do you believe in One or two events. If you believe in two, then you have a rapture you believe in a rapture and then a subsequent Second Coming. If you believe in one, then you don't have a rapture, you just have the Second Coming. That's another way of asking, Are you a splitter, or a joiner? And here's where are a little illustration about the Gospels and how speaker Bonner comes up. What you're going to see in these slides is that there are a wide range of passages in the New Testament that talk about the return of Jesus. And I'm saying it that way deliberately, the return of Christ. They do not all agree in every detail. The only way you get a rapture and a second common, the only way you get to events, is to split or separate. The passages about the return of Christ into two categories, still the way you get there. If you harmonize them, though, like we did with the Gospels, if you harmonize them, if you join them, you only have one event, you only have a second coming. So the whole notion of a rapture is based upon your prior decision, your presupposition, something you bring to the Bible, that I ought to separate, or I ought to join the passages to talk about the return of Jesus, I either have two categories or one. It's it's that simple, but also that profound in a sense that a lot of people don't realize that this is what they're doing. Or this is what the preachers doing, that they're listening to or the book they're doing. They're just making a simple decision up when I have two passages talking about the return of Christ, and they don't agree they must be separate events. Well, why you wouldn't approach the gospels that way, you would harmonize them. So why do you split instead of join? And we can ask the other question, why do you join instead of split, there's no cosmic rule that says you have to harmonize. There's also no cosmic rule that says you have to split neither view is self evident in the Bible. The Bible doesn't come with a set of instructions on what to do. You just decide what you're going to do. And then you, it takes you to a position in your in your eschatology. So splitter join, let's look here at First Thessalonians four. And this is a passage that everyone says refers to a rapture who believes in a rapture. This is sort of the classic passage, and if you read through, it should be very familiar. we who are alive who are left to the coming of the Lord will not proceed those who fall asleep, the Lord Himself would descend from him with a cry of command or a shout, some translations have the voice of an archangel, the sound of the trumpet of God and the dead in Christ rise first. The other believers are caught up together in with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so since Jesus doesn't set foot on Earth in this passage, like he does in other ones, there are some who say, well, first Thessalonians, four, and those other passages can't be referred to the same event, we have to split them. Okay, keep that in your head. It's your decision to split them or join them. Now, in this passage, you have a few elements, I've listed them out, you got this cry or shout, you have a voice of an archangel the trumpet. There's caught up, you know, with Jesus with the dead in Christ in the clouds. And then there's this meeting of the Lord in the air. I try to keep those in mind as we go through some other slides here. I'm going to look at some assumptions about this passage and its wording that will sort of dovetail with this idea or this question, do I split or join? Let's take a look at the phrase meet the Lord in the air. Now, if you believe in a rapture, you're used to assuming that air there is literal, it's the literal atmosphere of the where planes fly. Okay. But what about that question? Does Satan or the Devil live in Earth's atmosphere? In other words, what that area where oxygen is still present, where planes fly beneath what we would call outer space, but above the ground, in other words, does he live in our physical terrestrial world?

Now, if you say yes, then you're looking at air literally. But I mean, think about the question. Is there any risk of Satan or the Devil getting hit by a plane? Is he just fast and he never gets hit? You think? Well, that's kind of a silly question. He's a spiritual being. He's a disembodied being by nature. Well, that is my point. Have you considered that air here, meet the Lord in the air might just be used metaphorically, for we meet the Lord in the unseen spiritual realm. If that's the case, then we don't need this idea of being, you know, watching people physically fly up in the air in a rapture. The whole passage would just mean, hey, we're going to, we're going to be with the Lord, we're going to be with the Lord, in that in heaven, or in that place in that realm, that spiritual realm where he is, and that's all it means. So again, the point might just be the spiritual realm. Sumption number two, caught up to meet the dead in the clouds to meet Jesus. What I'm getting at here is how literal do we take this language? Because if you're a splitter, you see this as a literal event that happens where planes fly. And Jesus never comes to the earth. And that's one event as opposed to a subsequent event where Jesus comes to the earth. And what I'm asking you to think about is, if you merge them, you know, some people, I can't merge them, that's a problem. Because you know, what about this stuff going on up in the air? Well, maybe the whole point is just the resurrection. And that is something that happens after the Second Coming. So maybe we do just have one event, instead of two. Maybe the whole point of the language in First Thessalonians. Four is that we're with the Lord. Clouds. Question here? How would we meet the disembodied dead? Literally, either visibly or physically in the clouds? How would we see them if they don't have bodies? In other words, how literally do you take this corollary assumption is that First Thessalonians, four again, describes a rapture of dead believers coming bodily out of the graves. But if you noticed in the passage, First Thessalonians, For the Text never says that. It never talks about the dead coming up, out of their graves in a physical, you know, resurrected sense. Now, the reason I mentioned that will be evident in a moment here. But these questions here again, draw, or at least create the opportunity to think about how literal do we want to be about this, maybe this is just a reference to a spiritual resurrection, where we are and the dead at a given point, when the Lord returns, we're all together in heaven in the spiritual realm, the non terrestrial realm with Jesus, maybe that's the whole point. And we don't have to worry about the literal pneus of this event, and distinguish it from the second coming, and then the resurrection. Excuse me. Now, to get the idea of this transformation of the dead, you need First Corinthians 15, for that. But that brings up a third assumption, that first Corinthians 15 is also about a rapture, and not the subsequent second coming, I look at the passage, and there's a reference to the trumpet. We had that in first Thessalonians four. So people are led to think, oh, that must be the rapture because it's a trumpet. But they've they've made the prior assumption, that first Thessalonians four has to be split off from other passages about second coming. But now let's ask the question, is this really about a rapture? Is this really about an event catch this any event prior to the Second Coming? Let's take a look. There's more of the passage than meets the eye. You have the trumpet. You've got down here about the perishable body putting on immortality, you have the dead will be raised again that language, that language again have some sort of physical resurrection and physical change. As the passage continues, though, verse 54. When the perishable puts on the imperishable the mortal puts on immortality, then Paul quotes a passage share a poem from the Old Testament. Death is swallowed up in victory. Oh Death, where is your victory? Oh, death. where is your sting? Now here's the question. Is this First Corinthians 15, the final victory over death. Now, if you say yes, I have a link down here, and I'm not going to open the software in the slide, but the link is to Revelation 20. The final judgment. This is the place where death, after the Second Coming not after the rapture after the Second Coming, that's the time when death is finally destroyed. So now you have a problem. We thought this referred to a rapture seven years earlier than the second coming. But Paul's quotation here, conceptually links to an event after the Second Coming. That's a little bit of a problem. Continuing, if you go back into First Corinthians 15, look at what you read. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive, but each in his own order. Here's the order Christ, the firstfruits. Christ was the first that rose bodily from the dead, then at His coming, those who belong to Christ, okay, well, you say, well, is that the rapture the Second Coming? I don't know. Well, look at verse 24, then comes the end. The coming here is not split into two events. Now, again, to maintain the two events, what you really have to do is you have to deny that First Corinthians 15, as a rapture passage, and you have to reserve it for the second coming, because then this chronology can make sense. And the reference to the death being put to death will make sense. But then the problem becomes is, is that the problem that is raised is that both passages have this trumpet thing, which many people associate only with the rapture. And so you have to make choices here. And that's the point of my prophecy sessions. Just showing people I don't really care what position you take, but showing you why you take those positions. You know what goes into them, believe it or not, you're, you're unconsciously you've already made some of these decisions before you ever get to the passages. So then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, well, that doesn't happen at the rapture. Again, this has to be second coming. After destroying every rule and every authority, every power, the last enemy to be stored as death. Again, this has to be second coming. Now, there are some who would just split First Corinthians 15, into two events. You know, wonderful, that's just a decision you have to make. Well, here, it's the second coming. And then later, when we get to the 50s, it's the rapture, then verse 54, we're, we're back to talking about the second coming, because that has this destruction of death line, you know, chop up the passage however you want. But realize that is what you're doing, you're doing it because you've already made the decision, or you already believe that you need to do that. And if you don't chop it up, you know, you're you're already deciding that you don't need to do that you're going to harmonize instead of split, you're going to join instead of split. Now should I split or join the elements, let's take a look at some other passages. The Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father and He will repay its person according to what he's done. Again, here's a reference to angels at the coming so is that the rapture, or the second coming will depending on if you split or join, this judgment here will either be the judgment seat of Christ or the final judgment at the end. The point is, you're going to interpret this passage by virtue of your prior decision. Now, if you're wondering, Mike, are you saying that my theology is, is driving my Bible interpretation? Yeah. That's just the nature of the beast. And it's like I've said before, it's why there's so much ambiguity here. There's there's so much that is presupposition driven, that I don't really care for prophecy that much. Because so much of it is so subjective in this manner. What I do care is that people don't realize that, that they just think that they open they flip open their Bibles and pop, you know, outcomes. They're eschatology. That is just not the case. You only think that because you've read a book or you've read a novel. And you just think that it's that self evident. It's not there's a lot that you are not being told.

Matthew 25 Again, another reference to angels. The Son of Man comes in his glory, all the angels with him when he hit that he'll sit on his voice from his throne. That sounds like The Return of Christ in Revelation 17, when Christ returns with the holy ones, at the battle of Armageddon, so that one looks like second coming in, that's a little easier, but you have reference to angels. And you had a reference to Angel, an angel in First Thessalonians? Four. So why can't you join them? Well, the answer is you can. But some won't want to, because they want the two events. They don't want the one event. Let's go to Second Thessalonians. Same author Paul piggyBac, you know, with First Thessalonians First Thessalonians, four, it was this passage, you know, where we saw, most people get a rapture from, it's sort of the go to passage. Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, I look at the wording there. This sounds a lot like First Thessalonians For the idea of of believers being gathered to Jesus, where he doesn't actually come and land on Earth, but believers are gathered to Him. So Second Thessalonians, one sounds, it has the same flavor as First Thessalonians four. And again, if you notice that, I'm going to, I'm going to ask you the question again. Do you really want Second Thessalonians to be a rapture? Do you really want to split? Or do you want to join here? Look at the rest of what Paul says in Second Thessalonians one, when the Lord Jesus has revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, and there's the angels again in flaming fire, a lot of that that isn't the rapture, inflicting vengeance on those who don't know God. No rapture doctrine I know of would say that those who don't obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus, punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord, glorify and his saints. That is not what happens in any description of the rapture I've ever read. So knowing that I would read this and say, that's got to be second coming. So what you'll commonly hear, and again, this is just a decision you make is that second Thessalonians is second coming. And First Thessalonians. Four is Rapture. We split, we don't join, or do we, again, you have the reference to angels, maybe the two can be joined. But if you do that, then you only have one event. Say silly, Mike, you know, obviously, one's there. Absolutely. There's a second coming. That's only true if you're a splitter. And that's just a decision you make. There's no instruction in the Bible that says, Thou shalt split references to Jesus return when you when you hit them. In the New Testament, there is no instruction book. It's just a decision, you make a joiners, again, just by way of review, they will look at these elements. And they'll say, look, if I see these other elements in other passages that talk about the return of Jesus, I don't really care if they match up exactly in all their language. I'm going to do with these, what I do with the Gospels, I'm going to harmonize them, I'm going to say all of the elements are true of one event. I'm not going to split them. So when you get to Matthew 2430, you have references to clouds, angels, trumpets, the gathering, again, sounds a lot like First Thessalonians, four. But a lot of people will say, Well, I, to me, this is the second coming. If you go to Matthew 24, you're going to have sort of a chain of events there. You're going to join that with First Thessalonians and just call it one event. First Corinthians 15 trumpet, a wonderful, it's one event, I think there's going to be a trumpet at the Second Coming, there is no Rapture. Again, the final death of death, obviously Second Coming. The order came each in his own order, the coming the end the kingdom, and destroying every rule and authority. It's second coming. They're all one. This is what a joiner will do. So the question is, are you a splitter, or a joiner? Is the return of Christ one event or two? You just have to decide. Again, this is the inherent ambiguous nature of studying prophecy. A couple other implications imminence. Some of you might be thinking, well, the return of Jesus is imminent. Yeah, whatever that means. It let's talk about what imminence might mean. Some people are trained to think that imminence can only mean that Jesus could return in the next eyeblink. In other words, there's nothing that has to happen before Jesus returned If it can happen in the next instance. Now whether you realize it or not the only people who believe that the only people who define imminence that way, are those who believe in a pre trib Rapture. Pre trib pre mille Rapture. Seems, excuse me. Even those who have other rapture views like mid trib, pre wrath or post trib, none of them define imminence that way, they all say there's some sign or signs before the rapture before the first event. And then we have the second coming. If you don't believe in a rapture at all, if you just have the second company, then there are plenty of signs that are described in the New Testament. So there's only a minority segment of Christianity that believes that Jesus could return to the next eye blink. And frankly, that view even cheats a little bit itself. Because if you could sort of map out, you know, signs that would occur after the rapture. And if you believe that you have the seven year period, you can sort of do the math to and imminence sort of loses that immediacy to it. But a lot of people don't bother to think of it that way. But anyway, if you're thinking of imminence in this way, that nothing has to happen, nothing is preventing the return of Jesus or nothing is expected that would precede it. That's only one view. And it's a minority view, actually. eminence could mean Jesus will return soon, there may have been or still need to be things that will happen. Or you could say Jesus will return unexpectedly. Now, that would apply to those who aren't watching and waiting. So that could be this, you know, this whole language of Jesus in the New Testament returning. And there's this element of surprise, you know, one will be taken the other left and the thief in the night kind of imagery. Again, that's where this idea of imminence comes from. While it may just mean unexpected, it doesn't mean this up here that there's nothing that has to happen. Again, you, you just have to define the term. And then you know, it'll take you somewhere, it'll take you to a position. Now, if you're a joiner, you have one return only. That rolls out the first option. Obviously, there are definite signs. Let's go back to Second Thessalonians. And we have here this passage not concerning the coming over Lord Jesus Christ, are being gathered together to him. We asked you brothers, not to be quickly shaken, so on and so forth. Let no one deceive you in any way down here in verse three. For that day, the coming of our Lord Jesus will not come unless the rebellion comes first. And the man of lawlessness is revealed. Now, practically everybody who believes in a literal Antichrist is going to say this is the Antichrist. So right here, we have a clear statement that before the second coming anyway, you have to, you know, you're gonna know who the Antichrist is. So that has to precede so if you if you don't believe in a rapture, if you just believe in a second coming, or if you're not a pre trib rapture person, you're looking for this. Okay, that needs to happen. Before some of these other things go into effect yet, so you're going to define imminent, says probably, it's just unexpected, it just sort of hits you it comes upon you, as opposed to it can happen in the next millisecond. Because we don't know who the Antichrist is. First Thessalonians five. Now, this is the thief in the night passage. And I want to show you that Paul, in this passage does not suggest or at least let me let me be

more fair here. This can certainly be read that Paul does not suggest that their Lord could return in the next millisecond. He suggests the inferences that are made here in this passage are that the believers who are watching and waiting will not be surprised. Okay. Let me just go to the next slide. And I've colorized the pronouns, and a couple nouns. And I think you'll see this it'll jump out at you. Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers. Paul's writing two brothers, he's writing to a Gentile church. These are believers. These are Christians. They're not just Jews, they're Christians. So anything in red refers to Christians. Concerning the Times and Seasons brothers, you have no need to have any thing written to you, whether it's I don't really even need to tell you this because you know already, For you yourselves are fully aware that the day the Lord will come like a thief in the night of the day the Lord in the Old Testament is the time of judgment. It's the time where the wrong is made, right? And the right is made, you know, it's validated, okay, you know, evil is judged, and the righteous are vindicated by the Lord, if there's a positive and negative aspect there, and that's, you know, language that's very clear. Second Coming, again, is usually when that's associated with but the person who believes in a rapture will often use the thief in the night language to justify a certain view of imminence. And, you know, you might do that, you might just say, Okay, I know this passage, doesn't talk about a rapture, but the thief in the night imagery, and then there's some other passages make me believe that it can happen at any moment and fine, I just want you to realize that that's what you're doing. You're making those kinds of decisions. So you yourselves are fully aware, the day Lord will come like a thief in the night while people, not believers, other people are saying, oh, there's peace and security, then sudden destruction will come. They, unbelievers will not escape. But you believers Christians are not in darkness brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief, you're not going to be a surprise, for you are all children the light show to the day we Paul's including himself now are not of the night or of the darkness and then let us not sleep as others do. unbelievers. Let us keep awake and be sober. Again, I just want you to see that this thief in the night language isn't necessarily or doesn't necessarily have to be what a preacher pre mill rapture position says it is. There's two ways to read it. Again, one or two events, just depends if you're a splitter. Last implication here, Jesus and other New Testament writers do talk about the return of the Lord. And the question is when they do that, is there this any moment nothing out there to happen yet feeling to the language? Well, in a lot of cases, no. This is a quote from Erickson's theology, and he gives you a few examples. Certain events had transpired before the second coming again, again, if you believe in a rapture, this you're fine with all this. Because you say Oh, well, yeah, of course, the second coming. But I believe in Rapture, I'm a splitter, and not a joiner. So the rapture can happen at any moment. Again, that's fine. That that is a position you can you can hold and people do and people defend it. Whatever, you know, again, I'm not concerned which position you take, I just want you to realize why you take it. And what it's based on these these decisions you make, you don't just flip open your Bible, and there it is, you decide to separate some passages from others, so that your conception of what's going to happen in end times will work. And the other side, other views do the same thing. They decide to join passages so that their conception of the End Times works. Everybody's position, everybody's system looks beautiful, and more power to you. But what you need to realize is that everybody cheats in the sense that everybody makes prior decisions out of their head. There's no Bible passage telling you to split or join. They make the decisions out of their head to do what they do in certain passages. And that's why they have the positions they do. And that's why Christians disagree. What you have to come to is the realization, the humility, to say that my position is no smarter is no more biblical than somebody else's, because I'm just making one set of decisions, and they're making a different set of decisions. That's all it comes down to. None of the views are self evident. So again, you have examples here of this language, and they either impact you or not based upon your decisions about splitting or joining. That's the end of the slides. I hope this had some explanatory value.

I plan to publish more of my own content after I am finished with my degree in 2025. Until then, it is relatively quick and easy for me to share things that I find valuable and may want to reference in my own work at a later time.

If you’re interested in more details about Dr. Heiser’s position on prophecy and eschatology, I would recommend this fifteen part series on his blog.3

Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 1

Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 2

Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 3

Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 4

Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 5

Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 6

Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 7

Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 8

Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 9

Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 10

Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 11

Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 12

Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 13

Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 14

Why An Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 15

Transcript

Michael Heiser 0:00

So for those of you, you got me wrong, we're okay, a little bit of self introduction. True confessions, I guess would be a better way to put this, I have to tell you that 10 times is probably my least favorite subject and who 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. I want to say this not in a negative way, but a positive way, I don't really care, 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 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. Because to be honest with you, there are a lot of things about eschatology that I think are really indeterminate, you really can't know. 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 will 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 Dak 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 book on you can pick up 100 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've 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. We pick these things up because of what we've heard in a sermon or on the radio reading 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, and it's a little vague, that's deliberate. I am gonna go through some terminology. I don't care about the terms. I would rather have you fixate on the ideas. The other thing I want to say before one of 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 if I say let's just have audience participation. I can go through and I want to go through a few things, but 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 we might have somebody in here that just I'm totally new to prophecy. new believer, I'm not a new believer, and I've never really bothered to get into this. This is sort of representative of a large segment of what we call popular Christianity, popular evangelicalism. timolol Hey, Ryrie, McArthur, Schofield. The view of n 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 is 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 1000 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. 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 foundations from from somewhere. Why do we dis why do we separate? The coming the second coming into two phases or two events? Why? Why did we do that? 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 Otto. That's revelation 20. There's a verse that that uses the word 1000 years, and it's 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, in this diagram, why don't 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. Like what is literal mean, for one thing? Does 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 two, refers to Jesus coming up out of Egypt, with Joseph and Mary as a fulfillment of Hosea chapter 11, verse one, if you look at Hosea 11 One, 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? 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 hermeneutic but we've heard the words literal hermeneutic often enough, that we just sort of it seeps into our mind and then we go to prophecy. And that's when 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've 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've gotten to the Bible, specifically, within 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 there's a second coming, and then there's a literal millennium, then we get the turtle state. This is what used to be known as premillennialism. Jesus comes pre before the millennium. Physician back here is pre millennial to fail. But we have two stages before a millennium. Question that 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 to events. We'll talk about that next week specific. millennialism 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 fulfilled already? Or are there some remaining if they will? What a stupid question, of course. I mean, how can 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 the New Testament are already fulfilled, even the return of Jesus. Not 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 preterist. Everything's fulfilled, fully. Partial preterist would say 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. And why did 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. And in post millennialism, we have the Church Age, not equal to the kingdom, but the church age, transformed 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 post millennial scheme, it's our job to get him to come back to work here on Earth, so that he will return. Okay, so we have a post millennial return. Again, why did 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 for 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, it's literally you don't need a rapture, you may or may not have a second coming. It really affects other things. So if you do that all those other things are become important to. 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 1000 years? Yes or no? This is a first fundamental question. Does it result in earthly rain of 1000 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 is going to be a pre millennialist. Because Jesus returns and then we have a kingdom on earth. If you say no, you're either an amillennial list, because the Kingdom is already here. It doesn't result from Jesus coming. Or you would be the post millennialist. 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 saved. Some of you have to believe in a literal kingdom. I want to know why you do. Anybody. You know, you're trapping yourselves into being all amillennial. Listen, I'm just gonna 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.

So you're, I'm gonna play devil's advocate with you. If I see Steve, get up, I'll know when to stop. So you base your theology and your feelings? Is that what I'm hearing? You're no fun. I mean, again, that's honest. Because, you know, we've all we've all done that, you know, we

Speaker 1 18:00

greatly huge chart charts. Really, really, really?

Michael Heiser 18:13

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? Do we have any millennialist? Here? Anyone wants to defend the millennialist? How does the millennialist have any hope?

Speaker 2 18:35

Well, I don't, not Millennials actually, but

Speaker 1 18:39

think they are? And when is he now we're in now are the window now? It's like open a nap.

Michael Heiser 18:55

It's true. It's true. Take a little further. If you're an on millennialist. What are you hoping for? Return to 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 amillennial, 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 1000 years, and that'll be great. Partially, because there's a lot of bad stuff happening in the premillennial system. It's not quite heaven on earth. In fact, there's a lot of non heaven on earth at that point, but the millennials 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. He's coming back and we're out of here. It's great. You

You're not alone. Somebody will hit the rapture next week. But the short answer is to that. The whole timing issue depends on how you define. First of all, you got to get over this question. You got to accept the literal kingdom literal tribulation. No wonder beyond that. The timing issue depends in part on questions like to 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, Dan, Daniel chapter nine. And we'll hit that in week three, out now catch this, this is just a little a 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 seventh eighth 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 might be a good guess. It might be completely correct. And then you have to move on to some other things that the viewer 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, you 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. Every system does that somewhere. Because 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 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 a couple pieces are a little rough over here, but if I put fits, works it looks looks good. Looks fine. I'm happy. Every view does that somewhere. Now back to the kingdom. I would still like other answers why do you think might sound like a dumb question? Because we assume that there's going to be this kingdom of God out there are the there is this kingdom of God? Why do you if you say yes, is there anything more to it than that? Is it hope isn't I was taught that there's there's got to be something more to

Unknown Speaker 23:32

my experience insurances exposed to more frequently.

Michael Heiser 23:43

So I think that's largely true

Unknown Speaker 23:48

that the other side

Michael Heiser 23:55

as well know, I think that's fair because the it's sort of a truism that if you if you look across the board, the pastors, TV pastors, TV preachers, public figures, the ones that sort of get more notoriety happened to be, you know, the pre millennial, often pre trib position and so you get a you get a saturation that sense to Let's Talk Go ahead, Dax. I thought sure. I'm glad you didn't say Harold Camping. Thank you for that. No, it's true. Sometimes I wonder if 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. Kingdom pay there's gotta be more to it. Go ahead DAX.

Speaker 3 24:57

Just because of the market getting it In my entropy, that's what I saw in seminary. But, but even more than that, if you study, okay, then the choices I'm making, for example, specific prophecies in the Old Testament, here to say Jesus literally returned, talking about, for example, and it's like forever talked about putting his feet on calls. And the Jews kind of running to the gills or is very specific.

Michael Heiser 25:23

When he puts his feet on the Mount of Olives, does he start a kingdom

Unknown Speaker 25:29

appears to be literally back

Michael Heiser 25:31

to the ambulance would say the leaves. Alright, but yeah, there's that contact thing. That's part of it.

Speaker 3 25:43

Some of the over overwhelming pieces of Old Testament prophecy, that and then some of the passages in Matthew, that are very interesting. Have you interacted much with like, ln or the greatest of the kingdom?

Michael Heiser 26:03

A little bit? I tend to not. I tend to not read theologians. I mean, I spent years reading them, and then I just quit. I, this is gonna sound kind of silly. I just preferred the text. I don't know how else to say it. I would just rather be buried in the text, and then sort it out. With with everybody I see. I see again, things that look that have a high degree of a higher degree of clarity than others. And I'm not. And that comes from everywhere for me. Let me ask it this way, what do you have in the kingdom? Let's imagine that you have a literal kingdom. What what's going to be there? Well, we've got sort of got the king this touching thing. Okay. And go ahead.

Speaker 1 27:07

I think and I'm okay, so I don't know a lot about Revelation. And I've never really, I guess, have that kind of like looking good point. I have these different views from that. But if you're, I would think that you're gonna answer this question based off of what you think the kingdom of God is supposed to be.

Michael Heiser 27:33

Because if you're, it's a good place to start.

Speaker 1 27:37

Now, I personally don't think this is the kingdom. But you know, I would think that, you know, Jesus would be on.

Michael Heiser 27:48

So you're just 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.

Speaker 1 28:02

I mean, there's more than I think what this world is now suffering, and there's so much evil and death and all that, in the midst of all the TV and everything, and I don't see the kingdom of God is really having, I don't know, if they haven't been, you know, maybe it's more related toward that heaven on earth, or so I was No, I wouldn't see this as being the kingdom of God now. So I know, that kind of takes me out of a window. And then the post millennialism I believe, you know, when you put this establishes the tradition established to them, I feel we are taking that upon ourselves to establish something that God is supposed to be establishing this kind of ticket on God's dam. So, you know, now then that was historic and pre Mille and kind of between them, but I think in my decision in answering that question, that's right.

Michael Heiser 29:00

Now all those things that you mentioned, you didn't you didn't sever them from an attachment to Earth 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 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 Premillennialism what's it like a temple Okay. Do we need a temple 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'd go to a passage like Ezekiel 40 to 48, which describes the grand super temple at a time. Okay, this is Ezekiel, the temple has just been destroyed. So as eagle is envisioning this superduper 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, 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 he's living there, you need a house, you see how all these ideas get tied together. So we have a king a place. Okay, the places on Earth, let's just make it big. Now. You know, earth, the earth 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 was done at a temple? kill animals? Well, there's a point of incongruence. But there are there are many who are premillennial 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 to Temple that's what you do in a tumble. You do sacrifice and there's a big fight over that.

Speaker 4 31:37

Secret government? Christ, Christ, which is he rules from Jerusalem.

Michael Heiser 31:46

So it's a sphere of authority. Yes.

Speaker 4 31:52

Is coming to the way God was created? Otherwise,

Michael Heiser 31:56

do you need a structure for that? A building?

Speaker 4 32:00

I'm not I'm not sure. Because I wonder to myself after this, this, this kingdom has been created by by Christ. And he's created all the different rulers are on different parts of the kingdom. What happens at that? I mean, why are we doing it? I mean, why?

Michael Heiser 32:23

What's the point? This is really, this is a good example. Now listen to the question. I'm going to ask you heard that he's defining temple as authority. And not quite sure whether you need a building or not. Listen to my question. Is he a literalist or not?

Okay, what does literalism mean? I'll tell you 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's pretend I'm an all Millennials now, believe we're gonna have a little temple and we're gonna 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, because it's not I mean, 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 do 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'm that I've just set for you. Because if you say yes, you're with me, if you say no, my next question is, are you an atheist? Are you materialist, atheist? I mean, come on. How can you believe in a God if you don't believe the unseen world is real? I 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 don't really think about it that way. Let's go back to King place. Building. Spirit 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 you say, well, it's Earth. But is it really? Okay, you think about Revelation 20? It's the earth but more specifically, where's the kingdom at? Where's the authority? Jerusalem? Okay. Why would we expect a kingdom in Jerusalem? Somebody why? Why would we expect that?

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? There's not gonna be the millennials again. Go you there for make disciples of all nations. Okay, we're gonna we're gonna 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?

Where does that come from? He's gonna get mad. Come on, you know where it's, you know where? It's, it's, it's in here, because 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 to two primary places. Genesis 12 first three verses, you might as well go there. Genesis 12. This is when God gives Abraham three promises that he's going to have children are going to be like the sand of the sea. We're gonna have, I'm gonna 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. You're preaching your presuppositions. You make a decision on this before you ever go anywhere in Revelation or the New Testament. Here's, here's the, here's the assumption. God gave promises to Abraham. You know, they cut up animals and walk through them and they know only God. 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. They had 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 build a tent, another temple again. But then they got overrun by the Greeks and the Romans, you know, it just 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 don't really regathered or kind of regather 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. 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 reestablished on Earth, because if it doesn't happen, then the promise failed. Okay, those are assumptions. Now the millennials will say, they did get the land. And God would have blessed them. They said, 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 gonna 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 why that? Why did God bring them back? Because he's nice. No, 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. And the Greeks and the Romans all the way up to 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? It's a debate. Some people would say, yes, other people would say, No. Have you ever heard 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 wipe 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 bunch of questions. What is literal mean? You got to make a decision on that? Are the is the Abrahamic Covenant, the promise still in effect? Was it send away or here's the other option, the church inherited it. The church inherits the promises of Abraham, the church's 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. Now, Miles is gonna 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 crack the New Testament open. Here is the Abrahamic covenant. 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'd need to think about to answer these questions, I realize we've sort of gone through a smattering of views. And again, 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 this cell phone 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 get here. To your offspring, I will give this land from the river of Egypt To the great river, the river Euphrates without going into all the boring geographical reasons why this is not the Nile. There's a different word used for Nile and the Old Testament. This is a river, North East of the Delta. If you know where Gaza is today sort of around there, but it's a lot of land. Genesis 17 One. Abram was nine years old, the Lord of Pierre de Roman said, I am God Almighty walk before me and be blameless. Well, wait a minute, if we come 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 said, 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 to be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you. And may multiply you greatly. It looks like a string. It's kind of a big one blameless. But I don't know if I can do that. And I will give to you, same chapter, verse eight, in 10. I will give to you and your offspring after you the land of your soldier earnings, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. Abraham all you got to do is be blameless. What kind of a deal as well 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 I 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 is supposed to do something. Genesis 22. This is the Abraham offering Isaac chapter. The angel Lord called Abraham second time, you know, don't don't slay Isaac. And then he goes into this covenant language again. And then here in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. That's Genesis 12 Three repeated. Because why? Because you obeyed. Not because I like you.

But because you obeyed. What did you obey God and while he took music, and he was gonna sacrifice, we don't really know what, you know what that was all about. But But Abraham said, I'll do it because God told me to do it. Because, you know, back aways, he told me, I had to be landless. So I don't get it. But I'm gonna do it. Now we know the story. You know, Abraham sort of implications there that he believed that God would raise Isaac, even if he killed him. 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, and he talks about sending 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 gonna get. Now, the question is, do they ever do that? Really kind of Joshua took two steps back onto 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 might become important later. But again, there's a little condition there. You don't want to be a loving lamp, these words of mine, your heart, so on and so forth. Your days, your days, the days your children maybe multiplied in the land of Lords 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 time. And maybe, maybe not ever. So we have a connection here between doing the commandment driving the nation's out and Hello, here we go again. Lebanon wilderness 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 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 for Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and serve Solomon all the days of his life. The millennials would say, there's your kingdom right there. And the reason we don't have the kingdom now is because Israel sin, God abandon them. God was merciful, He allowed them to come back because 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 needs the Jew to fulfill that plan. Why? Because we got to have a messiah. It's Jewish. Through the exile, think of the book of Acts now. Why is it kind of neat? I 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 two, 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 did they do? Let's do here. Now. 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. Again, I'm speaking I have my online analyst 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, and every time he goes in the synagogue, because that's where he started, and the jail, because that's where he's ending. Okay, that's just what he does. His mission, He Paul looked at himself. There are passages in Isaiah 66. They're 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, find Malama anomalous and say, Look, we don't need a future kingdom out there. Where 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 is touching this sort of, he's like there, okay, that 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 Israel as a as a nation as an ethnic nation that has identity, people fight over that? People who would say it's an ethnic entity, they're going to be sort of the Jews for Jesus people, you know, the premillennialists, you know, very much in favor of Zionism and all that kind of stuff. And then they'll be other Christian groups, who use terms like replacement theology, the church replaces Israel and who really cares what goes on in Israel, they serve 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 purpose is done. They're just any other nation now. So this this has a ripple effect into politics and other things. But live it goes back to this. Leviticus 26, which you didn't think we get in Leviticus tonight. Look at what it says, You shall not make idols for yourselves, okay, keep my Sabbath, revere my sanctuary, walk in My statutes, observe my commands, then you believe your bread of the fool and dwell in your land securely. Okay, so keep the laws and you'll develop on your land security 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 spend my statutes if you just do what you want, I'll set my face against you. It'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 seven fold 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 eight Does it sound familiar? I will scatter you among the nations I will unsheathed the sword after you. Your land shall be a desolation your city shall be a waste. I mean, it can't be any glare. You shall perish among the nations and the land of your enemies shall eat you up, those of you who are alive shall rot. Okay, I've heard enough, you know, it just goes on and on and on and on. For the bad consequences. shift, shift the premillennialists like this. But if they can, they're in 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, 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 enjoyed 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. Favorite the analyst or the pre millennialist? I don't know. I mean, 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 to interpret a host of passages of the New Testament.

Speaker 4 58:33

to Palestine at the end of the 19th century? No, that's the most productive. The least. I mean, I, my belief is that that's going to bring them back.

Michael Heiser 58:53

So in the language of Leviticus 26, that would be the time that he remembered the covenant. Yes. So there you go. 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 God revisit the covenant it's pretty clear that they had the land and that's that's just what First Kings for says. It's no accident that the same parameters are given. Okay, that wasn't just like a blunder of a scribe. Oh, too bad. I put that somebody will think we got the Latin I can't change it. No, 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. Here's the good half dozen other questions that are just sort of that murky, 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, we're going to have the temple again. Literal Temple is going to be back. Look what Paul does with it. What Accord as Christ with Belisle? What portion is a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement is 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 hearing the Corinthians here? No, For we are the temple of the living God. As it is written, even says, I'll prove it to you. I'm gonna quote Leviticus 26. I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them and I will be their God, they will be my people. Did Paul help the millennialist? Were the pre millennial last, or both? There's a better question. Is that literal or not? Is Paula literalist, or not?

Speaker 5 1:01:50

Worked as weird. Like, before Christ, it was differently thought about different. And they've had crisis, where the country's a mess was like, one era, another era. And so the kingdom, the millennial kingdom would be like another era.

Michael Heiser 1:02:12

And that is precisely our pre millennialist. What? Let me say it better. That's one of the ways that a premillennialists split dress. What's happening here, the homily analysts would say, you're only dividing it up into errors because you need to get back to the literalism, you know that. In other words, 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 need to not do that. So you get this again, this little turf war over it. By the way, in Corinthians, Paul says this, you are the temple, he says two places, one is plural you the whole body. The other is singular, individual Christians. What is the temple? Temple was where God lived, doesn't 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, Paul even uses this language, the same worry that was back there in the Old Testament, the tabernacle now tabernacles in you. That's why he's he's looking at you like you're a temple? Because you are. Again, the issue is, does it end there with Paul? Is it a both end? Or an either or? For Paul, if he were here is do I have to choose one or the other, Paul? Or can I have them vote? That's the hard part for hold on DAX, you had to

Speaker 3 1:03:42

make an assumption that we could do with whether we should be trying to interpret the Old Testament as Matthew did when he's

Michael Heiser 1:03:49

interviewed. You can do better than Paul. No. That's what right not that's the reverse. That's the reverse.

Unknown Speaker 1:04:02

writing something down and applying and not giving.

Michael Heiser 1:04:10

Let me let me give you the Malayalis response, and you can decide whether it's cheesy or not. Right, but for the rest of you, you can decide whether this is cheesy or not. I'm just gonna 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 it didn't answer the two or three questions I had after that. You know, 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. I wish he were here. 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 believe I know what he was thinking. And if it says this and nothing else, then that's where I'm going to be. 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 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 gonna 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 one. blessed to be the Lord God of Israel for his visited redeemed his people raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke with them out of His holy prophets from of all 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 one, well, what's Luke thinking? How's it How did God Remember his covenant? He's writing about what in Luke chapter one first chapter, the Gospels Zechariah. He's putting in the mouth of Zechariah. What is Zechariah thinking living in the first century? to Now you really got to psychologize people. Here's Zachariah priest, you know, he's old. And he sees you know, he witnesses the Messiah. And he harkens back to this remembrance 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 much we got. Now fill in all the blanks. I mean, what are you going to do? You can you really take what he says here and erect a whole theology out of it? You can't people do millennialist do premillennialists do. It's just hard to know what was really floating around in his head. X one. Lord, will You at this time restore the Kingdom Israel? Now the pre millennials 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 established the literal physical kingdom of God. Yay for the pre millennial lists. What will the omline list do? I'll say, what was his answer? I mean, you can't when, you know, he says, no, no, 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 would fit into that. So the pre millennialist gets points for the question. The outline always gets points for the answer or the non answer. What are you gonna do with that? Last slide. I think you don't want her to 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 812. When they believe Philip, does he preach the good news about the Kingdom of God? 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? Trying to imagine Philips conversations 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. Is that what he's saying? Maybe? I mean, we don't we don't know the conversation. Because the millennials would say, it says kingdom of God because to be a Christian is to be in the kingdom now. It's as simple as that. And the Premillennialism would say, Oh, we have to assume that that was part of it. But there's more. There who's right I don't know. He entered the synagogue and for three 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 is future? The millennials would say you can't. The kingdom is now the pre millennialist. 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. So think about this. Are you sanctified? Are you elect, you know, are you saved? Are you you know? Try 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? Because 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 have 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. You don't have any issues with time. tenses don't mean a whole lot to him. Second, Timothy 418, the Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. Well, that sounds future doesn't it with Paul and Paul would Paul fight Paul's Paul like schizophrenic? You know, there's good Paul and bad, Paul, or what is that? Paul wrote them both. This one sounds like an already reality. And this one is future. Why Paul, you're just weird. Maybe he believed both made us a kingdom praise to his God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. So even in the book of Revelation, it sounds a little past there are 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 raining now? If they're a kingdom, aren't they raining now? What's this shall rain? How can you be a king and not right? I mean, what is that? How can you have one without the 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. Maybe that's the case. Again, my goal is I want you to go away I want you to go away confused every succeeding, you know, 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? Alright, 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 can to you. It'll look beautiful. It'll answer every question you have. Until you pick up the next one. 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 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 questions for you to think about if you want to sort of get into End Times Questions are not going to be like, what verses do I need to prove that there's a seven 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 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. It's not. It's not easy. 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's my position. It's just not that easy. This is one of those areas in theology, where you don't have the clarity, you have some other things. Questions, unless you just want to take off, that's fine. If you want, if you have to leave, you're not going to offend me by leaving, by the way. You want to take a few questions to actually want to get out here. Anybody? Anybody with questions? By the way? I don't mind heretical questions. I teach Israelite history at Western. I get lots of good questions. So the, the, the more the more pugnacious the question, the the discussion is, is almost invariably better. So don't be afraid to ask me.

Right, if they use the word kingdom, that sounds postmillennial. Because we need that convert 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.

Unknown Speaker 1:17:20

What's the connection between the kingdom of God

Speaker 4 1:17:30

currencies we. We and all the other churches that believe in Jesus Christ, and we're all part of that church. That might my own belief, right? Understand if you're having another is that there will be raptor and we will be going out to the desert race. We will go there with Christ. And then he will he'll come back with us all. And establish that came. That's my honey center. Where is the church that

Michael Heiser 1:18:08

you you would have to you would have to ask yourself 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 there's a certain sense where because we are the temple, you know, we are the people of God and 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 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 one because 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 spirit total 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 explains a lot, you know, to me, I'm going to become an millennialist, 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 originally 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 a 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 the texts 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 something in the gospels here, I think when Jesus said, When you know, the Lord's Prayer, and another passage is talking about, as in heaven, the unseen realm, the realm that we don't inhabit God's realm, as in heavens on Earth. I think there's a symbiotic relationship to what happens in the same unseen worlds? And could it be that prophecy works on both realms in both spheres? I think it does. So that helps me I don't have a name for that. I don't have a system name for it. It doesn't fit any of the other systems, but I don't really care. Okay. I think the reason why the systems are beautiful, is because they've latched on to 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 difference a word makes instead of structure, tempo, tempo, meaning dominio. That's what interpretations about I mean, if we see words used 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. All right. Right, there's still tilting one way or the other. Yeah. Project.

Speaker 6 1:23:13

Financially, looking into the question. When Jesus said, All things wouldn't have happened before this generation had passed away. Well, brothers, and some people once wasn't answered, and so we shed light on the other systems.

Michael Heiser 1:23:36

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, 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 what and you're assuming that he's talking about a future reality, that generation will that rules out Preterism from the get go. So that's really where sort of the battle is on that? Is it? Is it concrete, situated in time to Jesus time? Or is it abstract? So I, that's it'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 sort of think about. The real the real issue with Preterism is the temple. And that takes you into the question of what was the book of Revelation written? And that takes you into the question 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 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? Because that's when the temple was destroyed. And if that's the case, then pretty much everything in there is already fulfilled. If it's not, if it's post 70 ad, then the game is wide open. Okay, they don't it's like, we don't know what John could possibly be referring to. Because he can't be referring back there. I mean, so the argument must be referring something, you know, out in the future. Be nice if revelation just told us. Okay, it doesn't. You know, it's not self evident, either. Yes. What

Unknown Speaker 1:26:01

was the genesis 12 on the screen without

Unknown Speaker 1:26:03

religion three?

Unknown Speaker 1:26:09

I mean, do you want to mix things up? Yeah,

Michael Heiser 1:26:11

no. Maybe Maybe I maybe I should have maybe I just assumed that I thought I would. I would hit in the in the course of the discussion. What Bradley's talking about is in Galatians, three at the end of the chapter, and a little bit in the beginning. Paul point blank says that believers Christians have inherited the Abrahamic covenant. And what he doesn't say there in Galatians. Three 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 be fulfilled in the church? The pre Millennials would say You bet it does. If Paul doesn't connect the land to the church, I'm not with you, Mr. millennialist. And the online house would say, Come on, it says point blank. If you are, you know, in Christ, you are Abraham's seed and air according to the Prime Minister, 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. Because of the MLS will 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 three 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.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:03

A lot of these distinctions

Speaker 6 1:28:06

really be between dispensational Greenville, and the start.

Michael Heiser 1:28:11

Some of them would be the real fight over that, you know, I sort of wanted to reserve that for the rapture issue, because that's the big battleground there, but that that's fair. That's fair. Some of them you're on millennialist is gonna feel more I don't know if I use the word comfortable but he's probably got more in common with the historic premium over the dispensational primo there are fewer things they disagree about, but it's still not terribly compatible. But there is there is some overlap if you if you do the already not yet. Then you embrace a lot of our millennialism but you don't buy our millennialism you know because you're you're saying I like what you say but you don't say enough. Okay, that's really where you're at. And you get with historic pre mill there is an already not not yet sense. So there is there is some camaraderie there. So they'd be closer than your standard dispensational position, which includes the rapture. Anybody else? Okay, thank you for coming.