Is What We Have Now What Was Written Then?

THE BIBLE ALONE IS THE WORD OF GOD.


Those eight words are profound and worthy of much meditation. The Bible is God’s inspired word and nothing else is. No other book carries the weight of Divine authorship in order to bind the human conscience. None of my thoughts… nothing that happens between my ears or yours rises to the level of Scripture. The Bible alone is the word of God. The Bible is the necessary and SUFFICIENT resource for all we need for life and godliness – it equips the man of God for every good work (2 Tim. 3:17).


Before I read the Scripture passage in a sermon you will hear me say these familiar words, “Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the word of God.” When we speak of the Bible as God breathed Scripture, we speak of the inspiration of the original manuscripts – what men such as Moses, Isaiah, Paul and John wrote as they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). The Scripture is “theopneustos” – Greek for “God breathed” found in 2 Tim. 3:16.


God has inspired His word and preserved it for us, just as He promised. However, He did not do so by sending a gold edged, leather bound 66 book canon of the Bible down from heaven on a parachute one Tuesday afternoon. No! There was a long and lengthy process involved, all of which was overseen, I believe, by the kind Providence of God.


God promised to give us His word and He has done so. However, He made no promise to bring supernatural aid to everyone who would make a copy of the Scriptures. We therefore do not contend for the inspiration of scribes. That’s an important and vital distinction. Scribes can and do make mistakes in copying, just as you and I can make mistakes when copying a poem or book.


Does that mean we have a corrupted Bible text? Can we not know for sure what was originally written (as some claim)? Not at all! Why? Because of the scholarly work of what is called “Textual Criticism” we can come to know what was originally written by the writers of the Bible. It is a science and a fascinating one, though for sure, some find it more fascinating that others.


Why would this be of interest to us? Well, because Gospel conversations we have with people today, issues of the text of the Bible come up regularly (unlike in decades past). There is so much mis-information out there that is freely available on the internet. It is therefore good for us to be armed with the truth as it prepares us to give a defense of the faith we profess to those who ask us for the reason of our hope, as 1 Peter 3:15 states.


It is important, and I would say “vital” to know WHAT we believe and WHY we believe it.

“IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW WHAT WAS WRITTEN THEN?”


Many have the opinion (me included) that Dr. Wallace is the leading scholar in the field of textual criticism in the world today. He is the Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) and Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is a past president of the Evangelical Theological Society, a consultant for several Bible translations, and the author of numerous journal articles and books including Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. As you will see, he also has a particularly dry sense of humor.


In just less than an hour, Dr. Wallace explains the copying of the New Testament books and shows the reliability of our English translations. I believe it will do us much spiritual good to be aware of these things.

Faith Is Not The Saviour

“Faith is not our physician. It only brings us to the Physician. It is not even our medicine; it only administers the medicine, divinely prepared by Him who ‘healeth all our diseases.’ In all our believing, let us remember God’s word to Israel: ‘I am Jehovah, that healeth thee’ (Exod. 14:26). Our faith is but our touching Jesus; and what is even this, in reality, but His touching us?

“Faith is not our saviour. It was not faith that was born at Bethlehem and died on Golgotha for us. It was not faith that loved us, and gave itself for us; that bore our sins in its own body on the tree; that died and rose again for our sins. Faith is one thing, the Saviour is another. Faith is one thing, and the cross is another. Let us not confound them, nor ascribe to a poor, imperfect act of man, that which belongs exclusively to the Son of the Living God.

“Faith is not perfection. Yet only by perfection can we be saved; either our own or another’s. That which is imperfect cannot justify, and an imperfect faith could not in any sense be a righteousness. If it is to justify, it must be perfect. It must be like ‘the Lamb, without blemish and without spot.’ An imperfect faith may connect us with the perfection of another; but it cannot of itself do aught for us, either in protecting us from wrath or securing the divine acquittal.

“All faith here is imperfect; and our security is this, that it matters not how poor or weak our faith may be: if it touches the perfect One, all is well. The touch draws out the virtue that is in Him, and we are saved.

“The slightest imperfection in our faith, if faith were our righteousness, would be fatal to every hope. But the imperfection of our faith, however great, if faith be but the approximation or contact between us and the fulness of the Substitute, is no hindrance to our participation of His righteousness. God has asked and provided a perfect righteousness; He nowhere asks nor expects a perfect faith. An earthenware pitcher can convey water to a traveller’s thirsty lips as well as one of gold; nay, a broken vessel, even if there be but ‘a sherd to take water from the pit’ (Isa 30:14), will suffice. So a feeble, very feeble faith, will connect us with the righteousness of the Son of God; the faith, perhaps, that can only cry, ‘Lord, I believe; help mine unbelief.’

“Faith is not satisfaction to God. In no sense and in no aspect can faith be said to satisfy God, or to satisfy the law. Yet if it is to be our righteousness, it must satisfy. Being imperfect, it cannot satisfy; being human, it cannot satisfy, even though it were perfect. That which satisfies must be capable of bearing our guilt; and that which bears our guilt must be not only perfect, but divine. It is a sin-bearer that we need, and our faith cannot be a sin-bearer. Faith can expiate no guilt; can accomplish no propitiation; can pay no penalty; can wash away no stain; can provide no righteousness. It brings us to the cross, where there is expiation, and propitiation, and payment, and cleansing, and righteousness; but in itself it has no merit and no virtue.

“Faith is not Christ, nor the cross of Christ. Faith is not the blood, nor the sacrifice; it is not the altar, nor the laver, nor the mercy-seat, nor the incense. It does not work, but accepts a work done ages ago; it does not wash, but leads us to the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness. It does not create; it merely links us to that new thing which was created when the ‘everlasting righteousness’ was brought in (Dan 9:24).

“And as faith goes on, so it continues; always the beggar’s outstretched hand, never the rich man’s gold; always the cable, never the anchor, the knocker, not the door, or the palace, or the table; the handmaid, not the mistress; the lattice which lets in the light, not the sun.”

— Horatius Bonar

HT: Mike Riccardi

Reformed Soteriology – Resource Recommendations

Recommended Book Resources:

  1. For those new to the subject:

Why The Reformation Still Matters by Michael Reeves & Tim Chester

Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace? by James Montgomery Boice

The Doctrines of Grace by James Montgomery Boice

The Holiness of God by R. C. Sproul

Chosen By God by R. C. Sproul

What is Reformed Theology? by R. C. Sproul

The Potter’s Freedom by James White

Twelve What Abouts – Answering Common Objections Concerning God’s Sovereignty in Election by John Samson

The Five Solas – Standing Together, Alone by John Samson (also available in Spanish)

Website: monergism.com (the greatest content of theological articles/material I know of on the internet – I recommend using the ‘search” feature often)

2. For Further Study:

Foundations of Grace by Steven J. Lawson

Pillars of Grace by Steven J. Lawson

Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof

Reformed Systematic Theology Vol 3: Spirit and Salvation by Joel Beeke and Paul Smalley

You Must Be Born Again

“The Spirit regenerates. How often have the clear words of Jesus been misunderstood! People universally re-write ‘You must be born again’ so that the phrase reads instead, ‘You must born yourself again!’ Not only does this mis-interpretation make no sense grammatically (an intransitive verb has no object); it makes nonsense of a profound spiritual truth. Just as you did nothing to cause yourself to be born into this fallen world, so you can do absolutely nothing to bring yourself into the divinely renewed world of redemption. You must be born ‘of the Spirit’ (John 3:5). You cannot even coerce the Spirit of God to effect your regeneration. The wind blows where it will — and it is the Spirit’s will, not yours, that causes a person to be born from above (John 3:3). Indeed, if your will is renewed by the regeneration of the Spirit, you will choose to cry out to God for salvation, just as the newborn baby cries out once born. But give the divine Spirit the glory He deserves! Your cry for salvation comes as a consequence of your new birth, and never could be the cause of regeneration. The Spirit Himself sovereignly does this great work of total renewal.”

– O. Palmer Robertson, “The Wind Blows Where It Wills”

“In the Old Testament, God promised this work of grace through the prophet Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules” (Ezek. 36:25–27). The work of regeneration is further illustrated in Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones (Ezek. 37:1–14). Accordingly, theologians have commonly spoken of regeneration as spiritual resurrection. Reformation and revival occurs when the Spirit of God sovereignly moves to change the hearts of men, bringing them from spiritual death to spiritual life.”

– R.C. Sproul, “Regeneration”

7 Problems with Arminian Universal Redemption

Article by Joel Beeke – original source here: https://www.monergism.com/seven-problems-arminian-universal-redemption

In the theology of Arminianism, we are told that Christ died to make it possible for everyone to be saved, if they so choose. This is a rejection of the Reformed view that Christ died to actually save a particular people chosen by God. The Arminian view is by far the most popular view of the atonement in the Christian church today. However, serious objections must be lodged against Arminian universal redemption, among which are these:

1. It slanders God’s attributes, such as His love. Arminianism presents a love that actually doesn’t save. It is a love that loves and then, if refused, turns to hatred and anger. It is not unchangeable love that endures from everlasting to everlasting.

It slanders God’s wisdom. Would God make a plan to save everyone, then not carry it out? Would He be so foolish as to have His Son pay for the salvation of all if He knew that Christ would not be able to obtain what He paid for? I would feel foolish if I went into a store and bought something, then walked out without it. Yet Arminianism asks us to believe that this is true of salvation—that a purchase was made, a redemption, and yet the Lord walked away without those whom He had redeemed. That view slanders the wisdom of God.

It slanders God’s power. Arminian universalism obliges us to believe that God was able to accomplish the meriting aspect of salvation, but that the applying aspect is dependent on man and his free will. It asks us to believe that God has worked out everyone’s salvation up to a point, but no further for anyone.

It slanders God’s justice. Did Christ satisfy God’s justice for everyone? Did Christ take the punishment due to everybody? If He did, how can God punish anyone? Is it justice to punish one person for the sins of another and later to punish the initial offender again? Double punishment is injustice.

2. It disables the deity of Christ. A defeated Savior is not God. This error teaches that Christ tried to save everyone but didn’t succeed. It denies the power and efficacy of Christ’s blood, since not all for whom He died are saved. Hence, Christ’s blood was wasted on Judas and Esau. Much of His labor, tears, and blood was poured out in vain.

3. It undermines the unity of the Trinity. Just as parents must work together to run a family effectively, so the triune God co-labors in each of His persons with identical purposes and goals. One person cannot possibly have in mind to save some that another person has not determined to save, but Arminian universalism implicitly teaches just that.

It denies the Father’s sovereign election, since Christ would have died for more than God decreed to save, thereby making Christ seem to have a different agenda than that of the Father. That would have been anathema to Jesus, who asserted that His entire redemptive ministry was consciously designed to carry out a divinely arranged plan (John 6:38–39).

Similarly, Arminian redemption disavows the saving ministry of the Holy Spirit, since it claims that Christ’s blood has a wider application than does the Spirit’s saving work. Any presentation of salvation that makes the Father or the Spirit’s work in salvation lag behind Christ’s work contradicts the inherent unity of the Trinity. God cannot be at odds with Himself. Arminianism is inconsistent universalism.

4. It rejects all of the other points of Calvinism. The Arminian view of the atonement rejects the doctrine of man’s total depravity, teaching that man has the ability within himself to receive and accept Christ. It rejects unconditional election, teaching that God elects on the basis of foreseen faith. It rejects irresistible grace, teaching that man’s will is stronger than God’s. It rejects the perseverance of the saints, teaching that man can apostatize from the faith.

5. It detracts from the glory of God. If God does everything in salvation, He gets all the glory. But if God can do only so much and not everything, then the person who completes the application of salvation gets at least some glory. That is why there is so much emphasis in mass evangelism on the free will of man. Universal atonement exalts the will of man and debases the glory of God.

6. It perverts evangelism. We repeatedly hear today in evangelistic messages: “Christ died for you. What will you do for Him?” But do we ever find in the Bible that someone is told personally, “Christ died for you”? Rather, we find the work of Christ explained, followed by a call to everyone: “Repent and believe the gospel.” The message is not “Believe that Christ died for you” or “Believe that you are one of the elect.” It is “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.”

7. It disparages the intrinsic efficacy of the atonement itself. Arminians teach that Christ’s work induces the Father to accept graciously what Jesus accomplished in place of a full satisfaction of His justice. It is as if Jesus persuaded His Father to accept something less than justice demanded. That is why Arminius claimed that when God saved sinners, He moved from His throne of justice to His throne of grace. But God does not have two thrones; His throne of justice is His throne of grace (Psalm 85:10). Arminianism forgets that the atonement does not win God’s love but is the provision of His love.

What Does It Mean To Be “Providentially Hindered”?

Article “Unless Providentially Hindered”: original source: https://www.ilfordipc.co.uk/2022/08/19/unless-providentially-hindered/

I remember our first winter living in the USA, when it snowed heavily one Saturday afternoon. We’d been out enjoying the snow, when we got a phone call telling us that church was cancelled the next day; I remember being quite unimpressed! “These Americans don’t take church very seriously”, I thought. The next morning, we arranged to meet with some friends who lived locally for family devotions. We went on foot. And as we trudged the mile or two to their house, walking down unploughed roads, knee-deep in snow, without a car in sight, it dawned on me that cancelling church that Sunday had not been an over-reaction to weather. Rather it was a considered response to God’s providence. Given that virtually everyone drove to church, it just wouldn’t have been possible or safe to get to church that morning. 

This is a situation that Christians in the past would have described as being “providentially hindered”. The phrase described the fact that God in his providence sometimes prevents us from gathering to worship with his people. A good biblical example would be the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37). The Levite and priest in that story should have stopped on their way to worship to help the man on the Jericho road. They were providentially hindered. The Levite and priest hadn’t planned to stop on that road. But they should have stopped. The emergency demanded it. Likewise Jesus says, if a sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, won’t you take hold of it and lift it out? (Matt 12:11). This accident was something unforeseen and unplanned by the farmer, which required his immediate attention. 

The key point of the phrase is to recognise that it is God’s sovereignty that is preventing us using the Lord’s Day as we should, not our own decision-making. The hinderance is inadvertent from our point of view. But there are many hinderances to coming to church, and it’s easy to use God’s providence as an excuse. So, I know of students who try to justify writing their assignments on Sundays using the “sheep in a pit” principle. But that’s not really being “providentially hindered”. Really, they’re throwing their sheep in a pit on a Friday, and waiting until Sunday to do something about it. Agreeing to have family over on a Sunday, and not making it clear to them that you will go to church is not what it means to be providentially hindered! That’s a decision you’ve taken to put family before worship; it’s not a decision that God’s taken. It’s possible to let pseudo-emergencies (which can wait), or our own disorganisation or other people’s decisions about Sundays, hinder us from coming to church.

This apocryphal letter helpfully pokes fun at this mis-use of the idea: 

Dear Preacher,

You often stress attendance at worship as important. But, I think a man has the right to miss now and then because he might be providentially hindered. Please excuse me on the following days on which I will be providentially hindered: July 4 (national holiday – 1 day); Labor Day (even God had one day of rest – 1 day); Memorial Day (state holiday – 1 day); school closing (kids need a break – 1 day); school opening (last chance before fall – 1 day); family reunions (1 day each for me and the wife – 2 days); out-of-town ballgames (we must support our children’s teams – 5 days); tournaments (high school, college, tennis and golf – 4 days); anniversary (second honeymoon – 1 day); sickness (1 for each member of the family – 5 days); business trips (gotta make a living you know – 3 days); vacation (2 weeks but 3 weekends – 3 days); bad weather (rain, ice, hail, snow, etc – 5 days); Dallas Cowboys games (or whoever – 4 days); unexpected company (usually don’t bring church clothes – 2 days); alarm clock malfunctions (can’t blame me for shoddy workmanship – 2 days); time change (who can remember when that is – 2 days); house and car repairs (can’t afford plumbers and mechanics – 3 days); TV specials (good for kid’s education – 2 days); Christmas (only comes once a year – 1 day); New Year’s Day (need to start off rested – 1 day). This brings the total to 50 days. So, preacher, that only leaves two Sundays per year for me to attend worship. I’ll see you on Easter Sunday for sure, and the third Sunday in August (unless providentially hindered).

Yours truly,

Faithful Member

That’s using providence as an excuse, and trying to spiritualise our own poor priorities.

But to be “providentially hindered” is a real thing. When Jesus warned of coming tribulations, he said: “Pray that your flight may not be… on a sabbath” (Matt 24:20). Why? Well, your desire should be to keep the Sabbath, but Jesus recognises there can be circumstances, so bad, so dangerous, where, despite your desire to gather for worship, you’ve got to run for your life! So, this concept is really clarifying. It is liberating, in recognising the reality of emergencies, ill-health, and inadvertent situations that come along and interfere with worship. You don’t need to feel guilty when you’re stuck at home on a Sunday caring for a sick child. But neither is it a way to rationalise your bad choices and the things you let interfere with Sundays.

As far as we’re concerned, God wants us to be convinced that a day in his courts is better than a thousand elsewhere (Ps 84:10), and he wants us to plan, arrange our lives, and act upon that conviction. But he is sovereign, and he sometimes for his wise reasons interferes with our plans. Wouldn’t it be great if we committed to the principle that we will gather for worship 100% of the time, not “unless hindered”, but “unless providentially hindered?“.

An Eschatological Misstep

Article “One Wrong Step Messes Up Your Eschatology” by Gary DeMar – original source: https://americanvision.org/posts/one-wrong-step-messes-up-your-eschatology/

The first time I read through the NT, beginning with Matthew’s gospel in 1973, I came across passages like Matthew 10:2316:27-28, and 24:34 that did not fit the popular end-time views of the day. At the time, in the early 1970s, Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth (TLGPE) was a massive best seller. “Despite some dated content, 28 million copies had sold by 1990.” In an off-handed way (so as not to be labeled a date setter) Lindsey predicted that the so-called “rapture of the church” would take place before 1988. Here’s what he wrote more than 50 years ago in TLGPE:

The most important sign in Matthew has to be the restoration of the Jews to the land in the rebirth of Israel. Even the figure of speech “fig tree”’ has been a historic symbol of national Israel. When the Jewish people, after nearly 2,000 years of exile, under relentless persecution, became a nation again on 14 May 1948 the “fig tree” put forth its first leaves. Jesus said that this would indicate that He was “at the door,” ready to return.

Then [Jesus] said, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matthew 24:34, NASB). What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs—chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so.”[1]

Lindsey never mentioned any of these “many scholars.” The math was simple: 1948 (the year Israel became a nation again) + 40 (the number of years making a generation) = 1988. Johnny Cash sang a song about it in 1973: “Matthew 24 is Knocking at the Door.” In an interview published in Christianity Today on April 15, 1977, seven years after the publication of TLGPE and 11 years from the 1988 date, Lindsey told W. Ward Gasque:

“I don’t know how long a biblical generation is. Perhaps somewhere between sixty and eighty years. The state of Israel was established in 1948. There are a lot of world leaders who are pointing to the 1980s as being the time of some very momentous events. Perhaps it will be then. But I feel certain that it will take place before the year 2000.”

A 60-year generation would take us to 2008; a 70-year generation to 2018; an 80-year generation to 2028. Don’t be surprised if a generation is said to be 100 years. In the first edition of Tim LaHaye’s The Beginning of the End, which was published in 1972, he wrote, “Carefully putting all this together, we now recognize this strategic generation. **It is the generation that ‘sees’ the four-part sign of verse 7 **[in Matt. 24], or the people who saw the First World War. We must be careful here not to become dogmatic, but it would seem that these people are witnesses to the events, not necessarily participants in them. That would suggest they were at least old enough to understand the events of 1914-1918, not necessarily old enough to go to war.”[2]

Some prognostications changed in LaHaye’s 1991 revised edition of The Beginning of the End. The “strategic generation” was modified significantly. It’s no longer “the people who saw the First World War”: “Carefully putting all this together, we now recognize this strategic generation. It is the generation that ‘sees’ the events of 1948. We must be careful here not to become dogmatic, but it would seem that these people are witnesses to the events, not necessarily participants in them.” The change from 1917 to 1948 gave LaHaye another fifty years before this new generation passes away.[3]

In that same 1977 interview, Gasque asked Lindsey: “But what if you’re wrong?” Lindsey replied: “Well, there’s just a split second’s difference between a hero and a bum. I didn’t ask to be a hero, but I guess I have become one in the Christian community. So I accept it. But if I’m wrong about this, I guess I’ll become a bum.” He didn’t become a bum. He continued to write books like The 1980’s: The Countdown to Armageddon that was published 52 years ago.

But as I read Matthew’s gospel and came across the three passages I listed above, I began to question Lindsey’s claims. It was hard to disagree with him since most people (and I was one of them) put their trust in others who write authoritatively. I was a very new Christians. Could millions of people who read Lindsey’s book be wrong? Yes! Why did Lindsey and so many others get it wrong? Why do prophecy writers still get it wrong?

They ignored the first principle of Bible interpretation: Let the Bible interpret the Bible. “this generation always means the generation of Jesus’ day. Time words like “near,” “shortly,” “at hand,” “quickly,” and “about to” are used consistently in the Bible and often. There are more than 100 time-frame indicators. Once the interpreter says, “It can’t mean this; it must mean this despite what I’m reading and seeing,” the game is over. Consider the following from George Eldon Ladd, a respected Bible commentator, on the use of time words in Revelation, none of which are unusual:

These events are “soon to take place” [1:1] (cf. 11:18; 22:10). These words have troubled commentators. The simplest solution is to take the preterist view and to say that John, like the entire Christian community, thought that the coming of the Lord was near, when in fact they were wrong. Our Lord himself seems to share this error in perspective in the saying: “This generation will not pass away before all these things take place” (Mark 13:30).[4]

Ladd gives away the store. That generation of Christians understood “near” to mean “near,” but they were wrong in the same way Jesus was wrong. But Jesus can’t be wrong, more conservative writers agree, so what is clear to the reader must be reimagined to fit an already agreed-upon end-time system that demands a repeated set of events and actions. A temple has to be rebuilt, animal sacrifices reinstituted, and another great tribulation that will result in the death of, not just millions of Jews living in Israel, but billions more around the world.

Here’s an example of how it’s been done. First, it was argued that the Greek genea is best translated as “race” as Scofield codified in a footnote in his The Scofield Reference Bible. This is an impossible translation (e.g., Matt. 1:17). Most prophecy writers have given up on this translation and logical absurdity. Now it’s “the generation that sees these signs will not pass away until all these things take place” even though Jesus told His present audience, “even so YOU too, when YOU see all these things, recognize that it is near, at the door” (24:33). What’s the “it”? Either the destruction of the temple, the tribulation, or the manifestation of the kingdom (Luke 21:31).

Others claim that what Jesus really meant was “this type of generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” The problem is in both cases, words must be added to Matthew 24:34 to get the desired meaning. If this is acceptable, then there is no telling what we can get the Bible to say and mean. We have a history of cults in the United States. They often begin by adding something so one of their pet doctrines has “biblical” support. Here’s an example from the JW’s unique translation of the Bible adding the word “other” to make Jesus a created being:

see: https://reachouttrust.org/nwt-translation-bias/

The seed idea for this article came about because of a comment I read on the Christian Post. By ignoring specific time indicators, the actual definition, number, and time of the many antichrists mentioned by John, the Bible reader is thrown off course because there’s a magnet in the cockpit affecting the compass needle. He’s headed north (the future) instead of south (the past) because time indicators are either ignored or they have been seduced by Ladd and others who argue that “[t]he problem is raised by the fact that the prophets were little interested in chronology, and the future was always viewed as imminent.”

Christian Post Comment:

The fourth kingdom, legs of iron are the kingdom of Satan, the angel of light. The iron of the feet is his son the angel, Apollyon who is responsible for killing Jesus. Genesis 3:15Re 9:11. Apollyon, the angel, the son of Satan, is the anti-Christ, the beast from the bottomless pit that rises at the 5th trumpet as king of the locusts. It is he whose image is placed into the temple by the man, the clay of the feet, the false prophet. Anti-Christ rules for the last 42 months. The week of trumpets, the book in God’s right hand, Re 5:1, is Daniel’s 70th week. Da 9:24. It is 2520 days long. Seven 360-day lunar years.

Gary DeMar:

There is no gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel’s 70-weeks-of years prophecy (490 years). [Jesus is “cut off” in the middle of the 70th week and the gospel goes exclusively to the Jews for the last 3.5 years of the seven-year final week]. The book of Revelation never mentions “the anti-Christ.” There were many antichrists in the first century. John wrote that these many antichrists (most likely apostate Jews: Rev. 2:93:9) in his day were evidence that it was “the last hour” (1 Jn. 2:18), most likely a reference to the lead-up to the destruction of the temple and judgment on Jerusalem that Jesus predicted would take place before their (“this generation”) passed away (Mt. 24:34). The feet of iron mixed with clay refers to first-century Rome (iron) and Israel (clay) colluding against believers against Jesus that we see in the gospels — “We have no king but Caesar” (Jn. 19:15) — and the book of Acts. The sea beast (Rev. 13:1) and the land beast (13:11) join forces against the people of God in the first century. But iron and clay do not mix. The Romans eventually turned on the Jews, demolished their temple as Jesus had predicted (Mt. 24:1-2), took thousands captive, and destroyed their city. “For the days will come on you,” Jesus said, “when your enemies will build an embankment against you, surround you, and hem you in on every side” (Lk. 19:43). This is why Jesus said, “But when YOU see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are inside the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city” (Lk. 21:20-21).

Once the time indicators are dismissed as not being relevant or the assertion that “the prophets were little interested in chronology, and the future was always viewed as imminent,” interpreting Bible prophecy is open to fanciful speculation and eventually great doubt.

[1]Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, [1970] 1971), 53‑54.

[2]Tim LaHaye, The Beginning of the End (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1972), 165, 168. Emphasis added.

[3]Tim LaHaye, The Beginning of the End, rev. ed. (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1991), 1993. Emphasis added.

[4]George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 22.