Daniel 9:24-27

Article “Particulars of Daniel 9:24-27” by Gary DeMar (source – https://americanvision.org/21906/particulars-of-daniel-924-27/)

The Particulars of Daniel 9:24–27

  1. To finish the transgression (Dan. 9:24): Jesus declared, “It is finished” (John 19:28–30). The transgression is finished because (1) Jesus became the sin-bearer for us. “He was wounded for our transgressions” (Isa. 53:5). Our transgressions are no longer counted against us. “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Col. 2:14). (2) Finish the transgression might be a reference to the transgression of the Jews against God of that generation (Matt. 21:33-4523:3235-3638Luke 11:47-511 Thess. 2:14-16). “Last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance’” (Matt. 21:37-38; cf. 21:33-45Acts 7:51-52).”
  2. To make an end to sin (9:24): Jesus “but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26). Jesus was the “lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3).
  3. To make reconciliation [atonement] for iniquity (Dan. 9:24): “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19).
  4. To bring in everlasting righteousness (Dan. 9:24): If Jesus didn’t bring in everlasting righteousness, then we are still in our sins. This is not describing earthly righteousness so there’s no longer any sin the world. There will still be sin in the premillennial view of Revelation 20.
  5. “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption”—everlasting righteous — “for us” (Heb. 9:12).
  6. Seal up the vision and prophecy (Dan. 9:24): Jesus Christ fulfills (and thereby confirms) the prophecy by His atoning work.
  7. “Then he took unto himthe twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished” (Luke 18:31).
  8. “And he said unto them, These arethe words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me” (Luke 24:44Acts 3:18).
  9. To anoint the most holy [one or place] (Dan. 9:24). (1) Jesus is described as “the HOLY thing…” (Luke 1:35). Peter referred to Jesus as the “HOLY one” (Acts 3:14), as did John (1 John 2:20). Even the demons referred to Jesus as “the HOLY ONE of God” (Matt. 1:24). Jesus was anointed two, possibly three times in the gospels. The last was after the triumphal entry and just before the crucifixion (Matt. 26:6–13 and Mark 14:3–9). Kenneth Gentry writes: “It was at His baptismal anointing that the Spirit came upon Him (Mark 1:9-11). And this was introductory to His ministry, of which we read three verses later: ‘Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled [the Sixty-ninth week?], and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel’ (Mark 1:14-15). Christ is pre-eminently the Anointed One.” (2) Could refer to the “holy place once for all” (Heb. 9:12), the heavenly sanctuary.

What the Antichrist is Supposed to Do

Then after the 62 sevens, the Messiah [Jesus] will be cut off [excommunicated by the religious rulers of Israel] and have nothing [the cross, Phil. 2:7: “made Himself of no reputation”]; and the people of the Prince [the enthroned Christ] Who is to come will destroy the city [Jerusalem] and the sanctuary [Temple]. And its end will come with a flood [like Noah, like the threats of Deut. 28; like the locust flood of Joel]; even to the end there will be war [the Jewish War of A.D. 66-70]; desolations are determined.

  1. Who will “destroy the city and the sanctuary” (9:26)? Jesus or antichrist? This assumes another rebuilt temple if it’s the antichrist, but there’s nothing in the NT that says anything about another rebuilt temple. We know the city and sanctuary were destroyed in AD 70. This was Jesus’ judgment using the earthly agency of the Roman Empire, like the way God used Babylon: “And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand [Nebuchadnezzar]…” (Dan. 1:1–2). See the Parable of the Marriage Feast (Matt. 22:1–14): “But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city” (v. 7). Jesus describes these murderers in Matthew 23:31–36.
  2. The “end” of what “shall be with a flood” (9:26)? The end of the city and sanctuary.
  3. “Desolations are determined.” Notice that 9:26 does not say that desolations take place in the span of the 70 weeks of years but only that they are “determined.” This is what Jesus says in Matthew 23:38: “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” That desolation was future to that generation but would take place before their generation passed away (Matt. 24:30): “When ye therefore shall see the abomination, spoken of by Daniel the prophet [11:31; 12:11], stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand” (Matt. 24:15Luke 21:20: “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.”).
  4. “Returning to the time of the Maccabees and Daniel 11, we need to ask who were the ‘forces from him’ that desecrated the sanctuary and set up the desolating sacrilege? They were the reigning High Priests Jason and Menelaus, who apostatized to Greek religion, and who invited Antiochus to help them take over Jerusalem for their own purposes (Josephus, Antiquities12:5:1). In the same way, the apostate High Priests between A.D. 30 and 70 cooperated with the Romans in order to suppress the Christian faith and in order to maintain their own Sadducean combination of Greek philosophy and apostate Judaism…. Antiochus defiled the Temple, but this is only the aftermath of what the Jews had already done. Antiochus could not really defile the Temple, because he was not one of God’s peculiar people and he had no legal access to it. His defiling the temple is not the abomination of desolation, therefore.”
  5. “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week” (Dan. 9:27).
  6. The “he” is Jesus.
  7. Only God makes and confirms covenants. There’s nothing in the Bible about an antichrist making or confirming a covenant.
  8. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:162:10; See John 11:47–53).
  9. “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel…. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. (Matt. 10:5–623). Jesus was confirming His covenant with Israel.
  10. “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28).
  11. “But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel” (Acts 9:15).
  12. “Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of Godto confirm the promises made unto the fathersAnd that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name” (Rom. 15:8–9).
  13. “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Heb. 9:16–17).

What is the Church

In an article entitled “Talking About The Church” Nicolas Batzig writes (source: https://feedingonchrist.org/talking-about-the-church/ )

Talking about the Church is actually quite a difficult task, since Scripture speaks of the Church in a variety of ways. More often than not, individuals have failed to rightly distinguish between the different ways in which the biblical authors speak about the church. This, of course, raises the question, “What is the Church?” In order to give the most biblically robust answer possible, we must consider the origin of the word “church,” scriptural titles for the church, theological categories by which the church is distinguished, and the defining attributes of the church.

The Origin of the Word 

The English word “church” comes from a translation of the Greek word κυριακόν. Geerhardus Vos suggested that it “comes from the Greek κυριακόν, the neuter of κυριακός, ‘what is of the Lord,’ ‘what belongs to the Lord.’”1 In our English Bibles, however, the word ekklēsia (ἐκκλησία) has been translated to the word “church.” The word ekklēsia carries with it the idea of something or someone being “called out.” Those who have trusted in Jesus have been “called out” of the world by God to be members of His kingdom. The word also carries with it the idea of being “gathered together.” On account of this, the English words “congregation” and “assembly” are translations of the Greek word ekklēsiaThe church is the assembly of the saints who have been redeemed and called out by God in order to be gathered together to worship Him. This definition covers the teaching of Scripture both in the Old and New Testament. In his dying speech, the first New Testament martyr, Stephen, spoke of Moses as the “one who was in the congregation (ἐκκλησία) in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38). The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians over matters related to the Lord’s Supper, saying, ‘When you come together as a church (ἐκκλησίᾳ)…” (1 Cor. 11:18). From this word, the biblical meaning of “the church” is formed. 

Scriptural Titles

There are a number of titles Scripture gives to the Church. In the Old Testament God addresses the sacred assembly (ἐκκλησία) by the name “Israel,” “the Daughter of Zion” (Ps. 9:4; Is. 1:8; 62:11; Micah 4:8), “The Daughter of Jerusalem” (2 Kings 19:21; Song of Songs 2:7; Lam. 2:13; Zeph. 3:14), “Jerusalem,” “Jacob” (Ps. 14:7; 53:6; Is. 9:8; 10:21; 27:9; Jer. 10:25), “Judah” (Ps. 76:1; 97:8; 108:8), “Ephraim,” “Zion,” and “the City of God.” In the New Testament, the Apostles refer to the the Church as “the people of God,” “the house of God” (Heb. 3:1-6; 10:21); “the Temple” (1 Cor. 3:16-19; Eph. 2:21), “the children of God” and “Israel” (Gal. 6:16). All these names and metaphors have specific meanings by which God represents various characteristics of His people. 

In whatever respect Scripture refers to the Church, it always identifies it with Christ. He is the only head of the Church (Eph. 1:22; 4:25; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:19). The Apostle Paul refers to the Church as “the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:12). Additionally, he speaks of the Church as “the bride of Christ” (Eph. 5:25-27). Jesus died for the Church in order to make her His bride. To Him all glory is due and from Him the church receives all of her ordinances and revelation. Everything in Scripture leads to Christ and is given by God to build up believers in Christ. The Apostle’s press home this truth by employing the metaphor of Jesus as the chief cornerstone and foundation of the spiritual Temple of God (1 Cor. 3:10-14; Eph. 2:20).

Distinguishing Categories

When distinguishing between the different aspects of the church in time and space, theologians have frequently used the following four categories: the invisible church, the visible church, the church militant, and the church triumphant.

If we focus on the nature of the “church,” we must first distinguish between the invisible and the visible church. The invisible church is the body of believers who are mystically united to Jesus Christ. Considered from this viewpoint, the Church is the totality of the elect on earth and in heaven—those who have been effectually called by God, redeemed by the blood of Jesus, trusted in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, and are savingly united to Him by faith. This is what Paul means when he speaks of Christ loving the church and giving Himself for her (Eph. 5:25). This is also that to which he refers when he charged the elders in Ephesus to “care for the church of God. which he obtained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).

While we must form our understanding of the church by starting with our understanding of the invisible church, the visible church is that which is most often in view in the New Testament. The visible church is the collective group of baptized, professing believers and their children who gather together in order to worship the Triune God. It is the visible church—with its God-appointed leadership—to whom biblical revelation is addressed (Phil. 1:1; Rev. 1:4). God gave Old Testament revelation to the members of Israel and addresses New Testament revelation to particular visible churches throughout the world. For instance, the Apostle Paul wrote letters to the churches in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, and Thessalonica. In each of them, God addresses particular circumstances in the life of each congregation. All of the “one another” passages, exhortations to obey elders, and warnings in the epistles are given to the visible church and are to be carried out, first and foremost, among the members of local churches. These congregations consisted of a mixed multitude of professing believers—some of whom were savingly united to Jesus and some of whom are hypocritical in their profession. 

In addition to speaking of the visible church and the invisible church, theologians have referred to the church militant and the church triumphant. The church militant is the collective group of believers fighting their way to glory. The church triumphant is the collective group of believers who have finished their pilgrimage and have entered into their rest in the presence of God and the Lamb. When theologians refer to the church militant and the church triumphant, they are referring to the elect. Vos explains, 

“The elect, be they already in heaven or still on earth or yet unborn, would then as such fall within the Church. One easily sees that the concept can be exchanged with that of the invisible church. At the same time, it already has within itself as a subdivision the distinction between the church militant and triumphant. Many of the theologians also begin with election in defining the church.”2

In this sense, the elect members of the visible church on earth—prior to the second coming of Christ—are one and the same as the church militant. Again, Vos explained, 

“…the return for judgment is indicated as a glorious vindication of Christ and His own in the sight of their enemies. Despite His unlimited kingly power, until that day a segment of creatures will be permitted to oppose Him and fail to appreciate Him. Many will deny that He is glorified and exalted as the militant church believes Him to be glorified and exalted.”3

Defining Attributes 

Finally, the attributes of the Church have been described in what believers confess in the Nicene Creed: “I believe in one, holy, catholic (universal) church.” These attributes capture the essence of the true Church. They describe not the external organization of the church, with its government, but the internal reality of the Church among the people of God. 

The first attribute of the Church is unity. There is one body of blood bought people from every tongue, tribe, people and language, over whom Christ is the sole Head (1 Cor. 12:12; Eph. 1:22-23). It is because of each believer’s union with the Savior in the Spirit by faith that we are united to one another. With the unity of the church in view, believers live out their Christian lives in the visible church. 

The second attribute of the Church is holiness. Since believers have received the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith alone and are being made subjectively more and more into His image and likeness, it may be said that the Church is holy. Additionally, the word holy sometimes refers to God setting something apart for a special purpose. In this way, we can speak of the church being holy in the world. However, we ought never forget that holiness is not what gives someone a right to entrance into God’s Church—since we are all dead in sins prior to God’s work of grace in our lives and continue to be sinfully imperfect in this life. Instead, holiness is a defining characteristic of those who have been savingly united to the righteous One, Jesus Christ, by the grace of God. 

Another attribute of the Church is catholicity. The idea of the catholicity (i.e. universality) of the church is best summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith, where we read, 

“The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all…

…This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.”

There is a universal solidarity among believers, throughout all time, based on their union with Christ and the biblical truth they confess. 

The final attribute of Scripture is imperishability. When Jesus told Peter, “I will build My church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18), He was indicating that there would always be an invisible church and a manifestation of thechurch militant on earth until He comes again. As Vos explained, “The Church…can never completely disappear from the earth. The number of members of the true Church who fall within the church militant may continually change—are now more, then less; [yet] it is always there.”4 Jesus also meant that He would strengthen the church militant in the battle on its way to glory, and that there would be an ultimate day of victory for the church triumphant.

Samuel Stone drew together the many ways in which Scripture speaks about the church in his hymn, “The Church’s One Foundation” He wrote, 

The Church’s one foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord,
She is His new creation
By water and the Word:
From Heav’n He came and sought her
To be His holy bride,
With His own blood He bought her
And for her life He died.

She is from every nation,
Yet one o’er all the earth;
Her charter of salvation,
One Lord, one faith, one birth;
One holy name she blesses,
Partakes one holy food,
And to one hope she presses,
With every grace endued.

The Church shall never perish!
Her dear Lord to defend,
To guide, sustain, and cherish,
Is with her to the end:
Though there be those who hate her,
And false sons in her pale,
Against both foe and traitor
She ever shall prevail.

Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed:
Yet saints their watch are keeping,
Their cry goes up, How long?
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song!

’Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace forevermore;
Till, with the vision glorious,
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great Church victorious
Shall be the Church at rest!

Yet she on earth hath union
With God the Three in One,
And mystic sweet communion
With those whose rest is won,
With all her sons and daughters
Who, by the Master’s hand
Led through the deathly waters,
Repose in Eden land.

O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we
Like them, the meek and lowly,
On high may dwell with Thee:
There, past the border mountains,
Where in sweet vales the Bride
With Thee by living fountains
Forever shall abide!

1. Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, vol. 5 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2016), 13.

2. Ibid., p. 13.

3. Ibid., 241.

4. Ibid. 23.

The Millennium – Present or Future

Article: A Present or Future Millennium? by Kim Riddlebarger (source: https://www.the-highway.com/millennium_Riddlebarger.html)

Most American Evangelicals are firmly committed to the idea that an earthly millennial age will begin immediately after our Lord Jesus Christ’s Second Advent. Since premillennialism is so dominant in American church circles, many who encounter historic Protestantism for the first time are quite surprised when they discover that all of the Protestant Reformers and the entire Reformed and Lutheran traditions are amillennial. Amillennialism is that understanding of eschatology which sees the millennium not as a future golden age as does premillennialism (the age of the church triumphant), but instead as the present course of history between the First and Second Advent’s of our Lord (the age of the church militant). And indeed, I am sure that there are many readers who will express shock and disappointment upon learning of my own amillennial convictions. But I am convinced, however, that many readers simply do not understand the basic end-times scenario found in the New Testament. Part of the problem is that dispensational premillennial writers have completely dominated Christian media and publishing. There are literally hundreds of books, churches, and parachurch ministries all devoted to taking premillennialism and the “pretribulation” rapture idea to the masses. And so, I can only lament the fact that my own tradition has done so little to produce popular books introducing and defending Amillennialism. It is my guess that many who read this article will have never heard the case for the classical position held by the church regarding the return of Christ and the millennial age.

Another problem encountered when examining this subject is that discussions of it often generate a great deal of heat but not very much light. One local prophecy pundit has quipped that the people in heaven with the lowest IQs will be amillennial. Hal “Late Great” Lindsey goes so far as to label Amillennialism as “anti-Semitic,” demonic and heretical.1 It is not uncommon to hear prophecy teachers label amillennial Christians as “liberal” or to accuse them of not taking the Bible literally. The result of such diatribes is that American Christians cannot help but be prejudiced by such unfortunate comments, and many simply reject outright (without due consideration of the other side) the eschatology of the Reformers and classical Protestantism – an eschatology that is amazingly simple, biblical, and Christ centered. And so, if you should be in that camp, instead of simply turning me off at this point, please bear with me, hear my case, and then decide for yourself on the basis of Scripture.

Unfortunately, it is all too fashionable to interpret the Bible in light of the morning newspaper and CNN. Yes, it is fun to read the Bible through the filter of every geopolitical crisis that arises in our modern world. This adds relevance to the Bible, we are told. It most assuredly sells thousands and thousands of books and provides for slick programs on Christian TV and radio documenting every move by the European Economic Community, and every possible technological breakthrough that may prepare the way for the coming Mark of the Beast. These sensational end-times dramas heighten the sense of urgency regarding the coming of our Lord. They supposedly give the church missionary zeal. But however fascinating these schemes may be, I do not believe that they accurately reflect the Biblical data.

There is, in addition, a quite serious side effect produced by this approach to Bible prophecy: The Bible no longer speaks for itself because it is twisted into a pretzel by each of its interpreters, who do their best to show that the upheaval of the nations described in the Book of Revelation has nothing whatsoever to do with the original reader in the first century struggling under Roman persecution, but is instead somehow related to the morning headlines. How many times can we tell our hearers that Jesus is coming back soon (No, we really mean it this time!) and then tie that message to a passing despot like Saddam Hussein or a tenuous political figure like Mikhail Gorbachev? How do we keep those who need to hear about Christ’s Second Advent the most from becoming increasingly cynical about the message of his coming? But then again this too is a sign of the end, for scoffers will come and say “where is this ’coming’ he promised?” (2 Pet 3:3-4). How tragic that prophecy speculators actually contribute to the very skepticism they themselves acknowledge as a key sign of the end. The classical Protestant tradition has helpful answers to these problems, as it does to many other crises facing the modern Church that, by and large, have been forgotten by today’s Evangelicals.

All of the Protestant Reformers, were they to come back to give us counsel in these areas, would insist that we must start with the notion that the Bible itself must be read with the analogia fidei (the analogy of faith), meaning that Holy Scripture must be allowed to interpret Scripture. In other words, we must inductively develop a biblical model of eschatology by utilizing all of the passages that relate to the return of Christ, the resurrection, the judgement, the millennium, and so on. We should never study eschatology merely by finding Bible verses (often out of context) that we think describe current events. And so, by utilizing the analogy of faith, we begin with the clear declarations of Scripture regarding the coming of our Lord and use them to shed light on passages that are less clear. Following this method, we can clear up many of the bizarre mysteries fabricated by modern prophecy devotees, who insist upon making unclear and difficult passages the standard by which we interpret clear and certain verses. If this basic hermeneutical principle is followed, we will soon find that we can no longer interpret all of the Bible by the Book of Revelation. Instead, we must read the Book of Revelation through the rest of the Bible. Historic Protestants would also insist, for example, that Revelation interprets the book of Daniel and not vice versa. The New Testament must be allowed to interpret the Old. There is nothing particularly difficult or profound in this, and following this basic principle of Bible study facilitates a clearer understanding of Bible prophecy.

If we begin with clear passages of Scripture, we can construct a very simple, basic model to help us with the “weirder,” tougher passages. One such approach is known as the “two-age” model. Both Jesus and Paul, for example, speak of “this age” and the “age to come” as distinct eschatological periods of time (Mt 12:32; Lk 18:30; 20:34-35; Eph 1:21). For both our Lord and the apostle, there are two contrasting ages in view. The first age (spoken of as “this age” in the New Testament) is the present period of time before the Second Coming of Christ. The second age, a distinctly future period of time, is referred to as “the age to come.” When these two ages (“this age” and “the age to come”) are placed in contrast with each other, we are able us to look at the qualities ascribed by the Biblical writers to each in such a way that we can answer questions about the timing of the return of Christ and the nature and timing of the millennium.

When we look at the qualities ascribed to “this age” by the biblical writers, we find that the following are mentioned: “homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and fields — and with them persecutions” (Mk 10:30); “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage” (Lk 20:34); the scholar, philosopher and such wisdom are of this age (1 Cor 1:20); secular and religious rulers dominate (1 Cor 2:6-8); “the god of this age [Satan] has blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Cor 4:4); this age is explicitly called “the present evil age” (Gal 1:4); ungodliness and worldly passions are typical of it (Titus 2:12). All of these qualities are temporal, and are certainly destined to pass away with the return of our Lord. “This age” is the age in which we live, and is the age in which we struggle as we long for the coming of Christ and the better things of the age to come.

By marked contrast however, “the age to come” has an entirely different set of qualities ascribed to it: There will be no forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:32); it is preceded by signs (Mt 24:3); it is characterized by eternal life (Mk 10:30; Lk 18:30); is also denoted as a time when there is no marriage or giving in marriage (Lk 20:35); and it is which is characterized by “life that is truly life” (I Tim 6:19). These qualities are all eternal, and are indicative of the state of affairs and quality of life after the return of Christ. In other words, these two ages, the present (“this age”) and the future (the “age to come”) stand in diametrical opposition to one another. One age is temporal; the other is eternal. One age is characterized by unbelief and ends in judgement; the other is the age of the faithful and is home to the redeemed. It is this conception of biblical history that dominates the New Testament.

It is also imperative to see that the same contrasts which Jesus and Paul make between these two ages are in turn related to the one event that forever divides them, the return of Christ. This line of demarcation is expressly stated in Scripture. “The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. . . This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous” (Mt. 13:39-49). These statements are the type of clear and unambiguous texts mentioned earlier. Notice that according to this text judgement occurs immediately at Christ’s return, not after a one-thousand year millennium (as in the premillennial scheme). This is not the only line of Biblical evidence, however, for in addition to this we can find other such statements about the coming of Christ that fit very clearly into the two-age model.

According to Scripture, the resurrection of both the just and the unjust occurs simultaneously. Jesus expressly states that he will raise believers up on the “last day” (Jn 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24). Thus we told quite clearly that the resurrection of the just occurs on the last day, at the end of this age. In addition, Jesus also proclaims that “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day” (John 12:48). Notice that the very same event is also said to be the time of judgment for those who reject Christ. Add to these important passages those additional verses that, relate the trumpet of God to the “last day” and to the return of Christ. The return of Christ will occur “in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” (1 Co. 15:52; cf. 1 Thess 4:16). Notice that there are no gaps of time indicated between the resurrection and the judgement. These texts collectively speak of the resurrection, the judgment, and the return of Christ as distinct aspects of but one event, occurring at precisely the same time (cf. Mt 25:31-46). Premillennialists, who often chide amillennialists for not taking the Bible “literally” and who champion what they call the “literal” interpretation of Scripture, must now insert a thousand-year gap between the Second Coming of Christ (and the resurrection) and the Final Judgment to make room for the supposed future millennial reign of Christ! And this, ironically, when the clear declarations of Scripture do not allow for such gaps.

Thus, we can conclude that “this age” — the period of time Peter calls the “last days” (Acts 2:17), and which Jesus characterizes as a period of birth pains of wars, earthquakes, famine, and distress (Mt 24, Mk 13) — ends with the return of Christ, the resurrection and the judgement on the “last day.” An event that, by the way, Peter describes like the “day of the Lord [which] will come as a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare” (2 Pet 3:10). It is only after this that the age to come will be a present and visible reality. Notice that the focus is not upon a half-way kingdom and somewhat improved temporal age on the earth (i.e., a future millennium). Instead, the biblical focus is upon the consummation and the summing up of all things with the creation of the new heavens and the new earth! The return of Jesus Christ is the key event in biblical prophecy. For when our Lord Jesus Christ returns, the end of the age, the resurrection, the judgment, and the creation of the new heavens and the new earth are at hand!

Thus the two-age model is very simple in its structure and is based on texts that can only be described as clear and straightforward. This enables us to make the following conclusions about the nature of the New Testament’s teaching regarding the return of Christ and the timing of the so-called “millennial age.”

First, the “last days” began with the coming of Christ and will continue until Christ returns (Acts 2:17; Heb 1:2). This period of time, “this age,” is destined to pass away, and is characterized by war, famine, environmental distress, persecution and even the martyrdom of God’s people (Rev 20:4-6). While there is every likelihood that this distress will increase in the period immediately before the return of Christ, no one knows the day or the hour of our Lord’s return. Further, Jesus’ birth pain imagery most likely means that we should expect alternating periods of peace and intensifying evil that will cause many to unduly speculate about the immanent return of Christ. These are sharp, stabbing birth pains, but not they are not the birth itself. Therefore, our preoccupation should not be with signs of the end, but instead we must be consumed with the task assigned to the church in the last days: the proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom.

Second, the return of Christ clearly marks an end to the temporal nature of life as we know it — “this present evil age.” At his return, Jesus will raise the believing dead, judge all men, and send the wicked into the fires of Hell. The elements of this Earth burn up and the new heavens and earth will be established. This scenario completely destroys much of contemporary evangelical prophetic speculation, which advocates a “secret” coming of Christ and the “rapture” of believers (and what text can be adduced to argue that Jesus comes back secretly?) a full seven years before the final judgement at Christ’s bodily return. Does Jesus come back once or twice, with one of them being secret? Such speculation is nonsense when viewed in light of the clear gospel texts cited above, which universally describe the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and the judgement of believers and unbelievers as parts of one event. This scenario also destroys the idea of a future earthly millennial reign of Christ after he returns in judgement. Since this supposed thousand-year reign occurs after the eternal destiny of all men and women is forever settled in the judgement, the very thought of Jesus ruling over a world wherein there are still men and women in natural bodies repopulating the Earth is simply not supported by clear texts (remember the one about no marriage?).

If the millennial reign described in Revelation 20 is actually referring to a future period of time, another even more significant problem arises. At the end of the one thousand years, John tells us that there is a great apostasy (a second fall if you will) while Jesus is ruling the nations with the rod of iron (Rev 20:7-10). This sounds much more like something that would happen in this age, and when viewed against (2 Thess 2:1-12) an often overlooked parallel passage where a great apostasy occurs before the man of sin is revealed (v. 3), the case for a present millennial age becomes even stronger. Since there can be no people on earth in natural bodies after the judgement (which occurs when Christ comes back according to the clear texts we have seen above), these apostates can only be those same believers that Jesus raised from the dead at his return. In other words, if premillennialism is correct, then it is glorified saints follow Satan and revolt against Christ! But are we really to believe that evil is not finally conquered at Christ’s return—even where Jesus is physically reigning and judgement has already occurred? Of course not, and this is self-evidently refuted by the analogy of faith, which expressly tells us that Jesus will destroy all of his enemies and hand the kingdoms of the world over to his Father (1 Cor 15:24) at his second coming. On closer investigation, we see that the events in Revelation 20 do not take place on the Earth at all, for the thrones described in that passage are in heaven, and not on the Earth. Furthermore, in a book such as Revelation, where numbers are always used symbolically, it makes much more sense to argue that the one thousand years are symbolic of the period of time between the first and second comings of Christ, rather than see them as a literal future period with a second fall during Jesus’ kingly rule after the judgment. Thus the existence of evil and the supposed apostasy of glorified believers in a future millennial age poses a very difficult problem for all forms of premillennialism.

Third, and most importantly, the two-age model places its entire focus upon Jesus Christ and his second coming and not on idle speculation regarding world events. In the classical Protestant model, the next event on the prophetic calendar is the return of Jesus Christ to Earth. In fact, Jesus may even return before you finish reading this article! The eschatological cry of Protestant orthodoxy has always been, “Maranatha; Come quickly Lord Jesus!” As with many other things in life the simplest approach may be the best. The two-age model is clear, biblical, and Christ-centered. It refuses to allow undue speculation about current events to overturn the clear teaching of Scripture. It is a shame that it has been lost to so many Christians.


Notes

1. Hal Lindsey, The Rapture (New York: Bantam Books, 1983), p. 30.

Resources For Further Study

Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).

Arthur Lewis, The Dark Side of the Millennium: The Problem of Evil in Revelation 20:1-10 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980).

Kim Riddlebarger, “For He Must Reign”, Cassette Tape Series (available through the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals).


Author

Dr. Kim Riddlebarger is a graduate of California State University in Fullerton (B.A.), Westminster Theological Seminary in California (M.A.R.), and Fuller Theological Seminary (Ph.D.). Kim has contributed chapters to books such as Power Religion: The Selling Out of the Evangelical Church, Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Unites & Divides Us, and Christ The Lord: The Reformation & Lordship Salvation, and is currently the pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, California

Why Christology Matters

Article “Does Christology Matter?” by Dr. Sinclair Ferguson (source – https://www.ligonier.org/blog/does-christology-matter/)

“We all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us one and the same Son, the self-same perfect in Godhead, the self-same perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man … acknowledged in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably … the properties of each nature being preserved.”

So wrote the church fathers in the Definition of Chalcedon in AD 451. But even if they spoke “unanimously,” their doctrine of Christ sounds so complex. Does it really matter?

Given the sacrifices they made to describe Christ rightly, one can imagine that if these Christians were present at a group Bible study on Philippians 2:5-11, they might well say to us, “From what we have heard, it never mattered more.”

Imagine the discussion on “Though he was in the form of God … emptied himself” (Phil. 2:6-7, RSV). Says one: “It means Jesus became a man for a time and then went back to being God afterwards.” “No,” says another, “He only emptied himself of His divine attributes and then He took them up again.” “Surely,” says another (not pausing to reflect on the miracles of Moses, Elijah, or the Apostles), “He mixed humanity with His deity—isn’t that how He was able to do miracles?”

Does it really matter if those views are wrong, indeed heretical, so long as we know that Jesus saves and we witness to others about Him? After all, the important thing is that we preach the gospel.

But that is precisely the point—Jesus Christ Himself is the gospel. Like loose threads in a tapestry—pull on any of these views, and the entire gospel will unravel. If the Christ we trust and preach is not qualified to save us, we have a false Christ.

Reflect for a moment on the descriptions of Christ above. If at any point He ceased to be all that He is as God, the cosmos would disintegrate—for He is the One who upholds the universe by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3). If He were a mixture of deity and humanity, then He would not be truly or fully human, and therefore would no longer be one of us and able to act as our representative and substitute. He could neither save sinners nor succor saints. This is why Hebrews emphasizes that Christ possesses a humanity identical to ours, apart from sin. No mixing or confusing here.

Most of us are sticklers for clearly describing anything we love, be it science, computing, sports, business, or family life. Should we be indifferent to how we think and speak about our Savior and Lord?

This is why the church fathers, and later the Westminster divines, stressed that God’s Son ever remained “of one substance, and equal with the Father” and yet, in the incarnation, took “upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and infirmities thereof, yet without sin… . So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion” (WCF 8.2).

What makes this statement so impressive is that it safeguards the mystery of the incarnation while carefully describing its reality. The Son’s two natures are not united to each other, but they are united in His one person. So in everything He did, He acted appropriately in terms of His deity or His humanity, one divine person exercising the powers of each nature in its own proper sphere.

This, then, underscores the value of the church’s creeds. They were written by men who had thought more deeply and often suffered more grievously than we do. They spoke out of a deep love for Christ and His people, concerned for a lost world. Their testimony helps us in three ways:

  1. It protects us by setting boundaries for our thinking.
  2. It instructs us by helping us see biblical truth expressed in its briefest form.
  3. It unites us, so that everywhere in the world, Christians can share the same clear confession of who Christ is and what He has done.

Does it really matter? In light of the sacrifices our forefathers made in order to articulate the grandeur of the person of our Savior and what Christ had to be in order to save us, you bet it matters.

On Alliteration

Personally, I am not a huge fan of alliteration. It is not something I attempt to do in my sermons. This is not to everyone’s taste, and I understand that. Some love alliteration; some feel they need it and others go further by saying that a lack of alliteration amounts to a lack of preparation on the preacher’s part. I don’t buy that. May I say, I find alliteration:

Forced

Frustrating

Feeble

Fatiguing

While I am all for anything that helps a congregation remember the main parts of a sermon, I am not convinced that alliteration is always a helpful and useful tool. I don’t believe a sermon without alliteration is a failure. My observation is that alliterated sermons often feel very forced, and, dare I say it, make me feel the preacher is trying to impress me by his rhetoric (the very opposite of the Apostle Paul’s motivation described in 1 Cor 2:1-5) rather than help me. In balance, sometimes alliteration can be useful, but I am yet to be persuaded that it is an essential component of preaching.

I believe that the following article “The Rules For Alliteration” by Tim Challies is a good resource for those who do use alliteration (original source – https://www.challies.com/articles/the-rules-for-alliteration/).

Tim Challies writes:

Strictly speaking, to alliterate is to provide a list of words that begin with the same letter or sound, as in “Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers.” In a broader sense, to alliterate is to form an outline using similarly-sounding words or phrases. It is a device that, in theory, helps readers to follow along with a book or that helps listeners to follow along with a sermon.

So, for example, Steven Lawson’s little work on Jonathan Edwards has chapters titled “The Prerequisite of Faith,” “The Priority of God’s Glory,” “The Putting Away of Sin,” “The Precipice of Eternity,” and so on. Sometimes a whole sermon series will be alliterated, as in Colin Smith’s “Faith that Lasts” which was made up of three sermons titled “Firm Foundations,” “False Assumptions,” and “Full Assurance.” But we see it most commonly in individual sermons where, as often as not, it is used to form a three-point outline. Lawson once again provides an example with his sermon on Ephesians 1:21-26 which follows this outline: Paul’s Dedication, Paul’s Dilemma, and Paul’s Decision.

(Here, for your reading pleasure, is an alliterated defense of alliteration in preaching. Or you can read Jared Wilson’s alliterated “5 C’s of Preaching.”)

Over the years I’ve seen and heard some truly wonderful examples of alliteration. I’ve also seen and heard some truly awful ones. Most recently, a book I attempted to read had maddening alliteration for its chapter headings—the kind that stretched the meaning of words far beyond the breaking point, all for the sake of maintaining a common first letter. Based on that book and a handful of recent sermons, I thought I’d share some pointers for doing alliteration well (or, at least, not doing it poorly). And, as I do so, I admit that on various occasions I’ve doubtlessly violated each of these rules.

Rule #1: Know what it’s for. Alliteration is meant to add clarity to a sermon or book by providing a simple, memorable outline. It is not meant to show off the communicator’s expansive vocabulary or clever rhyming ability. It is, at best, a minor component of a sermon and one of the least important steps in preparation. This kind of outline is only helpful if it adds clarity; it can be harmful or wasteful if it reduces clarity. Unless each alliterated heading is clear enough that it could stand on its own even if it wasn’t alliterated with the others, it is likely to hinder communication more than help it.

Rule #2: Don’t despair. Don’t despair if you aren’t good at alliterating or even particularly good at creating an outline. There are some wonderful preachers who rarely create a highly-developed, three-point outline and some who rarely alliterate (John Piper comes to mind). Many of these are still clear, powerful preachers, even though they don’t follow what some may hold up as rules for sermon preparation. They have done lots of study, they have organized the sermon in their own minds, and they are more than able to make it all make sense to their listeners.

Rule #3: Don’t give it too much time. A great outline can be a great help to a listener. You’ve heard the rule of effective communication, I’m sure: Tell them what you’re going to say, say it, then tell them what you’ve said. An outline can help listeners understand where you are going, then remind them where you’ve been. However, the great power in preaching is not in the outline, but in the faithfulness to Scripture. Don’t put a ton of time into alliterating an outline if it is going to detract from the time you’d take to search the Scriptures and prepare to faithfully exposit them.

Rule #4: Don’t use a thesaurus. If you’ve prepared a three-point sermon with two words beginning with T, there can be a great desire to find a third T-word to complete the alliterated outline. But almost invariably, turning to a thesaurus will lead you to words that are too obscure to be helpful. In general, if you can’t come up with the word on your own, it’s not a word you ought to use to frame a whole section of a sermon. A thesaurus may occasionally remind you of a word you simply forgot, but more often it will lead you to words that are too uncommon to fit the purpose. It’s better to break the alliteration than to use a word no one has spoken in 400 years.

Rule #5: It’s better not to stretch. As in rule #4, a nearly-complete outline can drive you to a kind of desperation to get that final word or two in place. If that doesn’t drive you to use a thesaurus and dig up an obscure word, it may drive you to words you know, but that aren’t quite right. You may use a word that kind of means what you want it to mean, but you would never actually use if it didn’t begin with that particular letter or have that number of syllables. It is far better to be clear than cute. If the purpose of alliteration is to help with comprehension, you’ll be working against that goal by stretching words beyond their natural meaning or usage.

The big point is that alliteration is meant to serve a purpose, and the purpose is to add clarity to the mind of a reader or listener. But done poorly, it can actually detract from clarity and hinder the understanding of a reader or listener. So my counsel is to use alliteration only when it can serve that bigger purpose (which is to say, only when it obeys at least a few of those five rules).

Farewell To Mundane Sundays!

Texts: Hebrews 10:23-25; 12:18-24

Christian, when you come to the corporate gathering on the Lord’s Day, whether 10 others show up with you, 100 or even a crowd of 10,000, you are actually part of something so massive, so momentous, you would hardly believe it. You have come to an event so big it makes the Superbowl look a small family picnic by comparison. Embracing what Scripture reveals about our corporate gathering together allows us to say ‘farewell’ to boredom forever. Your Sundays will never be the same!

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11320311123829