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

Elevating Anti-Christ?

Article by Gary DeMar – original source: https://americanvision.org/21859/to-listen-to-some-prophecy-pundits-antichrist-seems-bigger-and-more-important-than-jesus/

When the film Die Hard came out, the poster had a picture of the Nakatomi Tower nearly taking up the entire poster. Bruce Willis, the star of the film, was nowhere to be found. The image of Willis was only added later.

I sometimes get the same type of mixed message when the end times is being discussed; it’s all about what the antichrist is going to do, not about what Jesus has done.

Image result for original die hard poster

There are whole books written on the topic. He’s supposedly going to take center-stage in an end-time shoot out with Jesus. This has always amazed me since the antichrist is said to be energized by Satan who is a defeated fallen angel and a minor nuisance in the grand scheme of redemptive history. Jesus crushed him at the cross at Golgotha, the place of a skull (Gen. 3:15Matt. 27:33Rom. 16:20). Satan is a creature. Like all creatures, he has certain limitations.

The Bible informs us that if we “resist the devil he will flee from” us (James 4:7). The only power Satan has over the Christian is the power we give him and the power granted to him by God (2 Cor. 12:7–12). Scripture tells us that Satan is defeated, disarmed, and spoiled (Col. 2:15Rev. 12:7Mark 3:27). He has “fallen” (Luke 10:18) and was “thrown down” (Rev. 12:9). He was “crushed” under the feet of the early Christians, and by implication, under the feet of all Christians throughout the ages (Rom. 16:20).

He has lost “authority” over Christians (Col. 1:13). He has been “judged” (John 16:11). He cannot “touch” a Christian (1 John 5:18). His works have been destroyed (1 John 3:8). He has “nothing” (John 14:30). He was “bound” (Mark 3:27Luke 11:20). Finally, the gates of hell “shall not overpower” the advancing church of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:18).1

With this background, we’re suppose to believe that Satan is the power behind a future global antichrist. All five rapture positions contend that he is the focus of history for a short period of time that will result in the deaths of millions of Jews (Zech. 13:7–9) and billions of everyone else around the world. For what purpose? So God can rescue Israel, but only after letting the antichrist kill two-thirds of them? It makes no sense.

The doctrine is built on Daniel 9:24–27. The “prince who is to come” is said to be the antichrist even though the word antichrist is not found in any of the four verses. One would think that if Messiah the Prince and just “Messiah” are used (9:25-26), which is translated as “Christ” in Greek, that the unidentified “prince” in verse 26 and “he” in verse 27, should be “anti-messiah,” the opposite of Messiah. There is “Christ” in the New Testament as well “antichrist.” It seems to me, if someone is going to make a case that the antichrist is in Daniel 9:26 and 27, then he should be so identified. But he isn’t.

There is much more to this topic. As you may know by now, I will be debating the rapture doctrine with Kent Hovind on January 21. Some of these issues will come out then, hopefully in more detail.

In this article, I want to respond to Alan Kurschner’s book Antichrist: Before the Day of the Lord. He criticized me for not dealing with Luke 16:8 when I argued that every time the Greek word genea is translated in the New Testament it means “generation” and not “race.” As I pointed out in my response article, I mentioned the fact that some translations do translate genea as “race.” You can read my response to Kurschner’s article here.

In order to prepare for my debate with Hovind, I ordered a copy of Mr. Kurschner’s book to familiarize myself with the pre-wrath rapture position. He also has a website and podcast devoted to the subject. Kurschner, unlike Kent Hovind, has not restricted himself to the KJV translation. In addition, he holds an M.A. in biblical languages, something that Kent Hovind does not seem to support in debates since most people do not have access to the original languages. For Hovind, the KJV is as authoritative as the original languages. There’s no need to reference the Hebrew or Greek. I’ll let Kent and James White fight that one out.

Now back to Alan Kurschner and his book Antichrist. As soon as I get a book or read an article about “The Antichrist,” I look to see if the authors actually define the term using the Bible. The first verse to use the word antichrist is 1 John 2:18. Here’s what it says:

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (KJV)

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. (NASB)

There’s a slight difference. The KJV translates the Greek word ὥρα (hōra) as “time,” while the NASB translates it as “hour.” The KJV is inconsistent in its translation of hōra (e.g., Luke 24:1453John 2:417:1; etc.). Are we to assume that “last hour” can mean nearly two millennia?

It’s not a big deal, but it’s important to note. Kurschner translates hōra as “hour.” He mentions 1 John 2:22 and 4:3. He does not mention 2 John 7. The passages that he quotes, that use the word “antichrist,” get a scant half-page of discussion (12).2

He writes the following:

So John recognizes an already-not-yet sense of antichrist (“the antichrist is coming [not yet], so now many antichrists have appeared [already]).”

John does not say “the antichrist is coming” in 1 John 2:18 as Kurschner claims.3 antichrist is coming.” And John does not say that because of the antichrist coming at some point in the distant future that that’s the reason there were “many antichrists” alive and well (physically speaking) in John’s day.

Anyone who denies the “Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22), and as John says in his second short epistle, “those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh” (2 John 7), is an antichrist.

John writes: “and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world” (1 John 4:3). The spirit of the antichrist, according to John, “is already in the world.” It was “now” and “have come” for John and other Christians. It’s the spirit of the antichrist that was coming (“it is coming”).

While 1 John 2:22 does include the article—“the antichrist” (in Greek and English translations), “it is clear,” Joel McDurmon writes, “that since John has already established ‘antichrist’ as a general group in verse 18, he is now providing criteria by which his audience can judge specific (definite) cases of heresy among them. Thus he individualizes the language to correspond.”

McDurmon expands on this principle:

He uses typifying “proverb”-type language to create a test case for determining between “he who tells the truth,” and “he who is ‘the liar’” in that given case: “He who denies that Jesus is the Christ, he is the antichrist.” But it is clear that his categories set up in the previous verses should determine the context of this one. For this reason, the King James translators went so far as to exclude “the” from this second passage—“He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son”—even though it existed in their Greek text (that ought to bug the KJV-only crowd a bit).

The same principle is at work in 1 John 4:3. Here John further explains the criteria for judgment: “And every spirit that does not confess [literally “speak the same”] Jesus is not of God, and this is that of the antichrist, which you heard that comes, and now is in the world already” (McDurmon [translation]).

The phrase “and this is that of the antichrist” is a description of the spirit that denies Jesus. In other words, it means “this denying spirit is the spirit of the antichrist.” This is why so many translations can’t stand not adding the word “spirit” a second time even though it is not in the text (see KJV, NAS, NIV, NJB, NRS, ESV). Here again, the article “the” appears, but clearly applies to criteria for determining definite, individual instances of the heresy. This was the practical ecclesiastical issue built on John’s earlier general teaching about “antichrist”: testing teachers for heresy. Thus: “Test the spirits” John said, introducing the fourth chapter, “because many false prophets [like the “many antichrists” in 2:18] have gone out into the world” (4:1).

The remaining instance appears in 2 John 7. It further solidifies and reinforces what we have said so far. John repeats his former teaching almost verbatim, warning that “Many deceivers, who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh, have gone out into the world. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.”

Again the definite article appears, but it is clear that the phrase applies as a general description for a group including “many deceivers.” At most it could point to the sole supernatural force behind these many deceivers, many false prophets, and many antichrists; but even then it still could not be a single individual that shall come in the future. It would simply mean that just as the Pharisees, for example, were children of the devil, “the father of lies” (John 8:44), so these many antichrists are children of spiri­tual antichrist, the devil. This is a possible interpretation, but not necessary.4

Kurschner does not explain who these “many antichrists who have appeared” were (1 John 2:18). It’s the key to everything. John is not describing a political person or a world leader of some kind; he’s identifying the immediate enemies of the cross. He writes, “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; in order that it might be shown that they are not of us” (1 John 2:19).

Notice that there is no mention of Daniel 9:24-27. John’s antichrist is not described as a “prince” because Daniel is not prophesying about an antichrist. Jesus is the Prince (Isa. 9:6Acts 3:155:31). Jesus says, “Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me” (John 14:30; KJV). In what way and to what end?: “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out” (John 12:27-31, KJV). Those who claim that Daniel 9:26–27 is describing that antichrist as a major end-time prophetic figure have to deny what Jesus said about the “prince of this world.”

Who could these “many antichrists” be? They were the Judaizers, the almost constant enemies of the gospel in the book of Acts: “and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:30).

The following is from the New English Translation. It’s good as far as it goes:

Antichrists are John’s description for the opponents and their false teaching, which is at variance with the apostolic eyewitness testimony about who Jesus is (cf. 1:1-4). The identity of these opponents has been variously debated by scholars, with some contending (1) that these false teachers originally belonged to the group of apostolic leaders, but departed from it (“went out from us,” v. 19). It is much more likely (2) that they arose from within the Christian communities to which John is writing, however, and with which he identifies himself. This identification can be seen in the interchange of the pronouns “we” and “you” between 1:10 and 2:1, for example, where “we” does not refer only to John and the other apostles, but is inclusive, referring to both himself and the Christians he is writing to (2:1, “you”).

This is part of the apostasy that futurists claim is going to precede the coming of an end-time antichrist. It was a reality in John’s day. It fits well with the “abomination” that causes desolation the disciples would see (Matt. 24:15Luke 21:20) before their generation passed away (Mt. 24:34). The man of lawlessness was most likely associated with the apostate Jewish priesthood. The temple was still standing when Paul wrote his second epistle to the Thessalonians: “you know what restrains him now” (2 Thess. 2:6), the same “now” of John’s “many antichrists” (1 John 2:184:3). The following is from Johann Christian Schoettgen’s Commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:

Indeed about this Antichrist, concerning whom Paul has spoken, I understand that he intends Pharisaic and Rabbinic Judaism, not Judaism itself, which God wanted to be buried with honor as a religion established by himself. But, as I have said, he means the Judaism of the Rabbis, which surely deserves the name of “Anti‑christianism.” Who resists Christ more, who resists the apostles more than the Pharisees, the Rabbis, the Scribes, those learned in the Law, in Judea and outside it? It was necessary that these be destroyed, since their malice would continually increase until the end of the Jewish Republic.5

These “many antichrists” might be what John is describing in the book of Revelation:

I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, so that you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death” (Rev. 2:9-113:9).

Revelation is describing what was about to happen. This is not some far off warning. It was to happen “soon” (Rev. 1:1) because the time was “near” (1:3; 22:10) for them.

Today’s prophetic antichrist is manufactured from bits of verses here and there and cobbled together to create a Frankenstein-like monster that ends up frightening, immobilizing, and neutralizing Christians.

  1. The material on Satan was taken from Jay E. Adams, The Christian Counselor’s Manual (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1973), 126–127. []
  2. I haven’t read the entire book, so he might discuss these verses elsewhere. I have not checked his website. []
  3. In the KJV and NASB, an italicized word means that that word does not appear in the Hebrew or Greek text. It’s added for clarity. I don’t know if Kurschner has added the italicized word for clarity, for emphasis, or he assumes it’s in the Greek text. Kurschner uses the New English Translation that includes “the” with no note stating that it’s not in the text. The NET does not italicize “the.” []
  4. Jesus v. Jerusalem: A Commentary on Luke 9:51–20:26, Jesus’ Lawsuit Against Israel (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2011), 181-182. []
  5. The full title reads, Johann Christian Schoettgen’s Hebraic and Talmudic Background on the Entire New Testament [Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum] Supplemented by The Background of John Lightfoot on the Historical Books With the Epistles and the Apocalypse Similarly Illustrated. Also Included are Select Discussions on Sacred Theology, and Indices of Scripture References, Significant Words and Important Topics (1733). Barry Hofstetter produced the above translation. You can read the entire English translation of 2 Thessalonians 2 here.

More on “This Generation”

Gary Demar, in preparation for an up-coming debate on the subject of the Rapture writes the following (source: https://americanvision.org/21827/preparing-for-my-debate-with-kent-hovind-on-the-rapture/):

In the process of my preparation and publicity of the debate, someone asked if I would debate Alan Kurschner. I’ve seen his name, and I know that he has responded to some of my material over the years, but have not read much of his work. I found this article especially interesting: “Preterist Gary DeMar Promoting Fake Exegesis.”

He took issue with the following comment of mine:

There are numerous examples of flawed starting points when it comes to the topic of eschatology. “This generation” becomes “this race” or “the generation that sees these signs.” In the first case, the Greek word for “race” (genos) is not used in Matthew 24:34. Jesus uses the Greek word genea.

There’s nothing fake about what I wrote. Jesus does use genea and not genos. Mr. Kurschner then makes this comment:

At the outset I am not defending the “race” interpretation. I don’t think it is the correct interpretation here. My point here instead is to correct DeMar’s ignorant claim that genea never means “race” within its semantic range.

He then offers the following from “[t]he most authorative [sic] Koine Greek Lexicon,” A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Third Edition (BDAG).

γενεά, ᾶς, ἡ (Hom.+; ins, pap, LXX, En; TestSol C 13:7; TestJob, Test12Patr; GrBar 10:3; Philo, Joseph., SibOr, Just., Tat.) a term relating to the product of the act of generating and with special ref. to kinship, frequently used of familial connections and ancestry. Gener. those descended fr. a common ancestor, a ‘clan’ (Pind., P. 10, 42 the Hyperboreans are a ἱερὰ γενεά [holy race]; Diod. S. 18, 56, 7; Jos., Ant. 17, 220), then

  1. those exhibiting common characteristics or interests, racekind as in Lk 16:8 εἰς την γ[ενεαν] την ἑαυτῶν [in their generation] the people of the world [αἰῶνος] are more prudent in relation to their own kind [γενεαν] than are those who lay claim to the light (difft. GBeasley-Murray, A Commentary on Mk 13, ’57, 99–102).

Then there’s this from Mr. Kurschner:

So DeMar is wrong on that front. Then in the same article, DeMar concludes his discussion by citing all the instances of the term in the Gospels. And get this. The one single instance that BDAG cites as meaning “race” in Luke 16:8, DeMar leaves out! Talk about fake exegesis! He mistakenly has Luke 18:8 instead of Luke 16:8, either he did this on purpose or he is sloppy by copying and pasting from his source that contains the error.

Actually, I am not wrong. I disagree with the authors of BDAG as do a number of Bible translations.

Yes, it was a copying error. It’s not the only time I’ve made such a mistake, and unfortunately, it won’t be the last. I certainly didn’t do it on purpose (better to leave it out) since I deal with Luke 16:8 in other places (see below). That’s a point to keep in mind. One article does not make an argument.

To be honest, like Mr. Kurschner I do not believe genea in Luke 16:8 should be translated as “race.” It doesn’t fit the context.

In his book Jesus v. Jerusalem, published by American Vision, Joel McDurmon writes the following:

Then Jesus gives an explanatory note: “the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light” (16:8). While I normally stick with the ESV, it incorrectly translates aion here as “world” instead of “age.” Most of the other modern translations get it right. It could more simply and more accurately be translated, “the sons of this age are more shrewd in their own generation than the sons of light.” He is clearly referring to the “age” which was coming to a close … and the children of that generation.1

Jesus v. Jerusalem: A Commentary on Luke 9:51–20:26, Jesus’ Lawsuit Against Israel is the best book that expounds on the fact that Jerusalem “was responsible for ‘all the righteous blood shed upon earth’ and that she was ‘the city that kills the prophets’ (Matt. 23:3537).” It was that generation that was judged not a “race” or “kind of people.”

“Age,” referring to a period of time, is closer in meaning (parallel) to “generation,” also a period of time, than “kind” or “race” in the same way that the two uses of “sons” are parallel.

Also, look at the translation problem in the BDAG quotation that Mr. Kurschner references above: “people of the world.” This, too, is problematic since the Greek word is αἰῶνος (aiōnos), not kosmos, and yet BDAG translates it as “world.” This is typical in some translations. For example, the KJV translates aiōnos (αἰῶνος) as “world” in Matthew 24:3.

You can see how the repeated expressions of judgment on that generation are found in Luke’s gospel as well as the book of Acts: 13:34-35; 17:22-37; 19:41-44; 21:5-36; Acts 2:40 (cp. Phil. 2:15). “Generation” is the best translation. Even Mr. Kurschner agrees.

The thing of it is, I have dealt with Luke 16:8 in other places and mention the fact that genea is sometimes translated as “race” or “kind.” For example, quoting Jack Lewis:

The meaning of generation (genea) is crucial to the interpretation of the entire chapter. While Scofield, following Jerome, contended that it meant the Jewish race, there is only one possible case in the New Testament (Luke 16:8where the lexicon suggests that genea means race. There is a distinction between genos (race) and genea (generation). Others have argued that genea means the final generation; that is, once the signs have started, all these happenings would transpire in one generation (cf. 23:36). But elsewhere in Matthew genea means the people alive at one time and usually at the time of Jesus (1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 45; 23:36; Mark 8:38Luke 11:50f.; 17:25), and it doubtlessly means the same here.”2

In a footnote, I added the following:

The New American Standard translates genea in Luke 16:8 as “kind,” but “generation” is equally valid. The King James Version, the New King James, and American Standard Version, and Young’s Literal Translation translate genea as “generation.”

In the margin, the NASB adds, “Lit. generation.” There was no need for me to spend time making these points since the New Testament consistently translates genea as “generation” and not “race.” This is especially true in the gospels (Matt. 1:17). It seems that futurists (Kurschner is an advocate for the pre-wrath rapture view) have to find just one verse that they can use to upset the exegetical applecart of preterists.

In the same outline, I included this:

The following is Charles Ryrie’s comment on Matthew 24:34 from his Study Bible: “this generation. No one living when Jesus spoke these words lived to see ‘all these things’ come to pass. However, the Greek word can mean ‘race’ or ‘family’ which makes good sense here; i.e., the Jewish race will be preserved, in spite of terrible persecution, until the Lord comes.” Stanley Toussaint, a dispensationalist, dismisses Ryrie’s line of argument: “A second interpretation, held by a number of futurists, affirms that the noun γενεά means race, that is, the Jewish race. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich give ‘clan’ as a primary meaning, but they list only Luke 16:8 as an illustration in the New Testament. It is difficult for dispensational premillennialists to take this view because this would imply that Israel would cease to exist as a nation after the Lord’s return: ‘This race of Israel will not pass away until the Second Advent.’ But Israel must continue after the Second Advent into the millennium in order to fulfill the promises God made to that nation.”3

Even the dispensational Darby Translation translates genea as “generation” in Luke 16:8:

And the lord praised the unrighteous steward because he had done prudently. For the sons of this world are, for their own generation, more prudent than the sons of light.

There are others: American Standard, English Revised, Webster’s Bible Translation, Weymouth New Testament.

I’m glad that Mr. Kurschner brought this material to my attention. I wished I had known sooner so I could change Luke 18:8 to 16:8 on page 173 (2020 printing) of Wars and Rumors of Wars. In the next edition of Wars, I’ll include this material since Mr. Kurschner believes it’s significant.

  1. Emphasis added. []
  2. Jack P. Lewis, The Gospel According to Matthew (Sweet Publishing, 1976), 2:128. This quotation is found in my 100-page outline on Matthew 24:1-34 that I’ve made available at American Vision over the years: “The Olivet Discourse in Outline: Biblical and Historical Parallels that Point to a Pre-A.D. 70 Fulfillment.” []
  3. Stanley D. Toussaint, “A Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse,” Bibliotheca Sacra (October-December 2004), 483–484.