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.

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. 3:15; Matt. 27:33; Rom. 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. 2:15; Rev. 12:7; Mark 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 3:27; Luke 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 24:14, 53; John 2:4; 17:1; 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. 9:6; Acts 3:15; 5:31). 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. 24:15; Luke 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 2:18; 4:3). 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. 2:9-11; 3:9).

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.

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, race, kind 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. 23:35, 37).” 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 16:8) where 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 8:38; Luke 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.

Gary DeMar (source – https://americanvision.org/21800/timing-issues-in-the-olivet-discourse/ ) writes:

I saw a post on Facebook related to the timing of prophetic events based on Jesus’ pronouncement to some of the disciples about the destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:1-2) and the judgment on Jerusalem that was to take place before their generation passed away (Luke 21:32).

And [Jesus] said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time has drawn nigh!’ Do not go after them” (Luke 21.9). Do not go after those who are saying, “the time has drawn nigh”. In other words, folks going around preaching that the “end is near” in terms of time – don’t go after them.

At first, I was confused since that’s not what Luke 21:9 says. The author of the post was referencing Luke 21:8.

The author is trying to make the case (I think) that the use of “near” does not always mean what preterists claim it means. “Since ‘no man knows the day or the hour,’’ he writes, “when ‘heaven and earth will pass away’ – then no one can say in terms of time that such event is near in terms of timing – don’t go after date setters, whether 70 AD date setters, or 2020 date setters.”

It’s not really clear to me the exact point that’s being made. It’s somewhat confusing.

The thing of it is Jesus is not describing the passing away of the physical heavens and earth in Luke 21:33 or Matthew 24:35. He’s describing events related to the destruction of Jerusalem before their generation passes away.

Jesus is warning His disciples about false prophets and false Christs (Matt. 24:5, 11, 24; Mark 13:6, 21; Luke 17:22-23)) who might claim the time was near and most likely wanted the people to join in a possible insurrection against Rome. Jesus warns, “So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them” (24:26).

There was a list of signs that had to take place before the judgment would descend upon the temple and city. Wars and disturbances were just some of the signs. There would be more to come before the end, that is, the end of the age that would be manifested by the judgment on Jerusalem (24:1-3).

Ed Stevens makes some good points:

Jesus said the reason his disciples should not pay attention to anyone saying “the time is at hand” in those days was because the other signs he gave them had not happened yet. Jesus gave enough signs that they could not miss it. When compared with the parallel accounts in Matthew and Mark, this is even more apparent. For instance, if Jesus had given them 30 signs to look for and only 5 of them had taken place, it wouldn’t make much sense to believe that the end was immediately at hand. But if all 30 had taken place (by the year 66 AD), they could be sure the end was indeed at hand. There is another reason also.

The people who were trying to lead away the brethren were probably caught up in the nationalistic mindset and looking for a materialistic kingdom or paradise, or they were Judaizers. To follow them would have been fatal in view of what happened to such zealots at 70 AD.

In Luke 21:9, Jesus puts the warning in context:

When YOU hear of wars and disturbances, do not be terrified; for these things must take place first, but the end does not follow immediately [εὐθέως].

As that generation was coming to an end and most of the signs had occurred, Jesus makes the following pronouncement:

“But immediately [εὐθέως] after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL [Ezek. 32:7-8; Isa. 13:10; 24:33; Amos 5:20] from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken” (Matt. 24:29).

What days? The days preceding the destruction of Jerusalem.

The New Testament is filled with statements confirming the fact that an eschatological event, described as Jesus’ coming, was near. We find this in the epistle of James:

Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains. You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door (5:7-9).

Does James contradict Jesus? Not at all. Jesus told His disciples not to be misled by false prophets and false christs who would claimed the “time is near [ἐγγίζω]” (Luke 21:8), as if it was just right around the corner and these imposters were the fulfillment of Jesus’ promised judgment coming.

Consider these verses:

• For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand (Rom. 13:11-12).
• Let your forbearing spirit be known to everyone. The Lord is near (Phil. 4:5).
• For yet in a very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not delay (Heb. 10:37).
• The end of all things is at hand; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober-minded for the purpose of prayer (I Peter 4:7).
• Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour (I John 2:18).

Were these statements about the nearness of certain prophetic events what Jesus had warned about in Luke 21:8? Not at all.

It’s important to note that the context describes what was going to take place before their generation passed away (21:32). Jesus issued His warning about imposters around AD 30. The epistles of Paul, James, Peter, and John were written closer to the time of the end of their generation.

This is all confirmed when Jesus adds the following: “Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads because your redemption is drawing near” (Luke 21:28).

“These things” refer to what Jesus states the signs they would see described in Luke 21:9-27. Anyone claiming to be the fulfillment of what Jesus was saying about His coming, that would happen before certain signs took place, would be an imposter. Matthew’s version states it this way: “when you see all these things, recognize that He/it is near, at the door” (24:33; cp. James 5:9).