What does Paul mean in Romans 16:20 when he tells the church, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under *your* feet?”

Here’s an excerpt from a sermon by Pastor Jeff Wiesner from Isaiah 59-60, “Conquering King, Unshakable Kingdom:”

“In the Bible, Satan is crushed in three stages—he has been defeated, he is being defeated, and he will be defeated. The first and last of these victories—in the past and in the future—both belong to Christ. We play no part. He alone disarmed the power of Satan by his death on a cross (Colossians 1:15) and he alone will destroy Satan once and for all at the end of the age (Revelation 20:10).

We do, however, have a role in the second of these three stages—the right now stage. In Romans 16:20, Paul promises that Satan will be ‘crushed under your feet.’ How do we make sense of this?

Keep Genesis 3 in mind. How did the serpent deceive the man and the woman? He came to Eve offering both her and Adam the knowledge of good and evil. He said, ‘You won’t die! For in the day you eat of this tree, you will be like God, knowing good and evil (Gen. 3:5).’Now understand: Adam and Eve’s sin was not that they desired to be wise about good and evil but that they desired knowledge that was contrary to God’s revelation. He told them, “Don’t eat it!”

Now look at the preceding verse—verse 19—what does it say? ‘For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to—pay attention!—what is good and…what is evil.’

How do we conquer this present age, in Christ? Not with a sword or by force of law or by electing our preferred politicians, but by devotion to the truth of God. The first Adam was a son of God given authority by God to guard God’s garden-temple. He should have kept out sin and falsehood by crushing the serpent’s head, but he didn’t. Christ, the incarnate Son and last Adam, was given authority by God to do the same and succeeded where the first Adam failed. Now in these last days, between Christ’s first and second coming—and Satan’s first and final defeat—Christ has delegated his temple-guarding, serpent-crushing authority to his churches. And that authority is located precisely in keeping out falsehood by the right preaching of the true gospel.

The gospel is corrupted today by false teaching characteristic of antichrist in these last days (Rom. 16:17-18; cf. Tim. 4:1)—false teachers who offer us knowledge contrary to God’s revelation. And when we bite what they offer, we sin against God and our light is dimmed, even extinguished. The devil “wins.”

But when we are wise unto what is good and evil according to God’s Word, our faithfulness to the gospel further crushes the already crushed devil and causes us to shine as lights in the world (Phil. 2:15)—the kind of lights to which God’s elect from every nation will flock, as promised in Isaiah 60:

‘The nations come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising (v 3)…they shall call you the City of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel” (v 14).’”

Dean Davis, author of book The High King of Heaven, was interviewed January 4th and 5th, 2021 on the topic of Amillennialism and you can watch the two interviews at this link:

Dean Davis on Remnant Radio

Article: “It’s Time for a Great Eschatology Reset” by Gary DeMar (original source – https://americanvision.org/posts/it-s-time-for-a-great-eschatology-reset/)

It all started with comments that Grace Community Church Pastor John MacArthur made where he warned that “today’s world is ‘perfectly suited for the Antichrist to come’ amid the chaos and ‘lawlessness’ stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.”

MacArthur went on to say:

Now we are a global world. And that is a setup that we’ve been waiting for through redemptive history since the Lord promised that there would come, in the future, an Antichrist who would have a global government.

The person who referenced the article wrote, “For Pete’s sake.” I have to agree. It seems that every time the world is about to fall apart (plagues, influenza, world wars), it’s time to dust off the prophecy charts and change the names and dates to fit the latest headlines.

Charles Wesley Ewing, writing in 1983, paints a clear historical picture of how prophetic interpretation based on current events turns to confusion, uncertainty, and in some people unbelief when it comes to predicting an end that disappoints:

In 1934, Benito Mussolini sent his black-shirted Fascists down into defenseless Ethiopia and preachers all over the country got up in their pulpits and preached spellbinding sermons that had their congregations bulging at the eyes in astonishment about “Mussolini, the Anti-Christ,” and to prove their point they quoted from Daniel 11:43, which says, ‘And the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.’ Later, Benito, whimpering, was [shot and later] hung by his own countrymen, and preachers all over America had to toss their sermons into the scrap basket as unscriptural. (Charles Wesley Ewing, “The Comedy of Errors,” The Kingdom Digest (July 1983), 45.)

Ewing goes on to mention how Hitler’s storm troopers took Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, North Africa, and set up concentration camps where millions of Jews were killed in what has become the modern-day definition of “holocaust.” Once again, preachers ascended their pulpits and linked these events to Bible prophecy and assured the church-going public that Hitler was the antichrist and the rapture was just around the next bend. When the allies routed the Nazis and drove them out, sermons were once again tossed out or filed away to be revised at some future date hoping people’s memories would fade.

The next end-time-antichrist candidate was Joseph Stalin, the leader of godless Communism, a movement hell-bent on conquering the world. “But on March 5, 1953, Stalin had a brain hemorrhage and preachers all over America had to make another trip to the waste basket.” (Ewing, “The Comedy of Errors,” 45–46.)

One person objected to the criticism of MacArthur’s comments about the antichrist and the end times:

I see nothing wrong with this statement. The church has believed in the return of a literal antichrist, during a time of worldwide trouble, since before the time of Ireneaus.

And that, my friends, is the problem. Prophecy enthusiasts have been claiming for nearly 2000 years — “since before the time of Irenaeus” (c. 130–c. 202) — that events in their day were signs that the antichrist was about to come. It’s obvious as we near the end of the first quarter of the 21st century that they were wrong.

All a person has to do to see how many times the antichrist has been the topic of discussion in history is to read Francis X. Gumerlock’s book The Day and the Hour: Christianity’s Perennial Fascination with Predicting the End of the World to see that pinning the tail on the Antichrist has a long and failed history: Antichrist Suspects in the Early Church (10), Antichrist Suspects in the Middle Ages (89), Antichrist Suspects in the Sixteenth Century (115), Various Antichrist Suspects, A.D. 1600–1900 (231), and Twentieth-Century Antichrist Suspects (286).

Benjamin B. Warfield (1851–1921), Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1887 to 1921, had this to say about the modern attempt to construct a biblical antichrist from unrelated Scripture passages:

We read of Antichrist nowhere in the New Testament except in certain passages of the Epistles of John (1 John ii. 18, 22; iv. 3; 2 John 7). What is taught in these passages constituted the whole New Testament doctrine of Antichrist. It is common, it is true, to connect with this doctrine what is said by our Lord of false Christs and false prophets; by Paul the Man of Sin; by the Apocalypse of the Beasts which come up out of the deep and sea. The warrant for labeling the composite photograph thus obtained with the name of Antichrist is not very apparent. (Benjamin B. Warfield, “Antichrist,” The Expository Times, XXXII (1921), 358. Reprinted in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield — 1, ed. John E. Meeter (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970), 356.)

All the world’s troubles have repeatedly been dumped into the antichrist doctrine, and yet when we study the subject from Scripture, we see that the word is found only in four verses of the NT (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7), has a specific definition (related to the incarnation and nature of Jesus as the Christ) and time of appearing (“even now” meaning then, not our “now”), and that there were many of them (“many antichrists have arisen”).

It is remarkable that a word so “characteristic of the School of John” does not appear in the Apocalypse, where it might have served the writer’s purpose in more than one passage. That the conception of a personal Antichrist existed among the Christians in Asia in the first century is certain from I John ii. (Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St John: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indices (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1906), lxxv.)

The definition, number, and timing of these antichrists fit the period between Pentecost and the fulfillment of what Jesus said would happen before that generation ended (Matt. 24:34). Read the book of Acts and the historical record of Josephus. (See Morrison Lee, “Jesus and Josephus: Prophecy Meets History. All the Signs of Matthew 24 Fulfilled in the First Century.”) David Chilton’s Paradise Restored has a handy abridgment of the events surrounding Jerusalem’s destruction.

As the New Testament makes clear, apostasy was rampant almost from the church’s inception. The apostasy about which John wrote was operating in his day. Paul had to counter a “different gospel” that was “contrary” to what he had preached (Gal. 1:6–9). He had to battle “false brethren” (2:4, 11–21; 3:1–3; 5:1–12). He warned the Ephesian church leadership that “men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:28–30). There would be wolves among the sheep (20:29). Theological insurrection came from within the Christian community.

Many people prior to Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70 questioned and disputed basic Christian doctrines like the resurrection (2 Tim. 2:18). Some even claimed that the resurrection was an impossibility (1 Cor. 15:12). Strange doctrines were taught. Some “Christians” prohibited marriage (1 Tim. 4:1–3). Others denied the validity of God’s good creation (Col. 2:8, 18–23). The apostles found themselves defending the faith against numerous false teachers and “false apostles” (Rom. 16:17–18; 2 Cor. 11:3–4, 12:15; Phil. 3:18–19; 1 Tim. 1:3–7; 2 Tim. 4:2–5). Apostasy increased to such an extent that Paul had to write letters to a young pastor who was experiencing these things firsthand (1 Tim. 1:19–20; 6:20–21; 2 Tim. 2:16–18; 3:1–9, 13; 4:10, 14–16). In addition, entire congregations fell to apostasy:

One of the last letters of the New Testament, the book of Hebrews, was written to an entire Christian community on the very brink of wholesale abandonment of Christianity. The Christian church of the first generation was not only characterized by faith and miracles; it was also characterized by increasing lawlessness, rebellion, and heresy from within the Christian community—just as Jesus foretold in Matthew 24. (David Chilton, Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985), 108.)

The book of Revelation recounts heretical teachings that affected the churches: “evil men” (2:2), “those who call themselves apostles” but who are found to be “false” (2:6), a revival of “the teaching of Balaam” (2:14), those “who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans” (2:15), the toleration of the “woman Jezebel … who leads” God’s “bond-servants astray, so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols” (2:20). The apostasy was alive and well on planet earth in the first century (2 Thess. 2:3).

Don’t misunderstand me. I am not dismissing the evil in the world and the potential for the success of what people are calling the Great Reset. The problem is linking all of what’s going on today to Bible prophecy. It’s been done and overdone for centuries. It’s long past time for a Great Eschatology Reset.

Article by Dean Davis, author of the book “The High King of Heaven”

Postmillennialism: Exposition and Critique

A 4 part Series:

Article: The Use of the Second Person Plural (“You”) in Matthew 24 by Gary DeMar (original source – https://americanvision.org/24117/the-use-of-the-second-person-plural-you-in-matthew-24/)

Gary DeMar writes: While doing my daily stroll down Facebook lane, I came across an advertisement for a debate on the timing of the “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15) between two former full preterists. Brock Hollett has jumped the shark and rejected even a partial preterist position and adopted a form of premillennialism while arguing like a dispensationalist as I point out in my book Debunking a Debunker of Preterism: A Response to Brock Hollett’s Book Debunking Preterism.

It’s hard to take Hollett’s current arguments seriously since he made such a radical jump from one well-argued position (e.g., “A Critique of R.T. France’s Division of Matthew 24,” Fulfilled Magazine [Spring 2012], 8–9.) to one with unconvincing arguments for his new position.

Here is what I wrote in my initial Facebook comment:

“When YOU see the abomination of desolation…” Audience indicator. Debate over. A future interpretation would require a rebuilt temple, something the NT never mentions. It would also negate what Jesus says in Mt. 24:33–34. There’s nothing to debate here.

My friend Mike Bull had something similar to say: “People are still debating this?” They are and charging $20! The following material in this short series will save you $20 if you were planning to attend the debate.

As you can imagine, not everyone agreed with my FB comment. One commenter turned to the book of Deuteronomy as an example of how “you” does not only refer to a present audience but also a future audience. Why go to Deuteronomy when you have Matthew 21, 22, 23, and 24 to see how the second person plural is used by Jesus? Immediate context should be the first place an interpreter should look. How does Matthew use the second person plural when he has a specific audience in view?

Let’s look at Deuteronomy and compare it to Matthew 24:

Now Moses called all Israel and said to them: “You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land—the great trials which your eyes have seen, the signs, and those great wonders” (Deut. 29:2–3).

The commenter went on to argue the following:

Who is the “you” in these verses? Very clearly the initial audience Moses is addressing who had seen the signs God did when delivering them out of Egypt. But as we continue to read, we find that “you” in many instances cannot refer to them as it refers to events that took place many centuries later. Dt. 29–30 is just one of many such examples where we see this. And if we see such a precedent in prophetic texts in the old testament, then it is at least possible that we have the same in the new.
Therefore, just as we would not force the fulfillment of what Moses predicted in Dt. 30 back into the time of his initial audience based on his usage of “you,” so too we should not force the fulfillment of all Jesus predicted in the Olivet discourse based on his usage of “you.”

How do we know that some of the events would take place to later generations? Because we are told in Deuteronomy 29 and 30 that there are future events with future generations in view. This is not the case in Matthew 24. There is no indication that two audiences are in view or that the Olivet Discourse is mixed with contemporary and distant future events. The near/far interpretation is a popular view. I discuss it in detail in my book Prophecy Wars.

Bear in mind that the use of the audience reference “you” is not the only factor employed to argue that Matthew 24:15 is fulfilled prophecy. We are told by Jesus that the generation of His day, the one to whom He is speaking, would not pass away until all the events He prophesied took place. What Jesus says in Matthew 24:34 is clear as I point out in my books Last Days Madness, Is Jesus Coming Soon?, Wars and Rumors of Wars, and in John Bray’s Matthew 24 (which is being reprinted):

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

That generation passed away, therefore “all these things” spoken by Jesus had taken place because the use of “this generation” in Matthew’s Gospel and elsewhere in the gospels refers to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking (Matt. 11:16; 12:41, 45; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 8:38; 13:30; Luke 7:31; 11:29; 11:30, 31, 32, 50, 51, 17:25; 21:32). Here are four examples from well respected orthodox Bible commentators who would not self-identify as preterists (for a more complete list see my book Wars and Rumors of Wars, pages 155–165):

• “This generation” has been used frequently in this gospel for Jesus’ contemporaries, especially in a context of God’s impending judgment; see 11:16; 12:39, 41–42, 45; 16:4; 17:17, and especially 23:36, where God’s judgment on “this generation” leads up to Jesus’ first prediction of the devastation of the temple in 23:38. It may safely be concluded that if it had not been for the embarrassment caused by supposing that Jesus was here talking about his parousia, no one would have thought of suggesting any other meaning for “this generation,” such as “the Jewish race” or “human beings in general” or “all the generations of Judaism that reject him” or even “this kind” (meaning scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees). Such broad senses, even if they were lexically possible, would offer no help in response to the disciples’ question “When?” ^[1]
• “The phrase ‘this generation’ is found too often on Jesus’ lips in this literal sense for us to suppose that it suddenly takes on a different meaning in the saying we are now examining. Moreover, if the generation of the end-time had been intended, ‘that generation’ would have been a more natural way of referring to it than ‘this generation.’” ^[2]
• “Matthew uses genea here for the tenth time. Though his use of the term has a range of emphases, it consistently refers to (the time span of) a single human generation. All the alternative senses proposed here [in 24:34] (the Jewish people; humanity; the generation of the end-time signs; wicked people) are artificial and based on the need to protect Jesus from error. ‘This generation’ is the generation of Jesus’ contemporaries.” ^[3]
• “The significance of the temporal reference has been debated, but in Mark ‘this generation’ clearly designates the contemporaries of Jesus (see on Chs. 8:12, 38; 9:19) and there is no consideration from the context which lends support to any other proposal. Jesus solemnly affirms that the generation contemporary with his disciples will witness the fulfillment of his prophetic word, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the dismantling of the Temple.” ^[4]

Part two will be posted on August 11, 2020.

1. R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT) (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 930.[↩]
2. F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 227.[↩]
3. John Nolland The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 988–989.[↩]
4. William L. Lane, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 480.

Part 2:

For a study of some of Brock Hollett’s shifting prophetic views, see my book DEBUNKING A DEBUNKER OF PRETERISM .

Jesus has a single generation in view for judgment in Matthew 24 because it was the single generation that turned Jesus over to the Romans and pronounced a curse on themselves.

When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.” And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified (Matt. 27:24–26).

Indeed, the judgment on Jerusalem was on them and their children. This was to be a national judgment (23:37–38) that could be escaped by leaving the city (24:16–17; Luke 21:20–24). No future generation was guilty of the crime of crucifying “the Lord of Glory” (1 Cor. 2:8: note “the rulers of this age”) and choosing someone like Barabbas to be released instead of Jesus and declaring that they had “no king but Caesar” (John 19:15). A future generation of Jews isn’t guilty of this particular evil, therefore, why should it be judged?

There is no comparable time limiter in Deuteronomy 29–30. When you read further in Deuteronomy, you find the following:

Now not with you alone am I making this covenant and this oath, but both with those who stand here with us today in the presence of the LORD our God and with those who are not with us here today (Deut. 29:14–15).

Israel was directly told that some of what was said would apply to “the generation to come” (29:22). Those who made up that contemporary generation would have their heart circumcised and the heart of their descendants (30:6; also v. 19).

In Deuteronomy 31, we find a prophecy about what is specifically said about the future. The prophecy is not limited to “this,” that is, their generation as it is in the Olivet Discourse.

The other problem the futurist interpretation of Matthew 24:15 must face is where the abomination of desolation will appear. All agree that it’s in the temple, the temple that Jesus said would be destroyed before that generation passed away. “Not one stone here shall be left would be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matt. 24:2). All agree that this took place in AD 70.

First, as we’ve seen, there is no indication that the use of the second person plural (you) refers to a non-identified future generation. Unlike Deuteronomy 29–30, Jesus does not mention distant generations. The use of the second person plural is used consistently for those of that generation. Consider Matthew 24:33: “so, YOU too, when YOU see all these things, recognize that He/it is near, right at the door.” It is beyond me how anyone can claim that the first use of “you” is different from the second use of “you” separated by nearly 2000 years.

Jesus’ enemies certainly understood the audience relevance of His words after a series of parables. Who is Jesus referring to when He asks, “But what do you think?” (Matt. 21:28) and “Did you never read in the Scriptures?” (21:42), and “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it” (21:43)? It seems the chief priests and Pharisees had a better understanding of language than many modern-day prophecy theorists:

And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them (21:45).

The second person plural in Matthew 24 begins with verse 2 (“do you not see”) and can only refer to those in Jesus’ audience. At what point does the use of “you” switch to a future audience? A comment in Tim LaHaye’s Prophecy Study Bible claims that “you” in Matthew 24:15 “must be taken generically as ‘you of the Jewish nation.’” ^[1] Where in the text does it say this? There is no evidence offered by the editors to substantiate a shift in audience reference from the disciples of that generation to Jews living at a time far removed from their day. If Jesus had wanted to refer to a different audience, He could have said, “When they see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand).” Even if the “you” in 24:15 does refer to the “you of the Jewish nation,” the reference is to the Jews of that generation alone based on verses 33 and 34. Brian Schwertley in his commentary “Matthew 24 and the Great Tribulation” frames the argument well:

Speaking directly to the disciples, … Jesus said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you” (v. 4); “you will hear of wars” (v. 6); “see that you are not troubled” (v. 6); “they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations” (v. 9); “when you see the abomination of desolation” (v. 15); “So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!” (v. 33), “Assuredly I say to you this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place” (v. 34). Given all these things we can say with assurance that the disciples most likely took Christ’s words at face value. If one accepts the futurist interpretation of Matthew 24:5–34, then one has accepted an interpretation of which the apostles were almost certainly ignorant.

Why confuse the disciples when Matthew includes the phrase, “let the reader understand” (24:15)? They were to understand, not just about the abomination of desolation but about the entire discourse because they would have to take action when certain events took place (24:16–17; Luke 21:20–24).

1. Tim LaHaye, ed. Prophecy Study Bible (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000), 1038, note on Matthew 24:15.

Part 3:

Preterists aren’t the only ones who identify the use of the second person plural as indicative of a first-century fulfillment. Anyone reading the passage for the first time would conclude that Jesus was referring to those of His generation, that’s why so much exegetical gerrymandering is needed to overcome the obvious. The following is from Jonathan Menn’s Biblical Eschatology: ^[1]

Both the historical and literary contexts of the reference “abomination of desolation” indicate a historical event surrounding the AD destruction of Jerusalem, not an “end-time” Antichrist. Christ’s admonition to his disciples, “when you see” the abomination of desolation or Jerusalem surrounded by armies (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20) suggests the events of AD 70 since Jesus was talking to his disciples, “you” as in the second person plural, and the events of AD 70 were in the lifetime of the disciples. Kenneth Gentry articulates what should otherwise be self-evident: “Surely Jesus does not denounce the first-century temple in which He is standing  (24:1) by declaring it ‘desolate’ (23:38), prophesying its total destruction (24:2), ten answering the question ‘when shall these things be?’ (v. 3), and warning about the temple’s ‘abomination of desolation’ (v. 15) only to speak about the destruction of a totally different temple two thousand years (or more) later.” ^[2]

Second, for a future abominable event to take place as is described in 24:15, there would need to be another rebuilt temple. Jesus does not say anything about a future physical temple. There isn’t a single verse anywhere in the New Testament that says the temple needs to be rebuilt or will be rebuilt. The temple was standing when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians (2 Thess 2) and when Revelation was written (Rev. 11:1–2). Even those who claim a temple will be rebuilt admit there is no verse to support their claim. For example, rebuilt-temple advocates Thomas Ice and Randall Price acknowledge, “There are no Bible verses that say, ‘There is going to be a third temple.’” ^[3] The burden of proof is not on to the preterist to prove that the New Testament doesn’t say anything about another rebuilt temple. It’s up to futurists like Brock Hollett to prove the Bible says the temple will be rebuilt and Jesus is making a case for such a position in Matthew 24:15 given the use of the second person plural, Matthew 24:33 (“when you see these things”), and Matthew 24:34 that clearly states the prophetic events described by Jesus took place before their generation passed away.

Third, the events that follow Matthew 24:15 can be escaped on foot. This means this was a local event of ancient times that included Sabbath observance, flat roofs, and valuable commodities like a cloak. In Exodus 22:26–27, a person’s cloak was often used as a pledge or collateral, as a result, James Jordan writes, the person holding the cloak was “to return it to him before the sun sets, for that is his only covering; it is his cloak for his skin. What else will he sleep in?” Later in Matthew 24, “grinding at the mill” (24:41; see Deut. 24:6) is mentioned. Who does this today? How does this fit with our modern era? It doesn’t. Futurists argue that the events of Matthew 24 refer to a global event. There is nothing global about what Jesus is describing (24:16–17).

If the second person plural is about a future audience, who are the “you” who will see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place? The world won’t see it. Some might argue that the event will be seen live on TV. So how would these viewers follow the command of Jesus to flee to the mountains outside of Judea? Only those living in Jerusalem would see it, and what good would it do to flee to the mountains when a global tribulation is supposed to take place when a third of the stars will hit the earth (Rev. 6:12–14)?

One last point. A new temple would not be a God-commissioned temple. The true temple is Jesus Christ (John 2:14–25) and believers by extension since the Holy Spirit dwells in us (1 Cor. 3:16–7; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21). No future temple could have an abomination that causes desolation since a future temple wouldn’t have any covenantal significance similar to the way earthly Jerusalem no longer has any covenantal significance (Gal. 4:21–31; Heb. 12:18–29; 1 Peter 2:4–8).

James Jordan has a unique perspective on the identity of the abomination of desolation. Jim is always worth listening to:

Possibly the completion of the temple, now wholly dedicated to preserving the dead forms of Old Creation religion against Jesus Christ, is the specific event Jesus was prophesying. The abomination of desolation stands in the “holy place.” The word “place” here is not the word used for the Holy Place of the tabernacle and temple, the outer room of God’s Palace, the word hagios. Rather, the word for “place” here, topos, indicates a general area, in this case a holy area. What is in view is the temple mount, and the abomination is the temple.

Jesus had claimed that He was the true Temple. By continuing to build Herod’s temple, the Jews were explicitly rejecting Jesus’ claim. The completion of that false temple brought to a fulness that sacrilegious rejection, and at that point God completely abandoned the Jews.

The completion of that temple naturally caused great rejoicing among the Jews. Now they were sure that God was on their side. Their leaders, the false messiahs and false prophets, encouraged them to revolt against Rome and to wipe out the obnoxious Christians. The restraint that God had exercised over the Jews had been removed and they attacked in full fury, doubtless also encouraged by Nero’s imperial persecution of the Christians, which began at this same time.

*****

Thus, the completion of the temple is not the main sin. It is only a sign to the believers that the Great Tribulation is about to start. That great persecution of believers is the actual abomination that brings about the destruction of Jerusalem, as the blood of the martyrs of Revelation 14 calls down God’s wrath in Revelation 16–17.

These were most likely the “mockers” Peter described in 2 Peter 3:3–4 (also Jude 18). They were mocking because the temple was standing more gloriously than ever before, and yet Jesus had predicted that it would be torn down stone by stone before their generation passed away (Matt. 23:38; 24:1–2).

Fourth, Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour when this judgment coming would take place (24:35–36). This means it could have happened within five years or ten years. The audience reference “you” fits with knowing the generation—their generation—but not the day or hour of that end-of-generation judgment.

1. Jonathan Menn, Biblical Eschatology, 2^nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Resource Publicans/Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2018), 123–124.[↩]
2. Kenneth L. Gentry, “The Great Tribulation is Past: Exposition,” in The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? Two Evangelicals Debate the Question (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999), 24.[↩]
3. Thomas Ice and Randall Price, Ready to Rebuild: The Imminent Plan to Rebuild the Last Days Temple (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992), 197–198.

Part 4:

In Luke 21:20 we find a similar audience reference: “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that her desolation is at hand.” Many prophecy writers who claim that Matthew 24 is about a yet future coming argue that Luke 21:5–24 describes the judgment on Jerusalem that took place in AD 70. Darrell L. Bock, a premillennialist, is a good contemporary example of this position when he writes, Luke “focuses  on the nearer fulfillment in the judgment pattern described here, the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, rather than the end (which he will introduce directly in 21:25).” ^[1] Many of the people in Jesus’ audience would have been dead by AD 70 and yet Bock has no problem with Jesus using the second person plural. As we’ve seen, it’s a non-issue and does nothing to affect the near fulfillment (“this generation”) of the prophecy.

Dispensationalists in general take a similar position. For example, Arno C. Gaebelein: “This great prophecy was fulfilled in the year 70 A.D., when the Romans besieged Jerusalem and a million perished, besides 100,000 who were made slaves. It is one of the most awful pages in human history. So has Luke 21:24 been fulfilled.”

I have not found anything that tells me how Hollett interprets Luke 21:20. I did find the following from Mike Coldagelli’s online article “Luke 21:20-24 Fulfilled or Future?,” an interpretation supported by the debate moderator Alan E. Kurschner or holds to a pre-wrath position:

“Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” This wording is identical in all three synoptic gospels. The command flows from a condition that can be seen and understood as a sign. Remember, the questions in all three gospels ask for a sign. All three gospels mention pregnant women, nursing infants, and great distress/tribulation. What is the possibility that these four ideas were applied equally in two different discourses to two different events separated by almost 2,000 years? These four parallels in themselves make a strong case that the discourses in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are the same.

Coldagelli’s position is not common among many premillennialists. For example, non-dispensational premillennialist J. Oliver Buswell, who held a mid-tribulation view of the rapture, taught that “the Olivet discourse predicts two destructions of Jerusalem: an immediate one which occurred in AD 70 by Titus (Luke 13:34–35; 19:43–44; 21:20), and a distant one which will usher in the parousia (cf. Zech 12:2; 14:1–9; Revelation 19)…. [He] saw the prediction of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem only in Luke, and not in Matthew and Mark” ^[2] as he makes clear in his systematic theology:

Luke’s statements that in connection with a particular future destruction of Jerusalem the enemy would surround it with armies (Luke 21:20) and would build a wall around it (Luke 19:43) were so very specifically fulfilled in the destruction of the city by Titus in A.D. 70 that double fulfillment is impossible. ^[3]

I and other preterists take the position that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are describing the same events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem before that generation passed away. The accounts are different in several ways similar to the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke and refer to the same period of time. “In all probability,” Craig Blomberg writes, “Jesus originally uttered one connected, coherent eschatological discourse from which the three Synoptists [Matthew, Mark, and Luke] have chosen to reproduce different portions in different places.” ^[4]

How does Hollett get around all of these arguments? Here’s his comment which does not answer any of the issues I’ve raised:

By the way, this force-fitting of Matthew 24:25 [sic] would require the apostles to have been in Jerusalem at the time of the final assault by Titus. Many of them had already died or were evangelizing from afar! Similarly, the elders of the Sanhedrin were dead before AD 70 but DeMar’s view requires them (“you”) to have been alive (cf. Matt. 26:64)!

The simplest answer to this argument is that the use of the second person plural refers to those of “this generation,” that is, the generation that would see the events described by Jesus, the “you” of Matthew 24:33, not only those who first heard Jesus’ response to the disciples’ questions. Some of those in His immediate audience were most likely alive (Matt. 16:27–28) and living in Jerusalem since Jesus was addressing His “disciples.” This could have included some of the 70 and even some among the “multitudes” who followed His ministry. This is a much better solution than reinterpreting “when you see” to mean “when they see,” requiring a temple to be rebuilt, redefining “this generation” to mean any number of things, from this race, this nation, to the generation that sees these signs (but see Matt. 24:33), this type of generation, this offspring, this spiritual generation, and who knows what else rather than what “this generation” means elsewhere in the gospels.

Hollett might object because in Mark’s version of the Olivet Discourse we learn that “Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately” (13:3). The questioning may have been in private but the discourse itself could easily have been given to a larger crowd. Jesus often taught in the temple and “would go out and spend the night on the mount that is called Olivet. And all the people would get up early in the morning to come to Him in the temple to listen to Him” (Luke 21:37–38). There may have been a contingent of believers who followed Him. This might explain the questions asked by the four apostles privately.

Luke’s version does not limit the audience to the four: “And while some were talking about the temple … Jesus said, ‘As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down’” (21:5–6). Jesus then makes His prophetic pronouncement that concludes with, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place” (21:32).

What should we make of this comment from Hollett?: “the elders of the Sanhedrin were dead before AD 70 but DeMar’s view requires them (‘you’) to have been alive (cf. Matt. 26:64)!” Why would Jesus have used “you” if He did not mean them? Once again, Hollett doesn’t have a convincing argument for the generic use of the second person plural here. Caiaphas certainly understood what Jesus meant (26:65).

Who was present during Jesus’ interrogation by Caiaphas? The chief priests, scribes, and elders that made up “the whole council” (26:59). There were many people there who could have been alive nearly 40 years later. But 26:64 is not describing events of AD 70 but what was going to come to pass soon—“from now on.” R.T. France explains the timing factor in his commentary on Matthew 26:64:

Coming on the clouds of heaven (together with the phrase “the Son of man”) is a clear allusion to Daniel 7:13, already similarly alluded to in [Matt] 24:30…. We have seen that its natural application in terms of its Old Testament source is to the vindication and enthronement of the Son of man in heaven, not to a descent to earth. It is therefore in this verse a parallel expression to “seated at the right hand of Power”; the two phrases refer to the same exalted state, not to two successive situations or events. In this verse the appropriateness of this interpretation is underlined by the fact that this is to be true “from now on” (hereafter is a quite misleading rendering of the more specific phrase ap’ arti, which, as in 23:39 and 26:29, denotes a new period beginning from now). Indeed it is something which Jesus’ inquisitors themselves will see (an echo of Zc. 12:10, as in 24:30?), for it will quickly become apparent in the events of even the next few weeks (not to mention the subsequent growth of the church) that the “blasphemer” they thought they had disposed of is in fact now in the position of supreme authority. ^[5]

N.T. Wright offers a similar interpretation in his commentary on Matthew 26:64 that references Daniel 7:13: “The Daniel text … has nothing to do with a figure ‘coming’ from heaven to earth. Despite the widespread opinion that this is what it ‘must’ mean in the gospels, there is no reason to suppose that on the lips of Jesus, or in the understanding of the earliest traditions, it meant anything other than vindication.” Anyone familiar with Old Testament language would have understood what Jesus was saying. Jesus’ enemies certainly did.

Wright continues to explain that the passage “speaks of exaltation: of one who, representing ‘the people of the saints of the most high’, is raised up from suffering at the hands of the beasts and given a throne to sit on, exercising royal power… Jesus is not … suggesting that Caiaphas will witness the end of the space-time order. Nor will he look out of the window one day and observe a human figure flying downwards on a cloud. It is absurd to imagine either Jesus, or Mark, or anyone in between, supposing the words to mean that.” ^[6]

The following is found in the Expositor’s Commentary on Matthew 26:64: “[T]he time is coming,” Caiaphas and the Council, “when you and I shall change places; I then the Judge, you the prisoners at the bar.”

Summary

1. The use of the second person plural in the Olivet Discourse is consistently used for the audience to whom Jesus was speaking.
2. For Matthew 24:15 to be a prophecy about a distant future event, another temple would have to be built even though the NT does not say anything about a rebuilt temple. The only temple Jesus mentions in Matthew 24 is the temple that was standing in His day that would be torn down stone-by-stone. No other temple is in view.
3. The judgment was local that could be escaped on foot.
4. The living conditions were ancient with Sabbath observation still operating, houses with flat roofs used for gatherings, and items like cloaks being of value.
5. The use of “this generation” determines the timing of the prophetic events outlined by Jesus.
6. Matthew 26:64 refers to something that was on the immediate horizon, possibly AD 70 or earlier, but certainly not an event 2000 years in the future.

1. Darrell L. Bock, Luke, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 2:1675.[↩]
2. Jeffrey Khoo, “Dispensational Premillennialism in Reformed Theology: The Contribution of J. O. Buswell to the Millennial Debate,” JETS 44:4 (Dec 2001), 702.[↩]
3. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1962), 2.363.[↩]
4. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 185.[↩]
5. R. T. France, Matthew: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 381.[↩]
6. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 524–525. It’s possible that Caiaphas witnessed Jesus’ ascension “on the clouds of heaven” since it happened before “the men of Galilee” and was visible to anyone who cared to see (Acts 1:2, 9–11; Luke 24:51–52).”

Article by Gary DeMar (source: https://americanvision.org/23071/what-does-the-bible-say-about-the-end-of-the-world/)

When Christians hear the phrase the “end of the world,” most assume it’s a reference to a great end-time prophetic event like Armageddon, the Second Coming of Christ, or the cataclysmic end of heaven and earth as a prelude to a New Heavens and New Earth. Actually, the phrase “end of the world,” as in the end of the physical world, is not found in the Bible. There is Psalm 19:4, but in context “end of the world” is a geographical description: “Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their utterances to the end of the world.” The same is true of its use in the New Testament (Acts 13:47; Rom. 10:18).

The “end of the world” appears several times in the King James translation of the Bible. The Greek word kosmos, the word we would expect to find for the translation of these “end of the world” passages, is not used. Modern translations render the passages as the “end of the age” because the Greek word aiōn not kosmos is used. The New King James translation remedies the translation error of the original KJV by translating aiōn as “age” and not “world” (Matt. 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20). Aiōn refers to a limited historical period, not the physical world (1 Cor. 10:11). Kosmos (“foundation of the world,” that is, the physical world) and aiōnōn (“consummation of the ages”) are used in Hebrews 9:26, a time when Jesus had been “manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” It seems odd that the translators of the KJV translated two different Greek words in the same verse as “world.” The New King James corrects the error.

Jesus’ appearance on earth as “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), not just Jews but the nations (4:42), coincides with the consummation of the ages, a first-century reality. In fact, the writer to the Hebrews opens his epistle with the claim that he was living in “these last days” because of the first coming of Christ in the world (Heb. 1:2). The tabernacle had become incarnate (John 1:14) and personalized (2:13–22) in Jesus Christ. Peter uses similar language when he writes, “For [Jesus] was foreknown before the foundation of the world [kosmos] but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you” (1 Peter 1:20). Paul tells his Corinthian audience that “the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor. 10:11).

Peter writes from the vantage point of his day that “the end of all things is at hand” (1 Peter. 4:7; cf. 1:20). This can hardly be a declaration that the end of the physical universe was about to take place. “At hand” tells us that whatever this end is, it was near for Peter and his first-century audience. Jay E. Adams offers a helpful commentary on the passage, considering its historical and theological context:

[First] Peter was written before A.D. 70 (when the destruction of Jerusalem took place)…. The persecution (and martyrdom) that these (largely) Jewish Christians had been experiencing up until now stemmed principally from unconverted Jews (indeed, his readers had found refuge among Gentiles as resident aliens)…. [H]e refers to the severe trials that came upon Christians who had fled Palestine under attack from their unconverted fellow Jews. The end of all things (that had brought this exile about) was near.

In six or seven years from the time of writing, the overthrow of Jerusalem, with all its tragic stories, as foretold in the Book of Revelation and in the Olivet Discourse upon which that part is based, would take place. Titus and Vespasian would wipe out the old order once and for all. All those forces that led to the persecution and exile of these Christians in Asia Minor—the temple ceremonies (outdated by Christ’s death), Pharisaism (with its distortion of O.T. law into a system of works-righteousness) and the political stance of Palestinian Jewry toward Rome—would be erased. The Roman armies would wipe Jewish opposition from the face of the land. Those who survived the holocaust of A.D. 70 would themselves be dispersed around the Mediterranean world. “So,” says Peter, “hold on; the end is near.” The full end of the O.T. order (already made defunct by the cross and the empty tomb) was about to occur. ^[1]

Adam Clarke (1762–1832) writes the following in his commentary on 1 Peter 4:7: “Peter says, The end of all things is at hand; and this he spoke when God had determined to destroy the Jewish people and their polity by one of the most signal judgments that ever fell upon any nation or people. In a very few years after St. Peter wrote this epistle, even taking it at the lowest computation, viz., A. D. 60 or 61, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. To this destruction, which was literally then at hand, the apostle alludes when he says, The end of all things is at hand; the end of the temple, the end of the Levitical priesthood, the end of the whole Jewish economy, was then at hand.” ^[2]

The end of the age was the real end of the world, the world of old covenant Judaism, and the inauguration of a new era where God no longer speaks in types and shadows but “in His Son” (Heb. 1:2). There was such a dramatic transference from one age to the next that Peter described it as “the end of all things.”

The use of this end-time language is “typical Jewish imagery for events within the present order that are felt and perceived as ‘cosmic’ or, as we should say, as ‘earth-shattering’. More particularly, they are regular Jewish imagery for events that bring the story of Israel to its appointed climax. The days of Jerusalem’s destruction would be looked upon as days of cosmic catastrophe. The known world would go into convulsions: power struggles and coups d’état would be the order of the day; the pax Romana, the presupposition of ‘civilized’ life throughout the then Mediterranean world, would collapse into chaos. In the midst of that chaos Jerusalem would fall.” ^[3]

Jerusalem was the redemptive center of the then known world: “Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘This is Jerusalem; I have set her at the center of the nations, with lands around her’” (Ezek. 5:5). The Jews lived “at the center of the world” (38:12). To be far from Jerusalem was to be at “the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). For a Jew, Jerusalem was the center of life (2:5–11). Medieval maps show Jerusalem to be the geographical center of the world because it was the center of redemptive history. Isaiah predicted that the nations would look “to the house of the God of Jacob” for redemption and instruction:

In the last days, the mountain of the house of the LORD will be established as the chief of the mountains and will be raised above the hills; and all nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us concerning His ways, and that we may walk in His paths” (Isa. 2:2–3).

The nations did look to the “house of Jacob” for their redemption. Paul writes that the gospel “has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith” (Rom. 16:26). The “mystery of godliness” had been “proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world” (1 Tim. 3:16).

Christians writing less than 100 years after the destruction of Jerusalem and the dismantling of the temple understood that Isaiah 2 was looking forward to the ministry of the gospel in the world among the nations. Jesus was the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophetic words when He said, “Come to Me” (Matt. 11:28). Consider the brief commentary of Justin the Martyr (c. 100–165):

And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: “For the law will go forth from Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never will they learn war” [Isa. 2:3–4]. And that it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we might not lie or deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ. ^[4]

Irenaeus (c. 130–200), another second-century Christian writer, taught that Isaiah 2 was fulfilled at the time of “the Lord’s advent,” that is, the first coming of Jesus. You will notice that he believed that the message of “the new covenant” had a worldwide impact before Jerusalem’s fall:

If any one, however, advocating the cause of the Jews, does maintain that this new covenant consisted in the rearing of that temple which was built under Zerubbabel after the emigration to Babylon, and in the departure of the people from thence after the lapse of seventy years, let him know that the temple constructed of stones was indeed then rebuilt (for as yet that law was observed which had been made upon tables of stone), yet no new covenant was given, but they used the Mosaic law until the coming of the Lord; but from the Lord’s advent, the new covenant which brings back peace, and the law which gives life, has gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and He shall rebuke many people; and they shall break down their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and they shall no longer learn to fight.” ^[5]

Tertullian (160–225) makes a similar application when he argues that it is “among us, who have been called out of the nations,—‘and they shall join to beat their glaives into ploughs, and their lances into sickles; and nations shall not take up glaive against nation, and they shall no more learn to fight.’ Who else, therefore, are understood but we, who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices,—the old law being obliterated, the coming of whose abolition the action itself demonstrates?” ^[6]

With the advent of Jesus and the ministry of the gospel to the nations, earthly Jerusalem would no longer be the geographical center of the world. The world had come into view, so much so that Paul could write that the gospel had been “proclaimed in all creation under heaven” (Col. 1:23; cf. 1:6; Rom. 1:8; 10:18; 1 Tim. 3:16d). The temple and the city of Jerusalem were shadows of better things to come. The tabernacle was a “copy and shadow of heavenly things … according to the pattern which was shown [to Moses] on the mountain” (Heb. 8:5). Jesus is the “true tabernacle” (8:2). The “new covenant . . . made the first [covenant] obsolete” (8:13). The writer to the Hebrews describes it this way: “But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear” (8:13). The word translated as “ready” is actually the Greek word engus, “near.” James C. DeYoung writes:

The total impression gained from the accumulation of evidence from Jesus’ teaching and prophecy concerning the rejection and doom of Jerusalem, as well as from the teaching of Galatians and Hebrews is that the significance of Jerusalem in the history of redemption had come to an end with the death of Jesus. Thus, the antithesis between the earthly and heavenly Jerusalem is based upon the cross of Christ. Jerusalem’s rejection and crucifixion of her Messiah, whether viewed retrospectively by the Apostles, or prospectively by Jesus himself, formed the basis for the pessimistic view of the future of the city. Thus the investigation of the relevant passages from the Gospels has shown that the Christian break with Jerusalem came long before her destruction in A.D. 70. ^[7]

Jesus is the center of redemptive history. He far surpasses anything the temple of stone and the sacrificial system of bloody animals were thought to be. “We have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh” (10:19–20).

1. Jay E. Adams, Trust and Obey: A Practical Commentary on First Peter (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978), 129–130.[↩]
2. Clarke’s Commentary on The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 2 vols. (New York: Carlton & Porter, 1810), 2:864.[↩]
3. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996),362.[↩]
4. Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” Chapter XXXIX: Direct Predictions by the Spirit, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:175–176.[↩]
5. Irenaeus, “Proof Against the Marcionites, that the Prophets Referred in All Their Predictions to Our Christ,” Against Heresies,” Book IV, Chapter 34.[↩]
6. Tertullian, “Of Circumcision and the Supercession of the Old Law,” An Answer to the Jews, Chapter III.[↩]
7. James Calvin DeYoung, Jerusalem in the New Testament: The Significance of the City in the History of Redemption and in Eschatology (Kampen, Netherlands: J. H. Kok, 1960), 109–110.[↩]

Article: My Two Very Different Encounters on the Topic of Bible Prophecy by Gary DeMar (original source – https://americanvision.org/22874/my-two-very-different-encounters-on-the-topic-of-bible-prophecy/)

Late Sunday evening, I returned from Idaho after doing two full days of content projects for American Vision. Upon arriving in Atlanta very late that evening I took the shuttle to where my car was parked.

I don’t know how the conversation with the driver started, but she made a comment about how our nation was moving toward socialism. I agreed with her. Then she brought up that we were most likely living in the last days.

I didn’t agree. She asked me why, and I went through a brief explanation. She was a Christian and believed the Bible. She listened and thought about what I said, and was very receptive. I told her I would send her some of my books. (This is important as you will read.)

She wrote down her address. I gave her a generous tip and drove home, arriving just after midnight.

While on my trip, a woman named Wendy posted some comments in response to my article “The Mark of the Beast and Buying and Selling” that has had more than five thousand shares. Here’s how it went:

Wendy: This is not true. I pray the Holy Spirit opens your eyes to the truth. Jesus is literally taking His true bride home soon and some who do not believe will be left behind to face horrific times. I’m praying for you.

Me: Where is the Bible passage that says what you are claiming?

Wendy: You have to be a born-again believer through faith in Jesus to be saved and have your eyes open. Also, you have to read the (whole) Bible. And believe every word of it. See how Bible prophecy has literally come true and will continue to literally unfold before our eyes. I have no fear because I know where I am going when I die or when Jesus takes me home. Which ever happens first.

Me: I am a born-again believer, and I believe every word of the Bible. I want to know how you know “Jesus is literally taking His true bride home soon.” The operative word is “soon.” I’m very familiar with the topic of Bible Prophecy having written ten books on the subject, debated it on radio and in various venues, and have written dozens of articles on the subject.

Wendy: Do you believe in the rapture of the church? All I know is I don’t read man’s books. I read, trust in, God’s word, the Bible. All others are sinking sand. I’m looking forward to a literal resurrection of my body, just like Jesus promised. No one can take this away. Jesus said. So, I have no fear. But I do pray for people who have no hope and are lost in their sins. To put their faith and lives in Jesus’ hands. He is the Way, The Truth, and The Life. Amen

Me: Show me a verse that says the Church will be taken off the Earth before, during, in the middle of, just before the wrath of God is poured out, or at the end of a 7- year period, and it’s all going to happen “soon.” You say you trust God’s Word, as I do, what verse says this? You have never read a single book written by a man about any part of the Bible or listened to a message or sermon about the Bible? I find that hard to believe since you asked me about “the rapture of the church.” Where does the word “rapture” appear in the Bible? You learned about the “rapture of the church” from someone else.

Wendy: I can use the word caught up to meet Him in the sky if that’s better?

Me: You used the word “rapture” after telling me you do not read anything but the Bible. You didn’t get that word from reading the Bible. You learned the doctrine of the rapture from someone else. The rapture refers to the church being taken up to heaven prior to (pre-trib), in the middle of, partially, before the wrath of God is poured out (pre-wrath), or after (post-trib) a seven-year period in which the antichrist makes a covenant with Israel, rebuilds the temple, breaks a covenant with Israel, etc. First Thessalonians 4:13–18 does not mention any of these things. There is no verse that mentions these necessary definitions of what is taught as the “rapture of the church.”

Wendy: And then those who remain will rise to meet Him in the sky. It’s coming soon!!! I am so excited!!!

Me: I see you have avoided answering my question. Here’s the next one: How do you know “it’s coming soon”? The operative word is “soon.” Where is that in the Bible that you know “it’s coming soon”?

Wendy: Jesus said when you see these things come to pass, look up, your redemption draweth nigh.

Me: What things? In Luke 21:28, Jesus was describing what was going to take place before their generation passed away (21:32). Notice that Jesus uses the second person plural throughout the chapter (vv. 8, 9, 12, 13, etc.). This entire prophecy was fulfilled before their generation passed away in the lead up to an including the destruction of Jerusalem that took place in AD 70. It was near for them.

Wendy: You will believe what you want. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. If a bunch of Christians disappear during your lifetime though, just don’t take the mark of the beast. Continue to claim Jesus as your Lord and Savior. That’s all I’m saying. No sense arguing. The Bible says to avoid silly and vain disputes. If you have read the (whole) Bible multiple times and have a daily relationship with Jesus through His word and prayer, then I am confident you will be ok. If you are lying and have not read the whole Bible in daily relationship with Jesus and prayer, then there is nothing more I can say to convince you. Love and prayers coming your way. I wait for the promise of my literal resurrection body to be with my Lord and Savior forever. Amen.

Me: Actually, it’s not all you are saying, and you have not convinced me on the subject of Bible prophecy since you did not make your case using the Bible. You said you only read the Bible and don’t read any other books. You said you believe the Bible. When I asked you to defend your position you didn’t and repeatedly changed the subject.

Too often doctrines are manufactured out of bits and pieces of the Bible that follow the hopscotch approach to hermeneutics. Something is pulled from Daniel 9:24–27 that’s not found there (a gap, an antichrist, making and breaking a covenant with the Jews), that’s linked with prophecies outlined by Jesus in Matthew 24 that were fulfilled before that generation passed away (Matt. 24:34), a rebuilt temple that is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament, the Jews returning to their land as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy, something the New Testament does not say, the rapture of the church, and so much more.

There is a connection between what people believe about Bible prophecy and the culture. In both cases, my two encounters linked world conditions to some imminent end-time event. The shuttle driver was willing to hear and consider a different way of looking at the topic and was receptive enough to read more on the subject. The Facebook responder had no desire to engage in a discussion. For her, the end is inevitably near and she is excited about it. What should Christians do until this “rapture” takes place, an event that has been near for nearly 2000 years?