I was recently interviewed by Dr. Josh Howard of Eschatology Matters, for a series about the main approaches to reading and understanding the Book of Revelation.
A subscription to Eschatology Matters is no longer required to watch.
To watch the interview, follow the link below
Read MoreTo watch/listen to the podcast (YouTube), follow the link below
Read MoreThe following is from my forthcoming exposition of Paul’s Thessalonian Letters, “When the Lord Jesus Is Revealed from Heaven” which will be made available as a free download for those who complete season two of the Blessed Hope Podcast.
Paul’s contention in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 that the day of God’s wrath (and the final judgment) occurs when Jesus returns on the last day, raises insurmountable difficulties for all forms of premillennialism. Premillennarians contend that Jesus returns to establish a millennial kingdom on the earth, usually thought to be structured upon the theocratic nation of Israel, with Jesus physically ruling over the earth from David’s throne in Jerusalem. At the end of the millennial age, supposedly, Satan is released from the Abyss and organizes the nations who collectively revolt against Christ and his church (Revelation 20:7-10). In response to this last outbreak of evil, when God casts Satan and his minions into the lake of fire, only then does the final judgment take place, fully one thousand years after Jesus Christ returns to deliver his people from the coming wrath of God.
In light of the premillennial misinterpretation of the scene in Revelation 20:1-10–supposedly occurring after our Lord’s return, instead of seeing John as referring to the interadvental period and its consummation when Jesus returns–premillenarians (including dispensationalists) must assert that God’s eschatological wrath is not manifest until the thousand year millennial age comes to an end. Both camps affirm they hold this view based upon what they claim to be a literal reading of an apocalyptic text. But the impossibility of the premillennial view becomes all-too clear when Paul, in an epistle written to answer specific questions about the Lord’s return, informs the Thessalonians that God’s eschatological wrath occurs when Christ returns to deliver them (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10), not one thousand years later. This leaves no room for a millennial age after our Lord’s return. None at all.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read MoreHere’s the link: Discussing Eschatology With Peter Bell and Nick Fullwiler
Read MoreA number of friends, church folk, and Riddleblog readers have asked about my take on Israel’s 911 (10/7). So, here you go.
It won’t surprise you that my take on the Hamas’s vicious attack on Southern Israel is much different than Greg Laurie’s ("Fasten Your Seat Belts"). A legion of prophecy pundits and “end-times” YouTubers have popped up, many offering wild and bizarre speculation about the tragedy and its role in the end-times. This is what they do. Admittedly, I have not watched or read much of this recent prophecy speculation, but what I have seen (most of which folks have sent to me) is largely a re-hash of prophetic scenarios long-since discredited (by the embarrassing fact that they got it wrong when previously proposed) now re-packed and presented as new material, with the hope that people will forget how wrong the pundits were the last time they made such predictions.
My points for consideration:
1). As for any biblical significance to the horrors inflicted upon Israeli citizens by Hamas terrorists, this clearly falls under the category of signs given us by Jesus regarding wars and rumors of wars (Matthew 24:6-8). Jesus did not predict specific conflicts (such as this one), only what he describes as “birth pains” of the end. What happened in Southern Israel falls into the category of “wars and rumor of wars,” with no specific fulfillment of any biblical prophecy regarding Israel. What Hamas did was very much like what Vladimir Putin did in his barbaric invasion of Ukraine. He ignored all conventional rules of war and inflicted savagery upon innocents—the elderly, women and children, and unarmed civilians. Hamas has done the same in Israel. In this we see the depths of human depravity as divine image-bearers are slaughtered merely to satisfy someone’s rage and anger. Jesus told us to expect as much until he returns.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read MoreHere’s the link (Amillennialism with Kim Riddlebarger).
Here’s the program summation: “We focus particularly on the amil hermeneutic as a compelling biblical theology of eschatology with a fun 15 minute round of rapid fire questions at the end!”
Read MoreEpisode Synopsis:
I begin this episode with a personal testimony.
I was born and raised a dispensationalist. Our family owned a Christian bookstore. The first Christian book I picked out and read on my own was Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth. Years later, I was challenged by one of our delivery men about the books we were selling–all the dispensationalist best sellers. He said he was “Reformed.” I thought he meant that he had gone to “reform school” or was on work release from prison. The questions he put to me bounced off like BB’s against a Battleship. Dispensationalism was biblical. How could anyone doubt that?
But those BB’s actually penetrated my embarrassingly thin armor. Eventually, I became a very reluctant Calvinist and then I started re-thinking my eschatology. After university and a year at the Simon Greenleaf School of Law (which was founded by John Warwick Montgomery, the faculty included Walter Martin, and Rod Rosenbladt, and is now the Trinity Law School in Santa Ana), I was steadily moving away from my doctrinal roots (Arminian and dispensational). I found that the Reformation views on law and gospel, the five solas, and the end times, were absolutely compelling because they were thoroughly biblical. To my surprise Drs. Montgomery and Rosenbladt suggested a career change–seminary, specifically the new seminary in Escondido (90 miles to the South), Westminster Seminary California.
In the Acts and Paul class taught by Dennis Johnson, I first encountered what I came to know as the two-age model–terms I was familiar with from reading the New Testament but never thought much about–“this age” and “the age to come.” After reading Herman Ridderbos and Geerhardus Vos on Paul, I realized how serious a challenge the two-model was to my premillennial eschatology (I had pretty much given up on most of my dispensationalism by then, although I still thought like one). Driving home after Dr. Johnson’s class, I had an “ah-ha moment.” “I can’t be premillennial any more.” The two-age model makes premillennialism (in all its forms) a biblical impossibility. I dug in my heels and fought the inevitable. But here I am far down the road, presenting and defending the two-age model. If you’ve not heard this before, you are in for a real surprise. This is a game changer in terms of your view of the end times.
To read the show notes and listen to the episode, follow the link below
Read MoreTo watch the interview, follow the link below
Read MoreDaniel G. Hummel, The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism: How the Evangelical Battle Over the End times Shaped a Nation (Eerdmans, 2023), 400 pages, $29.99
What Sort of Book Is This?
Daniel Hummel’s book is not written to defend or refute the dispensational approach to biblical prophecy and the end times. I noticed a fair bit of pre-publication chatter to that effect, so it is important to tamp down that expectation now that the volume is available. What Hummel has done is to write a thorough, quick-paced, and well-sourced history of the origin, development, and current status of what we speak of today as “dispensationalism.” Hummel’s “nothing but the facts” approach makes the book hard to review since the author moves quickly through the history of the movement with but minimal amounts of evaluation along the way. This is the proper method for a volume such as this one, but leaves little about which a reviewer might quibble.
The most significant thing to note about The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism is that Hummel situates the rise of a distinct dispensational theology within the broader context of what we often identify as “American evangelicalism.” This is Hummel’s purpose, one which he accomplishes quite well, and which is very valuable in its own right. But this broader perspective can also be a bit frustrating for those who participate in a more nuanced and related space which Hummel only addresses tangentially—the internecine debate about whether or not dispensationalism provides a helpful, and dare I say “biblical” manner of interpreting the Bible. Those readers of the Riddleblog who are interested in Hummel’s volume should keep his purpose in mind so as not be disappointed in what they will find. This is not a refutation of dispensationalism. Hummel’s book is exactly what it claims to be—an account of the rise of a distinctive dispensational theology in the 1830’s until its most recent period of development, which Hummel identifies as the “pop dispensationalism” of the Trump era. This is an historical account of dispensationalism and the role it has played in the development of American evangelicalism, and a well-written and important one at that. Hummel’s book is therefore must reading for anyone interested in eschatology, the rise of American evangelicalism, or who might have deep dispensational roots as does the author and this reviewer.
To read the review, click here: A "Review" of Hummel's Rise and Fall of Dipsensationalism
Read MoreTo watch the YouTube interview, follow the link below
Read MoreI was a recent guest on the Renewalcast. Here’s the link: Renewalcast -- “Eschatology and the Reformers"
Read MoreTo listen to the recent interviews on Renewalcast and Pilgrim Radio, follow the link below
Read MoreBerkhof’s summation of church’s development of the doctrine of “Antichrist” across time is very helpful. As you can see, there has been little consensus about this. Berkhof is also writing before more recent speculation generation by the prophecy pundits, especially in light of Israel being re-installed in her ancient homeland.
Historically, there have been different opinions respecting Antichrist. In the ancient Church many maintained that Antichrist would be a Jew, pretending to be the Messiah and ruling at Jerusalem. Many recent commentators are of the opinion that Paul and others mistakenly thought that some Roman emperor would be Antichrist, and that John clearly had Nero in mind in Rev. 13:18, since the letters in the Hebrew words for “emperor Nero” are exactly equivalent to 666, Rev. 13:18. Since the time of the Reformation many, among whom also Reformed scholars, looked upon papal Rome, and in some cases even on some particular Pope, as Antichrist. And the papacy indeed reveals several traits of Antichrist as he is pictured in Scripture. Yet it will hardly do to identify it with Antichrist. It is better to say that there are elements of Antichrist in the papacy. Positively, we can only say: (a) that the anti-Christian principle was already at work in the days of Paul and John according to their own testimony; (b) that it will reach its highest power towards the end of the world; (c) that Daniel pictures the political, Paul the ecclesiastical, and John in the book of Revelation both sides of it: the two may be successive revelations of the anti-Christian power; and (d) that probably this power will finally be concentrated in a single individual, the embodiment of all wickedness.
L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938). 702.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read MoreThe Great Commission and the Great Tribulation Run Concurrently
It is common for Christians to discuss the Great Commission in a missionary context and to consider and develop its role as the final marching orders coming from Jesus to his church. In Matthew 28:18–20, we read, “And Jesus came and said to them, `All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’”
It is also common for Christians interested in eschatology to discuss and debate the nature of the great tribulation (i.e., “when?” and “how long?”). In a previous essay (The Great Tribulation -- When and How Long?), I wrote,
In light of the tendency to relegate a time of "great" tribulation to the distant past or the immediate future, it is important to briefly survey the biblical teaching on this topic. When we do so, it becomes clear that the time of “great tribulation” cannot be tied exclusively to the events of A.D. 70, nor to the seven years immediately before our Lord’s return. The Bible does not speak of tribulation in this manner, and as we know, many of God’s people have already faced periods of horrific tribulation following the days of Christ’s redemptive tribulation on the cross, and that such tribulation for the people of God will continue until Jesus returns at the end of the age to raise the dead, judge the world, and make all things new.
But it is not often that the Great Commission and the tribulation are discussed in relation to each other (they are connected), and seen as running in parallel throughout the entire inter-advental age. Each give us quite different perspectives on the same period of time—this present evil age. In what follows, I will attempt to draw out and highlight the connection between the mission of the church to go out among the nations, and the opposition from those nations which that mission generates. Jesus himself tells us that this mission extends throughout this present evil age (“I am with until the end of the age”), and provides the context of the nature and mission of the church which Jesus established—to make disciples. It also is apparent that this mission will be conducted in an atmosphere of hostility—i,e., the age of tribulation.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read MoreThe earliest Christian documents which mention the Antichrist contain slight theological reflection, apart from a brief mention of him in connection with a particular biblical passage. Over time, the short-shrift given him begins to change. Some tie Antichrist to heresy (appealing to the epistles of John). Others speak of him in connection to the persecution of the church. Some think he will be an apostate Jew who would appear at the time of the end in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem while introducing destructive heresies. Other focus upon his role as a deceiver. Some follow the biblical texts closely (i.e., Daniel 7, 2 Thessalonians, the Epistles of John, and Revelation 20), while a number indulge in more fanciful speculations. In other words, the church fathers, Origen, and Augustine have diverse views on the subject, many quite similar to interpretations offered in our own day.
The Epistle of Barnabas (4:1-5), written soon after the close of the apostolic age, identifies the fourth beast of Daniel 7 as the Roman Empire, while specifically referring to the beast as Antichrist.[1] A similar reference surfaces in the writings of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was born about AD 70 and likely martyred about AD 156 A.D. In 7.1 of his Epistle to the Philippians (written about AD 135), Polycarp quotes from 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 2:7 and contends that Antichrist is the spirit of heresy.[2] This is the same emphasis found in John’s epistles, to the effect that the threat from Antichrist arises from within the church, takes the form of apostasy and heresy, and is not connected to state-sponsored persecution like that of the beast of Revelation 13.[3]
In his Dialog with Trypho, Justin Martyr (who was put to death in Rome about AD 165) speaks of the appearance of the “man of apostasy” who speaks “strange things against the Most High” and ventures to “do unlawful deeds on the earth against us Christians” (Dialog with Trypho, 110). Justin is clearly alluding to 2 Thessalonians 2:3, but does not specifically speak of this individual as Antichrist.[4]
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read MoreI enjoyed this immensely. We covered a bunch of eschatological matters including the resurgence of postmillennialism, problems with dispensationalism and premillennialism, the varieties of preterism, and much more.
To watch the video follow the link below
Read More1). The most important reason for dating The Book of Revelation after A.D. 70 is evidence of the presence of emperor worship and the imperial cult underlying much of what takes place throughout John’s vision.
A number of texts such as Revelation 13:4-8, 15-16; 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4, all indicate that Christians were being forced to participate in the emperor cult in ways which violated their consciences. As Moffat once put it, whether persecution of Christians had already become widespread or not, “the few cases of repressive interference and of martyrdom in Asia Minor (and elsewhere) were enough to warn [John] of the storm rolling up on the horizon, though as yet only one or two drops had actually fallen.”[1] While the persecution of Christians in Rome was already beginning during the reign of Nero, it was not widespread until the time of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) or even later. As several recent studies of Nero have demonstrated, the evidence shows that persecution of Christians in Rome (and not in Asia Minor, where John was) began under Nero because he used them as scapegoats for the great fire which destroyed much of Rome, not because they refused to worship him.[2]
Important studies of the historical background of Asia Minor during this time, such as those by Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (1984), and Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, (1990), indicate that by the time of Domitian’s reign the imperial cult and emperor worship was in full-flower.[3] Although Thompson admits that Roman sources depict Domitian as an evil tyrant without exception,[4] nevertheless he proceeds to argue that persecution of Christians under Domitian’s reign was actually quite isolated and Domitian may not be the monster Roman historians made him out to be. Yet, as Thompson goes on to state, if the imperial cult preceded Domitian by “many reigns” it also continued long after Domitian was gone.[5]
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More(1). In Revelation 11:1-12, John, supposedly, mentions the Jerusalem temple as though it were currently standing when he was given his vision.[1]
If the temple was still standing when John recorded his vision, then the Book of Revelation must have been written before the temple’s destruction at the hands of the Romans in A.D. 70. The passage (Revelation 11:1-2), reads as follows; “I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, `Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.” If John is speaking of the temple in Jerusalem, and it was still standing when John was given this vision, this demands a date of composition before the temple was destroyed.[2]
Response:
The post-A.D. 70 response to the prior interpretation is to notice the highly symbolic language throughout the passage which points the reader in a direction away from that of the physical temple in Jerusalem. As G. B. Caird points out, “in a book in which all things are expressed in symbols, the very last things the temple and the holy city could mean would be the physical temple and earthly Jerusalem.”[3]
Caird goes on to note that if John is referring to the Jerusalem temple, then a rather remarkable thing is said to occur. The Gentiles, which according to the pre-A.D. 70 dating, would mean the armies of Titus (cf. Luke 21:24) occupy the outer court for three and a half years, but leave the inner court (the altar) undefiled. This, of course, did not happen when the temple was destroyed. If true, it would make much of the passage unintelligible because it lacks any historical connection to the actual events of A.D. 70. This also ignores John’s use of the symbolism of the outer court and the inner sanctuary as a reference to the church.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read MoreEvery eschatological position has sharp edges which don’t seem to fit neatly within the system. I am of the conviction that Reformed amillennialism (AKA the “Dutch school”) has the fewest and least consequential of these “sharp edges.” One of these sharp edges associated with amillennialism is the binding of Satan—how can you claim Satan is bound when there is so much evil in the world? This can be readily explained—see my essay, The Binding of Satan.
But the presence of Israel as a nation living back in their ancient homeland is always the pink elephant in the room whenever amillennarians discuss eschatology with dispensationalists. This is a sharp edge for amillennialism for several reasons. One is that the Reformed are not in full agreement among themselves about the role and place of national Israel in the new covenant era, especially in the days before the Lord’s return. Another reason is that the hermeneutic (the operating assumptions) underlying the various millennial positions assigns widely varying roles to a future nation of Israel in redemptive history. Dispensationalists assert that Israel’s return to the land of Palestine in 1947 is the fulfillment of the land promise of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-8), and is therefore thought to be a fatal weakness of amilliennialism.
I recall receiving an email claiming that Reformed amillennarians get the question of a future for Israel terribly wrong—embarrassingly so. In fact, two of our stalwart theologians both dismissed premillennialism largely on the grounds of the expectation of a return of the Jews to Palestine. The author of the email cited two well-known Reformed theologians, Herman Bavinck and Louis Berkhof, both of whom did dismiss the very possibility of such a thing, yet such a thing did happen. Oops . . . On the basis of UN Resolution 181, Israel became a nation in 1947, Jews returned to their ancient homeland, survived three major wars, which in anyone’s estimation is a monumental event that dispensationalists have always expected, and which they say commences the events associated with the time of the end.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read MoreI am often asked whether or not the “tribulation” is a seven year period which immediately precedes the second coming of Jesus Christ, or is it the entire period of time between Christ’s first and second advent, the so-called “great tribulation?”
This is an important question for several reasons. First, when most people think of the “tribulation,” they are thinking of the popular dispensational notion that at (or about) the time of the Rapture, the world enters a seven-year period— “the tribulation”—in which the Antichrist comes to power after the unexpected and instantaneous removal of all believers. The Antichrist then makes a seven-year peace treaty with Israel, only to turn upon the nation after three and a half years, plunging the entire world into the final geopolitical crisis which ends with the battle of Armageddon. Dispensationalists believe the seven year tribulation is a time of horrific cruelty and persecution for those who are “left behind,” and that the only way to be saved during this period is to refuse to take the mark of the beast, and not worship the beast or his image, which will likely result in martyrdom. The critical flaw with the dispensational doctrine of a future seven-year tribulation is that it is nowhere found in Scripture—although dispensationalists make appeal to Daniel 9:24-27 (more on this below).
A second reason why this question is important has to do with the rise of various forms of preterism. Full-preterism is properly considered a heresy. But so-called “partial” preterism is not. Preterists (I am speaking here of the orthodox, “partial” variety) contend that Jesus Christ returned in the clouds in A.D. 70 to execute judgment upon apostate Israel, the city of Jerusalem, and the Jewish temple, and its sacrificial system. Those who hold to the various orthodox forms of preterism believe that the great tribulation spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24:21, has come and gone with the events associated with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans. All that remains is the Lord’s return.
To read the rest, follow the link below:
Read More
