- Hey, welcome to The Baptist Bias.
I'm your host, Pastor Shelley,
and we're gonna kick off this evening,
like we always do, with Ben the Baptist's Benalog.
- The end is near, or so we're told.
Perhaps Jesus Christ will return
before I even finish this sentence.
It appears the reasons for Christ's imminent return
vary greatly.
But as long as you believe it could be now,
you're in the club.
Whether you're pre-trib, preterist,
all millennial, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew,
or a believer in an alien reptile takeover,
the prevailing narrative is that the worst
is not on the horizon,
but rather the next godlike savior to appear
will come to redeem the planet.
It's like a Venn diagram with eminency in the middle.
I guess the question of the century rests on
who is coming next and what we should be looking for.
Or is the end really coming soon?
YouTube prophets would have you believe
that they finally cracked the code
on the next doomsday date,
not simply stolen the idea from the expiration
of their most recent milk carton,
believing it was actually a sign from God.
They proclaim that we're in Daniel's 70th week right now.
Next week will be the sixth trumpet
and the vials are on deck.
Yet those facing the biggest challenge,
maybe Raid's corporate marketers
attempting to replace the label aunt and roach
on a can of pesticide with a new title
of gold-crowned, iron-breast-plated,
lion-teethed locusts from hell,
especially considering America's supply chain issues.
Thanks, Kamala.
Even more terrifying is the idea
that the man of sin is already amongst us.
Is it the Pope, George Soros,
Elon Musk, Bill Gates,
or maybe even his ex-husband, Melinda?
Ugh, it doesn't end there.
Fox News and talk radio shows
warn that the newest booster shot is the mark of the beast,
and masks are the abomination of desolation.
Today, the preaching behind pulpits
sounds more like the latest weekly world news headlines
rather than the two-edged sword of the King James Bible.
Perhaps the God of the universe
has already given us the answers
rather than relying on the belligerent screaming
of Alex Jones and David Icke
peddling the newest conspiracy of the day.
Why should we assume that those who don't believe the Bible
and are even convinced that they are Jesus
will have the greatest revelation of all time?
The reality is truth is only as reliable as its source.
To rephrase Joshua's favorite quote,
"As for me and my house, we will have the Baptist bias."
- Everybody, thanks so much for joining us this evening.
And this is a pilot for a new podcast that we're starting.
It's called "The Baptist Bias."
And I'm your host, Pastor Shelley.
Like I mentioned earlier,
I pastor out of the Dallas-Forward area.
And there's a lot of topics
that you don't necessarily gonna preach a sermon on,
but you'd like to discuss or bring up.
And yet it's still important to still use the Bible
as your lens when looking at any subject.
And so this is kind of born, the Baptist bias.
And I'm excited to have here with me,
my co-host, Ben the Baptist.
I want to go ahead and give a little shout out to everybody
and kind of get a feel for what you think the show's about.
- Well, first of all, it's great to be here.
That name, Ben the Baptist, by the way,
it comes from a YouTube channel.
They got nuked, just to be clear.
But yeah, it's great to be here, obviously.
This is gonna be a show where we look at
different world events through the lenses of scripture
with a Baptist bias.
We're pretty open about the bias
that we have here on this program.
And it's a long time coming.
I've been a church member here at Stepfast Baptist Church
in the DFW area since January of 2020,
before that at Jacksonville.
And I'm ready to go.
I'm excited.
I'm buckled up.
And obviously End Times Bible Prophecy tonight.
Let's get down to business.
I'm excited about it.
- Yeah, tonight we're gonna do a show
talking about the End Times.
And I really like your intro there,
your catalog where you talk about
just how there's a lot of different views out there.
And really when it comes to End Times,
there's a lot we could talk about.
But I felt like, to start off the show right,
we needed to bring in a special guest.
And so we have a special guest with us this evening,
Pastor Steven Anderson from Faithful Word Baptist Church.
And it looks like he's already showed up on the screen.
Can you hear us all right, Pastor Anderson?
- Yep, loud and clear, thanks for having me on.
- Great, so why don't you give us just a little
quick intro of who you are,
and then we'll kind of get started
on our discussion this evening.
- Yeah, I'm Pastor Steven Anderson
from Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona.
I've been there for 16 years,
and about, what, 10 years ago now, almost,
I came out with a film called "After the Tribulation"
on End Times Prophecy,
and then also a Revelation series that I preached,
and a bunch of other films that I teamed up
with Paul Wittenberger on,
just about subjects that are relevant to the End Times,
about Israel, prophecy, et cetera.
And so it's a subject that I have preached a lot about,
studied a lot about, and that I love to talk about.
- Great.
Well, I think we're gonna let Ben drive the train here.
Why don't you kick us off with some questions here
for Pastor Anderson.
- Well, I guess just first to lay the foundation down
for people who perhaps are not too familiar with this.
What would you say are kind of the main camps
with regard to End Times Bible prophecy?
I mean, obviously you have the pre-Tribbers,
and you have other groups as well,
but if you could describe the main sort of ideologies
that are related to End Times prophecy,
how would you kind of summarize that for people?
- Well, it breaks down in a whole bunch of different ways,
but let me just start out with the views on the millennium,
because that's kind of the first way that it breaks down.
You've got the pre-millennial,
the post-millennial, and the ah-millennial.
What does this mean?
Well, the pre-millennial view
believes that Jesus Christ is going to literally return
and sit upon the throne of his father David.
And we as Christians are going to rule
and reign with Christ for a thousand years.
So basically just reading Revelation chapter 20
and taking it at face value.
And obviously Revelation 20 is not the only passage.
There are all kinds of other Old Testament passages
that describe that same period
that we would call the millennium.
Whereas the amillennial, which means no millennium
or post-millennial, which means after the millennium
have a totally different view.
And amillennial and post-millennial
sometimes are almost difficult to tell apart.
But the big difference is that we believe
that Jesus Christ will return
and then set up this millennial reign.
Whereas both the post-millennial and the amillennial
believe that this millennium is more figurative,
that it's not literal, okay?
So the amillennialist would say that basically,
Christ is ruling and reigning right now,
so we're in the quote unquote millennium right now,
but it's just symbolic, it's figurative.
It's not actually a thousand years, okay?
And they're really asking the wrong question, okay,
when they say, well, isn't Christ reigning right now?
Because if you actually read Revelation 20,
the thing that's characteristic of the millennium
is that the devil is shut up in hell for a thousand years
so that he can no longer deceive the nations.
So a much better question to ask would be,
well, isn't Christ, excuse me,
a better question to ask would be,
isn't the devil already bound in hell right now
so that he can't deceive anybody?
Of course, that's absurd because we know that right now,
the devil walketh about as a roaring lion
seeking whom he may devour.
So we're clearly not in any kind of millennium,
whether figurative or not figurative, okay.
Now, the big difference between post-millennialism
and all millennialism is that post-millennialism
has the view that things are getting better and better.
That basically, we're gonna win the world to Christ
or that the majority of people
are gonna get saved in the earth
or we're gonna turn the world Christian
or however you wanna look at that
and then Christ will return, okay.
Which is kind of bizarre looking at the way the world
actually is right now to actually think
that we're getting better or more Christian
or preparing for the coming of Jesus Christ
or something like that.
So that's the first way I would break it down
is into those three millennial views, okay.
And then within the premillennial view,
there's gonna be the question
of when does the rapture happen?
Is it before the tribulation?
Is it after the tribulation?
Is it post-trib, pre-raft?
And so some people don't even believe
that the rapture is gonna happen at all.
But that's basically the breakdown of the major views
and then we could also break it down into futurist,
historical or preterist view of Bible prophecy.
Futurist meaning that a lot of these prophecies
are literally going to happen in the future,
which is obviously the pre-millennial view.
Historicist meaning that it's all symbolic or figurative
of just things that have happened throughout history,
struggle between good and evil.
And then preterist view that everything already happened
pretty much in the first century
and there's nothing more to see here or partial preterist.
Most of all of that discourse happened in the first century,
but there's still a little bit still coming.
- I thought it was a really good explanation breakdown
of the camps there.
It seems like, just from my perspective in Christianity,
the most prevailing view is probably
a pre-millennial pre-trip.
Is that kind of your viewpoint as far as like
most people are or what do you think as far as popularity?
- It really just depends on what denomination you are
because if you're an independent Baptist
or an evangelical Christian,
then the majority are gonna be pre-millennial
and they're gonna believe in a pre-tribulation rapture,
Jesus could come at any moment type of a doctrine.
Okay, but among your mainline Protestants,
okay, it's gonna be more of a historicist view,
maybe preterist, a lot of post-millennialism,
a lot of amillennialism, Roman Catholics
are gonna probably lean more toward a preterist view.
But again, it really just depends on the denomination
of what most people believe.
But I will say this, one thing that a lot of these views
end up having in common that most people end up believing
is that basically the coming of Christ is imminent,
that it could come at any time.
Because if you think about the pre-trib believers,
they believe Christ could come at any moment.
And then those who are amillennial or postmillennial,
they believe that Christ could come soon
or without anything necessarily leading up to it.
And so the reason that these views are so dangerous,
amillennialism, postmillennialism,
and to a lesser extent, pre-tribulationism,
is that basically if people are expecting Christ
to come at any moment and the real person
who's coming at any moment is the antichrist,
you can see how this would play right
into the devil's plan because the antichrist
is going to come before Jesus Christ.
And the postmillennialist, the amillennialist
will just say, "Oh, here he is,"
and embrace him as their savior.
Because we know that when the antichrist comes,
the whole world's gonna worship him.
2.3 billion people in this world identify as Christian.
And so, obviously, the Muslims are gonna worship him
1.6 billion strong.
The Buddhists, the Hindus, he has to appeal to everyone
if the Bible says the whole world's gonna worship him.
And so you say, well, how are Christians gonna be fooled
into thinking that this is the second coming of Christ?
They're already prepped for this idea
that the antichrist is not literal,
he's not actually coming,
and they're expecting Jesus to come.
Now, the pre-trippers are also expecting Jesus
at any moment.
At least they believe they're leaving, though.
So if they don't leave,
then hopefully that will ring some alarm bells
when they have somebody on the scene claiming
that he's Jesus Christ.
But obviously our view, which is post-trib pre-wrath,
post-tribulation pre-wrath, is the correct view,
and it's the view that doesn't prepare for the antichrist
because it's the view that says,
"No, we know the antichrist is coming,
"and we're watching out for him.
"We're gonna beware of him,
"and we know that the imposter comes first
"and not to believe anybody shows up
"claiming that they're Jesus Christ."
And when Jesus Christ does show up in the clouds,
we are leaving 'cause it's a post-pre-wrath rapture.
And so we're basically in the ideal camp
for not being sucked in by the antichrist no matter what.
- Yeah, I think that's really great.
And I mean, a place of scripture that really hammers
the fact that the antichrist is gonna come before
would be 2 Thessalonians chapter two,
which says, "Let no man deceive you by any means.
"For that day shall not come,
"except there come a falling way first,
"and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition."
It says, "Who opposes and exalteth himself
"above all that is called God, or that is worshiped,
"so that he as God siteth in the temple of God,
"showing himself that he is God."
So for any of these views to be accurate,
as the starting point of 2 Thessalonians chapter two,
verse one is saying it's the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
we have to be able to point to an event
where there was an antichrist who's claiming himself
to be God, standing in the holy place.
And that's kind of a really important part
of Bible prophecy is identifying that antichrist figure
and the timing of him as well.
And it seems like there's kind of some contention
as far as who that is or when that is.
Maybe even like in the book of Daniel,
a lot of people will kind of go to Daniel
and there's like some differing views on the Antichrist
or how he's gonna come or what that looks like.
I'm kind of interested in getting your thoughts
on the book of Daniel specifically
and kind of the Antichrist figure.
What do you think about identifying the timeline
of the Antichrist and especially
in light of books like Daniel?
- Well, you know, these people with these wrong views,
like the historicist view would just say,
oh, the Pope's the Antichrist, you know,
or, you know, the preterist view might say
that Nero was the Antichrist
or Emperor Titus was the Antichrist
or Antiochus Epiphanes was the Antichrist.
And although these people are all great pictures
of the Antichrist, all of them, you know,
could represent or symbolize the Antichrist.
You know, the Bible says there are many Antichrists,
but that there's also just a single Antichrist that's coming.
And the Bible makes it clear in Revelation 13
that there's gonna be a man who receives a deadly wound.
His deadly wound is healed.
The entire world will worship him.
All languages, kindreds, tongues, and peoples on the earth
will worship him whose names are not written
in the book of life from the foundation of the world.
And so none of these other people fit the bill.
The whole world didn't worship any of these Roman emperors
or Greek rulers.
The whole world doesn't worship the Pope.
All nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples
aren't worshiping the Pope
because you've got tons of Muslim countries
and Buddhist countries and Hindu people
that do not worship the Pope as their Messiah or whatever.
And so, when does this happen?
Well, the Bible says that he's gonna reign for 42 months.
The Bible says that the Antichrist will continue in power
for three and a half years, 42 months, 1260 days,
the different ways that it's described.
And if you compare that to the scripture
back in Daniel chapter nine in verse 27,
where it talks about the abomination of desolation
happening in the midst of the week.
Basically what you end up with is you end up
with a seven year period in the end times, okay?
And this is known as Daniel's 70th week.
And in the seven year period in the midst of the week
is when the Antichrist comes to power.
He receives his deadly wound that's healed.
The world declares him to be the Messiah,
the second coming, you know, whatever they call him.
He's gonna be this God-like messianic figure.
The whole world will worship him.
And then there's gonna be a false prophet that rises up,
according to Revelation 13,
that's going to hell the whole world to worship him.
And we'll also say that they need to make an image
to the beast and that everyone needs to worship this image.
Okay.
And whoever won't worship it should be put to death.
And, you know, when you worship the image,
then you receive this mark in your right hand
or your forehead course known as the mark of the beast.
So the timing of this is that it's three and a half years
into this seven year period known as Daniel's 70th week,
which has not started yet,
which has for sure not started yet.
None of this has happened yet.
And it might not happen for hundreds of years.
I mean, it could start in a week
or it could start 20 years from now
or it could start 500 years from now.
We have no idea when this will start.
We're not in the end times as far as the final seven years yet.
We are just, you know, living in the Christian era.
You know, that's why all these atheists call it CE
'cause it's the Christian era that we're living in.
So.
- That's a joke.
- Now, do you have, let's,
I think we should dive into Daniel a little bit.
- I believe we should.
- Do you have some questions here that you want to knock out?
- Yeah, and just a real quick comment
before I get into Daniel and I, a real quick comment
'cause you had brought up some of these shadow fulfillments
if you want to call it that, or figures of the Antichrist
that we see in the book of Daniel,
whether it's Antiochus Epiphanes or Titus,
it seems like people just have this issue
with even the concept of a shadow fulfillment.
They kind of think, well, if this event occurred
in history that matches scripture, then it's done.
There's nothing left for the future.
And I did have a question about that later, we'll get to,
but Daniel 9, I'm not sure honestly
how popular what I call the messiah view is
in Daniel chapter 9 where people think he is the messiah,
but I just wanted to read a few verses
toward the latter portion of the chapter
and kind of dive into this 'cause again,
there is a little bit of contention on verse 27 specifically,
but I guess I'll start in verse 24.
It says 70 weeks are determined upon thy people
and upon thy holy city to finish the transgression
and to make an end of sins
and to make reconciliation for iniquity
and to bring in everlasting righteousness
and to seal up the vision and prophecy
and to anoint the most holy.
Know therefore and understand
that from the going forth of the commandment
to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince
shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks.
The street shall be built again
and the wall even in troublous times.
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off
but not for himself.
And the people of the prince that shall come
shall destroy the city and the sanctuary
and the end thereof shall be with a flood.
And under the end of the war,
desolations are determined.
Verse 27, this is the one that people kind of fight about.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week
and in the midst of the week,
he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.
And for the overspreading of abominations,
he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation
and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Obviously, you just preached about this, Pastor Anderson.
You know the interpretation of verse 27
that would say that he there is in reference to the Messiah
that is brought up in verse 26,
rather than the antichrist.
And so I guess my question,
and I think we can dive into this now,
why would he be the antichrist there
rather than the Messiah?
Just to play devil's advocate,
there might be some people who would look at verse 26
and say, well, it says the people of the prince
that shall come, and so the last singular antecedent
would be Messiah, people might argue.
But what are your thoughts on that?
Verse 27 specifically, what would you say
to back up the idea that it's actually in reference
to Titus as the figure and then obviously
the antichrist himself from an eschatological perspective?
- Well, first of all, the last singular noun
that's mentioned is prince.
People of the prince that shall come,
prince can still be the antecedent.
The fact that it is the object of a preposition
does not stop it from being the antecedent.
What if I said, I went over to our deacon's house
and he fed me lunch?
That is a perfectly legitimate sentence
to say, I went to the house of the Lord and worshiped him.
I went to the house of our deacon
and we ate a meal together.
So this idea that says, well, it's the people of the prince,
so prince can't be the antecedent,
that's just a grammar fail.
They just don't understand how the English language works.
And we could look at verses all throughout the Bible
where the object of a preposition
can still be the antecedent of a subject pronoun.
So that argument is just dead in the water.
But as far as why do I believe
that this is the Antichrist that's the he,
first of all, it is the nearest antecedent.
But the real reason why I believe that
is because listen to Daniel chapter eight,
talking about the little horn,
which is a picture of the Antichrist.
It says in Daniel chapter eight, verse number 12,
and a host was given him against the daily sacrifice
by reason of transgression,
and it cast down the truth to the ground,
and it practiced and prospered.
Then I heard one saint speaking
and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake,
how long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice
and the transgression of desolation
to give both the sanctuary and the host
to be trodden underfoot.
So basically it says in Daniel chapter eight verse 11,
he magnified himself even to the prince of the host,
and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away.
So talking about the little horn, the Antichrist,
verse 11 says by him the daily sacrifice was taken away.
It says in verse 12 he's against the daily sacrifice
and the place of the sanctuary is cast down,
against the daily sacrifice.
I mean, clearly in chapter eight,
it's the little horn which pictures the Antichrist
that is taking away the daily sacrifice
and setting up the transgression of desolation.
Then if we go to Daniel chapter number 11,
we find another mention of the abomination of desolation,
and it says in Daniel chapter 11 verse 31,
an arm shall stand on his part,
and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength
and shall take away the daily sacrifice
and shall place the abomination that make it desolate.
So notice the same person who takes away the daily sacrifice
is the same person that places the abomination
of desolation in Daniel chapter 11.
So we have the little horn,
which is obviously representative of the Antichrist,
the little horn in verse seven is referencing the Antichrist,
the little horn in chapter eight is referencing the Antichrist.
Chapter 11, verse 31, we're talking about the Antichrist.
Chapter 12 is another mention
of the abomination of desolation.
And it says in verse 11,
from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away
and the abomination that make a desolate set up.
Notice how those things go hand in hand.
So if you're gonna say Jesus is the one
that's taking away the daily sacrifice,
are you saying that Jesus sets up the abomination of desolation?
That's absurd.
Jesus is not the one installing an abomination.
So this view that says that Jesus is the subject
in Daniel 9, 27, is basically just reading chapter nine
all by itself, ignoring chapters seven and eight,
and ignoring chapters 11 and 12.
If you actually read chapters seven and eight
and 11 and 12, you'll see that we're talking
about the Antichrist who does this.
I think an interesting point in some of this
is in verse 31 when you are reading that.
It actually says they, which to me would almost tie it back
to verse 26 of Daniel chapter nine,
when it's kind of talking about the people,
and it's saying the people are going to destroy the city
and the sanctuary, which obviously those people
are the minions of the Antichrist doing his bidding.
Obviously, the Antichrist probably isn't setting up
the image himself, but by his commandment
through his people, and so we kind of see
a coordination of they, but by saying they,
in my mind, it kind of precludes the idea
of it being Christ, like how could you then go back
and say this is Christ in verse 27?
- Well, I don't think anybody would say
that chapter 11, verse 31's about Christ,
and nobody's gonna say that about Daniel chapter 8,
verses 11, but then all of a sudden,
Daniel 9, 27's about Christ, that's why this view
doesn't make any sense, and just to be clear,
obviously, the book of Daniel had some messages
for the people of that time as well,
so when we're reading Daniel chapter 7,
and we talk about the little horn,
that's prefiguring Titus, the Roman commander
who eventually becomes the Roman emperor
who destroyed the temple in 70 AD,
that's the actual immediate fulfillment of that
in Daniel 7, Daniel chapter 8,
we're talking about Antiochus Epiphanes,
because in chapter 7,
we're talking about the little horn of the fourth kingdom,
whereas in Daniel 8,
we're talking about the little horn from the third kingdom,
which is from the Grecian empire.
And then, when we get into chapter 11,
we're again talking about Antiochus Epiphanes
in the short term.
But Brother Ben asked a little bit earlier,
well, if these things have already been fulfilled,
if there's a historical event that already fits the bill,
why would we be looking for a future fulfillment?
If it's already done, it's done,
which is the Preterist mentality.
But the problem is that the fulfillment of these
by Antiochus Epiphanes and Titus in 70 AD,
the problem with these is that they did not fulfill
all of it, and they did not fulfill it to a T.
That's the problem, okay?
They only fulfilled it partially or symbolically.
They didn't really actually fulfill it
the way the Bible says it's gonna be fulfilled.
Like, for example, you know,
did these people declare themselves to be God?
Well, yeah, in the second century BC,
Antiochus Epiphanes declared himself to be God.
There's even a coin that's been found
that says, you know, Antiochus Epiphanes is God manifest,
okay, from the second century BC.
But here's the thing, did the whole world worship him?
No.
Did all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples worship him?
Absolutely not, not even close.
Was there a mark where you couldn't buy or sell
during the Roman Empire?
Absolutely not.
So, you know, you could sit there and say,
oh, it's all done.
Well, you know what?
Then the Bible was super duper exaggerating, wasn't it?
And so, because none of the stuff
that the Bible said would happen actually happened,
something way more minor happened
that still is a great picture.
But if that's the main event,
you'd have to pretty much just believe
that all of the prophecies of the Bible
are just exaggerating things times 100.
And it's these tiny minor events,
local events that supposedly fulfill this stuff.
I mean, think about Matthew 24 saying
that there's gonna be a time of tribulation
unlike the world has ever seen
from the time that men were on the earth until now forward.
There's never been anything this bad.
Could you really say that about Antiochus Epiphanes
or the Jewish Roman war in the first century?
These were little local skirmishes
that were barely even a blip on most people's radar
throughout the world, okay.
And so, often what we've said is that
the only view that says that the things in Revelation
are gonna literally take place is the pre-millennial view.
But really, that's not even the right way to say it.
A better way to say it would be that the pre-millennial view
is the only view that even thinks that the things
in Revelation are gonna happen at all.
Forget being fulfilled literally.
I mean, if you believe these things are gonna happen at all,
if they're even gonna somewhat happen,
is a pre-millennial view.
Because these amillennial and post-millennial views
take all the teeth out of these prophecies
to where they're just a great big nothing burger
is what you're left with as far as all the cataclysms
described in Revelation.
- That's what always blows my mind.
Like, you know, one volcano erupts in Iceland
and all of a sudden it's like,
oh man, you know, this is the fifth trumpet
or something of Revelation.
It's like, do you really think that the trumpets
are gonna be that minor?
That the vials are gonna be that minor?
Is God just scaring us with all these dramatic judgments
that aren't even really gonna happen?
Hey, I just believe that the stuff in Revelation
is actually gonna happen.
- Yeah, that's like the earthquakes.
There's like thousands of earthquakes every day
and some people aren't aware of that.
So then they'll point it out
and everybody's like freaking out.
There's thousands of earthquakes or something.
I think an interesting point on what you're making though
is in Matthew 24, it specifically addresses
the Daniel prophecy in regards to
the abomination of desolation in verse 15.
It says, "When ye therefore shall see
"the abomination of desolation spoken of
"by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place."
And then it elaborates.
That would, in my mind, completely eradicate the idea
that Antiochus Epiphanes actually fulfilled all of Daniel,
'cause Christ is already passed Antiochus Epiphanes,
but then bringing up this is a future event.
So the only-- - Exactly.
- Potential would be Titus.
- Yeah, Titus would be the only one left.
- Now, I wanna make a few comments.
Ben brought up the grammar question, and--
- It's not even, it's only a question
for someone who knows nothing about grammar.
- Right. - Because I defy anyone
to show me a grammar book that has this non-existent rule
that people of the Prince, that the he can't refer back
to Prince because it's in a preposition.
We talk that way every day, that was just--
- Sure, well-- - That's so proud
in the field, it's exciting.
- I have an, I couldn't find, I actually did a search
in many grammar books online.
I couldn't find a single rule that even theoretically exists.
But in Daniel chapter seven, it's interesting
because it says in verse 25, it says,
"And he shall speak great words against the most high."
So talking of the Antichrist.
And it says, "And shall wear out the saints of the most high
and think to change times and laws.
And they shall be given into his hand
until a time and times of the dividing of time.
But the judgment shall sit
and they shall take away his dominion
to consume and destroy it under the end.
And the kingdom and dominion
and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven
shall be given to the people of the saints of the most high
whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom
and all dominions shall serve and obey him."
Now, if we have this theoretical rule
that a pronoun cannot go back to the noun
of a prepositional phrase, then that hymn there
would not be able to go back to the most high.
It would have to go back to the previous antecedent, which
would actually be the antichrist.
So that's how foolish and stupid you'd
have to be to basically adhere to this idea or doctrine
that a pronoun can't be going back to--
Yeah, you could literally turn to probably almost any page
in the whole Bible and find an example that
violates this made-up grammar.
But anyway, let me just park it on Matthew 24 for a second,
because this is the key point.
And if people are watching this, if there's
one thing you take away from this broadcast,
take this away from it, OK?
In Matthew 24, it says, "when you therefore
shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of
by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,
whoso readeth, let him understand," OK?
Verse 21 is still continuing the same thought.
And it says, "for then shall be great tribulation,
such as was not since the beginning of the world
to this time, no, nor ever shall be."
So if you're going to claim that the abomination
of desolation already happened, then explain to me
why there was not a time of tribulation
unlike the world had ever seen at either of those events, OK?
Because again, and like you said,
Jesus is after Antiochus Epiphanes.
So it would have to be 70 AD.
Was that really a time of tribulation
unlike the world has ever seen?
No, no, ever shall be.
He said, there'll nothing be worse than this after it.
And you could say, you know,
oh well, it was the worst thing for the Jews or whatever.
But that's not what the Bible says.
I mean, it says, then shall be great tribulation
such as was not since the beginning of the world
to this time known or ever shall be,
and except those days should be shortened,
there should no flesh be saved,
everybody be dead, everybody would die, you know,
but for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened.
So what if in the world, like when did an event happen
that where, you know, the elect would be totally in danger
of being wiped out and just totally killed,
and if it wasn't shortened, all the elect would be killed.
It, you know, even if you took the wrong view
that said the elect is referring to Israel or the Jews,
the Jews are already scattered all over the world
in the first century AD, so a local event in Jerusalem
isn't gonna wipe them out, period, it can't.
It wiped out the ones who were there,
but it did wipe them out, and it was not shortened, okay?
There was no shortening that took place,
they just got killed,
and the ones who were scattered everywhere lived, okay?
But in the end times, if there's gonna be
the mark of the beast, anybody who won't worship
the Antichrist should be killed, yeah,
that's something where if those days were not shortened,
then no flesh would be saved, but for the elect's sake,
those days would be shortened.
So when shall there be great tribulation
unlike the world has ever seen?
When you see the abomination of desolation
at the midpoint of Daniel's 70th week,
when you see the abomination of desolation,
that's when things get really bad.
The first three and a half years are bad,
but I'll tell you when it becomes something unprecedented
that the world has never seen is after that midpoint.
So you can't divorce verse 15 from verse 21 of Matthew 24.
In Matthew 24, when you see the abomination,
there must be the greatest tribulation
that the world has ever seen.
That did not happen in the first century.
Therefore, that view is just, it's toast.
- You know, that's a great point.
And I think that there's a lot of those.
That's one of the reasons why, you know,
we can't wholesale accept 70 AD
as the final fulfillment of all of Daniel's 70th week.
I think that we could say that 70 AD
was a partial fulfillment in the sense
that it's fulfilling Daniel's 70th week in some regards
and in some of these verses,
but it's not like the only fulfillment.
There's gotta be a future shadow fulfillment
and I wanted to get your thought on something about this
because I've heard some people even say,
well, you're kind of ignoring
the whole context of the chapter,
but in the beginning of Daniel chapter number nine,
it's bringing up the 70 weeks of the Babylonian captivity
and it's-- - 70 years.
- I'm sorry, yes, 70 years, I misspoke.
The 70 years that they're gonna be there
and they're gonna return at the end of the 70 years,
Daniel understands this from the book of Jeremiah
and then he gets this vision from an angel
that's also about 70 weeks
and it's kind of an interesting parallel
with the number there.
But what I was thinking about is in 1 Kings chapter eight,
King Solomon, and I'm not gonna read a lot of verses,
there's a lot of verses there,
but essentially he's just making a generic prayer
to the Lord saying at any point,
if his people end up getting dispersed throughout the land
and they realize they've sinned, that they can, you know,
repent and seek the Lord and pray and humble themselves,
and then the Lord would restore them
back to the promised land or back to Jerusalem, essentially.
And that's what's happening with the 70 years,
is after the 70 years, we're gonna have that proclamation,
they're gonna go back.
Now, in this 70 weeks, what I was thinking about
is if the fulfillment is Titus,
which of course that's a layer to this prophecy,
and I believe that it is a partial fulfillment of this.
But if that was the ultimate fulfillment,
it really doesn't fit with the context
because at the end of 70 AD,
it's kind of doing the exact opposite,
where it's not like they're returning to the land,
they're actually getting dispersed back out of the land.
However, if we understand this as being the Antichrist,
and it's the last seven years of history
before the millennium,
that at the end of the millennium,
then what is gonna happen is God's people's
actually gonna come all the way back into the land,
which is exactly what the first 70-year prophecy
is basically doing in essence,
where the children of Israel are outside of the land,
praying and humbling themselves,
and then being returned back to the land.
And this 70 weeks correlates with that as saying like,
yeah, here's another example
of when you're gonna be dispersed, essentially,
and then at the end fulfillment of that 70th week,
you're gonna have a full return of the children of Israel
in the land of Israel, in Jerusalem, with the Lord reigning,
and you kinda have that picture of restoration again.
What do you think about that?
- Yeah, you're absolutely right.
That's a great point because basically the 70 years
ends up in a happy ending of Israel
returning to the promised land,
and the 70 weeks, ultimately,
in its final ultimate fulfillment,
ends up with, again, the children of Israel
in the promised land living happily ever after.
As far as the millennial reign of Christ,
of course, it's not gonna be the Jews
that are living over in Israel right now.
They don't get a happy ending.
They're gonna get their backsides handed to them
in the end times.
But what it's gonna be is,
because there's gonna be a resurrection of the dead,
all of the Israelites throughout history
that are resurrected,
and the Christians who've been resurrected,
we're gonna rule and reign with Christ for a thousand years,
Jesus is on the throne of David.
So yeah, at the end of the 70 year Babylonian captivity,
you have Zerubbabel, the son of David,
coming back to rule,
and they're setting up their kingdom again and so forth.
But that's a shadow fulfillment,
because it was kind of a shadow of a kingdom
that they set up.
Whereas like you said, at the end of the 70 weeks,
you have the real kingdom.
And you read earlier from Daniel chapter seven,
how right after the whole thing with the Antichrist
and his kingdom,
you roll into the saints possessing the kingdom.
And you know, Christ and the saints ruling and reigning.
And that's what's gonna happen.
So yeah, Daniel's 70th week was in the first century AD,
with 70 AD being the middle of the week
when the temple was destroyed.
But that was not a complete fulfillment.
That was only a shadow fulfillment.
The real fulfillment of Daniel's 70th week
is going to be in the future.
And like you said, it will have a happy ending
because it's gonna roll directly into the millennium
when the 70th week ends.
And so it fits the context of Daniel 9 perfectly.
But here's the thing.
The context of Daniel 9 is Daniel's trying to figure out
what happens when the 70 years ends.
It's like, he's praying, he read about it.
He realizes that the captivity is 70 years.
Okay, how do we move forward?
God, I'm sorry for the sins of our nation.
He confesses the sin to God and so forth.
And then God basically explains to him what's gonna happen.
What's gonna happen?
Well, there's gonna be a commandment to rebuild the city
and the street and rebuild Jerusalem.
The Messiah is gonna come.
The Messiah is gonna be cut off, but not for himself
'cause he dies for us.
Then there's gonna be a war
and the people of the prince that shall come
are gonna destroy the city and the sanctuary
and they're gonna make it desolate and yada, yada, yada.
That's what's gonna happen.
That's what happens.
So whether in the text right there,
there's a happy ending, who cares?
It doesn't matter.
- Well here's the thing, the point that I'm making
is that the 70 AD doesn't fit that context at all.
So it pretty much precludes the fact that Titus
couldn't have that same correlation
to the context of the chapter
because it's like a complete opposite ending
of what the actual 70 years is.
- And the Messiah interpretation
would absolutely not fit that
because they're already in the land.
So it's like, where do you have,
I guess at the stoning of Stephen
is what people said would be the end
of the seven year period with that interpretation.
But I just wanted to mention real quickly
'cause we're talking about the shadow fulfillment
as well of Daniel nine.
And I remember when I first learned about it,
the Roman Jewish war 66 AD to 73 AD
with 70 AD being the midpoint,
I almost fell out of my chair.
Now, obviously the Bible authenticates itself.
I don't need a historical event
to have faith in the word of God,
but it is really cool though.
And again, it is a shadow fulfillment,
but it is cool to see how the first Roman Jewish war
was predicted that week, that seven year period
predicted in Daniel chapter nine.
And then of course you have the prediction
of the temple being destroyed at the midpoint,
which we know according to secular history
actually occurred again, courtesy of the Romans.
But that doesn't mean that it was all fulfilled
like you guys already touched on.
- Yeah, and the great thing about this is that
everyone agrees that the Book of Daniel
was totally finished by the second century BC, okay?
And so if the Book of Daniel is totally finished
by the second century BC and it's predicting
this fourth kingdom that's going to be different
and that's gonna just crush and be so cruel and so forth,
it's a great description of what the Roman military
and the Roman Empire was like.
And then basically describing that Jerusalem's
gonna be destroyed, the temple's gonna be destroyed
by the Romans, yeah, that's being predicted
hundreds of years in advance and it's a really cool
prophecy to be fulfilled and then Jesus predicted it,
again, in his earthly ministry with even more detail
and it all took place.
So yeah, it's a really cool fulfillment of prophecy
but again, when you gravitate towards some
of these other views, it could lose some of its coolness.
- Oh yeah, especially the messiah view.
- If you take that messianic view,
they're basically saying that 70 AD is not part
of the 70th week, it's just something else.
- Well, there's really no concrete seven year period.
It's just kind of like a lot of guessing, it seems like.
If in verse 27, the he is messiah
because I've heard them say, well,
you have the three and a half year ministry of Christ
but that's not really a proven point in scripture.
You don't really have anything afterwards
that seems to really confirm that.
Whereas our view, we're saying
you kind of have this seven year war from 66 AD to 73 AD
and right there in the midst at 70 AD,
you have that destruction of Jerusalem.
So it's like a perfect seven year period.
It really hammers this middle part of the week.
And then beyond that, in the book of Revelation,
it makes it abundantly clear that there's a seven year
period from both sides of the angle.
You got the 1,260 days, you got the 1,290 days,
you got the 42 months,
you got all these like half year periods,
you got the clear midpoint with the Revelation chapter 13
with the Antichrist making a big switch,
you know, with the devil coming inside of him.
And so, you know, you both,
you have like these seven year periods really well defined
in history and in scripture,
that you're just kind of almost throwing out,
in my opinion, when you look at verse 27
as being already fulfilled or Christ has somehow fulfilled
that in a completely different way or something like that.
So what do you-
- Well, and again, the independent fundamental Baptists
who were talking about this like a week ago
that came out with this,
when they had their second broadcast
where they were just acting like,
oh, it's so cool and Daniel 9.27 is the Messiah
and all this stuff.
The guy that's sort of the guru out of those three guys,
he had these charts that he was showing on the screen
to show his view.
And if you'll notice on both of these charts,
I don't know how well you can see it,
but basically on these charts,
basically just the next thing to happen
is just Jesus returns.
We're already into this, 2021,
and then just boom, Jesus returns.
And again, same thing here,
it's just the next event on God's prophetic calendar
is just Jesus returns to rule and reign.
King Jesus returns, you know, is what he has on there.
And the guy even said, Jesus could come back tomorrow, okay?
Maybe the man of sins already revealed, you know,
and Jesus could come back tomorrow.
So what if the Antichrist shows up tomorrow?
If this is the doctrine that everybody's being fed,
you can understand why a whole bunch
of so-called Christians are gonna follow this
because this is the false doctrine that they've been fed,
that Jesus can come at any moment.
Guess who's really coming at any moment?
The Antichrist, so that's the big problem.
- Well, if Christ was about to come,
it's kind of funny to me because I'm thinking like,
that seems really random.
Whereas in the book of Revelation,
it's kind of this huge buildup
'cause you kind of, you have the Antichrist,
you have this Mark of the Beast,
Christians are being slaughtered
like it's never happened before across the entire world,
people are being beheaded for Christ,
and then Christ has to come and rescue
the remnant that's left on the earth
before they're all destroyed.
That kind of makes sense why Christ is coming.
If Christ just came tomorrow, it's like,
obviously that's great,
but I'm just like, it doesn't seem like there's any buildup.
Yeah, why didn't you just save us before Biden or something?
What is the, is he saving us from Kamala or something?
What is the--
- If you would have saved us before Biden,
I wouldn't have got all those stimulus checks
for my 11 kids, that's kind of cool.
- And you, yeah, you got a lot of stimulus on that one.
- That's true.
- Of course, there's hyper-inflation going on,
but hey, you know?
- Yeah.
- Just to back you up though, Pastor,
you brought up the idea that Jesus would sort of come back
and rescue people.
I mean, that's what the Bible says in Matthew 24,
when it says, "And except those days should be shortened,
there should no flesh be saved.
But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened."
I mean, without the rapture,
the Antichrist would just take us out, right?
I mean, that's the idea, is that 75-day period
of Great Tribulation,
which, you know, we don't have to get into that right now
as to where we get that number,
but it's basically subtracting 1,335 by 1,260.
You know, that time period is shortened
by the return of Jesus Christ,
and that's what enables us all to basically
not get completely destroyed by this Great Tribulation.
Which we don't see, like you said,
we don't see that occurring in the first century AD.
And certainly with regard to the Grecian Empire
as well, which is further proof that again,
you have dual fulfillments when it comes to Bible prophecy.
And for whatever reason, this is something
that preterists just don't like.
They've created a false dichotomy
where you have to pick between the near future fulfillment
and the end time fulfillment.
But I'm saying why not both?
There you go.
- It's both.
- Why not both?
- Yeah, I think what's interesting for me too also,
I've made a chart a few years ago,
trying to kind of plot this, the sequence of events.
And when I was making my chart,
I didn't even use Daniel to like really as my basis,
I was using Revelation,
because Revelation's the more clear scripture,
and it's giving like so many detailed events.
And then I plotted Daniel later,
but I feel like even if I didn't have
some of the great prophecies of Daniel,
I could still come to every conclusion that I already have.
So it's weird to me to then take the book of Daniel
to destroy all the really clear doctrine
in the book of Revelation,
based on kind of a more cryptic
and more difficult to understand passage of scripture.
What is your perspective as far as end times prophecy?
Do you kind of give emphasis
to one section of scripture more than another?
I think maybe we should use something
as more of our jumping off point,
or what's your kind of viewpoint as far as?
- Yeah, absolutely.
The book of Revelation should,
first of all, the New Testament should be paramount,
but especially the book of Revelation should be paramount,
and then the epistles, and then the gospels,
before we start talking about anything in the Old Testament,
the New Testament is paramount,
and especially the book of Revelation.
And I will say this, that if there's any point of prophecy
in the book of Daniel, or Ezekiel, or Jeremiah,
or anywhere else, that doesn't have an analog
in the New Testament, then it probably has no future
significance.
So for example, when we're reading Daniel chapter 11,
and there's all this stuff about the King of the North,
and the King of the South, and all this back and forth,
I think it's pretty safe to say that that stuff
all happened back then, and doesn't have any significance
for the future, because none of that is repeated
in the New Testament, okay?
But these guys will say that, oh, well,
that's how Daniel's 70th week is.
It's not repeated in the New Testament.
That's absurd, because you have tons of this number
in the New Testament.
You have tons of talk about three and a half years
and three and a half years with this big event
punctuating them in the middle.
So if you got three and a half, big event, three and a half,
and you have that over and over in Revelation,
not just one time, I mean, look at chapter 11,
look at chapter 12, look at chapter 13.
It hammers these numbers about 1,260 days, 42 months,
time, time, and half of times, which is three and a half
years, 1,290 days, 1,260 days, 42 months.
These numbers are getting hammered.
So to sit there and say, nope, nope, no 70th week here,
nothing to see here, no seven year period being described,
anybody can see that there's a seven year period described.
Now, of course, these post-millennial,
all millennial types might just say like,
oh, it's just figurative, seven's an ideal number,
a thousand's an ideal number,
but they just don't even believe in a millennium.
They just think it's all figurative, it's all symbolic,
none of it's actually gonna happen.
If you actually believe this stuff is gonna happen,
well then, duh, there's a seven year period
described in Revelation punctuated in the middle.
Kind of sounds like Daniel's 70th week.
And then it fits perfectly with the Antichrist
and the false prophet setting up an image in Revelation 13.
It fits like a glove.
And it's funny how some people,
they wanna try to like mix these views.
They wanna mix like partial preterism
with a futurist view of post-trib pre-wrath.
And these partial preterist guys
that are independent Baptist
are claiming to be post-trib pre-wrath.
How is that, how are you post-trib pre-wrath?
You're like no-trib.
Because they're just like,
well, we're in tribulation right now.
And you know, there's no the great tribulation coming.
It's just, we're always in tribulation.
It's like, well, okay, I get that.
Yeah, we are always experiencing trials and tribulations.
But sorry, there is a great tribulation coming.
So you're not post-trib, pre-wrath.
If you believe that, you're no-trib, pre-wrath, okay?
And I'm not, and look, I'm not saying
that that's what Pastor McMurtry believes,
'cause he doesn't.
Pastor McMurtry doesn't even agree
with the guys that he had on his program,
because they're partial preterists.
And they're, especially that Pastor Clem guy
was teaching textbook partial preterism
and saying that Jesus could come back tomorrow.
He believed everything is virtually fulfilled,
except for just the second coming of Christ
and a few things.
Whereas Pastor Tommy McMurtry is trying to like,
import a little bit of partial preterism
into the post-trib pre-wrath view.
And it's like putting a round peg in a square hole.
It does not fit at all.
I mean, at least these guys have a consistent view,
even though it's garbage and not from the Bible,
at least they have it figured out.
You can't, but to try to mix that with a futurist view,
post-trip, pre-wrath view, it's absurd.
Because you can't sit there and say,
oh, Daniel's 70 week is totally fulfilled,
nothing to see here, and then claim that the stuff
in Revelation is still gonna happen
when you got three and a half years coming at you,
six ways to Sunday.
- Well, one thing I'd like to do is I'd like to pull up
my chart from Revelation, and just so people have a
visual aid, but then have you kind of just explain
how you interpret the Book of Revelation.
'Cause I think there's a lot of people that just don't even
know how to interpret the Book of Revelation,
'cause they've heard so many weird views on this.
But before I get there, someone did ask a question
in regards to this Daniel 9 thing.
They said, in verse 27, it talks about,
"And he shall confirm a covenant."
And they're kind of curious, if we take the interpretation
that that's Titus and then eventually the coming Antichrist,
the question I guess they're asking is like,
"What covenant is being confirmed?"
What would you say to that question?
- Well, first of all, Titus doesn't have to fulfill
everything in 70 AD because he's only
the shadow fulfillment.
There's still more coming, okay.
But basically, you know, it says he,
and we obviously believe that's the Antichrist,
will confirm the covenant with many for one week.
Obviously, in order for the Antichrist to come to power,
he's gonna have to make some kind of a covenant
or deal or agreement with a whole bunch of people.
You can't just come to power unilaterally.
You've got to make all the alliances.
And we know that there's for sure an alliance
between him and the 10 kings,
where in the end times the 10 kings have one mind
to give all their power to the Antichrist.
But you know what these guys were saying
on their broadcast the other day was like,
well, where do you ever see the Antichrist
making a covenant or breaking a covenant?
You don't see anything like that.
But you know, here's a great passage from Daniel 11,
which we would obviously point to
as a foreshadowing of the Antichrist.
It says in verse 21 of chapter 11,
"And in his estate shall stand up a vile person
to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom,
but he shall come in peaceably
and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown
from before him and shall be broken.
Yea, also the prince of the covenant."
And watch this.
"And after the league made with him,
he shall work deceitfully, for he shall come up
and become strong with small people," et cetera.
But the part I want to point out,
and obviously this is a complicated chapter
that's about Antiochus Epiphanes,
but also points to the Antichrist,
because it brings up the abomination of desolation,
which Jesus pointed to as being future, okay?
But notice what it says.
"After the league made with him,
he shall work deceitfully."
So basically, that's him making a league with people
and then working deceitfully,
basically not following through on that,
or breaking the league, breaking the covenant.
So just because it doesn't use the word covenant,
this is the problem with being a Google search Bible scholar
or an eSword Bible scholar,
where you just sit there and do these searches
'cause you just search covenant
or search abomination of desolation.
You're not gonna find everything
'cause in one place, the abomination of desolation
is called the transgression of desolation.
You're not gonna find that on your Google search, okay?
Or here, it's not called a covenant, it's called a league.
But what is a league?
A league is basically a confederacy.
It's some kind of a treaty where people join together.
Think of the League of Nations after World War I.
And so he forms a league and then deals deceitfully.
That's him confirming a covenant with many
for seven years or for one week.
And then in the midst of the covenant, he does what?
He deals deceitfully, he works deceitfully.
He goes back on whatever he said that he was gonna do.
- Well, I agree with that, for me, first of all,
when it says he, I think it's definitely Titus in some ways,
but it doesn't have to be Titus.
So like, part of this is obviously Titus fulfillment,
but I think it's the Antichrist
that's probably fulfilling verse 27
as far as the confirming of the covenant.
And an interesting point, you know,
I thought as well of the 10 kings,
but in Daniel chapter seven, it says,
and I wanna read a little bit of verses here,
it says in verse 20, it says, "And of the 10 horns
"that were in his head, and of the other which came up
"and before whom three fell, even of that horn
"that had eyes and a mouth that spake very great things,
"whose look was more stout than his fellows,
"I beheld in the same horde made war against the saints
"and prevailed against them until the ancient of days came
"and judgment was given to the saints of the most high.
"And the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
"Thus he said, the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom
"upon the earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms
"and shall devour the whole earth and shall tread it down
"and break it in pieces.
"And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings
"that shall arise and another shall rise after them
"and he shall be diverse from the first
"and he shall subdue three kings."
Now what I think's interesting about this portion
of scripture is it kind of gives light to the idea
that there could be a ten king covenant or league
with the antichrist, he's using flattery,
just telling them what they want to hear.
But then there's a point in which he basically
breaks this covenant with all of them.
And what's alluded here in verses 20 and 21 and 22
is that the timing of when these three fall
is when the saints are being warded against,
which we would look at as being the fifth seal
or the abomination of desolation,
which is right in the midst of the week.
So it almost pictures like right in the midst of the week,
three kings are falling, then all of a sudden
the antichrist is declaring some god,
and it's kind of abandoning and dropping these ten guys
or not really honoring whatever commitment
he may have made with them,
setting up the abomination of desolation,
calling himself god.
That's just a little bit of my reading between the lines.
What do you think about?
- The only problem with that is that the ten kings
are still players at the very end,
but it could be a different set of ten kings
because they could be replaced with ten yes men or whatever,
but the point is that--
- Well, the three are gonna fall, right?
Yeah, so then they could be replaced or whatever.
But the point is, I think that the view that we hold here
as far as what does it mean for him
to confirm the covenant with many,
but then to deal deceitfully after he's made this league
is I think that the people that he's really double crossing
the most are the Jews.
So the Jews are some of the people that he's covenant with,
but not necessarily just a covenant with Israel.
It's a covenant with a whole bunch, it's with many.
He's confirmed the covenant with many, it's world leaders,
it could be 10 kings, plus other people as well.
And so the reason I say it's the Jews as well
is because what seems to be happening
is that the seven year period begins,
he confirms this covenant,
and this ultimately leads to the temple being rebuilt.
And a lot of people are acting skeptical
that there's ever gonna be a third temple,
but let's stop and think about it.
The Jews want the third temple,
Christians want the third temple
'cause they're so misguided on Bible prophecy, okay?
Who doesn't want the third temple?
Muslims. - Muslims.
- 'Cause they've got their dome, whatever.
And so the bottom line is that the Bible describes
in the first part of Daniel's 70th week,
there being a worldwide war.
Islam is probably gonna get their butts kicked
in this worldwide war,
and that's going to lead to the temple being built.
So it's like the antichrist is on his way to power,
the man of sin is coming to power.
And so one of his bargaining chips is,
okay, you guys help me get to power,
and then I'm gonna get you your temple.
We're gonna get you back in control
of that part of Jerusalem with the temple,
get these Muslims out of your hair or whatever.
The temple gets rebuilt,
the daily sacrifice is reinstated,
all the Jews are thrilled,
all the fake Christians are loving it,
all the misguided people think it's the greatest thing ever.
But then in the midst of the week comes the double cross
where he basically enters into the holy place
and declares himself to be God
and sets up the abomination of desolation and whatever.
Because the Bible describes
in the second half of Daniel 17th week,
Jerusalem being trodden under of the Gentiles.
That's not exactly a Jewish paradise
when the Gentiles are taken over
and basically the Jews are being punished by God
and trodden down for 42 months.
It's given to the Gentiles for 42 months.
That's not what they bargained for
at the beginning of the week,
when their temple's getting built,
we're getting our sacrifices, gonna be great.
But then in the middle, he stops the sacrifice
and says, "No, I'm God," basically.
That's the double cross or the working deceitfully
or breaking the covenant in the midst of the week.
So that's what everything points to.
That's what we've always taught and believed
and it's all over scripture.
It all adds up and fits.
This other view, it makes the end times a block.
You know, one of the great complaint
about the Pre-Trib Rapture is that it's so confusing
and they don't understand the Book of Revelation.
And then once they get on Post-Trib Pre-Rap,
all of a sudden everything starts to click and make sense.
Well, you know what?
These guys with their messed up view on Daniel 9.27,
they're trying to take everybody back
into the wilderness again where everything's a blob,
everything's confused.
Even their guru, Pastor Clem, is like,
I don't know, maybe there's gonna be
a three and a half year period in the end.
I don't know, I mean, who knows?
Maybe Jesus will come tomorrow, I don't even know.
Has the man of sin be revealed?
I don't even know.
Man of sin, I don't even know.
He doesn't know.
It's like, well, you know what?
We like to know stuff.
That's why we like the post-trip pre-rev view
'cause we can actually understand the Bible.
And you know why people love after the tribulation
and they love these views is because they're like,
wow, I'm reading Revelation
and now it actually makes sense.
And these people wanna go backward.
- Well, I think one of the points that I heard about that
is it's kind of like, well, the disciples
didn't understand things before the gospel.
And then afterwards they kind of got them or something.
So if Christ comes down, he can explain it all to me.
But I'm thinking like, they weren't dead yet.
So yeah, I guess there's a point in their lives
where they didn't understand some part of the Bible
and later they ended up getting an understanding.
But it's not saying that in our lifetime,
we can't understand certain things in the Bible.
It's kind of weird to title an entire book
with the Bible revelation and we just were clueless
and just have like no idea what's going on.
I mean, in 1 Thessalonians chapter number five,
it says that we're supposed to be watching for these things.
How can you be watching for something
you have no idea what it is or it could be anything
or that it's like so mysterious?
It kind of defeats the whole idea
of even being able to watch.
- Yeah, how do you watch for this blob
that we don't know, is it three and a half years?
Is it seven years?
Maybe it's not even gonna happen.
Maybe it already happened.
Maybe it's happening right now.
Maybe it's all figurative.
What do you even watch for at that point?
And so the post-tribulation, pre-wrath view,
futurist view, pre-millennial view is the right view.
It's the biblical view.
It's the only view that is actually saying
that the stuff in Revelation is really going to happen
and still jives with scripture
because the pre-tribulation rapture position
does say that the stuff is actually gonna happen.
But the pre-trib rapture is just totally foreign
to scripture, so that's what's wrong with that view.
And so it's post-trib pre-wrath.
- One of the greatest things I feel like
I heard you preach one time was in the Revelation series,
I believe itself, you kind of like laid out
just how the book of Revelation structured
and just kind of, you know, 'cause some people
are confused as far as the chronology
of how the book is layered.
So do you think you could do us a service
of just kind of quickly helping us understand
the timeline of the book of Revelation itself?
- Yeah, sure, I mean, the first thing to notice
is how the book of Daniel's laid out.
You know, the first six chapters of Daniel
are all in chronological order,
and then all of a sudden in chapter seven,
you just have this major gear change,
and we jump backward in time,
and the second half is completely different
from the first half,
'cause the first half is all Bible stories,
the second half is all prophecies,
and the first half is chronological with itself,
and the second half is chronological with itself,
but there's a reboot in the middle.
Well, Revelation's the exact same way.
The first 11 chapters are in chronological order,
then when you get to chapter 12,
you jump back in time and start talking about
the birth of Christ at the beginning of chapter 12.
So it's not hard to figure out that you've jumped back
in time when all of a sudden Jesus is being born
at the beginning of chapter 12.
And then chapters 12 through 22
are also in chronological order.
And if you think about it, you know,
the book that's delivered unto the lamb to open
is a book that's written within and on the backside,
sealed with seven seals.
So when the Bible says book,
it's actually not referring to what we think of as a book,
the codex, because this is something that got popular later.
Back then, things were scrolls.
And so being written within and on the backside,
it's like you write on one side of the scroll
and on the other side of the scroll.
So you could think about it as one through 11
is one side of the scroll.
12 through 22 is the other side of the scroll.
It's split in half,
and it tells basically the same chronology
from two different angles.
I mean, God loves to tell us the same story twice
from two different angles,
because that's what he does in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
books of the kings versus books of the chronicles.
And so you've got one through 11 and 12 through 22,
two different stories.
Now, here's the thing.
One through 11 doesn't get you all the way
because it stops right as the millennium is starting.
Like right when the millennium is starting,
that's where chapter 11 stops.
And then in chapter 12,
we start over with the birth of Christ,
we move forward through the timeline.
But this time it goes beyond the millennium,
goes to the great white throne, new heaven and new earth.
So it takes you a little farther in that second half.
But once you understand that,
then you can see how these two events,
these two timelines line up.
You take one through 11 over here,
take 12 through 22,
you read them both in order.
It all jives.
It jives with Daniel,
jives with the four gospels,
jives with the books of the Thessalonians.
So, yeah.
- Let me ask you a question.
Because I've heard this,
since it starts back over in chapter 12,
and it actually kind of is going back to a further point
with Christ and maybe his birth
and kind of talking about some of the symbolism there.
I've then heard someone say,
well, when it brings up some of these timelines
of 1,203 score days or these kind of events,
that that has also already been fulfilled,
that that was still past.
Where do you really see it going from past
to then future in chapter 12?
Well, the thing is, first of all,
it doesn't really necessarily go back much further
because one through 11 also starts in the first century AD
because it starts with John on the Isle of Patmas,
the seven churches.
So the first five chapters are all taking place
in the first century.
So it's not really that weird
that chapter 12 would also jump us back
to the first century with the birth of Christ.
But where it becomes future,
it's obviously jumping over events in chapter 12
because it basically has Jesus being born
and then it just has him ascending up to heaven.
So obviously we skipped a lot there.
Everything after him ascending to heaven
in chapter 12 is future.
So it would be pretty weird to jump backwards in time
to, let's say, 33 AD, approximately,
and then skip down a few verses and say,
oh, but this is actually 400 BC, or 300 BC, or 100 BC,
or something like that, when this was fulfilled.
Or if you jump to-- let's say you're not necessarily
jumping that far into the future.
You're saying 70 AD.
You would then have to believe that the rest
of the book of Revelation happened in 70 AD,
and that kind of falls apart.
It's just nothing happened.
Nothing happened worldwide in 70 AD.
That's the thing.
I mean, 70 AD is a local event.
Now, it's a big deal for Jerusalem,
because it's a great fulfillment of prophecy,
where Christ said, your city's going to be burned.
Not one stone of the temple is going to be left on another.
It's a great fulfillment of prophecy.
But in the scope of the globe, in the scope
of the entire world, 70 AD is a nothing burger for the world.
So the book of Revelation is clearly
describing worldwide cataclysms.
Yeah, but someone said we were in the fifth seal.
So how do you debunk that?
I mean, then I would say, well, when did the four
horsemen of the apocalypse happen?
When did the fourth part of the earth get killed?
And when was the whole world at war?
I mean, is that supposedly World War I, World War II?
Just because those are called World War,
they didn't necessarily involve the entire world, okay?
I think that those are horrible bloodbaths
and the biggest wars possibly in human history,
you know, depending on how you factor a war
or how you think about a war.
You could say that World War I and World War II
were the biggest wars in history,
the biggest bloodbath in history,
but what's coming in the future
is gonna be bigger than that.
It's gonna be worldwide where a fourth part of the earth
is being killed with sword and with hunger
and with death and with the beasts of the earth.
It's just that, you know, to say that it, you know,
I've heard somebody say,
oh, the 1,260 days is Islam or something, you know,
and, you know, 1,260 days or 1,260 years of Islam or whatever.
That's a historicist view that just, you know,
everything's an allegory, everything's a symbol,
and you can kind of just make it whatever you want,
and the end times are a big blob,
and we don't even know what to watch for at that point.
If you're gonna be a futurist,
meaning that you actually believe
the stuff in Revelation's gonna happen,
you end up being post-tribe pre-wrath
if you actually study the Bible.
- And I think one of the wackier views
that I heard from people who would subscribe
to the preterist view, the idea that Jesus
is the one being talked about in Daniel 9, 27,
that a lot of this stuff has already been fulfilled,
that we're already in the fifth seal
or whatever the case may be, is a very,
I think, just kind of weird way
of looking at the abomination of desolation,
even claiming that it's nowhere found in Revelation,
despite, I think, clear verses alluding to it,
specifically, and I'll just bring one up right now,
in Revelation 13, 15, and he had power to give life
unto the image of the beast,
that the image of the beast should both speak
and cause that as many as would not worship
the image of the beast should be killed.
So obviously we have this being described
in 2 Thessalonians, chapter two, in the book of Daniel.
The Antichrist, at the midpoint of Daniel's 70th week,
sets up the Abomination of Desolation,
an image in the temple, and Revelation 13 alludes to it.
So I mean, could you speak to, have you heard,
I mean, let me ask you this, I'll put it this way.
Have you heard this before, this idea that,
well, the Abomination of Desolation
is really just figurative of our bodies
and that it's actually just taking the mark
or something like that, it would be synonymous
with taking the mark or whatever.
What do you think of that kind of wacky interpretation
of what the Abomination of Desolation really is?
- I mean, okay, if it's just equivalent
with taking the mark, where's the mark of the beast?
Did that already happen?
You know, I mean, the Seventh-day Adventists say
that the mark of the beast is going to church on Sunday.
You know, so you could just--
(all laughing)
I don't think that's a crazy thing.
They literally believe that Sunday worship
is the mark of the beast.
Well, did I put Sunday in my hand or my forehead?
That doesn't even make sense.
It's just, you know, when you get that loose--
- It's the Catholic Eucharist in their right hand
or in their mouth or something.
- I mean, when you get that loose with your interpretation,
you might as well,
you can just make the Bible say whatever you want
at that point.
I mean, if everything's up for grabs, you know,
then what's even the point?
What, like I said, what do you even watch for?
I mean, we might as well just wait and see what happens
'cause we don't have a stinking clue
according to these people
because everything's just a big blob, okay?
Second Thessalonians chapter two
describes the Antichrist going into the temple of God
and proclaiming himself to be God, okay?
In Revelation 13, he's worshiped by the whole planet
and an image is set up,
just like back in the shadow fulfillments,
an image of Zeus was put in the temple
by Antiochus Epiphanes or whatever, okay?
And so the thing is, a lot of people get hung up
in Second Thessalonians chapter two
where it says the temple of God,
and they say, well, how could this third temple be of God
if it's a Jewish temple offering animal sacrifices?
You know, the Antichrist is behind it
getting even built in the first place.
How is that temple of God?
It's just called the temple of God.
That's what it's called, okay?
Just like when it says that he, as God,
enters the temple of God showing himself that he is God,
obviously he's not God, but he's claiming to be God.
He is being called God by people.
The temple is going to be called the temple of God.
The city of Jerusalem is called the holy city.
Of course, from our perspective
as Bible-believing Christians,
the city of Jerusalem is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt,
where also our Lord was crucified.
That's how God looks at it.
That's how we look at it.
But yet the Bible will still call it
the holy city, temple of God.
'Cause that's what it's being called.
That's what it's being referred to as.
He's just identifying it with what they're saying it is.
But what they say is like,
"Well, that can't be the temple of God.
"So our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit."
And these guys in their broadcast the other day
literally said, I kid you not, they said,
"Well, if our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit,
"and if the man of sin is entering into the temple of God
"saying that he is God."
They literally compared that to the COVID vaccine,
like defiling the temple.
The government is the antichrist,
the government is the man of sin.
- That's the abomination of desolation.
- Yeah, and the government forced you,
they basically said that it's possible maybe
the government forcing you to get a COVID vaccine
is like kind of like, you know, man of sin
invading the temple of the Holy Ghost.
And then they said that, you know,
because some churches received relief money
during the COVID thing, where, you know,
'cause a lot of businesses got loans
and they got government aid and whatever,
that because some churches got that, you know,
that's the antichrist entering into the temple.
You know, it's like, come on.
Again, if you're gonna get that wild,
go be a Seventh-day Adventist
and just say the Mark of the Beast is Sunday,
which is, 'cause you know, if you wanna get that stupid
and just say the COVID vaccine is the Mark of the Beast
and you know, the government accepting,
or the church accepting money from the government,
you know, that's the abomination of desolation.
It's just like, at that point, everything's up for grabs.
You can just say whatever you want, teach whatever you want,
believe whatever you want.
You know, can we at least take
a halfway literal interpretation here that just says,
hey, the antichrist is gonna be a person
who says that he's God,
and the whole world's gonna worship him,
and you can't buy or sell unless you worship the guy.
That's what's actually gonna happen.
We don't need all these other goofball theories,
but I guess they're playing to their base
of all the people who just wanna make a big deal
about COVID that it's the end of the world or something.
You know?
- Well, an interesting--
- I'm annoyed by it too, but it's not the end of the world.
- Yeah, it's obviously frustrating,
but something to me, you know,
unless you're just gonna really allegorize everything here,
I really can't see how you could take this literally
from a historical perspective or from the preterist view,
because if you have the antichrist
being risen from the dead, he's inhabited by the devil,
and the world is saying, who can make war with the beast?
Here's my question, who would actually stop him?
Like, I don't see how it would ever stop.
Like, what's the end point to this?
Like, at what point is the devil gonna be satisfied,
you know, with this particular model?
You know, the Bible is painting the picture
that he was never gonna be satisfied.
In fact, the whole goal is just to kill every single person.
And the only one who can actually defeat him or stop him
is Jesus Christ himself.
That's why he's gonna return on a white horse
in Revelation chapter 19 and throw him and the false prophet
straight into the lake of fire.
Because otherwise, there's no literal stopping point
to this anti-Christ system, you know, that's being set up.
So unless you're gonna allegorize that,
I don't even see how you could kind of claim
to believe in a literal fulfillment of those verses.
- Yeah, it's way, it's way far from being literal.
And I understand that not everything in the Bible
is literal, I get it.
But if you get, once you get that loose with it,
it loses all meaning at that point.
I mean, when you're saying the mark of the beast is Sunday,
it's like, you're just, you're way off the reservation, buddy.
You know, and when you're gonna sit there and say,
maybe the COVID vaccine is the mark of the beast,
or it's very similar to the mark of the beast,
or the government giving a loan to a church
during the pandemic is the abomination of desolation.
I mean, it's absurd at that point.
- Well, you could point to so many other events
that are similar as far as a logical concept.
I mean, we already have the IRS,
we already have, you know, when you form a church,
you have to have a legal entity
that's granted by the government.
We already have social security numbers,
we already have telephones
that have all of our personal, you know, information.
Obviously, we can see like a building up
to the anti-Christ system being implemented,
and through technology,
it's gonna make it to where it could actually force
a economic system that's dependent upon a cashless mark
that's, you know, received and is dealing with worship.
You know, but that obviously, you know,
we can't really stop that economic system from taking place.
It's kind of silly to worry about stopping the technology
because to me, it's funny because it's like,
you can't stop it.
Like, how are you gonna stop the technology
from evolving to the point where the Antichrist
can be able to do his thing?
You know, the Bible has already told us
what's gonna happen.
You're almost like trying to stop scripture
from being fulfilled.
- You got Hobby Lobby, you know,
refusing to put barcodes on their products
because the barcode has a 666 in it, you know?
And because of that, you know, I mean,
here's the thing though,
everybody else is gonna have that barcode
no matter what, anyway.
You're not gonna stop it when one company does that,
you know?
But here's a point that I wanna bring up too
that, you know, that I think we need to address
is that whenever you have people pushing these views
like historicist view or preterist view
or Daniel 9.27 is a messianic verse,
it's not about the Antichrist,
they always appeal to like all these theologians
from the past and we got to look at what the doctrine was
back in the Reformation or in the past or whatever.
Instead of just going by what the Bible says,
they read all these theologians from the past.
And here's what I think about that.
I think that getting your end times theology
from stuff that was written during the Reformation
is a horrible idea, okay.
And you say, oh, they knew more back then.
Wrong, they didn't, okay.
I can even forgive the Reformation era guys
for being all millennial, post-millennial,
or having a historical view,
because you have to put yourself in their position, okay.
They're looking at the Roman Catholic Church
and the Pope as being the bad guy.
The Pope is the Antichrist.
And then they see in their lifetime,
basically, you know, the Pope losing power,
entire countries breaking away
from the Roman Catholic Church
and getting more biblical,
all of a sudden the Bible's being printed
and all these churches are getting more and more biblical
and further away from Roman Catholicism.
I mean, look, the Protestant Reformation
was on the right track.
The problem with it is it just didn't go far enough.
But I mean, look at the five solas of the Reformation.
I mean, sola fide, faith alone, amen, right?
Salvation by faith alone, sola gratia, grace alone,
sola scriptura, scripture alone, right?
Is our basis for what we believe, right?
All the glory to God, only Christ, right?
All of these things, these are great.
I'm for it.
But it didn't go far enough.
But it was on the right track.
So you could see how if you were living at that time
and you see this monolithic evil Roman Catholic Church
with the Pope taking the place of Christ,
so he's an antichrist in that sense,
and you see it all tumbling down
and entire countries breaking free,
the Bible being printed,
the word of God getting in all of the people's languages
and churning out of printing presses,
you could see how they could have like a post-millennial view
and think like, oh wow, you know,
things are gonna keep getting better and better
or it's all figurative because back then,
how could they imagine it being literal
that the two witnesses are killed
and lay in the streets of Jerusalem for three and a half days
and their bodies are seen by everybody in the world?
I mean, if you're living in the 15, 1600s,
how could you imagine everybody in the world,
all kindreds, tongues, peoples, nations,
seeing the dead bodies of these two guys lying in Jerusalem?
So you can see how they didn't think
it was gonna be literal, but us in 2021,
we're just thinking, well, that's easy, it's a webcam.
The whole world could easily see that.
So, you know, it's better to listen
to the Bible prophecy teaching from now.
Even the stuff from the '60s,
it's all gonna be about the Soviet Union or something.
The stuff from the Reformation,
they're only seeing it as Catholic versus Protestant.
You know, that's not the only thing
that's going on anymore.
And we have the technology now
where it could be fulfilled literally,
and it makes way more sense that it would actually happen
than that it's all allegorical.
But can't you forgive them for thinking it's allegorical
when they think like, how could you not buy or sell
without getting a market?
You can't just buy stuff on the black market.
But we can see how everything could go cashless,
CCTV everywhere, implantable chip,
webcam on the streets of Jerusalem.
It all makes sense.
- You know, interesting point,
'cause I actually have the Matthew Henry commentary with me
in regards to Daniel chapter number nine.
And then I kind of read through it
just to see what he thought about it.
And he does interpret verse 27, he as the Messiah.
But what's interesting about it is it really doesn't change,
like his viewpoint though on the explanation of the chapter
isn't really any different than ours.
It's just that that one verse he tries to attribute
to Christ and tries to says like
Christ kind of fulfilled the covenant.
But then when it talks about the people, the prince,
he still says that that's the Roman army.
And he kind of like tries to say it's similar
to where the Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians
are like God's servants to come and wipe out Jerusalem.
The first time he's saying like all the Romans and Titus,
these, they came and destroyed the temple as Christ's
servants because of their overspreading of abominations
and their rejection of the gospel.
And then he kind of ties it into Matthew 24 at the end,
talking about how it's bringing up Daniel.
And he's saying that when this happens,
it's gonna be a final judgment until,
and then he brings up Romans 11,
which says that blindness has happened to Israel
until the fullest of the Gentiles be come in,
and then all Israel shall be saved.
Now he doesn't really elaborate,
but it's just kind of funny because it's like,
he's almost right there as far as what we view,
how at the end of that abomination of desolation
in the future, we're gonna have all Israel being saved
when the fullness of the Gentiles are being come in,
which is kind of a similar parallel.
- At the end of the day,
who gives a rip what Matthew Henry said?
Who is Matthew, who is this guy?
I don't care what he says, he means nothing to me.
I have no interest in what Matthew Henry,
I could show you hundreds of places
in that Matthew Henry commentary
where he's a complete bozo and teaches something stupid.
So that guy is not relevant.
What we need to stick with is the word of God, the Bible,
and Holy Spirit filled teachers
that are living and breathing right now.
Why do we have to dig up some dead theologian
to tell us what to believe?
If I wanna hear what somebody has to say
about the word of God,
I want it to be somebody who's alive right now,
who has the Holy Spirit in them,
'cause I actually know who they are.
I can actually inspect their fruit
'cause we know false prophets by their fruit.
How can I test the fruit of some guy
who's been dead for hundreds of years?
Because people after they're dead
are often lionized or slandered.
And you can't trust some guy
who's been dead for hundreds of years
that you've never met, that no one you know has ever met.
We've never been to his church.
We don't know what his life was actually like.
Just 'cause something's written in a history book,
we can't just take it as gospel.
And so I have no interest in what some dead,
long past theologian had to say.
I wanna know what the Bible says,
and I wanna know what preachers who are alive right now
and dwell by the Holy Spirit are preaching right now,
filled with the Holy Spirit.
Because you know what?
We have 7.4 billion people on this planet, right?
Aren't there enough people to pick from?
Aren't there some spirit-filled men of God
somewhere on this planet right now
that can expound God's word to us,
that we don't have to go to a corpse
to tell us what the truth is?
The Bible is the book that we turn to
as far as the source, the authority, the word.
A commentary or a theology book has no authority.
Only the Bible has authority.
And if I wanna hear the Bible expounded,
I wanna hear it expounded by somebody who's alive right now
that I can actually look into their eyes and hear them talk
and actually check their fruit and figure out who they are.
- Well, I totally agree that it's kind of silly
to try and go back in time and try to figure out
what anybody believed or what they were like
or if they were saved.
I don't even think Matthew Henry saved, number one,
so I don't really care.
I really feel like when you go back to these church fathers,
none of these guys even appear saved.
And it'd probably be similar to if someone discovered
a book from our modern era, all the people that are popular
and the copies that would survive
would be all the raging heretics of the day
that nobody would even want to listen to.
So it's kind of bizarre.
I do think it's interesting from a historical perspective,
though, to simply identify what doctrines people did believe
and kind of the evolution of maybe mainstream views
or how the Catholic Church or some of these churches
have shifted on what they kind of look to the scripture.
Because Matthew Henry specifically
is very anti the Jews being God's chosen people.
And that's kind of been a historical doctrine.
It's only like since 1948 or something
that people then radically change their view.
And we kind of have this major Zionism coming into play.
And I find that interesting.
I don't know that it proves anything per se.
- Yeah, no, it is interesting, but here's the thing.
Let's say there's a false doctrine out there
and you hear about a false doctrine
and you're like, that's a false doctrine.
And then you find out, well,
Matthew Henry believed it as common.
That's not gonna make you go like,
well, hmm, maybe I should rethink that.
Well, I mean, if Matthew Henry's saying it,
I mean, you don't care any more than I do.
At the end of the day, you and I only care
what the Bible says and what actual saved Christians
believe, right?
Today, that are alive today, not from the past.
- Yeah, obviously the Bible's a living document today.
- Like we were talking on the phone,
what was it, yesterday or whatever,
and you made the point and said that, you know,
if anything, doctrine is gonna get more accurate over time
because of the fact that, you know, in the book of Acts,
you see the apostles confused about a lot of things
and they're kind of figuring things out at times.
And then when you get to, you know,
the epistles are giving clarity and, you know,
obviously the epistles of James and John and Peter
are being written later than the stuff we see happening
in the book of Acts and they definitely have
a greater understanding.
And so, you know, people are figuring things out
and as we see the end approaching, you know,
we get a greater understanding of these things.
The Bible even says, you know,
knowledge shall increase in the end times.
Why would I assume that people knew more
about end times prophecy in the 1500s
when they didn't even have the technology
that would even cause the stuff to even be possible
to be literally fulfilled?
Whereas now we can see how it could be literally fulfilled.
You know, I just, for the life of me,
I cannot understand why we don't just base
what we believe on the Bible and on what people
that we actually know that are actually saved
believe right now.
Like how the Holy Spirit's leading them,
how the Holy Spirit's leading us.
'Cause how can we really try the spirits of back then?
'Cause we can't really meet those people,
we can't check their fruit,
we can't see what their converts are like,
we can't see what their church is like,
we can't even ask them questions, they're dead.
And it's like, if you have to resort to these dead people,
then you know what, that just shows that, why?
I'll put it this way.
If your view is correct,
you should be able to prove it with the Bible alone
and support it with people that are living today,
believing it alone.
Like it should be like the Holy Spirit and the Bible now.
Why, the fact that you have to dig up someone
to keep making that point,
it shows that you're, you must be weak on support
from the Bible or from actual saved Christians
you can point to right now believing this.
- It kind of makes me think of the Jews.
Like the Jews are kind of rejecting Jesus in the flesh,
telling them what the Bible says.
And they're like, well, we're Moses' disciple.
You know, like they're like pointing back in time.
And I, you kind of hear this like from this house,
house church movement and stuff like that,
how they'll be like, well, we're going back
to the Acts chapter two church or whatever.
But I find it funny because it's like nowhere
in the Bible do you see at any point in time
is Paul saying like, you guys need to go back
to the church in Acts chapter two.
Like you need to go back to the old way of doing it.
And it also makes me think of how people will say,
you know, I like the 2006 version of Pastor Aderson,
you know, not the 2021 version.
- He was nicer back then.
- Yeah, it's like it was, you're better somehow.
In 2005 and six or something,
like you haven't gotten better with age
or more understanding of reading the Bible.
It's like this, the first version of Pastor Aderson
was like somehow far superior.
- Yeah, because when I was 24 years old,
I knew everything and had all the right answers.
But now that I'm 40 and have 16 years in the ministry,
I know so much less now.
I mean, that's absurd.
And in the book of Acts,
look at how they're having all these problems
with supporting this multitude of widows
where it just becomes their full-time job waiting tables.
Okay, obviously that didn't work.
People wanna point to that stuff
as being some kind of an idealized system.
But by the time you get to the apostle Paul
writing one of his last epistles, 1 Timothy chapter five,
it's let not a widow be taken under the number
under three score years old.
And he gives so many criteria
for a widow to be supported by the church
that very few widows would make the cut.
And it would be a very small part
of a church's ministry.
Whereas in Acts, it was just this massive thing.
Well, they're still figuring things out, you know,
it didn't work.
And, you know, if we wanna go back to the book of Acts,
if I have to go back to the book of Acts,
then I wanna go back to Acts 28, you know,
because the later the better, as far as I'm concerned.
You know, Acts 28, where he says,
"I'm done going to the Jews, let's go to the Gentiles."
- Right.
I mean, is your church gonna get better over time or worse?
It's kind of a, it kind of seems a little obvious.
Obvious, you know, in the book of Revelation,
you see churches departing from doctrines or faith,
and they need to kind of get, you know,
sharpened back on that particular point.
But in general speaking, you know,
I feel like our church keeps getting better every year,
and that, you know, doctrine's getting clearer,
or we're having more understanding, or more wisdom.
Like, it would be weird to think that we have
to constantly go back to some previous state that,
rather than doing better.
And a point of the Bible that I always like to bring up
when people have this weird ideology is the Passover itself.
Because the Passover is delivered to Moses
and the children of Israel,
and then we go several hundred years into the future,
and then we have Hezekiah performing the Passover
later in the future.
And when he performs the Passover,
God's like commending him saying,
"This is the greatest that the Passover's
"ever been observed or ever been fulfilled,"
or something like that.
And it's like, it's so much further
from when the command was actually given the instructions
and like their first iteration,
but yet it's still better.
Meaning that the more biblical you are,
the more better, like the better it's gonna be.
It's not like you had to be closer to the timeline.
It's like, it's more about closer
to what the scriptures actually say
rather than the proximity to the instruction.
- That's a great point.
That's a great point about Hezekiah and Josiah
in some ways being better than even David in some ways.
Not like, we gotta go back to David.
- Yeah, well, it gives us hope to say
that we can constantly improve church.
We don't have to feel like it's constantly devolving,
that we can constantly make it better
and that you could have the best church, theoretically,
as opposed to like, well, we can't have the 1950s church
or we'll never have the 1900s church
or we'll never have this idolized version
of church in the history.
You could theoretically have a better version
by just following what the Bible actually teaches.
- Well, let me tell you where this wrong idea
is coming from.
It's because all the popular preachers are all bad.
Like right now, the guys who are on TV,
the guys whose books are in Barnes and Noble are all bad.
You know, who are the big name preachers right now?
Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, T.D. Jakes,
you know, Steven Furtick or something, right?
That weird white guy with dreadlocks or whatever.
I mean, you know, Todd White, yeah, Kenneth Copeland,
you know, these are all the big name popular guys
and they're all false teachers, right?
But then all of a sudden we have this idea
that all the popular teachers from the past were all good.
So in the 1600s, all the most popular preachers were good.
1700s, all the most popular preachers are good.
1800s, all the most popular preachers are good.
Early 1900s, all the most popular preachers are good.
And then just only in our lifetime are they all bad.
Well, no, actually, here's the true story.
The popular preachers have always been bad
and they always will be bad.
That makes a lot more sense
that the world has always been like it is right now,
where broad is the way that leads to destruction.
And so when you have this idea
that all of these popular preachers in the past
were all good, they were so great,
and then you have these people
that are in these dead churches
that are doing nothing right now,
so then they always had this syndrome
that the past was better, the past was better,
because they're in a do-nothing lame church right now,
so then it's like, oh man, the glory days
were either in the '60s or in the early 20th century,
or the Great Awakening, or the Second Great Awakening,
or oh man, the Reformation was so great.
No, you know, the way we think about it,
as independent fundamentalist Baptists,
is we're living in the greatest days right now,
like we wanna do greater works than anyone's ever done.
I just believe that whether you're living in the year,
you know, 2021, or the year 1832,
or the year 1357, or the year 755,
it doesn't matter when you're living,
if you have the Holy Spirit and the word of God,
you can understand the Bible,
you can do great things for God,
you can be greater than the previous generation.
It's not just this devolving, as you put it.
Like, yeah, the world is getting worse, obviously,
but is Christianity getting worse?
No, and the reason people think it's getting worse
'cause they go to a dumb church.
If you actually go to a good church,
you wouldn't think it's getting worse.
You'd think this is great, we're doing great,
we're winning souls, we're doing great works for God.
So did the Holy Spirit get worse?
Did the Bible get worse?
Did human nature get worse?
No, it's the same as it's always been.
And so this constant looking backward to these theologians
and thinking everything was better in the past.
You know, if you inquire why the former days
were better than these days,
you inquire foolishly according to the book of Ecclesiastes.
- I think that's a great point.
Do you have any, do you have another question
that you wanna kind of get to to kind of wrap this up?
I know we've talked a lot about these subjects.
- I do, I had one question just to kind of like you said,
just to wrap it up.
But just to, by the way, I thought this conversation
you guys were having was also important though
because of the fact that people tend to authenticate
or at least try to authenticate their doctrine
by what preachers in the past have believed,
but of course the Bible says,
"The thing that hath been is that which shall be,
"and that which is done is that which shall be done,
"and there is no new thing unto the Son."
If the popular preachers, Pastor Anderson,
like you were saying, are wicked now,
they probably were back then too.
So it's sort of useless to use them
in order to legitimize whatever you believe
rather than the word of God.
And we talked about a lot of different things tonight.
Obviously, when it comes to end times Bible prophecy,
we're not gonna hit every single subject in one live stream.
You know, and that's just the reality.
But one question that was brought up to me
that I guess we can end with is this,
and I think it makes sense to end with this
because people are looking.
You know, the Bible says what I say unto you,
I say unto all, watch.
People are watching, they're looking,
and they're obviously by studying the word of God.
But what in your, and this is for both of you obviously,
what in your mind kickstarts the seven years
that we've been talking about, not just in Daniel,
but of course in Revelation as well.
Obviously you have the opening of the first seal,
but you know, is it the devil getting cast out from heaven?
Technically, what is it that starts the seven year period
is my first question.
Second, what is the first thing we're gonna see
that would then be an indicator for us to know,
all right, we actually are in the tribulation now?
And Pastor-- - Well, I can start.
I'll say that, you know, it's like it's basically,
there's war in heaven, the devil's cast down,
and he knows that he only has a little time.
And so he sets these things in motion.
You know, the Bible says of the Antichrist,
the dragon gave him his power and his seat
and great authority.
And so it starts with the devil being cast out of heaven,
there's a war in heaven, the devil's cast down,
he knows that he only has a little time,
and so he begins to empower the man of sin, okay?
And so, you know, he confirms the covenant with many
for one week, you know, whatever that agreement is
that sets in motion these course of events.
So it's the devil being cast down,
and then him working through the man of sin
to make this covenant for seven years.
- Yeah, I would agree.
- Oh, and then what was the second part of your question?
- So my second, the second part of the question,
obviously that's, you know, from God's perspective,
that would be when it starts,
but what about from our perspective?
What is it that we would see that would be an indicator
for us to know that we're in the tribulation?
Is it not gonna be apparent, you know, until seal,
I guess seal number two, I mean,
the thing is, you've had world wars in the past,
so it wouldn't necessarily be apparent in seal two.
What would you look for?
- I would say the abomination of desolation.
Until you see the abomination of desolation,
you can't be 100%, and I'll pass it over to Pastor Shelley.
- I would agree that I think the kicking off point
is the devil being thrown out of heaven,
because then it says he knows that he has a short space,
like he has a short amount of time
to basically accomplish whatever else
he wants to accomplish.
I don't know if it's like the exact same day
that then he's gonna entice the anti-crisis
to start making this covenant,
but somehow that's gonna kind of trigger
the whole chain of events.
I think that from a 100% perspective,
it has to be the abomination of desolation.
I think that with the World Wars,
where we would kind of start believing
that it could probably be the end,
is when you kind of see a singular nation
or figurehead actually getting world domination,
which I don't know that we've seen that,
except for with the beast.
That's the whole kind of essence of the beast,
is a one world kind of government,
one world leader with the Babylonians,
with the Greeks, or the Medo-Persians,
then the Greeks and the Romans.
And so I do not believe that there will be
a one world leader and one world government
that's not the end times antichrist.
So I think at some point,
and again I wouldn't be saying that the 100% mark
isn't really the fifth seal,
'cause that's probably, when you know for sure,
that's what Matthew 24 is pointing to,
but just from understanding what prophecy's pointing to
and everything, if it comes to be that America
has literally conquered the whole world,
you know, I'm basically gonna be anticipating
someone to basically die and come back to life
or something, because I just don't,
I don't believe that there'll be a literal country
in charge of the whole world, and it's not the end times.
Like, I don't think China's gonna take over the world
or something, and we're just gonna all be subject to them,
and it's not the end times or something.
I think once there's a full domination
by any particular country,
that we're pretty much knocking at the door.
- Yeah, well, just as a quick, even just,
sorry, even just the building of the third temple
would be another thing where you'd say,
yeah, this is probably it, you know,
but it's not 100%, but it'd be like 99% probably
at that point.
- I was gonna bring that up with regard to the temple,
just as a quick follow-up.
I know we're gonna wrap it up soon,
but in Daniel chapter eight, it says in verse 13,
that I heard one saint speaking and another saint said,
"Under that certain saint which spake,
"how long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice
"and the transgression of desolation
"to give both the sanctuary and the host
"to be trodden underfoot?"
And he said unto me, "Unto 2,300 days,
"then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."
My question for you guys is this,
would the daily sacrifice be a potential marker?
I know Pastor Anderson,
you brought up the abomination of desolation.
I don't have a lot of time to develop this,
but obviously doing the math here,
we're looking at, this is a 2,300 day period,
and so you subtract that with the total number of days,
which is 2,550.
We're looking at daily sacrifices
commencing 250 days into Daniel 70th week.
Is that something that you believe,
and obviously this is conjecture on our part a little bit,
but would the daily sacrifices commencing in that temple
in Jerusalem potentially be a marker for us to know that,
hey, we're actually in that tribulation period now?
- Yeah, and I mean, you could look at that
and think this is probably it,
that's probably what that verse means,
'cause obviously we're not,
I agree with your interpretation of that verse,
but I'm not 100% that that's what that verse means,
I'm 90 some percent, you know?
But yeah, when you see the daily sacrifice start,
third temple, any of these things are huge indicators
that this is not a drill.
But what I'm saying is that we can't be 100% sure
because could there be some kind of a false start
or an abortive start to this, and then it backs up again?
You know what I mean?
Like, maybe there's an abortive attempt
that doesn't get to the finish line, and then it's later.
But like I said, if I saw it,
I'd be saying, yeah, I'm 97% sure.
But what's funny is that we have this COVID pandemic,
which is a tiny blip on the radar
when you think about world history,
because it's not even close to being the worst thing
that anybody's gone through.
It's, I mean, is it a pain in the neck?
Yeah, but it's super minor compared to a lot
of horrible things that have happened throughout history.
It's not that big of a deal.
And yet it's like, it's the end of the world,
it's the tribulation, it's the mark of the beast.
It's like, come on.
But if you actually have a temple being built
and daily sacrifices, the whole world's at war,
then yeah, okay.
At that point, then I'll start saying
that the sky is falling too.
But I'm not gonna say it about this stupid COVID,
you know, nothing burger.
- Well, to piggyback off that, I mean,
technically there's nothing in my mind
stopping America from being communist
for a hundred years before the end times.
You know, even if that did happen
as a judgment against America,
that doesn't really cease from Bible prophecy
and being fulfilled.
And I don't want that whatsoever.
But at the same time, it's like most of the COVID agenda
doesn't even necessarily fit the, you know,
last seven years of the Book of Revelation.
I do think it's plausible that it could
spawn into something.
You know, I guess if we found out that, hey, you know,
China really lied about this virus,
and they've been doing biological warfare against us,
and the conservatives somehow regained the House,
and they start talking about the transparency
of foreign election interference,
or just all kinds of issues or something,
maybe that could be a precursor to actually get the world
to start getting into war and fighting,
or something like that, perhaps.
But to me, if the COVID agenda succeeds,
I don't see how that really even fulfills,
is gonna usher us into that last seven years.
To me, you would almost have to fail
in order for us to be entered into some kind of a world war
or something like that.
But I don't know what your perspective is.
- I mean, I think that anything,
literally anything could lead into those seven years.
But until something from the seven years actually happens,
then we'll talk when something actually happens
from the seven.
But you could make that case about anything.
You could say 9/11 could lead into the end times.
The Gulf War could lead into the end times.
What Trump did where he declared Jerusalem
to be the capital of Israel could lead into the end.
Everything could lead into the end times,
literally everything.
But it's meaningless.
And when you're just constantly sounding the alarm,
it's like you're gonna wear people out.
It's like the boy who cried wolf.
If you're just constantly sounding the alarm
that it's the end of the world,
then people are gonna get so weary of it,
they're gonna be like,
"Well, where is the promise that is coming?"
You know, nothing ever happens.
- Yeah, I mean, that's kind of my view of that verse
is that there's gonna be so many false alarms
that people are just gonna get so sick and tired of it.
I even think it's plausible
that chips planted in people's hands and forehead
will exist before the mark of the beast,
that it'll just be potentially commonplace
or lots of people have already done it,
and there'll be an initial pushback saying,
this is the mark and this is the end or whatever,
even though it has nothing to do with worship
of the Antichrist, and then that'll basically cause
everybody to just say, see, this isn't even a real thing
or this isn't gonna happen and it makes it even easier
to actually accept the Antichrist.
But I could be wrong, it could be the first iteration
of a mark of some kind of a chip or some kind implanted
in a person's body, but I don't even think
that it has to be the first iteration
because there's already companies in places
where people have chipped themselves
and obviously I don't wanna get a chip whatsoever
and as much technology as I embrace,
it's probably not the technology I'll ever embrace,
but you could say it's pretty safe,
I'm not gonna take that.
John MacArthur though, he might take the mark, so.
- Yeah.
- Well, the most radical I get is that
when I look at my phone, it unlocks.
(both laughing)
That's as biometric as I get right now.
- Yeah. - That's funny.
- Yeah, well, I mean, I think some people,
just to kind of round things out,
some people might wonder, you know,
why were we, you know, kind of dismantling
some of these false doctrines so heavily earlier on
in the broadcast and kind of throughout the broadcast
and that's because first of all, we love the truth, okay?
We hate lies, but it's not just that.
This idea that Jesus is coming first, you know,
which of course the pre-tribbers would subscribe to
and it's funny how, by the way,
they've kind of merged with the preterists as well.
It's all gone full circle, like you said,
Pastor Anderson, in one of your sermons
where they've kind of borrowed from the pre-trib
sort of worldview, if you want to call it that,
to ascertain that, hey, Jesus could come back
at any moment, pre-tribbers, 'cause they think
he's gonna come before the tribulation,
pre-tribbers because I guess the tribulation's already happening
or it happened or whatever they believe.
But here's my point, it's very dangerous, I think,
for people to go around saying Jesus is coming first
because the anti-Christ is going to counterfeit him
in many different ways, including a counterfeit death
and resurrection.
And so that's why podcasts like this, I think,
are important and why dismantling a lot of these
false doctrines are important as well.
And of course, Jesus did say in Matthew 24
that these false Christs are going to deceive,
if it were possible, the elect.
So it's not like any of the Savior
are going to get deceived anyway.
But still, you want to have the least amount of confusion
as possible.
And so that's why it's important to clear these things up
for anybody out there who was kind of wondering about that.
But Pastor Shelley, anything else you wanted to say
as we land the plane here?
- Yeah, I think we've definitely hit a lot of good points
this evening.
Was there another point, Pastor Anderson,
you're wanting to bring up before we kind of wrap this evening?
- No, I'm satisfied.
Thanks for having me on.
I appreciate it.
- Thanks so much for coming on.
Really, really great special guest to have.
- Thank you for your time.
- We got to thank our production team.
It's basically one man, Tim.
He just, he basically put this whole thing together
and it's flowed really well.
And so hopefully in the future you could be a guest again,
maybe a different topic or a second dip at the end times.
And so we really appreciate you being on here with us
and kicking this off with us this evening.
But that's pretty much gonna wrap us up
for the Baptist bias.
And again, you've heard a lot of points today,
a lot of dogmatic viewpoints, things like,
how can you say that T.D. Jakes and Kenneth Copeland,
all these people are false prophets?
Well, that's the Baptist bias.
And how can you say that Jesus isn't coming back
at any moment?
And how can you reject Matthew Henry or Catholics?
And how could you have such strong viewpoints?
Well, it's 'cause we have the Baptist bias, you know?
That's the whole point of the podcast.
And we really wanna emphasize that.
And we wanna help you realize that the world
should be interpreted through the viewpoint
of the Baptist bias.
Ben, sign us off.
That's it for the pilot edition of this broadcast, folks.
We will talk to you guys again after a while.