Does the Bible Prophesy Any Future for Israel?

Outline (yep, this post is so long, I’m giving you shortcuts!):

Introduction

I’m no stranger to the ways that some people try to explain away all the clear statements in Scripture prophesying that Israelites would return to the land and worship at a third temple sometime after the second destruction of Jerusalem. But on the night of February 14, 2024, one of the most absurd ones was brought to my attention: that there are no ethnic Israelites anymore, and that the Israelites we know today are actually descended from central Europeans with no ancestral connection to the ancient Israelites. In fact, the guy who tried to tell me this said “If you look at the Israelis of today, they look just like you and me [Caucasian].” Let’s just set aside the fact that this is the single most racist argument anyone has ever tried making to me to justify their understanding of what the Bible teaches (I have read about some worse ones that were popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries — like misinterpreting the incorrectly-named “Curse on Ham” (the curse was actually on Ham’s son, Canaan) to justify enslavement or mistreatment of African-Americans — but nobody’s ever been stupid and/or crazy enough to seriously espouse any of those ones in my presence!). That attempt at historical revisionism is something I can shut down relatively fast (in hindsight, I can tell you I’d fully researched and typed everything in this post related to that point — up until the paragraph beginning with “Among other things…” — only 24 HOURS after the first time someone made this claim to my face; it undoubtedly helped that I’d already been exposed to some of the relevant discoveries in molecular genetics a decade or so earlier!), so I’d also like to spend the rest of this post showcasing the Biblical passages that prophesy Israel returning to the land and having another physical tabernacle/temple (or two) and debunking the attempts amillennialists (preterist or otherwise) make at explaining them away.

Given that I didn’t actually publish this post until March 14, 2025, that does mean I’d been working on it on-and-off for 13 months before posting it here! Bear in mind that I will update this post as more such passages and counterarguments come to my attention; I want this post to be a one-stop shop for the Biblical data on this issue. So if you’ve heard of a passage or counterargument that isn’t covered here, please let me know in the comments! (Of course, I’ve already addressed a few other passages in other posts, like 1 Corinthians 15:50, the use of Joel 2:28-3:8 in Acts 2 & of Amos 9:11-15 in Acts 15, and Zechariah 6:12-13 & Jeremiah 22:28-30. So do your homework and read my explanations for those passages before offering them as counterarguments!)

Are There No Legitimate Israelites Left?

The Recent Origin of This Idea

The idea that Modern Israelites are descended from central European converts to Judaism and not Ancient Israelites was popularized by a theory put forth in 1976 by Arthur Koestler in his book “The Thirteenth Tribe”. Incidentally, this book has never gained mainstream acceptance in scholarly circles, whether scientific or historical in nature. Only conspiracy theorists, anti-Zionist groups, and (evidently) some amillennialists have embraced this idea (you can probably guess why each of those particular groups are fond of it). In fact, the scholarship behind it is so shoddy that even such anti-Biblical sources as Wikipedia and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have trashed it (however minimally, for the latter)!

The case for it may have been believable in the 1970s, but at that time, the field of genetics wasn’t yet developed enough to contribute to the discussion. (It’s significant that this article mentions that the men analyzed in the study discussed there claim to be descended from Levi. Perhaps they could serve as part of the priesthood for the third tabernacle/temple?) Genetics has made a lot of progress since then.

Molecular Genetics Results Show Modern Jews Are Definitely Descended From Ancient Jews

For most Ashkenazi Jews (the ones typically focused on for these arguments, since they spent centuries in Europe and account for the majority of Jews in the world today), analysis of mitochondrial DNA shows that their maternal ancestors are from southern Europe, but Y chromosome DNA analysis shows that their paternal ancestors are indeed from the Levant (i.e., including ancient Israel). The general understanding of this data is that when male Jews migrated to Europe after being banished from the Levant, they converted European women to Judaism and married them. It’s easy to see why those who promote the idea that ethnic Jews don’t live in Israel today focus so much on the mitochondrial DNA evidence, while totally ignoring the Y chromosome evidence!

At the same time, it’s easy to see why they’ve been able to get away with it to a large degree: in the 2nd century {scroll to the last paragraph under “Mitochondrial DNA”, and read the full article for even more information on the genetic data!}, Jewish authorities changed their definition of “a Jew” from claiming that being Jewish followed the paternal line (as it did throughout Biblical history) to claiming that it followed the maternal line. So by the reckoning followed by most Orthodox Jews today, one isn’t an ethnic Jew unless their mother is. But according to the reckoning used in Biblical times (which is the one God would actually recognize), one was an ethnic Jew if their father was — just like it worked for virtually any other ethnicity in the ancient world! When God uses one definition to identify people, but the people themselves use another, guess which one’s right? As Paul said, “let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4b KJV).

Furthermore, the person who brought this issue to my attention claimed that “The only true Israelites today are those living in Persia who never returned to Israel after the Babylonian exile, and they want nothing to do with the Promised Land!” But check out what this peer-reviewed journal article concluded about sub-Saharan African DNA markers in eight Jewish groups around the world, including the Persian (Iranian) and Babylonian (Iraqi) ones:

A striking finding from our study is the consistent detection of 3–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 8 diverse Jewish groups we studied, Ashkenazis (from northern Europe), Sephardis (from Italy, Turkey and Greece), and Mizrahis (from Syria, Iran and Iraq). This pattern has not been detected in previous analyses of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data, and although it can be seen when re-examining published results of STRUCTURE-like analyses of autosomal data, it was not highlighted in those studies, or shown to unambiguously reflect sub-Saharan African admixture. We estimate that the average date of the mixture of 72 generations (∼2,000 years assuming 29 years per generation) is older than that in Southern Europeans or other Levantines. The point estimates over all 8 populations are between 1,600–3,400 years ago, but with largely overlapping confidence intervals. It is intriguing that the Mizrahi Irani and Iraqi Jews—who are thought to descend at least in part from Jews who were exiled to Babylon about 2,600 years ago—share the signal of African admixture. (An important caveat is that there is significant heterogeneity in the dates of African mixture in various Jewish populations.) A parsimonious explanation for these observations is that they reflect a history in which many of the Jewish groups descend from a common ancestral population which was itself admixed with Africans, prior to the beginning of the Jewish diaspora that occurred in 8th to 6th century BC. The dates that emerge from our ROLLOFF analysis in the non-Mizrahi Jews could also reflect events in the Greek and Roman periods, when there were large communities of Jews in North Africa, particularly Alexandria. We detect a similar African mixture proportion in the non-Jewish Druze (4.4±0.4%) although the date is more recent (54±7 generations; 44±7 after the bias correction). Algorithms such as PCA and STRUCTURE show that various Jewish populations cluster with Druze, which coupled with the similarity in mixture proportions, is consistent with descent from a common ancestral population. Importantly, the other Levantine populations (Bedouins and Palestinians) do not share this similarity in the African mixture pattern with Jews and Druze, making them distinct in their admixture history. {Boldface mine.}

All Jewish groups have genetic signatures from sub-Saharan Africans (which would’ve been covered by more generic uses of the word “Ethiopian”, by the way) in their gene pools that were acquired before they were ever exiled! And right in line with that claim about Jews who stayed in Babylonia and Persia after the rest returned from exile, the greatest number of estimated generations since the genetic mixing with sub-Saharan Africans (i.e., the furthest back in history these genetic signatures stopped being introduced into a population) was among Iraqi Jews — the ones who stayed behind after the Babylonian exile, while other groups either moved to Persia (Iran) or went back to Israel, and so had subsequent opportunity to intermarry with sub-Saharan Africans! Here’s an adaptation of the relevant data from Table 2 of the study:

PopulationWest African ancestry proportion ± standard errorEstimated date of admixture after bias correction (generations ± standard error)
Ashkenazi Jews (different dataset)2.8%±0.3%n/a
Ashkenazi Jews3.2%±0.4%53±13
Syrian Jews3.9%±0.5%72±23
Iranian Jews2.6%±0.6%70±34
Iraqi Jews3.8%±0.5%115±22
Sephardic Greek Jews4.8%±0.4%62±8
Sephardic Turkey Jews4.5%±0.4%73±11
Italian Jews4.9%±0.5%73±19

This data coheres perfectly with the Biblical and traditional historical narratives concerning Jewish migrations and intermarriages ever since Israel came into existence with the birth of Jacob’s sons nearly 3,800 years ago! Speaking of which, it’s significant that Ephraim and Manasseh were sons of Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of the Ancient Egyptian city of On (Genesis 41:45,50-52); since the half-tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh constituted the largest tribe of Israel, intermarriage between tribes would’ve made it inevitable that Egyptian DNA would show up throughout the Israelite gene pool! Similarly, Numbers 12:1 mentions that Moses had married an Ethiopian (sub-Saharan) woman! This simple remark that Moses “had married an Ethiopian woman” (Numbers 12:1c KJV) over 3,400 years ago fits nicely with the high end of the point estimates mentioned above. Could the Jew(s) whose sub-Saharan DNA signatures trace back that far be descendants of Moses (who was himself a descendant of Levi, by the way)? At any rate, the mention of more than one marriage in the Bible between an Israelite man and an African woman opens up the possibility that such marriages continued happening afterward, explaining why the admixture didn’t stop for any of these groups until about the time of their first exiles.

More Fallacious Reasoning by Those Using This Idea for Eschatological Purposes

Among other things, the findings from modern genetics were important to lead off with because the guy who made the above outrageous claim to me used it as a premise against an argument I made to show that the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse was still future. The argument in question is this one presented in Appendix E of my upcoming book, regarding the phrase “this generation” in the Olivet and Great Temple Discourses (remember, Luke 21 was recording a different speech than Matthew 24-25 & Mark 13; I even pointed this out to the guy by directing his attention to the verse immediately following the speech in Luke: “And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives.” – Luke 21:37 KJV, boldface added):

English translations easily give the impression that the term refers to all of Jesus’ contemporaries, since that’s the most common sense of the English word “generation”. But the truth is that the Greek word for “generation”, γενεά (genea, pronounced geh-neh-AH; Strong’s Number G1074), more often means “passively, that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family… metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race“. So the phrase “this generation” more likely refers to a group of people of the same stock or having a common characteristic, and Jesus was saying people of that stock or with that characteristic will always be around “until all these things [mentioned in the Olivet Discourse] take place.” (Matthew 24:34c, Mark 13:30c NASB) Moreover, while Matthew & Luke record Jesus’ (probably Aramaic) word for “until” with the phrase ἕως ἂν (properly, “till whenever”), Mark uses μέχρις, which emphasizes a point in time when something stops being the case (as opposed to the period beforehand when it still is the case; I already discussed the word μέχρι on pages 742-743 in Appendix D). This word choice on Mark’s part forces us to conclude that this category of people will “pass away” the moment the very last of “all these things” occurs.
{HIDMF p. 810-811. Italics and boldface in original.}

After seven pages of going over all other Scriptural uses of the phrase “this generation” (and related phrases Jesus used involving the term genea), I reach the following conclusion:

The evidence that the earliest Christians (who, before the Gospel was brought to the Samaritans in Acts 8, were all Jews who were intimately familiar with all the OT passages quoted above — Samaritans accepted the books of Moses, but rejected the rest of the OT; so they would’ve accepted the passages from Genesis & Deuteronomy quoted above, but rejected all the other OT quotes), starting with the Apostles, would’ve understood the phrase “this generation” in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, & Luke 21:32 to mean wicked Israelites, those who reject God’s word (a set of people that still has living members to this day, implying that at least some of the events described in the Olivet Discourse and the Great Temple Discourse must still be future) is overwhelming! (And I didn’t even get into the contrast between “the children of God” and “the children of the devil” in 1 John 3:10 NIV.) If you disagree with this interpretation, you have the burden of proof to make a more robust case for your position than the case I’ve presented here.
{HIDMF p. 817. Italics, boldface, and underlining in original.}

The guy I made this point to orally replied: “But again, that assumes there were still Israelites after the destruction of Jerusalem; there aren’t!” However, aside from the fact that we just saw there are, the first quote above from my book (ending with “the moment the very last of “all these things” occurs.”) wasn’t the entire paragraph it’s quoted from. The rest of the paragraph goes as follows:

Since there were obviously contemporaries of Jesus who were still alive after the second destruction of Jerusalem, such as the Apostle John (even if you define “this generation” as Jews who were from Jerusalem and/or rejected Jesus and/or lived to witness Jerusalem’s destruction, Flavius Josephus fits all of these criteria and continued living for roughly 30 years after Jerusalem’s destruction; he even records that the Romans spared many captives from the siege and destruction who “were in their flourishing age” — which would’ve included people who were teenagers or children when Jesus was crucified, and fit all of the same criteria as Josephus himself), the phrase “this generation” obviously can’t have any of the definitions posed in this sentence (even within a Preterist framework).
{HIDMF p. 811. Italics and boldface in original.}

Does he think that Josephus was no longer an Israelite after Jerusalem’s second destruction?! Apparently, because I tried to gain insight into his thought process by asking how he defines “an Israelite”, and he said “A descendant of Abraham who remains faithful to the Mosaic Law — something that’s impossible to do as long as there’s no temple or priesthood.” You see the problem with this definition, right? It commits the “No True Scotsman” fallacy: where you define at least one key term in a biased way in order to protect your argument from rebuttals. He’s claiming that faithfully keeping the Mosaic Law is part and parcel of being a “true” Israelite; but by that definition, there can be no such thing as an “unfaithful Israelite”! Also, if his definition is correct, then were the Exilic Jews not Israelites for the period of time between the destruction of the first temple by Nebuchadnezzar and the beginning of the second temple’s construction? Quite simply, this is a loaded definition that’s contradicted by the numerous passages I cover in the pages between those last two quotes (and the many other passages throughout the Bible that don’t refer to them with phrases like “this generation”, “an evil generation”, “this adulterous and sinful generation”, etc.) that refer to unfaithful Israelites, without denying that they’re still Israelites! Sure, there are several Mosaic passages that refer to being “cut off from among the people”, but being “cut off” was a temporary thing that was only meant to last until the one being “cut off” was restored to right standing with God (note that many Mosaic occurrences of the phrase are in the context of laws we’d recognize today as having benefits for hygiene and/or public health); the New Testament equivalent to this is church discipline (Matthew 18:15-20; compare the situation discussed in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 with Paul’s response to the sinner’s subsequent repentance in 2 Corinthians 2:5-8).

Now that we’ve established that most Modern Israelites are indeed descended from the Israelites referred to in the Bible, all Biblical interpretations (of the whole thing, or select passages of it) that assume they’ve all died out can be dismissed for relying on a false premise. So having established that Israelites — by Biblical reckoning — do exist today, it’s time to address what the Bible says about their destiny. We’ll see that, when the grammatical-historical (i.e., straightforward) hermeneutic is used for Biblical exegesis (rather than imposing outside definitions to force-fit key phrases and passages to one’s pet doctrines; i.e., eisegesis), plenty of Biblical statements show that Israelites were prophesied to return to the land of Israel, worship at another physical temple, and/or be restored as an independent kingdom on Earth being ruled by the Messiah sometime after being banished by the Romans.

Acts 1:1-11

A good place to begin is at the start of the book of Acts.

The former account, indeed, I made concerning all things, O Theophilus, that Jesus began both to do and to teach, till the day in which, having given command, through the Holy Spirit, to the apostles whom he did choose out, he was taken up, to whom also he did present himself alive after his suffering, in many certain proofs, through forty days being seen by them, and speaking the things concerning the reign [or “Kingdom”] of God.

And being assembled together with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ‘Ye did hear of me; because John, indeed, baptized with water, and ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit — after not many days.’ They, therefore, indeed, having come together, were questioning him, saying, ‘Lord, dost thou at this time restore the reign [or “kingdom”] to Israel?’ and he said unto them, ‘It is not yours [literally, “not from you”] to know times or seasons that the Father did appoint in His own authority; but ye shall receive power at the coming of the Holy Spirit upon you, and ye shall be witnesses to me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the end of the earth.’

And these things having said — they beholding — he was taken up, and a cloud did receive him up from their sight; and as they were looking stedfastly to the heaven in his going on, then, lo, two men stood [literally, “two men had stood”] by them in white apparel, who also said, ‘Men, Galileans, why do ye stand gazing into the heaven? this Jesus who was received up from you into the heaven, shall so come in what manner ye saw him going on to the heaven.‘ (Acts 1:1-11 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

First off, a major theme of this passage is the 11 remaining disciples (after Judas Iscariot’s suicide) being eyewitnesses to not only Jesus’ teachings and his status as resurrected, but also his ascension. The last point is important because it allowed the disciples to bear eyewitness testimony to the starting point of the fulfillment of the most-quoted Old Testament prophecy in the entire New Testament (including showing up in Peter’s first sermon, in Acts 2:32-35): “The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make [literally, “put”] Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” (Psalm 110:1 NASB) The fact that the Apostles quoted this OT passage more than any other shows just how important it was for them to drive it home! That’s especially significant when you consider that this verse clearly places Jesus’ enemies being made “a footstool for [his] feet” at a time still future from the completion of the New Testament (per the mentions of Jesus/the lamb being on the Father’s throne beside Him in Revelation 3:21, 5:6, 12:5, & 19:5 [note that the voice in the last passage comes from God’s throne and refers to “our God” – “our” is first-person plural, but “God” is being referred to in third-person; hence, the voice must be that of Jesus]).

Amillennialists would almost certainly counter: “well, that’s referring to when the subjugation process will be finished; it’s already started”. However, the Hebrew text counters this idea very explicitly. If that idea is what was intended, the verb for “I put” (שִׁית; H7896), would be conjugated as שַׁתִּי, making it Qal Perfect Masculine Common Singular: “I have put” (e.g., Psalm 73:28). Instead, Psalm 110:1 has אָשִׁית, which is Qal Imperfect Masculine Common Singular: “I am putting/I will put”. This goes back to what is essentially (or at least should be) “Hebrew Verb Tenses 101”: The Perfect tense indicates an action that has been completed; the Imperfect tense indicates an action that isn’t yet complete. Strictly speaking, Hebrew verb tenses focus on what stage of the process an action is in, with context dictating whether the time perspective is past, present, or future. So, for instance, a perfect-tense verb can be used for a future action (e.g., “I will have gone tomorrow”), and an imperfect-tense verb can be used for a past action (e.g., “I was walking home, when…”). One contextual detail that can decide whether it’s past or future is if the verb is used with a preposition or conjunction pertaining to timing; such a word is indeed used in Psalm 110:1, namely “until” (עַד; H5704). With H7896 in the imperfect tense (as it is in the Masoretic Text), the phrase עַד־אָשִׁית would properly mean “until I am in the process of putting” – that is, Jesus is to sit at His Father’s right side until the process is underway (i.e., begins)! By the same token, if the amillennialists are correct that God has already started the process of putting Jesus’ enemies under his feet, David could’ve been inspired to indicate that by making the verb perfect-tense in the same phrase: עַד־שַׁתִּי, properly meaning “until I have finished putting”. The fact that amillennialists have so consistently ignored this oft-repeated teaching of David and the Apostles for so many centuries ought to be considered a scandal, if you ask me.

Second, note that Luke emphasized that Jesus had chosen the Apostles himself (which is reinforced by the fact that the Greek word for “Apostle”, ἀπόστολος, G652, literally means “emissary”), appeared to them for 40 days after his resurrection, and spent that time not only proving he really was resurrected, but also teaching them “the things concerning the Kingdom of God”. After all that, Luke tells us that they “were questioning” Jesus about when he’d restore the kingdom to Israel. The verb for “were questioning” is in the imperfect tense, indicating that they’d already been asking this for an extended period of time. This referred not only to the 40 days leading up to the events of verses 7-11, but all the way back to the first time they asked him about this, prompting him to give the Olivet Discourse: “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3c NASB, boldface and underlining added) The word for “coming” in this question is the first NT occurrence (even chronologically; Matthew’s Gospel was written after several of the other occurrences in the NT, but the conversation Matthew recorded here was spoken before all of those other occurrences) of the Greek word παρουσία (parousia, G3952), which originally meant (in the earlier secular Greek literature that would’ve been the disciples’ only source for understanding how to use it – this word never appears in the Septuagint) a visit from a ruler, complete with pomp, celebration, and addressing of requests and/or grievances (per the TDNT); most subsequent NT uses of this word also refer to Jesus’ parousia, in which case they’d have the same connotations as the instance in Matthew 24:3. The use of this word in this question indicates that those asking it (the 12 original disciples) were asking about when Jesus would show up as King.

This tells us that from before the first time up through the last time they asked Jesus about the arrival of his Kingdom (from 3 nights before his crucifixion to 40 days after his resurrection), they consistently retained the same interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies about the Kingdom that Israelites in general had accepted for centuries prior: that Israel would be restored, not only to a self-ruling nation on Earth, but with the Messiah as their King for the rest of eternity. So if amillennialists are correct that this understanding is totally wrong, then either Jesus was an incredibly lousy teacher, or his disciples were incredibly lousy students (which would also imply that Jesus was incredibly idiotic to trust them as his emissaries)! Either way, amillennialists are implicitly blaspheming (slandering) Jesus with their handling of this passage — something they should be thankful Jesus explicitly said was forgiveable (Matthew 12:32, Luke 12:10). As for the “on Earth” part, Jesus himself reinforced this from the very beginning of the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.… Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.” (Matthew 5:3,5 KJV, boldface added) How can both of these promises come true unless “the kingdom of heaven” will be on “the earth”?!

Finally, how did Jesus respond to this question? “It is not from you to know times or seasons that the Father did appoint in His own authority”. In contrast to how amillennialists try to frame this passage, the phrase in the Apostles’ question that Jesus’ response addressed wasn’t “to Israel”, but “at this time”. Nothing in his response indicated that the Apostles misunderstood the nature of the Kingdom of God (after all, how can they after Jesus had just spent 40 days incessantly talking about it?!), or that they were mistaken that the kingdom would be restored to Israel; rather, the only thing that Jesus indicated they failed to understand (and in fact, weren’t meant to understand) was the date of the Kingdom’s arrival. The phrasing of Jesus’ response indicates that this also goes for Christians who would be taught within the Apostles’ lifetimes. We can gather this from the fact that the word for “you” is in the genitive case (“from you”), rather than the dative case (“for you”), as most English versions translate it; the sense of the sentence with “you” in the genitive case would be that the “times or seasons that the Father did appoint in His own authority” weren’t meant to be learned from the Apostles; that is, learning and teaching those dates wasn’t a part of their ministry. But that wouldn’t remain the case all the way until the Kingdom’s arrival: Paul said in his penultimate letter (more specifically, in 1 Timothy 6:13-16) that God would privately disclose (all other NT occurrences of this word are used in contexts where something is “shown” to a select person or group of people, so why should the instance in 1 Timothy 6:15 be the exception?) the date of Jesus’ return (something that can be disclosed privately, in contrast to the return itself, which “every eye will see” — Revelation 1:7b) “in His own times” (1 Timothy 6:15b YLT) {HIDMF p. 753-754}. Quite simply, the point that the Apostles still didn’t understand after all of Jesus’ personal instruction to them regarding the Kingdom of God wasn’t if Israel would be restored to an independent nation ruled by the Messiah forevermore, but when.

Also note that verse 11 tells us that Jesus will return in a physical body, just as he left in one (contradicting the idea that a “glorified body”, whether of Jesus or a redeemed person, won’t be physical). This shows that claims about Christians (and for that matter, the rest of the redeemed throughout history) inheriting an immaterial eternity are simply Gnostic false teachings (see 1 John 4:1-3 for an especially powerful condemnation of the idea of Jesus’ current body — and by implication, the resurrection bodies of the faithful, per Philippians 3:20-21 — not being made of physical flesh).

Where Did the Heavenly Destiny Idea Come From? Not the Bible!

You see, it’s important to understand that, historically, most Christians who’ve objected to a future restoration of Israel have done so under the presumption that our eternal inheritance won’t be a physical one (including physical land). For example, Bob Pulliam claimed that “No passages implying a future kingdom even hint at that kingdom being on earth.” {“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 108.} We just saw that Matthew 5:3,5 is a direct counterexample to this claim (as is Hebrews 2:5, where the Greek phrasing for “the world to come” literally refers to “the inhabited land, the coming one”). But in fact, I can flip this statement around with much greater validity: No passages talking about our eternal destiny (or anything else, for that matter) state or even imply that Christians will go to heaven!

I know most Christians will find that claim astonishing, but the fact is that every time people point to some Biblical passage(s) that they think show(s) otherwise, they’re making at least one of three basic mistakes:

  1. They read more into the text than is warranted (e.g., They cite passages about Jesus’ return to Earth, and merely assume a return trip to heaven afterward; or cite passages talking about our treasures in heaven, and merely assume we’ll be going there to get them, instead of Jesus bringing them here, as clearly stated in Revelation 22:12; or they cite Philippians 3:20-21 and merely assume “citizenship” refers to location, when it actually refers to rights and privileges granted by the dominion one is “citizen” of, as seen in Acts 22:25-29.)
  2. They overlook key prepositions (e.g., They cite “For indeed, in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven,” — 2 Corinthians 5:2 NASB — overlooking the fact that the dwelling is said to be “from” heaven, not “in” heaven; this verse is talking about a believer’s resurrection body, as a margin note in the 2020 NASB acknowledges.)
  3. They otherwise neglect to check the Greek phrasing (e.g., Quoting “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,” — Titus 2:13 NASB — as if “the blessed hope” refers to a heavenly destiny; this ignores the fact that Sharp’s 1st Rule shows that “the blessed hope” is the “appearing” of Jesus at his return, not heaven — in the Greek text, “appearing” doesn’t have a definite article, so “the blessed hope and appearing” is being portrayed as a unit. Another example is the citation of 2 Peter 3:10-12 as saying the “elements” will be melted to annihilate the physical creation, leaving heaven and hell as the only places remaining; all other NT occurrences of the word for “elements” — Galatians 4:3,9 & Colossians 2:8,20 — show that it actually refers to the foundational components of human civilization, which are abstract entities, not physical ones.)

See pages 15-19 of this PDF to get a better feel for how these mistakes are made with various passages.

How, then, has the “heavenly destiny” idea become so engrained in Christendom since the NT was written? The answer can be summarized in two words: “Gnosticism” and “Antisemitism” (but predominantly the former). Note that I’m here using the term “Gnosticism” in the looser sense of “syncretism between Christianity and pagan Greek philosophical ideas”. The fact is that every church father taught that OT prophecies regarding the Kingdom would be fulfilled literally (just like the Israelites did for centuries beforehand and as Orthodox Jews still do today), and in fact condemned those who taught against resurrection of the material body and that Christians go to heaven, even if just during death {e.g., see Justin Martyr. “Dialogue with Trypho”. Chapter 80.}–until circa A.D. 200, when Clement of Alexandria entered the fray. Clement of Alexandria was interested in making Christianity not just respectable, but palatable to pagan Greek intelligentsia, most of whom were enthralled by allegorical interpretation methods. So in his multi-volume work “Stromata”, he accepts a premise that was foreign to the Bible, but that his academic Greek audience took for granted: the status of Greek philosophy (especially Platonism) as an ultimate authority.

Accordingly, before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration. For your foot, it is said, will not stumble, if you refer what is good, whether belonging to the Greeks or to us, to Providence. Proverbs 3:23 [however, note that the portion of this quote that actually was taken from Proverbs 3 actually ends with the word “stumble”] For God is the cause of all good things; but of some primarily, as of the Old and the New Testament; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring the Hellenic mind, as the law, the Hebrews, to Christ. Galatians 3:24 Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.

{Clement of Alexandria. “Stromata”. Book 1, Chapter 5. Italics and verse citations by Knight. Boldface and content in brackets mine.}

Among the pagan Greek ideas (espoused by Plato, among others) that Clement syncretized with Christianity in his efforts was the “heavenly destiny” concept, including an immaterial existence for the rest of eternity.

For there are with the Lord both rewards and many mansions, corresponding to men’s lives. Whosoever shall receive, says He, a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward; and whosoever shall receive a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man’s reward; and whoever shall receive one of the least of these my disciples, shall not lose his reward. Matthew 10:41-42 And again, the differences of virtue according to merit, and the noble rewards, He indicated by the hours unequal in number; and in addition, by the equal reward given to each of the labourers — that is, salvation, which is meant by the penny — He indicated the equality of justice; and the difference of those called He intimated, by those who worked for unequal portions of time. They shall work, therefore, in accordance with the appropriate mansions of which they have been deemed worthy as rewards, being fellow-workers in the ineffable administration and service. Those, then, says Plato, who seem called to a holy life, are those who, freed and released from those earthly localities as from prisons, have reached the pure dwelling-place on high. In clearer terms again he expresses the same thing: Those who by philosophy have been sufficiently purged from those things, live without bodies entirely for all time. Although they are enveloped in certain shapes; in the case of some, of air, and others, of fire. He adds further: And they reach abodes fairer than those [i.e., ascend the heavenly spheres], which it is not easy, nor is there sufficient time now to describe. Whence with reason, blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted; Matthew 5:4 for they who have repented of their former evil life shall attain to the calling (κλῆσιν), for this is the meaning of being comforted (παρακληθῆναι).

{Clement of Alexandria. “Stromata”. Book 4, Chapter 6. Scroll to about 2/3 of the way through the 2nd paragraph. Italics, verse citations, and contents in parentheses by Knight. Boldface, underlining, and content in brackets mine.}

Note well Plato’s contention that those who live a holy life are “freed and released from those earthly localities as from prisons”; Plato (among other ancient Greek philosophers) taught that matter was inherently evil, in which case “true” salvation would involve an escape from the material universe. This is why the Biblical teaching of bodily resurrection of the dead was such a huge pill for Greek converts to Christianity to swallow (Acts 17:32), and why Clement was willing to redefine the believer’s eternal destiny for his Greek academic audience in a way that avoids that notion–to the pagan Greek mindset, being resurrected to live in a material body for the rest of eternity sounded like the ultimate hell!

After Clement, his pupil and successor, Origen, furthered the cause of interpreting the Bible through a Platonic lens. And once the Roman emperor Constantine established the Roman Catholic Church in A.D. 325 and needed to determine which view of eternity would be the State Religion’s official view, he sided with Clement & Origen against all the apologists and martyrs who came before them; he went on to brand anyone who disagreed a “heretic” and “schismatic”, all but shutting down debate on this question for centuries to come. This is all documented here. And that’s before we even get into Augustine of Hippo a century later, whose mystical interpretive methods became Christendom’s “gold standard” for centuries. In light of all these facts about how history has played out, it’s no wonder most people today (Christian or otherwise) merely assume that the Bible itself teaches these things somewhere in its pages!

It’s worth adding that the late second century was a time when Christendom at large had started becoming more anti-Semitic (just like the Gentile nations that the bulk of its converts were members of) and reinterpreting Biblical passages in attempts to justify that antisemitism. Some of that reinterpretation led to allegorizing away all the OT passages I’m discussing in this post that teach Israel’s restoration when taken at face value–I suspect all the centuries of these allegorizations being the only interpretations given a fair hearing (see previous paragraph) is why even those in congregations that grew out of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement (e.g., Church of Christ ministers) are mostly unwilling to apply the Berean spirit (Acts 17:11) to this sacred cow. And I suspect all this reinforced the divide that arose between Christianity and its Jewish roots in the early centuries after the Apostles, and (dare I say) may have even been part of the mechanism God used to keep most ethnic Israelites calloused to the Good Message (see the discussion on Romans 11 below) for all these centuries. Think about it: what crueler way to demoralize late-2nd-century ethnic Israelites (whose immediate parents or grandparents were altogether banished from Judea only decades prior and were desperately looking forward to God restoring their nation) and make them resistant to Christianity (especially as Christianity started being imposed on the societies they migrated to, thanks to the influence of the Roman Catholic Church) than to convince everyone around them that their hope for eternity, rooted in their own Scriptures, is actually a false hope?

Did the Holy Spirit Correct the Apostles’ Understanding in Acts 2?

In response to the observation that Jesus didn’t correct the Apostles’ understanding of the Kingdom’s nature in Acts 1, it is often claimed that the Apostles’ understanding on this point was corrected by the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. Hence, when Peter supposedly said that the prophecy of Joel 2 was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost (as that guy discussed earlier admitted in a later sermon — paraphrased — “None of those people standing there that day had probably ever thought of understanding Joel 2 in this way, until Peter told them at Pentecost, ‘this is what Joel was talking about’”), Peter supposedly acquired this understanding through the Holy Spirit right before giving his sermon.

But aside from the points brought to bear in that blog post I just linked to, this doesn’t actually solve the problem at all; in fact, it creates an insurmountable historical problem! The reason is that Peter’s audience would’ve still had the “old” understanding of Joel 2:28-32a based on its OT context {I’ll link to an exposition based on the fuller context of Joel once that post is ready}. After all, Peter himself made it clear in Acts 2:38 (after he’d already given this sermon) that his audience wouldn’t receive the Holy Spirit until they got baptized! So even if, for the sake of argument, Peter could understand the “real” meaning of Joel’s prophecy thanks to the Holy Spirit, his audience couldn’t have, because they didn’t have the Holy Spirit at the time they heard it! Instead, they would’ve totally rejected Peter’s message on the grounds that he was taking Joel’s prophecy out of context! So if, in reality, Jesus had left it to the Holy Spirit to “correct” his followers’ understanding of the Kingdom on the day of Pentecost, then the Apostles would’ve effectively “had an end-term abortion” with their own movement–killing Christianity as it was being born!

The same goes for all the other OT prophecies Peter quoted throughout his first sermon: there is simply no way that these Jews could’ve had their hearts pricked by Peter’s message (as verse 37 tells us they did) unless Peter was quoting all these OT prophecies in a manner that was consistent with the understanding Jews had already had of these passages for centuries. So even by the end of Pentecost A.D. 30, the Apostles, their 108 pre-Pentecost converts, and Peter’s Israelite listeners (both the 3,000 who got baptized that day and the millions who didn’t!) still believed (as noted above) that Israel would be restored, not only to a self-ruling nation on Earth, but with the Messiah as their King for the rest of eternity (remember, Peter quoted Psalm 110:1 during this same sermon!); the only detail in that boldfaced phrase where any of the people present for Peter’s first sermon disagreed at the end of Pentecost of A.D. 30 was whether the Messiah who’d rule them was Jesus of Nazareth, or someone else.

The Last 3 Verses of Malachi

Befittingly, the book of Malachi (and by implication, the Twelve Minor Prophets, which constitute a single scroll in Hebrew manuscripts) ends with a reminder to Israel to remember the Law of Moses in anticipation of Elijah returning before the Day of the Lord (bear in mind that the solitary letter פ appears at the end of Malachi 4:3 in the Masoretic Text — 3:21 by the Hebrew numbering — indicating that verse 3 closes out a major train of thought; this implies that the final 3 verses of Malachi constitute a major train of thought on their own):

Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for [literally, “upon”] all Israel, even statutes and ordinances. 5 Behold, I will send [literally, “Behold Me sending”] you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come [literally, “before the coming Day of YHWH, the great and the astonishing”]. 6 And [literally, “And so”] he shall turn the heart of the fathers to [literally, “upon”] the children, and the heart of the children to [literally, “upon”] their fathers; lest I come and [literally, “and then”; waw-consecutive] smite the earth [or “land”] with a curse [or “with utter destruction”; LXX “utterly”]. (Malachi 4:4-6 ASV)

Of course, many Christians have understood this to mean that Elijah will be one of the two witnesses of Revelation 11 — as do I. But some (such as the guy who brought up the idea discussed at the beginning of this post) have tried to counter “That passage was fulfilled in John the Baptist.” Their proof-text is as follows: “But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.” (Matthew 17:12-13 KJV, boldface added) However, the verses immediately beforehand show that Jesus was linking John the Baptist to Malachi 4 in a different way. Bear in mind that this conversation immediately followed what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration, which Luke 9:9,28-36 shows occurred after John the Baptist had already been beheaded (recall that Luke’s Gospel is the only one that explicitly says it presents the events in chronological order — Luke 1:3).

And as they are coming down [literally, “And they coming down”] from the mount, Jesus charged them, saying, ‘Say to no one [literally, “To no one may you speak”] the vision, till the Son of Man out of the dead may rise.’
And his disciples questioned him, saying, ‘Why then do the scribes say that Elijah it behoveth to come first?‘
And Jesus answering said to them, ‘Elijah doth indeed come first, and shall restore all things, and I say to you — Elijah did already come, and they did not know him, but did with him whatever they would, so also the Son of Man is about to suffer by them.’ Then understood the disciples that concerning John the Baptist he spake to them. (Matthew 17:10-13 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

Jesus made a future-tense statement about Malachi 4:5, and followed it up with a past-tense statement about John the Baptist; this shows that he was referring to future events as well as past ones. In short, Jesus was saying that John the Baptist’s already-completed ministry was a type of the ministry Elijah would have “before the coming Day of the Lord”, a ministry which itself was still future from when Jesus said this. So no, John the Baptist didn’t fulfill Malachi 4:5-6.

Other OT Passages

I plan on covering Isaiah 9:4-7; 11:1-16, 32:1-20, 35:1-10, 60:1-22; Jeremiah 33:1-26; Ezekiel 37:1-28; & Zechariah 14:6-21 in a future blog post dedicated to Lesson 15 of “In the Days of Those Kings”, where Bob Pulliam gives his understanding of these passages in an effort to refute how Dispensationalists use these passages to show a still-future Kingdom of Christ on Earth. Sorry to make you wait, but I will link it here once it’s available.

On the other hand, I find it particularly telling that at no point in his entire book does Pulliam tell us how he interprets Isaiah 65-66 or Ezekiel 40-48. I’m confident that this is because he knows any attempt at allegorizing away these passages is a lost cause, and so would rather avoid bringing them to his readers’ attention (also note that his book is meant for use in Bible Study classes — it’s understandable that he, as a teacher, wouldn’t want to embarrass himself by floundering about trying to give a coherent exegesis of these passages if a student asks about them!). If anyone wants to try offering an allegorical interpretation for these passages, I challenge them to take what Tim Warner did for the story of the Rich Man & Lazarus, and do the same thing with these chapters: explain the allegorical significance of every last detail. Unless and until someone does this, I see no reason to entertain the idea that they weren’t meant to be fulfilled literally, because I’d have no viable alternative interpretation to consider.

Romans 11:1-32

This passage is the fullest exposition in the entire Bible about the destiny of national Israel and native Israelites as compared to Gentile nations and individuals, so I’ll go out of my way to ensure the passage is rendered as precisely as possible. And then, in light of the fact that Romans is second only to Hebrews in terms of how often the Rabbinical Teaching Style is employed within a New Testament epistle, we’ll consider the contexts of all the OT quotes used in this passage, to more fully understand what Paul was bringing to bear on the discussion. This is the single longest section of this entire post, so I’ve split it into sub-headers to help you find good stopping points.

First, the Passage Itself

1 I am saying therefore, whether possibly {scroll to entry III.2. under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”} God thrusted away the people group of His. Far be it! {μὴ γένοιτο; scroll to entry I.6.f. under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”} For I also, an Israelite, am out from seed of Abraham, out from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God thrusted away not [absolute negation, not conditional; note that the object of the verb “thrusted away” is a singular group rather than a plural of individuals, consistent with the unconditionality being meant on the collective level, not the individual level] the people group of His which He knew previously [misleadingly rendered “foreknew”, “chose from the beginning”, “chose before they were born”, etc. in most English translations, giving cover to Calvinistic predestination; “the people group of His which He knew previously” actually refers to the nation of Israel, which God had known personally before Paul’s time]. Or have you not perceived in Elijah what the Scripture says? How he entreats God against Israel [TR adds “, saying”; NA28 omits it]: 3 “Lord, the prophets of Yours they killed, [TR adds “and”; NA28 omits it] the altars of Yours they destroyed [literally, “they undermined”], and I’ve been left behind alone and they seek the life of mine.” 4 But what does He say to him? The divine response: “I left to Myself seven thousand men, any who bowed not a knee to Baal.” [agreeing with the MT of 1 Kings 19:18, albeit with “to Myself” instead of “in Israel”; the LXX has “you will leave” instead of “I left”] 5 In this manner, therefore, also in the present appointed time {scroll to entry 2.a. under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”}, a remnant on account of {scroll to entry II.3.c.γ under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”} election of grace there has been. 6 (But if in grace, then no longer is it from works; otherwise the grace no longer is grace. [NA28 ends the verse here. TR adds: “But if from works, no longer is it grace; otherwise the work no longer is work.”])
7 What therefore am I saying? What Israel seeks, that [following NA28; TR has “seeks of that,”] it encountered not. But the election encountered it, and the remaining ones were calloused, 8 just as it has been written, “God gave to them a breath of stupor [the Greek word refers to the sensation caused by a limb falling asleep], eyes of that not [particle of qualified negation, not absolute negation] to see, and ears of that not [qualified negation, not absolute] to hear, till the ‘today’ day.”
9 And David says “Let the table of theirs be made unto a snare, and unto a hunt, and unto a trap-trigger [G4625, usually rendered “stumbling block”; if you remember an old cartoon of one character trying to catch another in a box held up by a stick with a string attached for the former character to pull, this Greek word would properly refer to the stick], and unto a payback for them. 10 Let the eyes of theirs be made dark, not seeing {scroll to entry “II.6.b.δ” under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon” for an explanation of the linguistic construction used here, bearing in mind what a “pleonasm” is}, and the back [singular] of theirs [plural] You should bend together {scroll to entry “II.” under “Outline of Biblical Usage” for an explanation of this figure of speech} constantly.” [Quoting Psalm 69:22-23 LXX, 68:23-24 by the LXX verse numbering; note that the Masoretic Text substantially differs for the second half of each verse]
11 I am saying therefore, whether possibly {same situation in verse 1} they [the “calloused” portion of Israel mentioned back in verse 7 and described with OT prophecy in verses 8-10] tripped so that they may fall. Far be it! {same phrase in verse 1, μὴ γένοιτο} But through the lapse [literally, “side-slip”] of theirs, the deliverance comes to the nations [or “Gentiles”], unto the provocation {click here and scroll to entry II.6.a. under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”} of them {“of theirs” and “them” are both plural masculine, but “to the nations” is plural neuter; also notice that “the deliverance (or “salvation”)” is nominative and “them” is accusative, meaning “the deliverance” (not the Gentiles themselves) is what’s provoking “them” to jealousy}. 12 Now, if the lapse of them is abundance of the world order, and the decrease of them abundance of the nations, how much more the completion [or “fulfillment”] of them? [Note that all 3 instances of “of them” in this verse are the exact same word, αὐτῶν; hence, all three instances of “them” must be referring to the “calloused” portion of Israel discussed in verses 7-11)]
13 But [following NA28; TR has “For”] to you I am speaking, to the nations, inasmuch as {ἐφ᾽ ὅσον; scroll to entry C.I.2.d. under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”} truly [NA28 adds “therefore” here; TR omits it] I am of nations an emissary [i.e., apostle]; the ministry of mine I glorify, 14 if somehow I might provoke those of the flesh of mine [i.e., fellow Israelites] and I might save some out from among them. 15 For if the throwing away of them is reconciliation [the Greek word was properly used of money-changers exchanging equivalent values; consider the modern phrase “budget reconciliation”] of the world order, what is the admission of them, if not [conditional negation] life out from among dead ones?
16 Yet if the firstfruit is holy, also the dough; And if the root is holy, also the branches. 17 Moreover, if some of the branches were broken off, but you [singular], being a wild olive, were grafted in with them, and of the root and of the oiliness [following TR; NA28 has “and of the root of the oiliness”; olives were a major source of oil in both Israel and Rome] of the olive tree you [singular] became co-partaker [an adjective, not a noun or verb], 18 think not of {see the opening sentence under Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, explaining the technical difference between μή & οὐ} flaunting yourself [imperative] as if you’re of the branches. Yet if you flaunt yourself–you don’t [absolute negation] carry the root; rather, the root carries you [singular]!
19 You [singular] will utter, therefore, “Branches [following NA28; TR has “The branches”] were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Rightly! For disbelief they were broken off. Yet you, in belief, have stood. Be not high minded [imperative], but fear [imperative]: 21 for if God spared not [absolute negation] of the branches according to nature, fear lest perhaps He may spare not even of you [following TR, with “spare” being aorist subjunctive, implying a mere possibility; NA28 has “nature, neither will He spare of you”, with “spare” being future indicative, implying a guarantee]! 22 Behold [imperative] therefore integrity and sharpness of God. Indeed upon the ones who fell, sharpness; but upon you [singular], integrity [NA28 adds “of God” here; TR omits it], provided you are staying [2nd-person present subjunctive, following NA28; TR has “provided he may stay” (3rd-person aorist subjunctive)] in the integrity; otherwise {scroll to entry 2 under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”}, you [singular] also will be cut off. 23 Yet they likewise [following NA28, which has a single compound word meaning “likewise they”; TR has “they also” as two distinct words], provided they are staying [plural present subjunctive, following NA28; TR has “provided they may stay” (plural aorist subjunctive)] not [conditional negation] in the disbelief, will be grafted in. For capable is God to graft them in again. 24 For if you [singular] out from the wild olive according to nature were cut out, and in opposition to nature were grafted in unto a domesticated olive, how much more [πόσῳ μᾶλλον; same phrase from verse 12] these, the ones according to nature, will be grafted into the olive, into their own?
25 For I am wishing not [absolute negation] for you to be ignorant [present infinitive] brothers, of this, the mystery (so that you may not [conditional negation] among yourselves be deemed wise): that callousness separating a part has come into being for Israel until [ἄχρις, emphasizing the period of time intervening before what’s mentioned afterward] when the fullness of the nations might enter [aorist subjunctive], 26 and in this way all Israel will be delivered, as it has been written: “There will come out from Sion the one delivering; [TR adds “and” here, NA28 omits it] he will turn back impiety away from Jacob; 27 And this to them from the covenant of mine [Quoting Isaiah 59:20-21 LXX], whenever I may remove the sins of theirs” [Paraphrasing Isaiah 27:9b LXX].
28 Indeed, with respect to the good news [i.e., the gospel message], they are hostile for the sake of you [plural]; yet with respect to the choosing, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For irrevocable are the gifts and the calling of God. 30 For exactly as [TR adds “also” here, NA28 omits it] you [plural] at some time disbelieved in God, yet now were shown compassion through the obstinacy of these ones, 31 in this way also these ones now disbelieved through the mercy of yours, so that also they [NA28 adds “now” here, TR omits it] may be shown compassion. 32 For God enclosed together everyone [masculine plural] unto obstinacy, so that He might show compassion unto everyone [masculine plural].

(Romans 11:1-32, my word-for-word translation, boldface and underlining added)

The Romans 11:8 Triad

Paul’s exposition of the quotes from 1 Kings 19 pretty much speaks for itself. But verse 8 is a fusion of three OT quotes: Isaiah 29:10, Deuteronomy 29:4, and Psalm 95:7. Let’s consider the background for each.

The prior chapter has the solitary letter ס at the end, indicating that Isaiah 29 opens a new minor train of thought. This letter then appears on its own again at the end of verses 8, 12, 14, & 21, with the remainder of the chapter kicking off the minor train of thought that continues through 30:5. Verses 1-4 of Isaiah 29 mention God bringing distress and an army to humble the “Lion of God” (the literal meaning of “Ariel”), which verse 1 identifies as the city of Jerusalem. Verses 5-8 then describe how “the multitude of all the nations who wage war against Ariel” (verse 7b 1995 NASB, boldface added) will “become like fine dust, And … like the chaff which blows [literally, “passes”] away” (verse 5b 1995 NASB). This detail wasn’t fulfilled in either destruction of Jerusalem: Babylonia was the only nation that attacked Jerusalem on the first occasion, even though it kind of met this fate 70 years later (it still has descendants among modern-day Iraqis, so it didn’t actually “pass away”); and it took even longer for the same thing to happen to the Romans, who also have living descendants (not to mention the Syrians, Turks, and Arabs who were in Titus’ army that destroyed Jerusalem the second time, whose nations definitely haven’t passed away!). Hence, this must be referring to a still-future time when the remnant populations of every nation that ever waged war with Jerusalem will all be judged–a time that the OT repeatedly calls “the Day of the Lord” (and this identification will be reinforced as this discussion goes on). Then, verses 9-12 discuss what will happen for now:

Be delayed and wait,
Blind yourselves and be blind;
They become drunk, but not with wine,
They stagger, but not with strong drink.
For the Lord has poured over you a spirit of deep sleep,
He has shut your eyes, the prophets;
And He has covered your heads, the seers.
The entire vision will be to you like the words of a sealed book, which when they give it to the one who is literate [literally, “who knows a book”], saying, “Please read this,” he will say, “I cannot, for it is sealed.”
Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate [literally, “who knows not a book”], saying, “Please read this.” And he will say, “I cannot read [literally, “I know not a book”].”

(1995 NASB, underlining added)

Next, Deuteronomy 29 occurs between God’s laying out the curses on Israel for not obeying the Law (Deuteronomy 28:15-68), and His laying out the terms for the nation to be restored to the land after being banished among the nations for disobedience (30:1-14). The solitary letter פ occurs at the end of 29:1, then again at the end of verse 9; this indicates that verses 2-9 constitute a complete major train of thought on their own, so let’s read it:

And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that Jehovah did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; 3 the great trials which thine eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders: 4 but Jehovah hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day [literally, “till the day, the this one”]. 5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxed old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxed old upon thy foot. 6 Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink; that ye may know that I am Jehovah your God. 7 And when ye came unto this place, Sihon the king of Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, came out against us unto battle, and we smote them: 8 and we took their land, and gave it for an inheritance unto the Reubenites, and to the Gadites, and to the half-tribe of the Manassites. 9 Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do. (Deuteronomy 29:2-9 ASV, underlining and boldface added)

Note the awkward Hebrew phrase עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה at the end of verse 4; the 70 elders who translated the Pentateuch into Greek circa 250 B.C. saw fit to preserve this awkwardness with the rendering ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης (“till the this day”), implying that they didn’t understand the phrase as simply meaning “till today” (represented in Hebrew as עַד הַיּוֹם and in Greek as ἕως σήμερον) or “till this day” (Hebrew עַד יּוֹם זֶה, Greek ἕως ἡμέρας ταύτης). They apparently felt that God had Moses use this awkward phrasing for a reason, and the New Testament vindicated their judgment. Paul’s awkward phrasing ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας (“until the today day”) seems to follow suit, giving us some Apostolic insight into what was meant, yet not quite telling us which day this phrase was supposed to refer to. However, a handful of years later, the author of Hebrews uses a similarly awkward phrase (but, thanks to his more sophisticated vocabulary1, the least cryptic) while expounding on Psalm 95:7-11 LXX in Hebrews 3:13b: ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἄχρις οὗ τὸ σήμερον καλεῖται (“each and every day until that which is called ‘today’”). I show in Appendix D of my upcoming book that in the context of Hebrews 3 & 4, there was a particular day, still future from when the epistle was being written, that was being called ‘today’ (Greek σήμερον): the one in which Psalm 95 LXX would be quoted to everyone on earth. “[F]or partakers we have become of the Christ, if the beginning of the confidence unto the end we may hold fast, in its being said, ‘To-day, if His voice ye may hear, ye may not harden your hearts, as in the provocation’” (Hebrews 3:14-15 YLT, boldface and underlining added). I further show in that discussion that the day in question will be the day Jesus returns (note the term “the end” in Hebrews 3:14, which refers to the consummation of history); this lines up perfectly with what I said above about Isaiah 29:5-8. It’s worth adding here that the generation of Israelites that Moses originally spoke Deuteronomy 29:4 to were the immediate children of the Israelites that Psalm 95:8b’s mention of “the provocation” (BLXX) was harking back to–the Israelite adults who rebelled at Kadesh Barnea and were sentenced to 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, during which they’d die off:

for certain having heard did provoke, but not all who did come out of Egypt through Moses; but with whom was He grieved forty years? was it not with those who did sin, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness? and to whom did He swear that they shall not enter into His rest, except to those who did not believe? — and we see that they were not able to enter in because of unbelief [properly, “disbelief”, same Greek word as in Romans 11:20,23; I’ll explain the significance of this word below]. (Hebrews 3:16-19 YLT)

So the fact that Paul links all of these passages together in Romans 11:8 tells us that Isaiah 29:9-12 & Deuteronomy 29:4 are fulfilled in the “callousness separating a part” mentioned in Romans 11:25, and further requires that this callousness only last “till the day, the This one” (Deuteronomy 29:4 MT), “till the This day” (ibid. LXX), “till the ‘Today’ day” (Romans 11:8), and “until that day which is called ‘Today’” (Hebrews 3:13)–implying that all these phrases are temporally synonymous with “until when the fullness of the nations might enter” in Romans 11:25c (which is especially reinforced by the fact that the word for “until” is ἄχρις in both Romans 11:25 and Hebrews 3:13). These phrases (after the word “till”/”until”) are all referring to the same ending point in time.

And lest preterists object that “the end” in Hebrews 3:14 refers to the end of Israel’s national existence (which they presume happened in A.D. 135, if not 70), Hebrews 4:1-11 piggybacks off this exposition to give the fullest (though still incomplete) exposition of the doctrine of chiliasm within Scripture. In fact, it places the entry of the faithful from throughout history — per Hebrews 4:2 — into God’s rest (verses 3-11) at the transition between the six periods of “toil” (verses 3-4) and the one period of “sabbatic rest” (verse 9) that follows them, the latter of which is referred to in Revelation 20:2-7 as lasting 1,000 years (after all, both these passages are talking about Christ’s Kingdom following his return, so connecting them in this way is a necessary inference). That is, “the end” of Hebrews 3:14 will occur in the 6,000th year after Adam’s first sin brought the Curse on creation (the Greek phrase in Hebrews 4:3c, καίτοι τῶν ἔργων ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου γενηθέντων, literally reads “and yet the works from the casting down of the world order were brought into being”). By the chronological information in the Septuagint (which would maximize the number of years between creation and when Hebrews was written), the 6,000th year would’ve still been about 450 years after A.D. 70, so any attempt to link “the end” with A.D. 70 (or even 135, or for that matter, any year before the early 500s A.D.) still clashes with this passage!

NT Quotations from Psalm 69

Next, let’s consider the original context of the quotation from Psalm 69. For those familiar with the events surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion, this passage will ring a few bells (after all, the Septuagint tends to be more accurate than the Masoretic Text for passages overtly talking about Christ, which is a major reason Judaism stopped utilizing the LXX within a couple centuries of Jesus’ earthly ministry!):

For thou knowest my reproach, and my shame, and my confusion; all that afflict me are before thee.

My soul has waited for reproach and misery; and I waited for one to grieve with me, but there was none; and for one to comfort me, but I found none.

They gave me also gall for my food, and made me drink vinegar for my thirst.

Let their table before them be for a snare, and for a recompence, and for a stumbling-block.

Let their eyes be darkened that they should not see; and bow down their back continually.

Pour out thy wrath upon them, and let the fury of thine anger take hold on them.

Let their habitation be made desolate; and let there be no inhabitant in their tents:

because they persecuted him whom thou hast smitten; and they have added to the grief of my wounds.

Add iniquity to their iniquity; and let them not come into thy righteousness.

Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and let them not be written with the righteous.

(Psalm 69:19-28 BLXX, boldface and underlining added)

Obviously, verse 21 was fulfilled in Matthew 27:34,48; Mark 15:36; Luke 23:36; & John 19:29-30. Peter applied verse 25 to Judas Iscariot in Acts 1:15-20, along with Psalm 109:8c. (Of course, Peter was using the latter to justify choosing a replacement for Judas Iscariot then and there, which was done in Acts 1:21-26. Yet he expressed regret over doing so in 1 Peter 5:3a, where the Greek phrase, μηδ ὡς κατακυριεύοντες τῶν κλήρων, literally exhorts church elders to be “not even as having dominion over the lots” — LGV {scroll to p. 11 in the PDF}. In light of Jesus’ personal calling and training of Paul in the mists of Acts 9 — see Galatians 1:15-17, and note that the events of verse 17 can be placed chronologically between verses 19 & 20 of Acts 9; the word usually rendered “straightway” or “immediately” in verse 20 can also merely mean “soon” — Peter was evidently correct in his application of Psalm 109:8 to Judas Iscariot, but incorrect on when his replacement was to be chosen.) So Paul’s application of this passage (which was clearly prophetic of the people involved with Jesus’ crucifixion) to the “calloused” portion of Israel likely reinforced “those who pierced Christ” as an early Christian epithet for ethnic Israelites (e.g., Revelation 1:7); after all, the Romans may have been “officially” responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion, but Pilate only gave the go-ahead in response to Israelite instigation (see also Acts 2:23,36)!

No Such Thing As “Partially Fulfilled Prophecy”?

Regarding verse 12, I find it particularly ironic that Bob Pulliam denies that the Bible prophesies any still-future plans for national Israel, yet the noun for “completion” or “fulfillment” in this verse, πλήρωμα (plērōma; G4138), is derived from the verb πληρόω (plēroō; G4137). This is significant because Pulliam argues in Lesson 16 of his book that this verb being the ordinary NT word for “fulfill” implies that there’s no such thing as partially-fulfilled prophecy:

Inspired apostles and prophets in the New Testament never spoke of prophecy being “partially” fulfilled. Prophecy coming to its accomplishment is a powerful evidence of God’s work in the affairs of men. For this reason, they spoke of Scripture being “made full” (pleroo), or “filled to their fulness” (ekpleroo). Never does the New Testament leave Old Testament prophecy partially fulfilled. Old Testament prophecies found the fulness of their conclusion in the first century. Therefore, there is nothing left of Old Testament prophecy for modern fulfillment. [Convictions regarding a final resurrection were not “prophecies” (e.g. Job 19:25-27).] Now, the future belongs to prophecies made in the New Testament (studied in lesson 14). {“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 174. Italics in original. Boldface mine. Content in brackets is Pulliam’s footnote indicated at that point in the text. Click here for a discussion of the Job passage.}

So, Pulliam builds his argument on the premise that the verb plēroō always refers to something being “made full”, yet effectively denies that the corresponding noun plērōma connotes a “making full” of Israel after their “lapse” in the rhetorical question of Romans 11:12! He can’t have it both ways! Of course, Ezekiel 26:3-14 singlehandedly disproves his claim that every OT prophecy was fulfilled by the end of the first century, since its fulfillment started in the 6th century B.C. and ended in the 13th century A.D.! Hence, this prophecy was only partially fulfilled by the end of the 1st century (i.e., verses 3-12 were fulfilled by then, but verses 13-14 weren’t)! To put that in perspective: the only country on Earth whose land was never inhabited by humans until after A.D. 1000 is New Zealand,

and at the time humans first reached it, this prophecy was still only partially fulfilled (A.D. 1280 versus 1291)! Moreover, the word ekplēroō (G1603), which certainly would demand this connotation, occurs only once in the entire Bible: Acts 13:33, where it’s used with reference to Jesus’ coming from David’s loins in fulfillment of the “seed of Abraham” promise made to the Genesis patriarchs (look back in the context to verse 23, where the oldest Greek manuscripts have “brought forth” instead of “raised up”–indeed, Pulliam’s preferred translation, the 1995 NASB, has “has brought” in verse 23; of course, both Jesus’ birth and resurrection were completely in the past when Paul said this!).

Life Out From Among Dead Ones

Verse 15 is noteworthy not just for the parallel to the rhetorical question of verse 12, but for linking “the admission of them” with “life out from among dead ones”. As I explain in Appendix E of my upcoming book, Philippians 3:11 refers to “the first resurrection” (Revelation 20:5c KJV) as “the out-from-among resurrection, the one out from among dead ones” (my word-for-word translation of the phrase in NA28, τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν) — that is, a resurrection of some of the dead that leaves the rest of the dead behind (again, compare with Revelation 20:5). Likewise, the phrase “life out from among dead ones” in Romans 11:15 is referring to an event where some dead ones are given life, while the rest of the dead ones stay dead. Hence, this verse is linking “the first resurrection” with “the admission of” the “calloused” portion of Israel. Hence, these phrases are all temporally synonymous with Jesus’ return, his parousia (per 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 & 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16; these passages use the Greek word parousia in verses 23 & 15, respectively)!

The Olive Tree Parable

In verse 16, Paul relates the “firstfruits” to the “dough”, and the “root” to the “branches”. The former entity in each relationship refers to God’s Son, in light of chronological Biblical precedent (“firstfruits” is used for Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:20,23 — which was written before Romans — and “root” in Isaiah 11:1,10 LXX; Paul even quotes the latter verse in Romans 15:12!2). You may read more about these allegories here.

The olive tree parable also gives us a detail that may help explain how the conversion versus rejection of Israelites upon Jesus’ return will work. Note that the condition for broken off branches to be grafted back in is that “they are staying not in the disbelief”. Most English translations render the boldfaced word as “unbelief”, which would include both people who willfully reject Jesus and people who haven’t heard enough about him to make up their mind either way. But the word properly refers to “disbelief”, which would include only the former category. Also note that a couple chapters earlier, Paul said that “not all who are of [literally, “all those out from”] Israel are these Israel” (Romans 9:6c YLT); the first instance of “Israel” in this verse refers to those who descended from the loins of Jacob (per the use of the preposition ἐξ), while the second instance refers to those who are reckoned as heirs of the promises to Abraham and his seed (per verses 3-5 & 7-8). This affords us a way to reconcile the claim in Romans 11:26 that “all Israel will be delivered” with the fact that Amos 5:18-20 implies that some Israelites will die along with the wicked of other nations on the Day of the Lord, despite both being prophesied to occur on the same day. Romans 11:26 is referring to “Israel” in the latter sense of 9:6; Amos was referring to Israelites who are in the former category, but not the latter. Neither would any children of the latter type of “Israelites” who hadn’t yet been taught to reject Jesus be classed among those “staying in the disbelief”, because they had yet to enter “the disbelief” in the first place.

“When the fullness of the nations might enter”

Warner points out {scroll to the footnote for “fullness” on p. 28 in the PDF} that the word for “fullness” in verse 25 introduces a slight ambiguity. The “fullness of the Gentiles” could refer to the fullness of the time allotted (look back at verse 5) for the nations before Christ takes charge of them (see Luke 21:24, Galatians 4:4, Ephesians 1:10), the fullness of the number of wild branches (Gentiles) to be added to the olive tree of verses 16-24 (see also Ephesians 2:11-19, which I’ll discuss below), or both. Since the word for “mystery” earlier in the verse referred to something that was previously known, but not fully understood (e.g., see Mark 4:1-20, especially verses 10-12), Paul must have been using this statement to clarify the mystery, so which of these possibilities was intended must have been obvious to his original readers. In light of the immediate context, the second possibility was most likely the one intended (especially since the verb for “might enter” doesn’t work very well with a time period as its subject); but that alone doesn’t rule out the first from occurring at the same time as the second (indeed, we just saw that it will, since Christ takes charge of the nations on the Day of the Lord!). But in all cases, this would place the ending condition at a time still future from our own.

Now, when I directed the guy mentioned at the beginning of this post to verses 11-32 of this passage, he started by saying “that’s a bit long…”, so I told him to skip to verses 25-32. He read verse 25 out loud, stopped right there, and said “that happened when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem.” If your initial reaction was “How in the world do you get that as the most likely meaning of the phrase ‘the fullness of the Gentiles come in’?”, join the club. My first reply in the moment was “Where did you get that definition?” (And by the way, I had to ask the question a second time to get him to answer it; don’t let your opponent dodge these kinds of foundational questions!) His attempt at an answer made it clear that he was simply imposing that meaning on the phrase to force-fit the passage to his “semi-preterist” preconceptions. This is circular reasoning and eisegesis, plain and simple (I was tempted to say “eisegesis of the worst kind”, but the reality is that I’ve seen much, much worse {the video in this tweet is the single worst example to come to my attention by the time I first uploaded this post; if you’re aware of an even worse example of eisegesis, feel free to link to it in the comments!}).

Isaiah 59 & 27 LXX

Note that verses 26 & 27 are a fusion of two quotes from the Septuagint version of Isaiah. Let’s consider each of their original contexts:

Has the hand of the Lord no power to save? or has he made his ear heavy, so that he should not hear? 2 Nay, your iniquities separate between you and God, and because of your sins has he turned away his face from you, so as not to have mercy upon you. 3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with sins; your lips also have spoken iniquity, and your tongue meditates unrighteousness.
4 None speaks justly, neither is there true judgment: they trust in vanities, and speak empty words; for they conceive trouble, and bring forth iniquity. 5 They have hatched asps’ eggs, and weave a spider’s web: and he that is going to eat of their eggs, having crushed an addled egg, has found also in it a basilisk [transliterated from βασιλίσκος, which occurs only here in the entire Greek Bible; the Hebrew word, אֶפְעֶה, refers to some kind of venomous serpent]. 6 Their web shall not become a garment, nor shall they at all clothe themselves with their works; for their works are works of iniquity. 7 And their feet run to wickedness, swift to shed blood; their thoughts also are thoughts of murder; destruction and misery are in their ways; 8 and the way of peace they know not, neither is there judgment in their ways; for their paths by which they go are crooked, and they know not peace.
9 Therefore has judgment departed from them, and righteousness shall not overtake them: while they waited for light, darkness came upon them; while they waited for brightness, they walked in perplexity. 10 They shall feel for the wall as blind men, and shall feel for it as if they had no eyes: and they shall feel at noon-day as at midnight; they shall groan as dying men. 11 They shall proceed together as a bear and as a dove: we have waited for judgment, and there is no salvation, it is gone far from us.
12 For our iniquity is great before thee, and our sins have risen up against us: for our iniquities are in us, and we know our unrighteous deeds. 13 We have sinned, and dealt falsely, and revolted from our God: we have spoken unrighteous words, and have been disobedient; we have conceived and uttered from our heart unrighteous words. 14 And we have turned judgment back, and righteousness has departed afar off: for truth is consumed in their ways, and they could not pass by a straight path. 15 And truth has been taken away, and they have turned aside their mind from understanding.
And the Lord saw it, and it pleased him not that there was no judgment. 16 And he looked, and there was no man, and he observed, and there was none to help: so he defended them with his arm, and stablished them with his mercy. 17 And he put on righteousness as a breast-plate, and placed the helmet of salvation on his head; and he clothed himself with the garment of vengeance, and with his cloak, 18 as one about to render a recompence, even reproach to his adversaries. 19 So shall they of the west fear the name of the Lord, and they that come from the rising of the sun his glorious name: for the wrath of the Lord shall come as a mighty river, it shall come with fury.
20 And the deliverer shall come for Sion’s sake, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. 21 And this shall be my covenant with them, said the Lord; My Spirit which is upon thee, and the words which I have put in thy mouth, shall never fail from thy mouth, nor from the mouth of thy seed, for the Lord has spoken it, henceforth and for ever.

(Isaiah 59:1-21 BLXX, boldface and underlining added)

Verses 1-15 speak of Israel’s sins, which separate them from YHWH. Verse 16 says that since no man helps the situation, He’d do it Himself. Verses 17-19 then refer to “the Lord” arming himself as a warrior to give his enemies what they deserve, so that his name will be feared by people of the west and the east. This must be referring to Jesus showing up as the all-conquering King on the Day of the Lord (compare Revelation 19:11-21); remember, the Father and His Son both go by the name YHWH (“the Lord”) in the OT. This understanding is confirmed in verse 20, and verse 21 mentions that God’s Breath and words will never cease from the mouths of Israelites, nor those of their children (further implying that some Israelites will be having children after this time, consistent with the point made above about the difference between unbelief and disbelief).

In that day God shall bring his holy and great and strong sword upon the dragon, even the serpent that flees, upon the dragon, the crooked serpent: he shall destroy the dragon. 2 In that day there shall be a fair vineyard, and a desire to commence a song concerning it. 3 I am a strong city, a city in a siege: in vain shall I water it; for it shall be taken by night, and by day the wall shall fall. 4 There is no woman that has not taken hold of it; who will set me to watch stubble in the field? because of this enemy I have set her aside; therefore on this account the Lord has done all that he appointed. 5 I am burnt up; they that dwell in her shall cry, Let us make peace with him, let us make peace, 6 they that are coming are the children of Jacob. Israel shall bud and blossom, and the world shall be filled with his fruit.
7 Shall he himself be thus smitten, even as he smote? and as he slew, shall he be thus slain? 8 Fighting and reproaching he will dismiss them; didst thou not meditate with a harsh spirit, to slay them with a wrathful spirit? 9 Therefore shall the iniquity of Jacob be taken away; and this is his blessing, when I shall have taken away his sin; when they shall have broken to pieces all the stones of the altars as fine dust, and their trees [the MT has אֲשֵׁרִ֖ים (H842), which is the plural form of both a common noun for “grove” and the proper name “Asherah”, a pagan goddess associated with the Tree of Life, and thus often worshipped with sacred trees; hence, this is probably referring to Asherah poles] shall not remain, and their idols shall be cut off, as a thicket afar off. 10 The flock that dwelt there shall be left, as a deserted flock; and the ground shall be for a long time for pasture, and there shall flocks lie down to rest. 11 And after a time there shall be in it no green thing because of the grass being parched. Come hither, ye women that come from a sight [literally, “come away from a goddess”]; for it is a people of no understanding; therefore he that made them shall have no pity upon them, and he that formed them shall have no mercy upon them.
12 And it shall come to pass in that day that God shall fence men off from the channel of the river as far as Rhinocorura; but do ye gather one by one the children of Israel. 13 And it shall come to pass in that day, that they shall blow the great trumpet, and the lost ones in the land of the Assyrians shall come, and the lost ones in Egypt, and shall worship the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem.

(Isaiah 27:1-13 BLXX, boldface and underlining added)

Verse 1 is clearly referring to Satan being bound (Revelation 20:1-3); note that the verb Brenton rendered “destroy” properly means “to take up”, and can mean “to abolish” or “to put out of the way” {scroll to entry II. under “Outline of Biblical Usage”}. Verses 3-5 refer to city dwellers being in fear, and verse 6 reveals that it’s because Israelites are coming to conquer them. Then, verse 9 links God taking away the sins of Israel with all idolatrous devices being destroyed and removed; this lines up with Isaiah’s first discussion of the Day of the Lord, where he twice mentions that “the LORD alone will be exalted in that day” (Isaiah 2:11c,17c 1995 NASB). Also note the mention in verses 10-11 of God laying waste to pagan territory, yet sparing any citizens thereof who are willing to reject their idols and turn to Him. Finally, the mention of “the lost ones” from Assyria and Egypt “worship[ping] the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem” lines up with the prophecy in Isaiah 19:19-25 about Egypt and Assyria (alongside Israel) worshiping YHWH on the national level. Overall, the fact that Paul applied this passage alongside Isaiah 59 shows that these events will all come to pass (or at least commence) at the same time Romans 11:25c-26a is fulfilled: the Day of the Lord.

Stubbornness and Compassion

Finally, not only does Romans 11:28a agree with verse 11c that the “calloused” portion of ethnic Israel has been provoked to jealously and hostility by salvation and the good news reaching the Gentiles, but it goes on to mention that ethnic Israelites who’ve been “calloused” in the present age are nonetheless, “with respect to the choosing, … beloved for the sake of the fathers”, who are, of course, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Now, why is that a good enough reason for them to remain “beloved” despite their hostility toward the gospel? Because “irrevocable are the gifts and the calling of God.” (verse 29c) This also includes the promise that God would give the land in which Abraham lived as a foreigner “to [Abraham] and to [his] seed [singular] after [him]” as an age-enduring {HIDMF, p. 87, Fn. 87.} possession (Genesis 17:8b YLT), since Stephen (Acts 7:5) and the author of Hebrews (11:8-10,13-16) clearly stated that Abraham never possessed the land within his lifetime; hence, the fulfillment of that promise must occur when Abraham is resurrected to live in the land for the rest of eternity. This, of course, demands that the land of Israel still be around at that time for Abraham to possess. This also explains why God has permitted Judaism to stick around for all these centuries, despite its inefficacy for salvation: to preserve enough members of His ancient nation across time to bring about its restoration when the time is right (and have Jewish converts to Christianity from every generation in the meantime).

It’s worth adding that verses 30-32 show that Israel rejecting the gospel was part of God’s plan to put Israel and Gentile nations in the same boat–both being in a state of rebellion against God so that both can experience God’s love, having compassion extended to them in a state of being where they don’t deserve it. Between this and all the OT prophecies quoted in verses 8-10, I think it’s clear that we should reject the idea (which Pulliam attributes to Dispensationalism) that God intended to restore Israel to a self-ruling nation in the first century, yet didn’t “because things just didn’t work out right” {“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. 174.}. God knew from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10) that national Israel would (at least initially) reject His Son, and so brilliantly incorporated that rejection into His plan to redeem it along with the rest of the human race. (And before anyone accuses me of being a universalist: all my statements in this paragraph were meant on the collective level, not the individual level.)

Trying To Explain Away The Obvious

On the whole, this passage and the other passages connected with it clearly teach in multiple ways that Israel will indeed be restored someday in the future! As I’d heard the guy I quoted at the beginning of this post say in response to my laying out Gary Habermas’ response to when Lee Strobel asked him to “Convince me [1 Corinthians 15:3-7]’s a creed” {“The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus”. Strobel, Lee. 1998. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 309.}3: “Would you like any more redundancy?”

Due to how devastating this passage is for the idea that national Israel has no Biblically-significant future, I decided to see if Pulliam quotes from Romans 11 at all in his book to try explaining it away. Let’s look over what I found:

Dispensationalists try to counter any view that would make the church, in some way, a fulfillment of the new covenant. To do this, an appeal is made to the unchangeable nature of the covenant. Arguments are made from passages depicting the beloved nature of the Jews. For example, Paul wrote:

“2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?”

(Romans 11:2 [1995 NASB])

The assumption here is that God’s initial purpose for the Jews had to last until the end of the world. That assumption is based on a flawed view of the covenant to Abraham (studied in lesson 6). If God determined to save the Jews in a way other than through a continued possession of the land, He would still count them as beloved. They are beloved in Christ where all spiritual blessings are found (Eph 1:3, 7, 12; 2:10; 3:6). They were not left out.

{“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 130-131. Italics, indentation, and contents in parentheses in original. Content in brackets mine.}

Of course Pulliam would quote a single verse from the one paragraph in the entire passage that makes the point the least forcefully! Nonetheless, even this verse does indeed refer to Israel as a nation (not as individuals, as his explanation requires). Let’s look again at my more precise translation of this verse, originally given above (albeit with even more formatting than used above, since the details are more relevant here):

God thrusted away not [absolute negation, not conditional; note that the object of the verb “thrusted away” is a singular group rather than a plural of individuals, consistent with the unconditionality being meant on the collective level, not the individual level] the people group [singular] of His which He knew previously [misleadingly rendered “foreknew”, “chose from the beginning”, “chose before they were born”, etc. in most English translations, giving cover to Calvinistic predestination; “the people group of His which He knew previously” actually refers to the nation of Israel, which God had known personally before Paul’s time]. Or have you not perceived in Elijah what the Scripture says? How he entreats God against Israel [TR adds “, saying”; NA28 omits it]:

At first, I understood “the people group of His which He knew previously” to refer to all the faithful from throughout history before Paul’s time, because I was already familiar with the phrase “whom He foreknew” (NKJV) being used with that meaning (including the same verb for “knew previously”, προέγνω, the aorist active indicative 3rd-person singular form of G4267) earlier in this same epistle–in perhaps the best-known proof-text for Calvinistic predestination, Romans 8:29 (note that the verbs rendered “predestined”, “called”, “justified”, and “glorified” in the NKJV of verses 29-30 are all aorist-tense–Paul was talking about past actions of God here, not ongoing ones!). But then I remembered that the Greek word for “people group” (λαός; laos, G2992) doesn’t occur in that passage; moreover, laos is singular in Romans 11:2, implying a single ethnic group: the Israelites (and this word is only used in verses 1-2 in this entire passage, meaning there’s no later instance to suggest an understanding other than an ethnic group; indeed, this word has this meaning all 6 of the other times it occurs in Romans).

As for Pulliam’s point that “God determined to save the Jews in a way other than through a continued possession of the land”, this confuses national restoration with individual salvation (a distinction I’ll discuss more fully later). A person can be genealogically part of Israel, but they won’t get to enjoy the perks of being an Israelite in the New Heavens & New Earth if their heart is still rejecting God’s will. Instead, they’ll get killed by Jesus himself at his return if they live to see it (Isaiah 63:1-6), and thrown in the Lake of Fire if they don’t live to see it (Revelation 20:11-15, cf. verse 5)–and both these outcomes are equally true for wicked Gentiles.

Finally, his claim that Paul meant that “They are beloved in Christ where all spiritual blessings are found” overlooks the fact that the reason why they are still beloved is spelled out further into the same passage: God promised possession of the land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 13:15, 17:8, 24:7, 26:3, 28:4,13, 35:12, 48:4), and He still needs to make good on that promise (Acts 7:5; Hebrews 11:8-10,13-16).

28 Indeed, with respect to the good news [i.e., the gospel], they are hostile for the sake of you [plural]; yet with respect to the choosing, THEY ARE BELOVED FOR THE SAKE OF THE FATHERS. 29 FOR IRREVOCABLE ARE THE GIFTS AND THE CALLING OF GOD. (All-caps added compared to above.)

Pulliam has analyzed Romans 11:2 in isolation from its context, in order to deny something that’s affirmed in the context!

But to his credit, he did also try in Appendix One to attack the most direct statements in this entire passage:

The huge difference in this doctrinal system [dispensationalism, compared to amillennialism] is not really so much that it makes the church distinct from Israel, as is sometimes claimed [Pulliam indicates a footnote here explaining that Amillennialism also holds the church to be distinct from Israel; as you’ve probably gathered, so do I]. The main difference is actually found in the fact that they have a dual purpose in God’s plan, where Israel is still awaiting the fulfillment of past promises.
While Paul uses the word “Israel” in a way that seems to validate a dual purpose (e.g. Acts 28:20, Rom 11:25-26), context and other passages force us to understand that these are an accommodative use to speak of being God’s chosen people (e.g. Rom 2:28f). This should be no surprise, since Israel was God’s chosen people (as a nation) for 1,400 years before the events of the New Testament. Additionally, the gospel went to the Jew first, and the concept was very natural, but it does not mean that the terminology is teaching a further purpose for the nation of Israel in the future.

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 270-271. Italics and boldface in original. Underlining and content in brackets mine.}

Oh? Pulliam thinks Romans 2:28 shows that God wasn’t teaching any future purpose for the nation of Israel in 11:25-26? Why don’t we look at that verse in its context and see if it bears out what Pulliam’s saying?

25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law [literally, “practice a law”; no definite article]; but if you are a transgressor of the Law [literally, “of a law”], your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man [literally, “the uncircumcision”] keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter [literally, “who through the letter”] of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law [literally, “of a law”]? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. (Romans 2:25-29 1995 NASB, underlining and boldface added)

Note well the mention of “circumcision … of the heart”. This phrase is synonymous with repentance, as indicated in the opening verses of Jeremiah 4:

1 “If you will return, O Israel,” declares the LORD,
“Then you should return to Me.
And if you will put away your detested things from My presence,
And will not waver,
2 And you will swear, ‘As the LORD lives,’
In truth, in justice and in righteousness;
Then the nations will bless themselves in Him,
And in Him they will glory.”

3 For thus says the LORD to the men of Judah and to Jerusalem,

“Break up your fallow ground,
And do not sow among thorns.
4 “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD
And remove the foreskins of your heart,
Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem,
Or else My wrath will go forth like fire
And burn with none to quench it,
Because of the evil of your deeds.”
(Jeremiah 4:1-4 1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added)

However, there’s an even earlier reference to “circumcision of the heart” in Deuteronomy 30:

1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee [2nd-person singular; and so on throughout the passage], the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither Jehovah thy God hath driven thee, 2 and shalt return unto Jehovah thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; 3 that then Jehovah thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither Jehovah thy God hath scattered thee. 4 If any of thine outcasts be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will Jehovah thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: 5 and Jehovah thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. 6 And Jehovah thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. 7 And Jehovah thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, that persecuted thee. 8 And thou shalt return and obey the voice of Jehovah, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day. 9 And Jehovah thy God will make thee plenteous in all the work of thy hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, for good: for Jehovah will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers; 10 if thou shalt obey the voice of Jehovah thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul. (Deuteronomy 30:1-10 ASV, boldface and underlining added)

While all the 2nd-person terms are singular, implying a single entity, a single person can’t be driven among and brought back from multiple nations. This shows that the singular entity of these verses is the nation of Israel, not any particular person within it. Bear in mind that Moses laid out these restoration terms at a time when no Israelites had yet possessed the land (after all, Genesis, Stephen, & Hebrews 11 are crystal-clear that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his early descendants didn’t own any of the land they lived on while in the land of Canaan!), nor had the Israelites ever yet been driven among multiple nations from the land (at best, you could count Egypt, but no other nation). Moreover, the Israelites were only driven among two nations the first time around: Assyria and Babylonia. Plus, the promise for God to circumcise the singular entity’s (national Israel’s) heart and that of its seed hasn’t been fulfilled a single time so far (after all, while the generation that was restored repented, their descendants always went on to eventually rebel against God again!). Hence, this entire passage must be referring to a restoration that hasn’t happened yet, and verse 10 lays out the conditions that modern-day Israel must meet to make it happen and have their divine right to the land and their status as an independent nation restored for the rest of eternity.

Pulliam’s attempts to explain away passages are starting to remind me of a quote by the late Ravi Zacharias (remember, what we’ve since learned about him doesn’t compromise the legitimacy of this statement): “The more you try to hammer the law of non-contradiction, the more it hammers you.” {“Can Man Live Without God?”. Zacharias, Ravi. 1994. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing. 129. Quoted in “The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict”. McDowell, Josh. 1999. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. 607.} It seems that also goes for passages prophesying that God still has a future for national Israel.

I’ve also seen someone named Barrack Ongaro trying to shoot down this passage on Facebook. Here’s my point-by-point rebuttal to the portions of substance:

Millennialists argue, however, that Jerusalem was to be trodden down only “until” the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled. After that time, they contend, Jerusalem will be exalted to her former glory.

The key word in their argument is “until” (Greek, achri). Premillennialists assume the term has a temporal implication in Luke 21:24, thus implying a reversal of events after the time specified.

But the assumption is unwarranted. The term achri frequently has a terminal thrust in the New Testament.

Consider, for example, Revelation 2:25, where Christ sought to encourage the saints at Thyatira:

“[T]hat which ye have, hold fast till I come.”

Does this suggest that these Christians will relinquish their blessings when he comes? Of course not.

Similarly, just because the Lord declared that Jerusalem would be trodden down until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, that does not imply that, following “the times of the Gentiles,” the city would be restored to some sort of divine glory. Proof for such a theory will have to be found somewhere other than in the word “until.”

Achri “frequently” has a terminal thrust? Try ALWAYS. And not even Revelation 2:25 is an exception: Ongaro’s mistake is assuming that “that which ye have” refers to the blessings promised to Christians, which will continue into eternity and become ever greater. But this statement is actually referring to the faith of the Christians in ancient Thyatira and their hope for the rest of eternity. Christians will indeed cease to “hold fast” these things when Jesus returns, as Paul implied in 1 Corinthians 13:13: “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” (NIV) It’s well known that Paul meant that on the other side of eternity, love will still have a role to play, but faith and hope will be unnecessary, because the objects of our faith and hope will be fully realized. Ongaro’s claim that “such a theory will have to be found somewhere other than in the word ‘until’” denies the very meaning of the word “until”! (Seriously, can you think of a sentence where “until” doesn’t imply an endpoint for something?) Really, this argument just shows the mental gymnastics some people are willing to perform to deny that God’s words mean what they clearly say.

In his letter to the Romans, Paul contends that “a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in” (Rom. 11:25).

There are several important matters that need to be noted here.

First, the “hardening” was the Jewish disbelief in Christ.

Second, the “in part” suggests that this lack of faith was characteristic of only a portion of the nation; there was a remnant that did believe (cf. Rom. 9:27; 11:5, 14).

Third, the verb “hath befallen” is a perfect tense form, stressing the abiding nature of that hardness—until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in.

Fourth, “fulness of the Gentiles” simply denotes the accomplishment of Jehovah’s purpose among the Gentiles (or the “nations”). In other words, Israel’s hardness will remain until the end of the present dispensation. This partial hardening will continue throughout the time of the Gentiles, i.e., until Christ’s return.

Since the hardening of Israel was not total, but only “in part,” there is still hope that many Jews may be saved.

Okay, but again, the “hardening in part” is said to occur “until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in”. Since we’ve established that the word “until” does indeed have a terminal thrust, what would Ongaro’s takeaway from that be: that the “hardening” will no longer be in part at that time (i.e., all Israelites will be hardened, and therefore lost), or that the “hardening” will cease to exist entirely (i.e., no living Israelites will be hardened)? I hold to the latter, on a technicality: once all those Israelites who are hardened are killed by Jesus on the Day of the Lord, only unhardened Israelites will remain!

But how will the Jews be saved? They will be saved by their acceptance of the gospel (Rom. 10:12-16), and their surrender to the Deliverer from Zion (Rom. 11:26).

This provides the correct meaning of “so all Israel shall be saved.” The word “so” is an adverb of manner, meaning, “in this way.” Hence, it is in this way (the way of obeying Christ) that all Israel (who are saved) shall be saved. This passage does not affirm a nation-wide conversion of the people of Israel.

The theory that Paul expected a mass conversion of Israel is flawed on several accounts:

It contradicts his entire line of argument in Romans 9-11.

It leaves as inexplicable the throbbing anguish for his brethren in the flesh, which saturates this entire section.

For instance, Paul writes: “For I could wish [potential imperfect—”I kept being on point of wishing”] that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3).

Why—if he knew that a national conversion of Israel was an ultimate reality?

I agree that individual Israelites will be saved in the present age by embracing Christ as their Messiah and obeying him accordingly, but why should that rule out a restoration of Israel on the national level? Also, his claim that the understanding of Romans 11 laid out here “contradicts [Paul’s] entire line of argument in Romans 9-11” is unsupported except by the argument that follows–which itself isn’t as airtight as Ongaro seems to think. Why would Paul grieve his “kinsmen according to the flesh” — even to the point of wanting to give up his place in the Kingdom if it meant they could get in — if he knew Israel would be restored in the future? For the same reason Christians who are looking forward to their eternal inheritance would grieve their own family members who refuse to obey the gospel. Our knowledge of a future reality doesn’t diminish our heartache for those among our own who forfeit it in the meantime! Paul’s sentiments would’ve been common among Israelite Christians in the 1st century–grief for their own family members who’d been looking forward to the Kingdom, but were now forfeiting it out of sheer callousness!

I often point out that those who are ignorant of the gospel (i.e., have never had a chance to accept or reject it) will have potential to be spared on the Day of the Lord. But that assumes that they live to see it! So in the meantime, we should continue spreading the gospel so such people can be guaranteed to participate in the first resurrection. The same goes for Israelites–aside from Israelite Christians (who are guaranteed to be spared), the only Israelites who will have potential for Jesus to spare them on the Day of the Lord are those alive on that day who are ignorant of the gospel and/or give aid to those who are God’s people “of the promise” (Romans 9:8 KJV) during the Tribulation (Matthew 25:31-46). Israelites who die in rebellion against Christ between Pentecost and Jesus’ return have forfeited their lot in the Kingdom of God; these Israelites “according to the flesh” (at least, such Israelites who were contemporaries of Paul) are the ones Paul was grieving in Romans 9:3 (note the distinction brought out in verses 6-8, discussed above).

The Commonwealth Of Israel, Bride of Christ, & Jerusalem Above

Perhaps the next-most-direct statement in Scripture in this regard is Ephesians 2:12. Here’s the context:

11 Wherefore, remember, that ye were once the nations in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, 12 that ye were at that time apart from Christ, having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God, in the world; 13 and now, in Christ Jesus, ye being once afar off became nigh in the blood of the Christ,

14 for he is our peace, who did make both one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down, 15 the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new [properly, “renewed”; the Greek word, G2537, connotes freshness, rather than youth] man, making peace, 16 and might reconcile both in one body [Jesus’ body on the cross] to God through the cross, having slain the enmity in it, 17 and having come, he did proclaim good news — peace to you — the far-off and the nigh, 18 because through him we have the access — we both — in one Spirit unto the Father.

19 Then, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of [or “among”] the saints, and of the household of God (Ephesians 2:11-19 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

Note the parallelism in verse 12 between being “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel” and being “strangers to the covenants of the promise”. This parallelism implies that the commonwealth of Israel was already understood by Paul and his readers as an heir to the covenants of promise (the Abrahamic, Davidic, & New Covenants).

Amillennialists would almost certainly counter that the statements in verses 14-19 are referring to the Church, not the nation of Israel. Fair enough, but it overlooks the fact that the relationship of both Israel and the Church with Christ are portrayed as a marriage contract in both Testaments. In a nutshell: Israel played the harlot against YHWH (here referring to God’s Son), so the Father drew up a new marriage contract for His Son (Jeremiah 31:31-34; note the phrase “though I was a husband to them” in verse 32, where the Hebrew verb is perfect-tense–a completed action), which will be consummated at Christ’s return (Revelation 19:7-9)–except the Church will be included in that contract, along with national Israel; in the meantime, Israelites who enter into the New marriage contract have been freed from their obligations under the Old marriage contract.

Don’t buy that explanation? Paul said pretty much the same thing:

1 Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage [literally, “the law of (or “concerning”) the husband”]. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. (Romans 7:1-4 ESV)

In other words, the Son Himself died so that the one pledged to be married to him under the Old contract (Israel) — yet who played the harlot, necessitating a New contract — could be legitimately married to Him under the New contract. This is what Paul was alluding to in Ephesians 2:14-18 (note especially verses 15-16). Hence, the fact that these statements are talking about the Church doesn’t imply that national Israel won’t be included as well. On the contrary, Biblical precedent demands that Gentile believers are the children of this family! (Isaiah 8:18, quoted in Hebrews 2:13; Isaiah 54:1-13, partially quoted in Galatians 4:26-27)

As a bonus, that last reference refutes the use of a proof-text for the idea that the Jerusalem we’ll inherit won’t be on Earth: Galatians 4:26.

26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. 27 For it is written,
Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not;
Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not:
For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband. [Quoting Isaiah 54:1] (Galatians 4:26-27 ASV, underlining and boldface added)

Looking back at Isaiah 54 (the fuller context the quotation of verse 27 was taken from) tells us who “the Jerusalem that is above” actually is, and why Paul here reckons himself and his original readers as being among her “children”, rather than directly identifying them with her as the “wife” (as normally seen in “bride of Christ” passages).

Some Standing Here Will Not Taste Death…

Having addressed the phrase “this generation” in the Great Temple and Olivet Discourses earlier in this post, this is a good time to address the other main proof-texts many amillennialists (and especially preterists) use to support their claims that Jesus’ kingdom arrived in its full form within the disciples’ lifetimes:

“Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28 ESV)

“And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come [literally, “God, having come”] with power.”” (Mark 9:1 ESV)

“But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:27 ESV)

The use of the word “see” (which, in all three passages, is ἴδωσιν, the Aorist, Active, Subjunctive, 3rd-Person Plural form — i.e., “they may see” — of ὁράω, G3708, a verb properly meaning “to stare at”) is more critical than you might think. Many think this prediction of Jesus was fulfilled at Pentecost (despite the fact that 11 of the 12 people he was speaking to living to see that would suggest “most” or “many” would be more appropriate than “some”), and so deride anyone who says his Kingdom won’t arrive until the future. Ironically, this prediction wasn’t to be fulfilled after Pentecost, but before! For that matter, it was fulfilled before Jesus’ resurrection, crucifixion, or even his passion week! In fact, it was fulfilled within 8 days of being spoken (Luke 9:28).4 Peter, one of the ones who got to “see the kingdom of God, having come with power” (recall that Mark’s account in particular was based on Peter’s recollections), reminded Gentile Christians about it shortly before he did “taste death” about three-and-a-half decades later:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power [Mark 9:1c] and coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” [Matthew 17:5] we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. (2 Peter 1:16-18 ESV, boldface and underlining added)

This promise was fulfilled on the Mount of Transfiguration, where Peter, John, and John’s older brother James got to see a vision of Jesus talking with Moses and Elijah in his future kingdom. Therefore, those “standing here who [would] not taste death until they [saw]” Christ’s kingdom were Peter, James, and John. Nothing in the phrasing of Jesus’ prediction required that the Kingdom would arrive before all of those he was speaking to “taste[d] death”; all he promised was that some of them would see the Kingdom before “tast[ing] death”.

A Proof-Text For Preterism?

Peter’s mention of “the voice [that] was borne to him by the Majestic Glory” makes for a surprisingly appropriate segue to another passage that preterists have jumped on to support the idea that all the Kingdom prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled:

See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not when they refused him that warned them on earth [Moses at Mount Sinai, per the preceding context], much more shall not we escape who turn away from him that warneth from heaven [see Matthew 3:17, 17:5, & John 12:27-30]: whose voice then shook the earth [cf. Exodus 19:16-19]: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more will I make to tremble not the earth only, but also the heaven [loosely quoting Haggai 2:6 LXX]. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing [literally, “the transposition”; i.e., “the replacing”] of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made [literally, “of those which have been constructed”; the participle is masculine, not neuter], [so] that those things which are not shaken may remain. Wherefore, receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have grace, whereby we may offer service well-pleasing to God with reverence and awe: for our God is a consuming fire. [Quoting Deuteronomy 4:24 LXX, but with the pronoun in 1st-person plural rather than 2nd-person singular] (Hebrews 12:25-29 ASV, boldface and underlining added)

Preterists fixate on the fact that the participle for “receiving” in verse 28 is present tense, and insist that this shows that the kingdom that Jews (including the Christians this letter was originally written to) had been looking forward to for centuries was already present in its fullest form when the letter to the Hebrews was written. As you’re probably guessing from how much I quoted beyond verse 28, this argument is refuted by more careful consideration of the context. But first, let’s address the present tense of the participle. The timing of a present tense verb is actually more flexible in Greek than in English. Dan Wallace spent some 26 pages of his now-standard Greek Grammar textbook covering different uses of the present tense {“Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament”. Wallace, Daniel B. 1996. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic. 513-539.}, and one of those uses is the “Futuristic Present”, which

typically adds the connotations of immediacy and certainty. Most instances involve verbs whose lexical meaning involves anticipation… This usage is relatively common.… Only an examination of the context will help one see whether this use of the present stresses immediacy or certainty. In this respect, the ambiguity of the semantic nuance of the completely futuristic present is akin to the ambiguity of the lexical nuance of μέλλω (which usually means either “I am about to” [immediacy] or “I will inevitably” [certainty]). … The present tense may describe an event begun in the present time, but completed in the future. Especially is this used with verbs of coming, going, etc., though it is rarer than the wholly futuristic present.

{Ibid. 535-537. Italics and brackets in original.}

Wallace offers Luke 3:16, John 4:25, 11:11, Romans 6:9, 1 Corinthians 16:5, 2 Corinthians 13:1, & Revelation 22:20 as examples of “Completely Futuristic”, and Matthew 26:45, Mark 10:33, John 4:23, & Acts 20:22 as examples of “Mostly Futuristic”. Hence, the use of παραλαμβάνοντες, the nominative plural masculine present-tense active participle of G3880 (a compound word properly meaning “receive near” {Scroll to “Strong’s Definitions”}) could just as easily have been intended to emphasize the certainty of the faithful receiving the Kingdom, rather than the timing. Only an examination of the context can tell us which sense was intended, so let’s move on to that.

The use of the phrase “now he hath promised” leading into a future-tense statement in verse 26 tells us that the author of Hebrews was saying the fulfillment of the “promise” was still future from his own time–or it would, if the verb for “shake” was future-tense; it’s actually present-tense, meaning we’re back to square one regarding the timing (present or future) of the fulfillment of the “promise” relative to “now” (G3568, which actually is in the Greek text). But note the last part of verse 27: “so that those things which are not shaken may remain.” The verb for “may remain” is in the subjunctive mood, indicating that “remaining” is only a potential thing for “those things”–which would suggest that the “shaking” action was still future.

So now let’s consider which “promise” is being referred to here, to see whether it can shed any additional light on this. Nearly all commentators on Hebrews drop the ball by the time they reach this step: at most, they acknowledge that verse 26c is paraphrasing Haggai 2:6–and then neglect to discuss the fuller context the Haggai quote was taken from! In fact, while the phrase “Yet once more” only appears in verse 6, the earth and heaven shaking is mentioned in verses 6 and 21. So let’s consider the contexts of both verses; since the author of Hebrews quoted just about exclusively from the Septuagint, that’s the version of the OT we should consult for cross-references with Hebrews.

In the seventh month, on the twenty-first day of the month, the Lord spoke by Aggæus the prophet, saying, Speak now to Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, of the tribe of Juda, and to Jesus the son of Josedec, the high priest, and to all the remnant of the people, saying,

Who is there of you that saw this house in her former glory? and how do ye now look upon it, as it were nothing [literally, “as if existing not”] before your eyes? Yet now be strong, O Zorobabel, saith the Lord; and strengthen thyself, O Jesus the high priest, the son of Josedec; and let all the people of the land strengthen themselves, saith the Lord, and work, for I am with you, saith the Lord Almighty; and my Spirit remains in the midst of you; be of good courage.

For thus saith the Lord Almighty; Yet once I will shake [future indicative] the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake [future indicative] all nations, and the choice portions [or, “the favorites”; note that this phrase is neuter in the Greek, while “chosen ones” would require it to be masculine] of all the nations shall come [future indicative]: and I will fill [future indicative] this house with glory, saith the Lord Almighty. Mine is the silver, and mine the gold, saith the Lord Almighty. For the glory of this house shall be [future indicative] great, the latter more than the former [literally, “the last beyond the first”; the Greek words are superlatives, not comparatives], saith the Lord Almighty: and in this place will I give [future indicative] peace, saith the Lord Almighty, even peace of soul for a possession [literally, “soul unto preservation”] to every one that builds, to raise up this temple. …

And the word of the Lord came the second time to Aggæus the prophet, on the four and twentieth day of the month, saying, Speak to Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, of the tribe of Juda, saying, I shake [present indicative] the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will overthrow [future indicative] the thrones of kings, and I will destroy [future indicative] the power of the kings of the nations; and I will overthrow [future indicative] chariots and riders; and the horses and their riders shall come down [future indicative], every one by the sword striving against his brother. In that day [literally, “In the day, that very one”; Brenton didn’t do justice to G1565, about which Thayer says the following for this situation: “equivalent to the forcibly uttered German der (that one etc.), in which sense it serves to recall and lay stress upon nouns just before used” {Scroll to entry 1.c. under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”. Italics and boldface in original.}], saith the Lord Almighty, I will take [future indicative] thee, O Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, my servant, saith the Lord, and will make [literally, “and I will set”; future indicative] thee as a seal [or “a signet ring”]: for I have chosen thee, saith the Lord Almighty. (Haggai 2:1-9, 20-23 BLXX, underlining and boldface added)

God saw that the people who’d seen the first temple when it was standing were disappointed that the second one would be nowhere near as glorious (having a smaller foundation, for starters). In fact, while Herod’s expansions to the second temple were massive, the end result evidently wasn’t as elaborate or glorious as Solomon’s temple had been in its original state (see 1 Kings 14:25-27): when the Byzantine emperor Justinian I walked into his Hagia Sophia for the first time upon its completion in A.D. 537, he expressed his awe at its magnificence by saying “Νενίκηκά σε Σολομών” (“Solomon [not Herod!], I have surpassed thee”)! So feel free to look up photos of the Hagia Sophia online to get a feel for the level of beauty we’re talking about here!

This should give you some insight into just how big a deal it was when God said that sometime after the construction of the second temple (per the future tense of all the verbs involved and the fact that the second temple was currently under construction at the time this prophecy was given), once God shakes the heaven (or sky), earth, sea, dry places, and all the nations (the first instance of “nations” in verse 7 has a definite article attached to it, just like the second), everyone who helped raise up Jerusalem’s second temple would get to enjoy peace at a “last” temple that was even more glorious than the “first” — the “first” obviously being Solomon’s temple. God went on to tell Zerubbabel that He would set him as a seal or signet ring (metaphorically, of course) in the same day that the “shaking” would occur. All of these people were long dead by the time Hebrews was written (and by the time Herod’s expansions to the second temple even began, ruling out the idea that Herod’s temple was the “last” one that they would get to enjoy peace at), so the only way God can make good on His promises to these people is if they’ll get to enjoy these promises upon being resurrected. Since these people weren’t yet resurrected at the time the letter to the Hebrews was written, this conclusively tells us that the faithful “receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken” is something still future from when Hebrews was written!

Lest preterists claim these passages were (or amillennialists claim they will be) fulfilled allegorically in the second destruction of Jerusalem (or the supposed annihilation of the physical universe), not only is this interpretation ruled out by the statement in verse 9 that “in this place [which must refer to a physical temple on the physical land where Jerusalem’s second temple sat, per the historical context of Haggai’s ministry] will I give peace [a statement blatantly incompatible with Jerusalem’s second destruction!]”, and the claims in verse 7 that the “chosen things” of all the nations will come to the temple, and in verse 8 that the “silver” and “gold” will belong to God (implying that material substances will still exist at the time of this prophecy’s fulfillment), but also note that Hebrews 12:27 mentions that “this word, ‘Yet once more’, signifieth the transposition of those things that are shaken, as of those which have been constructed, so that those things which are not shaken may remain.” (As normally translated with “removing”, this verse is consistent with the “heavenly destiny” concept held to by amillennialists and dispensationalists; but the literal rendering I give here clearly speaks of a swap or exchange, rather than an annihilation.) Also note the phrase “those which have been constructed”, which harks back to a statement even earlier in the background context of Haggai’s prophecy:

And the Lord stirred up the spirit of Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, of the tribe of Juda, and the spirit of Jesus the son of Josedec, the high priest, and the spirit of the remnant of all the people; and they went in, and wrought [literally, “and were making works”; the boldfaced phrase was translated from the imperfect active indicative 3rd-person plural form of G4160, the same verb for “of those which have been constructed” in Hebrews 12:27] in the house of the Lord Almighty their God (Haggai 1:14 BLXX, boldface and underlining added)

However, there’s one clarification I should make here: these promises in Haggai and Hebrews are referring to the temple described by Ezekiel, and not the one mentioned in Revelation 11. The most straightforward giveaway is the fact that Revelation 11:2 implies that the temple being referred to there exists at a time when only a small fraction of the Temple Mount is under Israelite control, and the rest is under Gentile control; a temple that occupies only a small fraction of the site where Solomon’s Temple used to stand can’t possibly compete with it in terms of splendor! However, the Temple Mount was also entirely under Israelite control when Herod’s Temple was still standing, so the temple mentioned in Revelation 11 can’t be identified with that one, either. Likewise, the temple in Heaven that the earthly ones are supposed to be copies of (Hebrews 8:5, 9:24) obviously isn’t mostly under Israelite or Gentile control, but totally under divine control. Hence, the temple mentioned in Revelation 11 is a totally distinct temple from all others mentioned in Scripture! I hold that it’s an interim tabernacle/temple (remember, both were referred to with the same Hebrew and Greek words) that Israelites will worship at during the first half of the apocalypse, that the Antichrist will occupy (and possibly expand) during the second half of the apocalypse, and that will ultimately be replaced with Ezekiel’s Temple (the “last” referred to in Haggai 2:9 LXX) when Christ’s Kingdom arrives in its fullest form.

Ironically, then, a passage that preterists use to claim there will never be another physical tabernacle/temple of YHWH standing in Jerusalem actually leads to the conclusion that there will be two more!

Would Sacrifices At A Future Temple Be Pointless?

Another argument that amillennialists (preterist or otherwise) offer against any future temple(s) in Jerusalem is, to quote the guy whose discussion with me was quoted and paraphrased at the beginning of this post, “What purpose could that possibly serve?” The idea is that if Jesus’ sacrifice atones for all sins, past, present, and future (which it does), then offering animal sacrifices would serve no purpose because they wouldn’t be atoning for anything. However, this argument hinges on a misunderstanding of the purpose of animal sacrifices. I remember being taught (and even teaching others) that the blood sacrifices that were offered before Jesus came were meant to “cover” sins until he came, and that’s why sacrifices aren’t needed anymore. And while I still teach that such sacrifices aren’t necessary for Christians (who’ve accepted the atonement that was brought about by Jesus’ sacrifice), the idea that such sacrifices were meant to “cover sins” isn’t the whole truth. They were also intended to remind those offering them of how serious sin is and the sacrifice that could atone for sins. Hence, while such sacrifices offered before Jesus came, going all the way back to the Adamic Covenant (Genesis 3:21; 4:3-4), were meant to prophetically point forward to Jesus’ crucifixion, such sacrifices offered after Jesus came (e.g., Acts 21:20-27, cf. Numbers 6:1-21 & Acts 18:18; note that this shows Paul had no problem with offering sacrifices at the temple even after Jesus had already atoned for his sins!) are meant to memorially point back to Jesus’ crucifixion. Warner summarized the main rebuttal to this idea when debating Samuel Frost (who was a full preterist at the time) regarding the prophecies in Ezekiel 40-48:

His opposition to future sacrifices being “memorial” is based solely on the fact that Ezekiel did not say they would be “memorial.” Frost writes, “Let it be known that I will not accept a statement that they are ‘memorial’ without full and scriptural warrant to that effect.  Second, I want to hear how Warner deals with why they must be ‘memorial.’  Obviously, if these sacrifices are NOT memorials, then we have blood-atoning sacrifices being offered AFTER the one time sacrifice of Christ.  Hopefully, Warner realizes that this is a massive contradiction of Scripture.” {Italics by Warner. All caps by Frost.}

The representative proof-text for the idea that Ezekiel 40-48 has already been fulfilled allegorically is Ezekiel 45:17:

“Then it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel.” (NKJV, underlining added)

The underlined phrase sure seems to be implying that the offerings are for atonement purposes, doesn’t it? Indeed, the word “atonement” occurs 4 more times in the NKJV of these 9 chapters (Ezekiel 43:20,26, 45:15,20). Perhaps you can now see why Frost said he “will not accept a statement that they are ‘memorial’ without full and scriptural warrant to that effect.” Well, if he insists…

It’s instructive in this regard to consider two other passages germane to this topic. First up:

Moses then said to Aaron, “Come near to the altar and offer [literally, “and make”] your sin offering and your burnt offering, so that you may make atonement for yourself and for the people; then make the offering for [literally, “offering of”; no preposition on “the people”] the people, so that you may [literally, “people; you should”; the verb for “make atonement” is imperative] make atonement for [or “on behalf of”] them, just as the LORD has commanded.” (Leviticus 9:7 2020 NASB, underlining added)

Note that YHWH commanded Aaron to “make atonement on behalf of” the people of Israel by means of “offering”. This command (and similar ones throughout the Pentateuch) sets the Biblical precedent for how the Exilic Jews who Ezekiel originally prophesied to would’ve understood “mak[ing] atonement” in Ezekiel 43 & 45. At first glance, this suggests that the Levitical sacrificial system (and by implication, the sacrificial system laid out in the closing chapters of Ezekiel) was intended to “atone” for the sins of Israelites in the same way that Jesus’ crucifixion has “atoned” for the sins of those who choose to accept it. Frost certainly seemed to think so at the time of his debate with Warner, and as far as I’m aware, this is the understanding most of Christendom has regarding the Levitical sacrifices:

Atonement was needed.  The Law provided for it.  The blood of bulls and goats took away sins.  But, guess what.  The sins came back.  And they would have to offer more bulls and goats.  Then sins were forgiven and atoned for.  Then, guess what, sins came back.  They would have to offer more bulls and goats.  Sins were forgiven.  Then, guess what?  Sins cam [sic] back….and on and on and on it went.  Such a system could not “perfect” the sinner.  Such a system showed them that for sins to be forgiven under it, then this system must go on forever.  This is clearly contrasted with the “once and for all” sacrifice of Jesus Himself. {Underlining and content in brackets mine.}

However, the opening section of Hebrews 10 gives us Apostolic revelation that directly contradicts this understanding, and then some:

1 For the law having a shadow of the coming good things — not the very image of the matters, every year, [literally, “of the deeds according to a year”; a reference to the annual Levitical feasts, some of which the closing chapters of Ezekiel mention being celebrated, although the Day of Atonement is significantly absent] by the same [or “with those very”] sacrifices that they offer continually [literally, “that they are offering unto the carry-through”], is never able [literally, “has power in itself not even at one time”] to make perfect those coming near, 2 since, would they not have ceased to be offered [literally, “ceased being offered”], because of those serving having no more conscience of sins, having once been purified [literally, “offered, since not even one serving, once having been cleansed, would still possess conscience of sins”]? 3 but in those sacrifices is a remembrance [literally, “But in those is a recollection”] of sins every [literally, “according to a”] year [on the Day of Atonement], 4 for it is impossible for [literally, “for incapable is”] blood of bulls and goats to take away [literally, “to be taking away”; the verb is present active infinitive] sins.

5 Wherefore, coming into the world [order/system; kosmos], he saith [in Psalm 40:6-8 LXX], ‘Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not will [or “wish”, or “prefer”; G2309], and [literally, “but”] a body Thou didst prepare for me [literally, “body You fit to me”; note the substantial disagreement with the Masoretic Text, which has “ears You have opened/pierced (literally, “dug”) for me” instead of “but a body You fit to me”–even many Septuagint manuscripts have “ears” instead of “a body”!], 6 in burnt-offerings [literally, “whole burnt offerings” with no preposition; ὁλοκαύτωμα (holokautōma, G3646), as opposed to offerings where only parts are burnt; the alternate form holokauston (properly meaning “a thing wholly burnt”) gave rise to the English word “holocaust”], and concerning sin-offerings [or “and on behalf of sin”], Thou didst not delight [or, “You did not favor”; the verb is G2106], 7 then [literally, “at that time”] I said, Lo [or “Behold”], I come, (in [literally, “I have arrived; in”; the Greek sentence structure suggests that the parentheses aren’t necessary] a volume [or “roll”] of the [literally, “of a”; no definite article] book it hath been written concerning me,) to do, O God, Thy will [literally, “concerning me, concerning the one to do, O God, the will (or “wish”, or “pleasure”) of Yours.”];’ 8 saying [literally, “That saying”] above — ‘Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offerings [literally, “and whole burnt offerings”], and concerning sin-offering [literally, “concerning sin”] Thou didst not will [or “wish”, or “prefer”], nor delight in [literally, “nor did you favor”],’ — which [or “such things as”] according to the law [NA28 has “according to law”, without a definite article] are offered [literally, “are being offered”; the verb is present passive indicative 3rd-person plural] — 9 then he said [literally, “at that time he has said”], ‘Lo, I come to do, O God, Thy will [literally, “Behold, I have arrived… concerning the one to do, O God, (NA28 omits “O God,”) the will (or “wish” or “pleasure”) of Yours”];’ he doth take away [literally, “he abolishes”; present tense] the first that [literally, “so that”] the second he may establish [or “he may make firm”; G2476]; 10 in [or “by”] the which [literally, “which”; no definite article] will we are [TR adds “the ones” here; NA28 omits it] having been sanctified [or “having been set apart”; perfect passive participle] through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [literally, “upon one occasion” {Scroll to “Strong’s Definitions”}],

11 and every priest, indeed, hath stood daily [literally, “has stood according to the Day (of Atonement and the instructions associated with it; cf. verses 1 & 3)”] serving, and the same sacrifices [“the same” refers to the sacrifices, not the priest; “priest” is nominative masculine singular, but “the same” and “sacrifices” are both accusative feminine plural] many times offering [literally, “bearing towards”; this participle is nominative singular masculine, referring to the priest again], that [literally, “which”; nominative plural feminine, referring to the sacrifices again while making them the subject of the following phrase] are never able [literally, “not even at one time have power in themselves”] to take away [literally, “to remove from all around”] sins. 12 And [literally, “But”] He, for sin one sacrifice having offered [literally, “he offered one sacrifice over sins”] — to the end, [literally, “unto the carry-through”] did sit down on [better, “at”] the right hand of God, — 13 as to the rest [literally, “the remainder”], expecting [or “awaiting”] till He may place his enemies as his footstool [literally, “till the enemies of his may be made a footstool of the feet of his”], 14 for by one offering he hath perfected to the end [literally, “completed unto the carry-through”] those sanctified [or “the ones being set apart”; present passive participle]; (Hebrews 10:1-14 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

While I’ve rendered the Greek phrase εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς (wrongly rendered “for all time”, “continually”, or “forever” in most English translations) in a wooden-literal fashion as “unto the carry-through”, the LGV of Hebrews 10 {scroll to page 23 in the PDF} offers the thought-for-thought rendering “for the duration”. In light of verses 12 & 13, this phrase in Hebrews 10 should be understood as “until the time when God carries out the remainder of the promises He made to His son in Psalm 110”. Note that Christ being “High Priest for the age according to the Melchizedek arrangement” (Hebrews 5:6c LGV, boldface added; see also YLT) in fulfillment of Psalm 110:4 is something that’s going on at present, while Christ’s “throne, O God, is for the age of the age” (Hebrews 1:8b LGV, boldface added; see also YLT), referring to a future time when Psalm 110:2-3,5-7 will all be fulfilled. In the meantime, Christ is at His Father’s right side, as stated in Psalm 110:1. It’s also significant that the only other occurrence of the word διηνεκὲς in the entire Bible is in the same book’s description of Melchizedek, when it mentions that he “doth remain a priest continually [εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς]” (Hebrews 7:3c YLT, boldface added); remember, the full passage makes it clear that Melchizedek was a theophany–a pre-incarnate appearance of the Son of God!

Many of the underlined phrases make it blatantly clear that animal sacrifices never have been and never will be able to take away sins! Hence, not a single sacrifice made in the OT (under the Mosaic Law or otherwise) was actually for the purpose of taking away sins (so, the same would go for any sacrifices made in Christ’s Kingdom)! So what’s the deal with the way God talks about such sacrifices to “make atonement” in the OT passages mentioned above? I suspect that a large part of the problem lies in the fact that theologians refer to Jesus’ crucifixion as “the substitutionary atonement”, yet continue to accept translations that use the word “atone” with reference to OT sacrifices. This creates a situation that’s ripe for equivocation fallacies.

In that vein, you undoubtedly noticed while reading my remarks in brackets on Hebrews 10:1-14 that several key Greek words in this passage, like G2309, G2106, & G2476, have more than one possible meaning depending on the context. In each case, I’ve underlined the potential sense that creates the fewest apparent conflicts with the rest of Scripture (e.g., I chose “favor” as the most likely intended meaning for G2106, on the grounds that the OT often speaks of God taking pleasure in sacrifices, but it’s clear from contrasting the Edenic & Adamic Covenants that God never wanted to institute such sacrifices for humanity in the first place — rather, His preference was for the sacrifice of His son because it actually could take away sins — as it’s well been said, “The cross wasn’t God’s ‘Plan B’”; hence, rendering these instances of G2106 as “favor” instead of “delight” makes the overall statements more consistent with the rest of Scripture).

At the core of the overarching issue here is כָּפַר (kaphar; H3722), the Hebrew word for “make atonement” in all of the OT passages mentioned above. It turns out that this word, like many other key terms throughout the Bible, is defined on the first occasion it’s used: “Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it [וְכָפַרְתָּ; vᵊkhāphartā] inside and outside with pitch [בַּכֹּפֶר; bakōpher].” (Genesis 6:14 NKJV, boldface added) The word kaphar was originally a verb meaning to “cover” or “cover over”. The word for “pitch” here, כֹּפֶר (kōpher; H3724), is the noun form of kaphar, and came to be used in the post-Flood world for bitumen specifically (although, contrary to the claims of critics who think it’s problematic that most if not all petroleum would’ve been formed during the Flood, the pitch Noah used was more likely resin-based). Hence, kaphar carries the connotation of coating over something else, especially to the point where what’s underneath is no longer exposed. Remember how I said at the start of this section that the sacrifices were meant to cover sins until Jesus came? Now you know that that understanding comes straight from Biblical precedent!

Furthermore, we just saw in Hebrews 10:1-4 that, while those sacrifices never were (and never will be) meant to perfect those offering them, they were meant to remind those offering them of their sins. And since the Pentateuch required one to offer the very best lamb, bull, etc. of their stock, this trade-off would hurt, underscoring the seriousness of the situation. While the sacrifices laid out in the closing chapters of Ezekiel won’t be made according to the Mosaic Law, this requirement will carry over to those (e.g., just look at how many times the phrase “without blemish” appears in these chapters). Between the facts that some people will still be in mortal bodies after Jesus’ return (Matthew 22:1-14; Luke 14:15-24; Isaiah 11:8 cf. Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25, & 1 Corinthians 15:51-54) and capable of rebelling against him (Psalm 2:9 LXX; Matthew 22:11-13; Revelation 2:27, 12:5, & 19:15), yet the Curse due to the Fall of Man will be removed once Jesus returns (per 2 Peter 3:10-13, cf. 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 & Romans 8:18-23; see Appendix D of my upcoming book for a fuller explanation) — meaning the tangible, long-term, cumulative effects of sin will be a thing of the past — those still-mortal people who haven’t yet been perfected are going to need some frequent, tangible reminders of just how serious sin is! I hold that the sacrifices mentioned in Ezekiel will serve this role–and that many Christians will be among those (I suspect they’ll even take turns, similar to what we see in 1 Chronicles 24:1-195) in all the nations throughout Christ’s Kingdom offering the sacrifices on behalf of their still-mortal brethren (Peter alluded to this in 1 Peter 2:9 when he called his readers “a royal priesthood” — KJV, boldface added).

Some remarks Warner made during his debate with Frost give us a nice little bow with which to wrap up the loose ends of this package:

It should surprise no one that Ezekiel’s vision used similar terminology [to the Pentateuch] for the future sacrifices, particularly since the “mystery” of the Gospel had not yet been revealed, and the symbolic nature of all animal sacrifices was not yet clearly understood (1 Pet. 1:10-12). If we are to be consistent, and allow the New Testament to interpret the Old, then all of the sacrifices in the Old Testament, whether found in historical narrative or prophecy, should be seen as symbolic in significance but literally carried out by the worshippers.… Therefore, any future sacrifices must be understood in light of the fact that all such sacrifices are signs [pointing to Christ] (symbolic) even though they are literally offered by spilling real blood. {Scroll to “Wrong Presupposition #1 – Animal Sacrifices Atoned for Sin”. Boldface and content in parentheses in original. Content in brackets mine.}

So there you have it: literal offering of the sacrifices mentioned in Ezekiel wouldn’t be pointless.

Individual Salvation Versus National Restoration

As for the sacrifices offered at the temple mentioned in Revelation 11 (which would be included under the phrase “those very sacrifices that they are offering unto the carry-through” in Hebrews 10:1b, since “the carry-through” will begin at Jesus’ return), it’s also important to distinguish God’s plan for people’s salvation on the individual level from His plan for Israel’s restoration on the national level. Please don’t confuse this with the dispensationalist dichotomy between God’s supposed plan for Israel and His supposed plan for “the Church”. Warner’s summary of the presuppositions that cause amillenialists and dispensationalists to misinterpret Hebrews is helpful in explaining the difference:

While Dispensationalists admit the truth of a future Messianic Kingdom, their theology severs Jewish Christians of this dispensation from the hope of Israel and the Patriarchs. Dispensationalists look at Hebrews through a colored lens that blocks out any connection between the Jewish believer and his Jewish heritage. In their thinking, Jewish believers have been severed from their connection to “Israel” and are now part of the “Church.” The Jewish Christian, in dispensational theology, has the same “heavenly hope” as the Gentile believer is alleged to have. In seeking to maintain their dichotomy between God’s plan for Israel and His plan for the Church, they have effectively turned the Jewish Christian into a Gentile, and severed him from the hope of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David.
Those who embrace Covenant Theology (Amillennialists, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant), have completely dismissed the Jewish hope of a Messianic Kingdom on earth as a false hope. They think the Jews wrongly took the Old Testament prophecies literally. Like Dispensationalists, they think the hope of the Jewish Christian is the same celestial hope they allege for Gentile Christians. Neither Dispensationalists nor Amillennialists can afford to admit that the Jewish Christian’s hope is the literal fulfillment of Israel’s covenants, and the promised Messianic Kingdom on earth, without fatally undermining their entire systems.
{Scroll to “The Failure of Modern Theological Systems” near the bottom of p. 1 in the PDF.}

In contrast to the false dichotomy presented in the first paragraph quoted here, I hold that Israelite Christians can (once the opportunity arises) participate in Israel’s national restoration (under the terms laid out in Deuteronomy 30, as pointed out earlier), while understanding that the sacrifices they’re offering at that time aren’t for the purpose of their individual salvation (just as we saw above with the sacrifices Paul and his companions offered at the completion of their Nazirite vows in Acts 21). It’s just that most Israelites during the apocalypse won’t understand this (at least initially; I suspect that the Two Witnesses will explain this to them at some point) because they’ll reject the NT explanation of what blood sacrifices are actually for (given in the Hebrews 10 passage discussed above). Until they understand this (on the individual level), their offering sacrifices at a third temple to break the curse of the Law under the provisions in Deuteronomy 30 will be purely a matter of displaying obedience to what they DO understand about God and His ways. As an apologist who puts great emphasis on knowing the “why” behind the “what”, I must admit that I often fail to appreciate the fact that, compared to me, most people throughout history have obeyed God with hardly any understanding of the “why”s! Essentially, the Israelites who start worshiping at the third temple at the start of Daniel’s 70th “seven” will be the last great example of people who have to do so before Jesus returns.

Incidentally, this brings out a powerful way to counter those who deny that the OT Law is still in effect at all. Ask them “Are Israelites who haven’t entered into the New Covenant still under the curse of the Old Law?” If they say “no”, direct them to Galatians 3:10 (“For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.”” — 1995 NASB) before making the next point. If they say “yes”, then they’ve just admitted that the Law itself is still in effect; otherwise, its curses would be powerless! And if the curses for breaking the Law are still in effect, then so are the blessings for starting to keep it again! (Also notice that a careful reading of the blessings, curses, and restoration terms laid out in Deuteronomy 28 & 30 shows that they were all intended on the national level, not the individual level; this is consistent with obedience to these terms not being for the purpose of individual salvation.)

It’s worth adding that this kind of distinction isn’t unique to the issue of sacrifices. The New Testament writers often maintained a similar distinction between individual Christians and the collective of all believers, even if English translations have a track record of hiding it to some degree. For instance, John 3:16 has been subject to so much translational inertia (undoubtedly due to how famous the verse is) that it becomes almost unrecognizable when we translate it more accurately. For instance, the rendering in the 2020 NASB is pretty typical of English translations: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.” (boldface added) But the LGV {scroll to p. 11 in the PDF} bypasses all the translational inertia with the following rendering: “For this is how God loved the world, inasmuch as He gave His Only-Begotten Son so that the whole [entity] believing unto Him should not be destroyed, but may have age-enduring life.” (boldface added) Note well that this promise, which way too many evangelists throw out wantonly as if it applies on the individual level for those who believe at any point in time, was actually meant on the collective level for those who possess ongoing belief. I think it goes without saying that this has severe implications for how evangelists should operate!

Pragmatic Concerns Regarding a Future Temple

Necessary Implements Missing?

That pastor also said in more than one subsequent gathering that the gold and silver vessels that were brought back from Babylon for the construction of the second temple and were originally used in the first temple (Ezra 1:7-11) were plundered when Titus destroyed Jerusalem. The Arch of Titus even lists them, and nobody knows what happened to them after that. He then stated that Jerusalem can’t have a third temple without them, and concluded that “this whole idea about a third temple in Jerusalem is a myth” (emphasis his).

However, this is simply a non-sequitur conclusion: nowhere does the Bible say that the same vessels must be used in all iterations of the temple! The same vessels from the first temple being used in the second was simply a matter of convenience: why expend effort making new ones when the old ones were still available and in working order (as Belshazzar demonstrated to his own regret in Daniel 5:2-4,22-28,30–just a few months earlier {HIDMF, p. 659-661})? In fact, 1 Kings 7:48-8:4 makes it clear that only a fraction of the vessels used in the first temple had also been used in the tabernacle it replaced! Clearly, God didn’t have a problem with Solomon making new vessels even while using the old ones–meaning that, if the vessels Titus plundered ever do turn up in working order, they and the new ones that have already been produced could be used alongside each other. How cool would that be: to have vessels from all eras of Israelite tabernacle/temple worship in use simultaneously?!

Now that I think about it, that pastor’s emphatic claim that any possibility of a third temple is a “myth” is making me start to wonder why he so desperately wants to deprive the nation of Israel of what God has promised them multiple times throughout the OT and reaffirmed in the NT–as I’ve shown throughout this article. Come to think of it, during our initial discussion on this topic (the one referred to at the start of this post) he did seem like he was trying to hold back an angry response when I pointed out that antisemitism has historically been baked into and/or justified with amillennialist arguments. But I’ll refrain from suggesting a concrete reason and let God judge his heart on this one, since I prefer to get sufficient evidence before making accusations about someone.

No Records, No Priesthood?

That pastor also insists that because all written records of Jewish genealogies perished when the Second Temple was destroyed, there’s no possibility of modern Levites being able to prove that they’re Levites, so there’s no possibility of a third temple. Ezra 2:62 sure seems to imply that on the surface, but the overall argument overlooks the fact that we now have an alternative method to establish ancestry: genetics.

Mainstream genetics has produced confusion by trying to link Jews (especially Cohanim, who claim descent from Aaron) with the Y-chromosome haplogroup J-P58, which shows up in over 98% of Cohanim, but revealed multiple patriarchal lines under closer examination. Nathaniel Jeanson of Answers in Genesis has pointed out that not only is this an Indo-European haplotype, not a Semitic one, but the studies in question assumed the old-earth timescale; when the results are re-analyzed according to a 4,500-year timescale, this haplogroup doesn’t show up until the A.D. era. After analyzing the overall Y-chromosome evidence further, Jeanson concluded that haplogroup T is the most likely candidate, with haplogroup L (which would’ve branched off from T sometime between 2200 & 1900 B.C., according to the timescale Jeanson uses) possibly representing the 10 northern tribes or descendants of Esau. {“Traced: Human DNA’s Big Surprise”. Jeanson, Nathaniel T. 2021. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. 162-181.}

However, my chronology implies that Jeanson didn’t compress the timescale quite enough (I hold that Abraham was born in 1965/4 B.C.), and even scaling his timeline would place the endpoint of the T-L split’s date range at 1842 B.C.6, when Isaac would’ve been 23 years old–at which point Sarah would’ve still been alive (Genesis 23:1 tells us she died at age 127, at which point Isaac would’ve been 37); since the waw-consecutive verbs in Genesis 24:67-25:2 imply that Abraham married his second wife Keturah and had children with her after Isaac married Rebekah, which occurred after Sarah’s death, this would rule out Abraham’s descendants through Keturah (or anyone later in Abraham’s line!) from representing the haplogroup L branch-off. As such, I personally find it more likely that a subclade of haplogroup T would represent the Israelites, and that the split represents an event slightly earlier in the Biblical narrative. (Terah’s family leaving Ur, perhaps? This would explain why the geographic spread of L is predominantly southern, central, and southwest Asia. Indeed, modern Iraq, where Ur was, features decent concentrations of T and L.) Jeanson does the math to determine how many generations down from Noah these splits occurred with the assumption of 3 Y-chromosome mutations per generation, but admits that published estimates range from 3 to 5; taking a rate closer to 4 or 5 per generation would line the results up better with what I’ve brought to bear in this paragraph–in fact, it places the T-L branch-off (i.e., the branch-off from other major Semitic haplogroups) in the time of Salah or Eber, and the T-L split around the time of Nahor or Terah (also note how much older Terah was than his ancestors when begetting the children named–in fact, cross-referencing Genesis 11:32 & 12:4 implies that Terah was 130 when he begat Abraham; this situation is ripe for more Y-chromosome mutations in a single generation than usual, perhaps explaining how the split from L happened in the first place)!

Regardless, even that explanation puts a little too much weight on the human side of the equation. God knows who’s a legitimate Israelite, even if we don’t. The 12,000 Israelites from each tribe being sealed in Revelation 7 make it clear that He’s keeping track. Besides, we saw at the start of this post that modern Israelites who aren’t descended from ancient Israelites are the exception, not the rule; so there will certainly be enough legitimate Israelites present in the land of Israel for God to scrounge together 12,000 from each tribe, regardless of whether we’ll be able to tell them apart (heck, there’s probably already enough for God to do so)!

Worst-case scenario, there will still be a couple of “old-fashioned ways” for us humans to determine who is legitimate for temple service even if you reject oral tradition and genetics. If someone they thought was eligible for High Priest dies when entering the Holy of Holies in the third temple on its first Day of Atonement, then they’ll know he wasn’t legit; they could just keep letting candidates go through the process (Leviticus 16) until one of them lives, and then they’ll know he’s eligible to be High Priest! Likewise, Revelation 11:19 tells us the Ark of the Covenant will be in heaven when Jesus returns, suggesting it will have been found sometime beforehand. Since only legitimate Levites can carry the Ark and live (1 Chronicles 15:2-15), we can just have purported Levites try to carry it out of wherever it’s discovered; any who don’t die when touching it are legit (indeed, if a non-Levite archaeologist dies just by touching it while discovering it, that should be our first clue that it really is the Ark of the Covenant)!

Stay Tuned!

Remember, I plan on updating this post as more passages and counterarguments come to my attention. But I already spent over 86 hours of my life working on this post before even uploading it in early March of 2025 (and then spent another week or two of my free time importing it into WordPress and formatting it to enhance your reading experience, plus adding a couple points I hadn’t thought of beforehand), so I think this is a good place to call it quits for now.

  1. This is a major reason why I personally think Luke was acting as a scribe for Paul when writing Hebrews. The theology is distinctly that of Paul, but the vocabulary is on par with what we see in Luke & Acts. A similar phenomenon can be seen between 1 & 2 Peter: 1 Peter 5:12 identifies Silvanus as the scribe who wrote the epistle for Peter, while no scribe is named in 2 Peter. Skeptics have tried to claim that the poorer writing style of 2 Peter compared to 1 Peter shows that it was a forgery written long after 1 Peter, but the more likely explanation {scroll to Footnote 10} is that Silvanus was a professional scribe who knew how to word things well, while Peter (who was apparently one of those people who’s much better at speaking than at writing) wrote 2 Peter himself to make his farewell address more personal and heartfelt. ↩︎
  2. In verse 1, the word for “root” is plural in the MT, but singular in the LXX, just like it is in verse 10. Also, where Paul uses ἐλπιοῦσιν (“they will hope”) in Romans 15:12c (exactly the same inflection used in Isaiah 11:10b LXX), the MT has יִדְרֹ֑שׁוּ (“they will seek with inquiry”). This tells us the Septuagint should be given priority over the Masoretic Text here; this will be important in that exposition I write on Isaiah 11:1-16. ↩︎
  3. Habermas’ answer went as follows: “Well, I can give you several solid reasons. First, Paul introduces it with the words received and delivered, which are technical rabbinic terms indicating he’s passing along holy tradition.… Second, the text’s parallelism and stylized content indicate it’s a creed. Third, the original text uses Cephas for Peter, which is his Aramaic name. In fact, the Aramaic itself could indicate a very early origin. Fourth, the creed uses several other primitive phrases that Paul would not customarily use, like ‘the Twelve,’ ‘the third day,’ ‘he was raised,’ and others. Fifth, the use of certain words is similar to Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew means of narration.… Should I go on?” {Ibid.} ↩︎
  4. The phrase “after six days” in Matthew 17:1 & Mark 9:2 is probably referring to days of the week, implying that this vision occurred on the Sabbath. Most expositors explain the difference as inclusive versus exclusive reckoning, which would actually make less sense here because each author uses the opposite numbers you’d expect from this scenario! Jews (like Matthew & Mark) used inclusive reckoning, while Gentiles (like Luke) tended to use exclusive reckoning; so with this explanation, you’d expect Matthew & Mark to say “eight days” (including the day of Jesus’ prediction and the day of its fulfillment) and Luke to say “six days” (including only the full days between the prediction and its fulfillment). ↩︎
  5. Also compare Luke 1:5 with 1 Chronicles 24:10, which tells us that John the Baptist’s father Zacharias was part of the eighth course. Each course served a week at a time, from one Sabbath to the next, twice a year. With the first course serving for the first full week of Nisan and the second one serving up to Nisan 14, at which point all courses would serve together during Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, with the third course serving the first full week after that (the second week of the countdown to Pentecost), the eighth course would be serving during the seventh and final week of the countdown to Pentecost. This tells us the events of Luke 1:8-23a occurred during the week just before Pentecost of 5 B.C., which also coincides nicely with Elizabeth becoming pregnant about a month later (in June on the Gregorian Calendar; note the phrase “After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived” in verse 24a ESV, implying a decent amount of time elapsed between Zacharias’ return and John’s conception), Mary becoming pregnant with Jesus during the Hanukkah season (late December) of 5 B.C. when Elizabeth was six months along (verse 36), and Jesus being born on Tishri 1 of 4 B.C. (September 22, 4 B.C. on the Julian Calendar; Revelation 12:1 gives astronomical data that fits Tishri 1: the sun being in the same part of the sky as the constellation Virgo – implying the month is September – and the moon being beneath Virgo – and thus in the same part of the sky as the sun, implying a new moon, the first day of a Hebrew month; note that verses 2 & 5 make it clear that this is referring to Jesus’ birth from the virgin Mary, and the dragon of verses 3-4 hoping to devour her child lines up with the constellation Hydra, which is right alongside Virgo; a diagram is available here). ↩︎
  6. Jeanson assumes 4,500 years between when Noah had his 3 sons and when he wrote “Traced” (2021); this would place the birth of Japheth in 2480 B.C. However, my chronology has the Flood lasting from autumn 2314 B.C. to autumn 2313 B.C., Japheth being born in 2414 B.C. (Genesis 10:21 tells us Japheth was the eldest), Shem being born in 2411 B.C. (Genesis 11:10 tells us Shem turned 100 two years after the Flood), and Ham within a handful of years after that (Genesis 9:24 tells us Ham was Noah’s youngest son). This would place Japheth’s birth 4,434 years before 2021, not 4,500. This means that counting backward from A.D. 2021, each year by Jeanson’s scale would actually be 4434÷4500=0.9853333… years. So when Jeanson mentions “2200 B.C.”, my timescale would convert that to
    2414-((2480-2200)×(4434÷4500))=2138.106666…, or 2138 B.C. Likewise, the “1900 B.C.” Jeanson gives for the latter end of the range in which T & L branched off from each other would correspond to
    2414-((2480-1900)×(4434÷4500))=1842.506666…, or 1842 B.C. ↩︎

Is Jesus Incapable of Ruling on Earth?

Part 4 of this series

The titular question may sound trivial at first glance. Of course he’s capable (i.e., not incapable) of ruling over anyone or anything, from anywhere, as long as his Father wills it, right? Yet Pulliam insists that it’s impossible for Jesus to reign on Earth: “there are reasons why He actually cannot rule upon the earth” {“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 93. Italics and boldface in original.}. His two proof-texts are Zechariah 6:12-13 & Jeremiah 22:28-30. My responses to each of these proof-texts are somewhat involved, so I’ll focus on them one at a time.

Zechariah 6:12-13

“12Then say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the Lord. 13Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the Lord, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.”’”

(Zechariah 6:12f)

In this prophecy, the Messiah (who is the Branch of David – see Jer 23:5) will “build the temple of the Lord.” Not only that, he will “sit and rule on his throne.” The Lord then draws the two offices of priest and king together by saying that “He will be a priest on His throne.” Obviously, the Messiah will be priest and king at the same time.

These offices (king and priest) are held concurrently, therefore we can draw this simple conclusion: Since Jesus is presently our great High Priest, then He also must presently be our king. Fulfillment of Zechariah 6:12-13 may be found in the current priesthood and reign of Jesus. And this truly agrees with what we discovered in lesson 8. Namely, that Jesus is presently seated on the throne of David.

Dispensationalists acknowledge that this passage teaches a concurrent reign and priesthood of Jesus; however, they tell us that it will not take place until the future Millennium.…

Hebrews 8:4 says, “Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law”. This is based on a previous argument concerning Jesus being from the tribe of Judah (Heb 7:13f). Since Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi, He cannot be a priest on earth. So let’s briefly revisit the theory that Jesus will be a king and priest in a future earthly Millennium. The inspired author of Hebrews tells us that it cannot happen. Jesus cannot be a priest on earth so long as Levites offer their gifts. According to Dispensationalism, Levites will be offering sacrifices in the Millennial temple.

The heavenly ministry of Jesus was God’s intention from the beginning. This is evident from the design of the tabernacle. The author of Hebrews tells us that it and its service was patterned after the heavenly places (Heb 9:1-8, 23-24). The earthly tabernacle and temple were just a shadow of good things to come (Heb 8:5 & 10:1). Jesus has now fulfilled that heavenly design by entering into the very presence of God. This is one aspect of His high priesthood that makes Him far superior to the Old priesthood. Dispensationalists want us to abandon the substance of our heavenly priest, and return to a shadow (a priest on earth). According to the Dispensational view of the kingdom, Jesus will leave heaven, returning to the weak and worthless elemental things (Gal 4:9f). This certainly is not the step forward that they would present it as being.

Why would the tabernacle foreshadow a current condition (Jesus in heaven) if the Millennial temple on earth is supposed to be the true substance? The Dispensationalist says the Millennium will be the prophesied time of great peace. However, Zechariah’s “counsel of peace” resting upon two concurrent offices cannot exist with Jesus on earth, according to the author of Hebrews. This conflict with Dispensationalism is extremely revealing. Jesus’ present position in the Holy of Holies, which is heaven, speaks volumes regarding His throne and God’s purpose (Heb 9:23f; 10:1). The message of Hebrews clearly reveals that we have the good things foreshadowed in the Old Testament (cf. Heb 10:1).

The author of Hebrews also defined the function of a high priest when he said that “every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins” (Heb 5:1). Jesus is in heaven interceding for us through His blood (Rom 8:34; Heb 10:19). In other words, He has made peace through His blood (Eph 2:13f; Col 1:20). And it is in the office of His priesthood that this peace is provided, but it can only be provided by His presence in heaven, not on earth. If He does come back to earth, He cannot be a priest (Heb 8:4), and the prophecy of Zechariah 6 would be broken. Remember, the counsel of peace shall be between both offices. He must be a king and priest at the same time. Zechariah does not give us the luxury of splitting off an office (high priest) for a few thousand years, and then adding the Messiah’s rule. The “counsel of peace” is now, or never.

…[In Lesson 12:] Let’s begin with the great hope held out for all families of the earth: “And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Gen 12:3) This is part of the covenant God made with Abraham. … Peter clearly announced the fulfillment in his own day. [See his discussion on Acts 3, quoted early on in and debunked further into this post] Jesus fulfilled the blessing promise as the great Messianic King.
Nowhere is this connection between blessing and king better seen than Zechariah 6:12-13. We studied this passage in lesson 9. It prophesied a Messiah who would be a priest at the same time that He ruled. The blessing of forgiveness came through Christ’s present priesthood. But He also rules upon His Messianic throne.

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 93-96, 127-128. Italics and boldface in original. Underlining and contents in brackets mine.}

Let’s set aside the observations that the word usually rendered “elements” in Galatians 4:9 refers to the foundations of human civilization, not the building blocks of the universe (i.e., the material universe won’t be “weak and worthless” in the New Heavens & New Earth!); and that the epistle to the Galatians dealt with Judaizers who were trying to turn Christians back to observance of the Mosaic Covenant, which will be done away with in the New Heavens & New Earth (comparing the sacrifices laid out in Leviticus with those of Ezekiel 40-48 shows that the sacrifices prophesied in the latter passage won’t be made according to the Mosaic Law — the “Law” being referred to in Hebrews 8:4).

On that note, Pulliam’s remark that “Jesus cannot be a priest on earth so long as Levites offer their gifts” creates a problem for his own view that the Mosaic Law has been permanently done away with and will never be revived: Levites haven’t offered their gifts since A.D. 70. So if Pulliam is correct that the Law those gifts are offered in accordance with will never be revived, then how does this argument from the author of Hebrews that Jesus can’t be a priest on earth because he’s from the tribe of Judah instead of Levi not go out the window for the period of time since A.D. 70?!

My answer is as follows: The Mosaic Law is still in effect at present, but it’s only binding on ethnic Israelites who haven’t entered into the New Covenant. The Mosaic system, offerings and all, will be revived during the apocalypse (Daniel 9:27a, Revelation 11:1), but the Ark of the Covenant will have been taken out when the Abomination of Desolation shows up (Revelation 11:19), preventing the high priest from visiting it on Yom Kippur for the second half of the apocalypse. The Holy of Holies housing the Ark of the Covenant being replaced with Jesus’ throne (i.e., the throne of David) in the Kingdom temple (Revelation 21:22, cf. Jeremiah 3:16-17; see also Ezekiel 43:1-7) tells us that the Mosaic regulations regarding the Ark and the Holy of Holies will be done away with, once and for all, upon Jesus’ return.

Anyway, let’s refocus on the point at issue here. Notice the sheer number of arguments Pulliam makes that hinge on the premise that Zechariah taught that the Messiah would be a king and priest concurrently. This makes it all the more interesting that he appeals to the author of Hebrews, who consistently talked about Jesus’ priesthood as present, but his kingship as future! In fact, he went so far as to distinguish (quoting OT prophecy to do so, no less!) the periods of time when Jesus would have these roles. Have you ever noticed how some passages in most English Bibles use the term “forever” or “for ever”, but then you come across other passages in the same translation with “forever and ever” or “for ever and ever”? The latter phrasing isn’t superfluous, nor is it simply a dramatic flourish on the part of the writer/translator; rather, the underlying Greek phrasing actually features a repeated term. Consider these two verses from Young’s Literal Translation of Hebrews that are germane to the subject we’re considering in this blog post: “and unto the Son: ‘Thy throne, O God, is to the age of the age; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy reign;” (1:8, boldface and underlining added; quoting Psalm 45:6 LXX) “and he with an oath through Him who is saying unto him, ‘The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest — to the age, according to the order of Melchisedek;’” (7:21, boldface added; quoting Psalm 110:4 LXX). The Greek phrase in the latter case (referring to Christ’s priesthood) is εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (“unto/for the age”), but the Greek phrase in the former (referring to Christ’s being seated on David’s throne) is εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος (“unto/for the age of the age”).1 It’s certainly feasible to take “for the age” as meaning “during the Christian era”, and “for the age of the age” as meaning “during Christ’s 1,000-year reign on Earth”. But can Pulliam offer an alternative explanation for this distinction within Hebrews (which is borne out in the OT phrasing of the verses the author was quoting)?

Evidently, the author of Hebrews himself didn’t see Zechariah as prophesying Jesus holding these roles concurrently!

The Author of Hebrews’ Track Record Comes In Clutch

But how can that be, in light of the clear phrasing Pulliam brings out from the 1995 NASB? Well, bear in mind that the NASB is following the Masoretic Text here (which, incidentally, doesn’t include the word “offices”; the end of the Hebrew sentence — בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם — literally reads “between both” or “among two”, and we’ll see below that the Septuagint substantially agrees with either or even both of these renderings), and that Zechariah 6:12-13 hasn’t been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. One thing the author of Hebrews seems to have had an amazing knack for (in hindsight) was using the Septuagint version of the OT to make points to his 1st-century Jewish Christian audience that couldn’t have been made with the Hebrew text we have today. Examples include the quotation “And let all the angels of God worship him” (Hebrews 1:6c KJV), which appears nowhere in the Masoretic Text, but does occur in Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX (and the Dead Sea Scrolls have further corroborated the LXX reading here); and the rhetorical question “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?” (Hebrews 1:5a KJV), where his audience evidently couldn’t respond by pointing to Job 1:6, 2:1, or 38:7, where the Masoretic Text refers to angels in general as “the sons of God” — because the 1st-century Hebrew text of the Job passages had “angels” instead of “sons”, just like the LXX does {scroll to p. 33-37 in the PDF}!

So is it possible that the author of Hebrews emphatically contradicting Pulliam’s conclusion from Zechariah 6:12-13 is another example of the former making a point (Jesus being high priest and king during two separate periods of time) that can’t be made with the modern Hebrew text? Is it possible that none of the original readers of Hebrews could raise the point Pulliam does, simply because the phrase Pulliam’s relying on wasn’t in the text until after their time? In a word: yes.

Here’s the Greek text for these 2 verses; the boldfaced phrase reads וְהָיָה כֹהֵן עַל־כִּסְאוֹ (“and so he will be / a priest / on–his throne” — my right-to-left translation) in the Masoretic Text:

καὶ ἐρεῖς πρὸς αὐτόν τάδε λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ Ἀνατολὴ ὄνομα αὐτῷ καὶ ὑποκάτωθεν αὐτοῦ ἀνατελεῖ καὶ οἰκοδομήσει τὸν οἶκον κυρίου καὶ αὐτὸς λήμψεται ἀρετὴν καὶ καθίεται καὶ κατάρξει ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔσται ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ βουλὴ εἰρηνικὴ ἔσται ἀνὰ μέσον ἀμφοτέρων (Zechariah 6:12-13 LXX, boldface added)

Now here’s my word-by-word translation, with slashes to indicate the spaces between the Greek words:

And / you will say / toward / him, / “These things / says / the Lord, / Sovereign Over All: / Behold! / A man, / Dayspring / is the name / for him. / And / from beneath / Him / will he rise, / and / he will build / the / house / of the Lord. / And / he / will take to himself / virtue, / and / certainly seat himself, / and / will make reconciliation / upon / the / throne / of his. / And / there will be / the / priest / out from / the right / of him, / and / counsel / which is peaceable / will be / amidst / the middle / of both.” (boldface added)

You see the difference this makes regarding the priest and the man on the throne, right? They’re not the same person! You can’t be to the right of yourself! Don’t think my translation’s legit? Compare it with Brenton’s:

and thou shalt say to him, Thus saith the Lord Almighty;

Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall spring up from his stem [Gr. from beneath him.], and build the house of the Lord. And he shall receive power[lit. virtue.], and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and there shall be a priest on his right hand, and a peaceable counsel shall be between them both. (BLXX, boldface added; contents in brackets are from Brenton’s footnotes indicated at those points in the text)

Think Brenton was wrong too? Check out the more modern NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) rendering, published online in 2009 {scroll to p. 40 in the PDF}:

And you shall say to him: This is what the Lord Almighty says: Behold, a man, Shoot [Or Dawn] is his name, and he shall sprout from below him and shall build the house of the Lord. And it is he that shall receive virtue and shall sit and rule on his throne. And the priest shall be on his right, and peaceful counsel shall be between the two of them. (NETS, boldface added; content in brackets are from the footnote indicated at that point in the text)

And as long as the church I currently attend, the Archdale Church of Christ, happens to have a copy of the Lexham English Septuagint (arguably the one official English translation of the Septuagint that’s most independent of all the others), why not include its rendering for good measure?

And you will say to him, ‘This is what the Lord Almighty says: “Behold, a man; Anatole [Meaning “east” or “dawn”; Heb. “Branch”] is his name, and from beneath him he will rise up and build the house of the Lord. And he will receive virtue, and he will sit and rule upon his throne, and the priest will be out of his right, and there will be a peaceful plan between both. (LES, boldface added; content in brackets are from the footnote indicated at that point in the text)

The main reason for this overwhelming consistency is that the Greek word we’re all rendering “right” is δεξιῶν, the genitive plural form of δεξιός (dexios, G1188), an adjective meaning “right” (as opposed to “left”, not “wrong”). The root word behind dexios is very common in Indo-European languages. In fact, two Octobers ago, I got new glasses, and when looking over the prescription I noticed the initials O.D. & O.S.; these are abbreviations for the Latin phrases “oculus dexter” and “oculus sinister“, respectively meaning “right eye” and “left eye”.

The Septuagint version of this passage clearly says that at the time of its fulfillment, the two offices of king and priest would be occupied by two different people! When Jesus is to be king, someone else will be the priest at Jesus’ right side! Suddenly, all the statements throughout Hebrews implying that Jesus isn’t to be a high priest and king of kings concurrently make perfect sense! The author of Hebrews was able to conclude that Jesus would be high priest and king at two separate times because, at the time he wrote, no available reading of any Biblical passage taught otherwise!

With this, all of Pulliam’s arguments based on his interpretation of Zechariah 6:12-13 fall apart. (And by accepting the Masoretic reading of Zechariah 6:12-13 along with its implications, dispensationalists have forced a contradiction into their theological system.) It’s worth adding that the Septuagint version of Jeremiah 23:5 (which Pulliam cited as a cross-reference to the Zechariah passage) also has “Dayspring” instead of “Branch”, so that cross-reference remains valid, despite the different connotations associated with the two titles (which are themselves brought out in the Masoretic and Septuagint versions of Zechariah 6:12b). Indeed, the title used in the Septuagint version of these passages is invoked by Zacharias near the end of the prophecy he gave at the circumcision of his son, John the Baptist:

Yea and thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Most High:
For thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to make ready his ways;
To give knowledge of salvation unto his people
In the remission of their sins,
Because of the tender mercy of our God,
Whereby the dayspring from on high shall visit us,
To shine upon them that sit in darkness and the shadow of death;
To guide our feet into the way of peace. (Luke 1:76-79 ASV, boldface added)

So now let’s move on to Pulliam’s other proof-text.

Jeremiah 22:28-30

28 “‘Is this man Coniah a despised, shattered jar? Or is he an undesirable vessel? Why have he and his descendants been hurled out And cast into a land that they had not known? 29 O land, land, land, Hear the word of the Lord!’ 30 Thus says the Lord, ‘Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah.’”

(Jeremiah 22:28-30)

Coniah was a king in the genealogy of Jesus. He was also known as Jeconiah (Jer 24:1; 27:20). This passage is of great importance because of the curse that it places upon Jeconiah’s descendants. It begins with “Write this man down childless…” (v30). The point is not that he would have no children, because he actually did (I Chr 3:17). The point was that no descendant of Jeconiah would be able to prosper while ruling in Judah. And bear in mind that this includes Jesus (Mt 1:11-12).

So how can Jesus be the highly anticipated King of Glory, if a curse was placed upon His bloodline? The curse itself only affects Jesus if He is reigning in Judah. The significance, in Jesus’ case, is that He can rule in heaven, but He cannot rule on earth. …

The Dispensationalist has a clever way of trying to answer Jeremiah 22. They contend that the genealogy in Matthew and Luke both descend from David, but one is through Solomon (Matthew), and the other is through Nathan (Luke). The line that descends from Solomon contains the name Jeconiah, but the line descending from Nathan does not. The argument attempts to make the “blood line” of Luke exclude the curse on Coniah. Since Joseph was only the “legal” father, the curse of Coniah in his line (Matthew’s account) would not affect Jesus.

Without the slightest thought to what the genealogy of Luke really tells us, the Dispensationalist has missed the incredible significance of the post-captivity portion of the genealogy (see chart on the previous page). While it is true that Luke’s genealogy does not contain Jeconiah, it does contain the descendants of Jeconiah. How can you miss the fact that Jeconiah’s son is Shealtiel, and his grandson is Zerrubabbel, [sic] and that both of these men are in both genealogies? And yet the Dispensational argument is made as proof that the curse has no bearing on this discussion. In all honesty, it must have everything to do with this discussion, because Jesus is in the blood line of Jeconiah. …

If you talk to an orthodox Jew, He will argue that Jesus couldn’t possibly have been the Messiah. That is no surprise, but his use of Coniah’s curse is interesting. You see, he understands that Jesus’ bloodline cannot be split as the Dispensationalist tries to do. The line of Solomon and the line of Nathan criss-cross at Shealtiel and Zerrubabbel. [sic]

I make the same argument to the Jew that I make to the Dispensationalist. The curse only affects a descendant who rules upon the earth in the tribal territory of Judah. Jesus does not rule upon the earth in Judah. His throne is in heaven, and it is the throne of David promised to Him by the Father. …

Jesus, being a descendant of Coniah, cannot rule in Jerusalem and prosper. This is not a problem for God’s plans, because He never intended for His Messiah to reign on Earth. As Peter clearly taught in Acts 2, Jesus is presently on the throne of David; however, it is a rule from heaven.

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 96,98-99. Italics, boldface, and indentation in original. Underlining mine.}

Aside from the fact that Peter placed Jesus’ reign in the future from his own time in Acts 2 and the fact that the dispensationalists’ explanation regarding the different genealogies has been the most common one throughout the Christian era, this argument that Jesus’ reign will never be on Earth seems pretty intimidating on the surface. Yet, Pulliam includes a footnote during this discussion that considerably undermines his own arguments — and it gives me an opportunity to “make the same argument to the Jew that I [can] make to the” amillennialist!

Walvoord, Every Prophecy, pp 127f. This is a highly speculative area. Why there are differences between the genealogies of Matthew and Luke is a question never explicitly answered by scripture. There are several good reasons for these differences, and one of the most popular is to understand each genealogy as leading down to Joseph and Mary individually. But which genealogy leads to Joseph, and which to Mary? Not everyone agrees. (cf. Marshall D. Johnson, “Genealogy of Jesus,” ISBE, Vol II, p430). The Dispensationalist must assume that Matthew’s genealogy leads to Joseph, so the curse of Coniah does not fall directly upon Jesus (by blood). But as I have pointed out, both lines include Coniah. Of great interest is the Jewish view of these genealogies, which would deny that Jesus had any right to the throne of David by a “step-father.” Jews argue that blood alone did not give a descendant the Messianic right (cf. Asher Norman, 26 Reasons Why Jews Don’t Believe In Jesus, Reason 8). The father’s line had to be the blood line. That argument not only assumes which gospel offers the blood line, but also refuses to allow for the fact that Jesus was not just another man born in Israel. Jesus, being begotten of God, was a rightful heir directly from His identity as Jehovah. This same stumbling block to first century Jews remains for present day Jews who deny the validity of any evidence of Jesus’ identity. {“In the Days of Those Kings”. 98(Fn5). Italics and boldface in original. Underlining mine.}

Pulliam really doesn’t see the web he’s entangled himself in here, does he? First off, if the father’s line had to be the blood line, and the father had to be in the royal line, then wouldn’t the curse on Jehoiachin (whose male descendants would include the royal line) disqualify anyone from ever being the Messiah? Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah undercut their own belief in the “real” Messiah’s eventually coming by using this argument! Second, Pulliam acknowledges that many of the arguments orthodox Jews have presented against Jesus’ messiahship were originally formulated using circular reasoning — that is, they assumed from the outset that Jesus wasn’t the Messiah {p. 99}, and then they tried to construct arguments that would specifically disqualify Jesus from being the Messiah! But how does Pulliam know that the argument that “The father’s line had to be the blood line” wasn’t in that category? Third, note his statement that “Jesus, being begotten of God, was a rightful heir directly from His identity as Jehovah.” How does this point alone not render the question of which line is the blood line (Joseph or Mary’s; the one in Matthew or the one in Luke) totally moot?! Finally, note that he claims that “both lines include Coniah”, despite the fact that he admitted that the name “Jeconiah” occurs in Matthew’s genealogy, but not Luke’s. He tries to explain this more thoroughly in the following diagram on p. 97:

(If you’re using a browser that can have music playing in a different tab while you read this post, I recommend clicking here before you read the next section!)

Okay Pulliam, SEVERAL Things…

Notice that he totally ignored the fact that Luke’s account says that Shealtiel was the son of (literally, was “from”) Neri, not Jeconiah! Would Pulliam explain this the same way he explains the relationship presented between Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in 1 Chronicles 3:17-20? If so, then he has to assume that Matthew is giving the “bloodline” and Luke isn’t (so much for his attempt to use Occam’s Razor by claiming he’s making the fewest assumptions — which he repeatedly tries to drive home with terms like “highly speculative area”, “[n]ot everyone agrees”, “must assume”, “assumes which gospel offers the blood line”, and “is believed to“)! But contrary to Pulliam’s insistence that all such explanations for which is the bloodline are “speculative”, we can actually tell that’s not the case because checking Kings and Chronicles reveals that the genealogy in Matthew has gaps between David and Jeconiah (Matthew 1 lists 14 generations from David to Jeconiah, but Kings and 2 Chronicles present 18 generations between them; hence, Matthew’s list is selective, and Matthew 1:17 shows that this selectiveness was intentionally done as a memory device)! Actually, the 1 Chronicles passage gives us enough Biblical information to justify a better explanation for the evidence Pulliam has brought forward in this diagram:

The sons of Yekhonyah, the captive: She’alti’el his son,
and Malkiram, and Pedayahu, and Shenazzar, Yekamyah, Hoshama, and Nedavyah.
The sons of Pedayahu: Zerubbavel, and Shim`i. The sons of Zerubbavel: Meshullam, and Hananyah; and Shelomit was their sister;
and Hashuvah, and Ohel, and Berekhyah, and Hasadyah, Yushav-Hesed, five.
The sons of Hananyah: Pelatyah, and Yesha`yah; the sons of Refayah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of `Ovadyah, the sons of Shekhanyahu.
The sons of Shekhanyahu: Shemayah. The sons of Shemayah: Hattush, and Yig’al, and Bariach, and Ne`aryah, and Shafat, six.2
The sons of Ne`aryah: Elyo`enai, and Hizkiah, and `Azrikam, three.
The sons of Elyo`enai: Hodavyah, and Elyashiv, and Pelayah, and `Akkuv, and Yochanan, and Delayah, and `Anani, seven.
(1 Chronicles 3:17-24 HNV, boldface and underlining added)

I specifically quoted the Hebrew Names Version because the Hebrew names are the important information. But before we get to that, note that the family line follows Yekhonyah (Jeconiah), Pedayahu (Pedaiah), Zerubbavel (Zerubbabel), Hananyah, Shekhanyahu, Shemayah, Ne`aryah, Elyo`enai, and ends with Elyo`enai’s children — giving us the first 8 generations after Jeconiah. This tells us that by the time the book of Chronicles was completed, Jeconiah already had 8 generations of descendants. Of course, this is possible by the chronology I lay out in Appendix D of my upcoming book: I hold that Jeconiah was taken captive to Babylon around the beginning of autumn in 545 B.C. (which was the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar II’s reign — 2 Kings 24:12 — by my chronology, which has Nebuchadnezzar’s first year starting in 552 B.C. {HIDMF p. ###}; note that 2 Chronicles 36:10 says Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin captive to Babylon and put his uncle Zedekiah on Judah’s throne “At the turn [or “expiration”] of the year” — NKJV), and was apparently childless at the time, since he’s mentioned as having a mother and wives, but not any children in 2 Kings 24:12-16. I also hold that Nehemiah died within the first year or so of the reign of Darius II (Nehemiah 12:22c) around the end of 356 or beginning of 355 B.C. {HIDMF, p. ###} — 189.5 years later, which is certainly enough time for 8 generations of people to be born (it works out to a new generation starting every 189.5/8=23.6875 years on average)! Indeed, this is my main reason for thinking the book of Chronicles was finished by Nehemiah (though most likely started by Ezra, who tradition names as the author). Moreover, given this rate of new generations being started, how many generations would we expect between 545 B.C. and 3 B.C.? 8÷189.5×(545-3)=22.881266… nearly 23 generations, lining up very well with the 20 generations Heli was down from Neri (and by implication, the 22 Jesus was down from Neri) in Luke’s genealogy!

However, note that Pulliam made no effort to compare the line given in 1 Chronicles to the ones in Matthew & Luke. Showing the generations side-by-side reveals a major problem with the argument he’s making for the Zerubbabel in Matthew & Luke’s lists being Pedaiah’s son, rather than Shealtiel’s (the Greek spellings given are in NA28, the translation base for the 2020 NASB; alternate spellings are indicated afterward):

Matthew 1 (Greek)1 Chronicles 3 (LXX)1 Chronicles 3 (MT)Luke 3 (Greek)
Jechonias (Ἰεχονίας)Jechonia-asir (Ιεχονια-ασιρ) (it seems the LXX translators understood Asir as a proper noun instead of a common noun)yᵊḵānyâ ‘assir / Jechoniah the prisoner (יְכָנְיָה אַסִּר)Nēri (Νηρὶ)
Salathiēl (Σαλαθιήλ)Salathiēl (Σαλαθιηλ)pᵊḏāyâ / Pedaiah (פְדָיָה)Salathiēl (Σαλαθιὴλ)
Zorobabel (Ζοροβαβέλ)Zorobabel (Ζοροβαβελ)zᵊrubāḇel / Zerubbabel (זְרֻבָּבֶל)Zorobabel (Ζοροβαβὲλ)
Abioud (Ἀβιούδ)Anania (Ανανια)ḥănanyâ / Chananiah (חֲנַנְיָה)Rhēsa (Ῥησὰ)
Eliakim (Ἐλιακίμ; TR Eliakeim Ἐλιακείμ)Sechenia (Σεχενια)šᵊḵanyâ / Shechaniah (שְׁכַנְיָה)Jōanan (Ἰωανὰν; TR Jōanna Ἰωὰννα)
Azōr (Ἀζώρ)Samaia (Σαμαια)šᵊmaʿyâ / Shema`iah (שְׁמַעְיָה)Jōda (Ἰωδὰ; TR Jouda Ἰουδὰ)
Zadōk (Σαδώκ)Nōadia (Νωαδια) (It seems the LXX translators misread ר (ρ/r) as ד (δ/d) – a common mistake, even in modern Hebrew!)nᵊʿaryâ / Neariah (נְעַרְיָה)Jōsēch (Ἰωσὴχ; TR Jōsēph Ἰωσὴφ)
Achim (Ἀχίμ; TR Acheim Ἀχείμ)Elithenan (Ελιθεναν)‘elyôʿênay / Elio`enai (אֶלְיוֹעֵינַי)Semein (Σεμεῒν; TR Semei Σεμεΐ)
Elioud (Ἐλιούδ)See v. 24 here; none of the 7 names come closeSee v. 24 here; none of the 7 names come closeMattathiou (Ματταθίου)

Clearly, the two lists here that are the closest matches are Matthew 1 & the Septuagint version of 1 Chronicles 3; and even then, only the first 3 names match: Jechoniah, Shealtiel, & Zerubbabel. Every generation after Zerubbabel is different in all 3 lists!

Also, that entry Pulliam cited from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, while acknowledging that “The authorities have been divided as to whether Luke’s genealogy is Joseph’s, as appears, or Mary’s”, nonetheless sided with me that the evidence favored the idea that Luke’s account gives Mary’s line as the blood line; in fact, it presents no argument in favor of Luke giving Joseph’s line without subsequently saying that said argument has been put to rest! Indeed, the article failed to point out that Matthew’s Gospel was intended to present Jesus as King to the Jews (and so traced his right to the Davidic throne and his identity as the “seed” of Abraham), while Luke’s Gospel was intended to present Jesus as Ideal Man to the Greeks (and so traced his biological descent all the way back to Adam, the progenitor of all humanity and the original “Ideal Man”; see also 1 Corinthians 15:45); Matthew and Luke used the lines that were best-suited to their respective purposes — meaning Luke’s account must be giving the biological line through Mary! (Likewise, the nativity accounts in Matthew & Luke respectively give us Joseph and Mary’s sides of the story, so why wouldn’t the genealogies be respectively theirs, as well? I could go on about the evidence that the genealogy in Luke gives the line of Mary’s father Heli, but that ISBE entry and this article {scroll to “b) The genealogies:”} do a good enough job of it for me.) As for 1 Chronicles 3, that was clearly following the line of whichever son made their father a grandfather first — which wasn’t necessarily the firstborn (after all, my younger sister has a two-year-old son and just might have given birth to her second son by the time you read this, but I’m childless as of this writing!); apparently this portion of the book of Chronicles was being updated as each new generation started, because the children of only one son are named per generation. Since the royal line follows the firstborn of the firstborn of the firstborn, etc., simply assuming that Pedaiah had his son Zerubbabel before Shealtiel had his son Zerubbabel completely resolves the difficulties the lists in Matthew & 1 Chronicles otherwise present for each other.

You read that right: I believe there were 2 Zerubbabels in the same family; in fact, I believe that these 3 passages are referring to 3 different men named Zerubbabel (and 2 different men named Shealtiel)! You may think that’s ridiculous, but it’s perfectly reasonable once you consider what these names mean in Hebrew. Remember, Israelite children were generally named for their parents’ sentiments around the time of their birth. The name Shealtiel (H7597) means “I have asked God”, and the name Zerubbabel (H2216) means “sown (i.e., begotten) in Babylon”. There would’ve been a lot of Jewish parents with these sentiments during the Babylonian exile, so these would’ve been very common names during that period! “Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel” may have been the Exilic Jewish equivalent of “John Smith” {and those are just the ones mentioned on Wikipedia}! More practically, the Shealtiels (er, Shealtielim?) could’ve been distinguished from each other during their lifetimes as “Shealtiel ben Jehoiachin” (the one in Matthew & 1 Chronicles) and “Shealtiel ben Neri” (the one in Luke). Likewise, the Zerubbabels (Zerubavelim?) referred to in 1 Chronicles, Matthew, & Luke could’ve been respectively called “Zerubbabel ben Pedaiah” (assuming the Masoretic Text correctly identifies this Zerubbabel’s father; indeed, if the Septuagint version of 1 Chronicles 3:18-20 had the correct reading, it’s hard to believe that no names remotely similar to “Abioud” or “Rhesa” would be in that reading’s list of this Zerubbabel’s children {see the first 3 lines in the first column on p. 9}!), “Zerubbabel ben Jehoiachin” (after his grandfather; note that this Zerubbabel was in the royal line, and so naturally would’ve been called after his last ancestor to sit on the throne), and “Zerubbabel ben Neri” (after his grandfather) during their lifetimes.

In short, Pulliam’s argument that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in Matthew and Luke’s lists were the same father-son pair is nowhere near airtight.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that they were, and that Mary was a descendant of Jeconiah, just like Joseph. Jesus would still be exempt from the curse on Jeconiah in this scenario because of his virgin birth. Why? Because Jewish law and tradition reckoned generational curses as following fathers, but not mothers. Remember how Solomon was allowed in the temple he built, despite being only 4 generations down from a native of Moab (his great-great-grandmother Ruth)? Why was that the case if neither a Moabite nor the first 9 generations of their descendants was allowed in the temple/tabernacle (Deuteronomy 23:3-4)? Because Ruth was a Moabitess (note that the words for “Ammonite” and “Moabite” in verse 3 are both masculine, whereas the term for “Moabitess” in Ruth 1:22 is feminine), and so was allowed in immediately — and the Talmud affirms this understanding of Deuteronomy 23:3-4! Likewise, remember how God cursed the priestly line of Eli in 1 Samuel 2:31-36 so that “an old man will not be in your house forever” (verse 32c 1995 NASB)? I thought for the longest time that this punishment was too harsh, since it affected people who were far removed from Hophni & Phinehas’ iniquity. But once I learned this point about generational curses within the context of Jewish tradition, I realized that since this curse was only passed down to sons of sons of sons…of Eli, the only descendants of Eli who would suffer this curse of dying young were also the only ones that were eligible to be high priest (the office that Eli’s sons Hophni and Phinehas had profaned, thereby bringing this curse on themselves and their own descendants — remember, 1 Samuel 4:15-18 tells us Eli himself lived to be 98). This meant that none of Eli’s female descendants would be under this curse, nor would any sons those female descendants bore to a man who himself wasn’t under Eli’s curse.

For the same reason, if Mary’s father Heli was indeed a descendant of a strictly male line of Jeconiah, then Mary herself would be exempt from the curse on Jeconiah — as would Jesus and Jesus’ sisters (Mark 6:3), despite the latter undoubtedly having Joseph as their biological father. On the other hand, Joseph & Jesus’ younger brothers would’ve been subject to that curse, as would any sons (but not daughters) his brothers might’ve had.

In summary, Pulliam’s argument that Jesus can’t rule on Earth because he’s stuck under the curse on Jeconiah is flawed on so many levels that the alternative hypothesis — that the Messiah, Jesus, will reign on Earth someday (which should actually be considered the null hypothesis, since it was the one Jews have always held about the Messiah, and how the earliest Christians understood prophecies about the Messiah’s Kingdom; an alternative hypothesis is one that’s seeking to replace the null hypothesis that was held earlier, so the idea of a heavenly destiny and a current rule of Jesus from heaven that will never come to Earth is technically the alternative hypothesis in this case, since it came along over a century later due to Gnostic influence) — is perfectly viable, after all.

Conclusion

That actually brings out a supreme irony in something Pulliam says when bringing this up again in Lesson 15, when trying to explain away prophecies that place Christ’s future Kingdom on Earth:

One final detail needs to be revisited before we move on. One of the major goals of the Dispensational Millennium is to get Jesus Christ on the throne of David in the city of Jerusalem. Let’s review the conflict this creates with other passages of Scripture.
We learned in lesson 8 that Jesus Christ is presently on the throne of David. [I’ve already debunked Pulliam’s claims on that point here.] We also learned how New Testament authors stated that His “throne” at God’s right hand was the prophetically intended position (lesson 12). Also significant is the fact that Jesus Christ cannot reign upon the throne of David in Jerusalem and prosper (proven in lesson 9) [which I disproved in the above discussion]. All of this provides the following logic:

Major Premise: The Dispensational doctrine of a Millennium requires that Jesus Christ reign on David’s throne in Jerusalem.
Minor Premise: Jesus Christ cannot reign in Jerusalem and prosper, due to the curse of Jeremiah 22.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Dispensational Millennium is an error.

No matter how much a passage may look like paradise on earth, if our interpretation contradicts the remainder of Scripture, then we have misinterpreted the text. The problem is not found in God’s promise. The problem is found in details forced upon God’s promise to reformulate the overall design of God’s purpose.

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 160-161. Italics, boldface, indentation, and contents in parentheses in original. Underlining and contents in brackets mine.}

Since Pulliam’s “Minor Premise” is false, the syllogism collapses. Dispensationalism overall may be in error, but the Millennial Kingdom being on Earth is not. And again, any claim otherwise contradicts Hebrews 2:5, the Greek text of which clearly mentions “the inhabited land, the coming one, about which we are speaking”. In reality, Pullliam is the one engaging in eisegesis — forcing details “upon God’s promise[,] to reformulate the overall design of God’s purpose”, by trying to force-fit the Scriptures to the presumption of a “heavenly destiny” for the redeemed. A Millennial Kingdom on Earth contradicts Plato, but not the Bible. At least the premises I’m using to fit all of Scripture together are Biblical, rather than pagan.

  1. Unfortunately, not all instances of “forever and ever” in English Bibles are translated from exactly the same Greek phrase. In Ephesians 3:21 (“to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.” – NKJV), for example, the emphasized phrase was translated from “εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων”; literally, “unto/for all the generations of the age of the ages”. Note that the latter instance of “of the age” is plural, whereas the corresponding instance in Hebrews 1:8 is singular. This implies that the time period being referred to in Ephesians 3:21 includes not only the one referred to in Hebrews 1:8, but also other time periods (namely, all other periods of history during which humans ever have had and ever will have children). Yet most English translations indiscriminately translate both as “forever and ever”. Hence, exactly which time period an instance of “forever and ever” is referring to can only be determined by checking the underlying Greek text. ↩︎
  2. As for why only 5 sons are listed when the sentence ends by saying there were 6, I’ve seen a handful of explanations. James Burton Coffman suggested that the words וּבְנֵי שְׁמַעְיָה (“and the sons of” and “Shemayah”) were accidentally duplicated from the first part of the verse at some point, in which case Shemayah and the 5 names following him were the “six” sons of Shekhanyahu. Alternatively, Albert Barnes pointed out that the “Syriac anti Arabic” adds “Azariah” between “Ne`aryah” and “Shafat”. Not sure whether “Syriac anti Arabic” referred to the Syriac Peshitta or not, I decided to check for this Azariah’s presence in an English translation of the Syriac Peshitta of Chronicles {after clicking the “DOWNLOAD PDF ORIGINAL”, scroll to p. 468 for the Syriac text and p. 467 for the English translation.}, which has been the standard OT translation of Syriac churches since circa A.D. 200, being an Aramaic translation of a 2nd-century Hebrew text; sure enough, “Azariah” is in the English translation (although other names are different, no numbers are present, and the sons from verse 24 are included in the same sentence). However, such an omission must’ve first occurred at least 400 years earlier, since manuscripts with five names after “Shemayah” were already circulating by the time Chronicles was translated into Greek (the LXX includes “and sons of Samaia” and “six”, yet also lists only 5 names). Still others would rather retain the Hebrew text as it stands, but take the “six” as referring to sons of Shekhanyahu, with Shemayah and his five sons being counted due to Shemayah being an only child; this possibility has the added benefit of explaining why the instance of “sons” before Shekhanyahu is also plural in the Masoretic Text (albeit singular in the LXX). Now, if we redo the calculations in the paragraph following my quotation of 1 Chronicles 3:17-24, but with the average generation time implied by only 7 generations being listed, we’d expect Luke to list Jesus as being 20.021108… just about 20 generations down from Neri, rather than the 22 actually listed! Therefore, I find the latter 2 possibilities (i.e., either one of Shemayah’s sons’ names dropped out of the Hebrew text, or the text is counting all the sons of Shekhanyahu’s only son along with the only son himself) to be more likely (although I’m personally leaning toward the last one). So my table in this blog post coheres with those possibilities, in which case there were 8 generations of Jeconiah’s descendants in 1 Chronicles 3 instead of 7. Of course, comparing the names at both hyperlinks in the final row with “Achim” and “Semein” shows that the alternative doesn’t improve the fit of 1 Chronicles with either of the Gospel genealogies! ↩︎

Musical Instruments in Christian Worship: Re-evaluating the Evidence

This time, we’ll be taking a quick break from my series critiquing Bob Pulliam’s book “In the Days of Those Kings”. This issue has been weighing on my heart for at least a couple years, now, and I want to include a link to this post in my upcoming book (which I can’t do unless I know what the link will be!). I’ll give you Part 4 of the series next time (I also intend to create a list on this website linking to each Part in order for easy reference, so keep an eye out for that). In the immortal words of Charmx, “So without any further ado, let’s begin!”

If there’s one thing the Churches of Christ are more legalistic on than anything else, it’s forbidding the use of any instruments whatsoever in worship. I call them “legalistic” in this regard because whenever I hear a Church of Christ member talking about a church congregation that is using instruments in worship, they always do so in a condemnatory tone, as if the church is straight-up sinning. If you walked in on such a conversation just after they’ve already said what they were talking about, you’d think the church they were talking about was espousing some dangerous teaching like indulgences, Calvinistic predestination, or pro-LGBT theology. Does the use of instruments in worship really deserve to be lumped together with those kinds of things?

Churches of Christ have no shortage of arguments that have been offered in favor of using instruments in worship that they can easily shoot down (indeed, the ones I’ve seen them call out tend to be very weak), and they’ve even compiled long lists of authority figures in Christendom who publicly condemn the use of instruments in worship and claim that the New Testament never authorizes it, century after century after century. This easily gives the impression that any case anyone makes that the NT does allow it must be utterly hopeless. But is the case that the NT church isn’t authorized to use instruments in worship really as overwhelming as they’re making it out to be, or is it really just elephant hurling — throwing out a long list of items that seem to refute your opponent’s position, to intimidate them to the point where they don’t realize that (probably even unbeknownst to the one giving the list) the list is irrelevant?

Well, I find it intriguing that despite everything I’ve seen Church of Christ teachers say on this subject (in sermons, in writing, or in Facebook posts), I’ve come across something that I’ve never once seen them address (not even when I bring it up in the comments of said Facebook posts!). As far as I’m concerned, that alone should prompt further investigation. So let’s take a fresh look at which musical instruments, if any, the New Testament authorizes for corporate and/or individual worship; and if there are any, let’s investigate the historical record to try figuring out how the condemnation of such has come to be so near-universal throughout the Christian era — if, of course, the condemnation is near-universal.

“The Bible Never Authorizes the Use of Instruments in Christian Worship…”

A questioner at the La Vista Church of Christ’s website asked one of its elders, Jeff Hamilton, why he used the “argument from silence” differently between masturbation and instrumental music in worship, acknowledging that the Bible never says that masturbation is sinful, yet claiming music is wrong in NT worship because it’s never mentioned in the NT. (I cover the former line of reasoning in Chapter 7 of my upcoming book.) Hamilton responded using the exact proof-texts I expected him to:

there were laws that covered masturbation, but there are no laws that say that masturbation is a sin — only that it made a man unclean for a day under the Law of Moses. Since masturbation was not ignored, and it was not labeled a sin, it is wrong to declare it a sin on your own initiative. This doesn’t mean a man can’t sin while masturbating. Too many men watch pornography or imagine themselves committing fornication while masturbating. It is these lustful things that are wrong (I Thessalonians 5:3-7).

Instrumental music is different. God did specify what kind of music He wanted in Christian worship.

“Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:19).

“Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (Colossians 3:16).

To change what God specified becomes wrong and adding instruments would be changing what God said to do.

Notice that in both cases, I started with what God said. Masturbation was unclean under the Law of Moses and no more was stated. Vocal music was specified for worship in the New Testament and no other kind of music was stated. Consistency requires that in both cases we cannot assume more (masturbation is a sin or instruments are acceptable in worship) without adding to God’s teachings.

{Italics and indentation in original. Boldface mine.}

To my knowledge, just about any Church of Christ teacher will concede that the portion I’ve boldfaced here is fairly representative of the core argument against the use of musical instruments in Christian worship: God authorized the use of “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs”, “singing”, and “making melody with your heart” (I’m personally surprised he didn’t use a translation that renders it “in your heart”; I’ll address that alternative rendering in item #4 in the list near the bottom of the next section), but not musical instruments. All other arguments they use on this topic are at best circumstantial in comparison, since they aren’t conclusive; so if this argument fails, none of the others are strong enough to prove the point in lieu of it.

Note that I’ve so far only considered worship as laid out in the NT. Plenty of examples of instruments being used in worship occur in the OT, but Church of Christ teachers dismiss those out of hand as being “Old Testament worship” that’s irrelevant to Christians under the NT, and even go so far as to flip around the argument: the fact that advocates of instruments in worship resort to OT passages to justify their position betrays the fact that they have no NT passages they can point to — reinforcing the notion that the NT never authorizes it!

Let’s just set aside the fact that such lines of reasoning about ignoring OT passages regarding instruments in worship stem from all-too-common misunderstandings about the connections between Biblical covenants (e.g., confusing the “Old Testament” as a whole with the “Mosaic Covenant” in particular; or buying into the idea that one should try to be a “New Testament Christian” instead of a “Whole Bible Christian”). The fact that those defending instruments in worship overwhelmingly use such equivocal arguments is certainly no help to their cause, since that makes it easier for their opponents to claim they have no unequivocal ones. In fact, some of their arguments are downright pathetic. For example, in December 2006, Rick Atchley preached a sermon at Richland Hills Church of Christ in Fort Worth where, among other things, he “assert[ed] that instrumental music in worship is acceptable since when Jesus cast out the ‘money changers’ in the temple, he did not cast out the ‘musicians’. [Russ McCullough responded to this non-sequitur by saying]… Today, there is no temple, there are no money changers and there is no instrumental music in God approved worship!” {“Emerging Towards Apostasy: A Documented Effective Analysis of Post-Modern, Evangelical & Patristic Influences Upon Departing Churches of Christ”. McCullough, Russ. 2013. Trafford Publishing. 326.} I’d like to add here that the Gospels also don’t say he “cast out the temple prostitutes”; so should we infer from that point that prostitution is allowed in Christian worship?!

However, the core argument that I boldfaced above overlooks something critical: that those who use this argument (Church of Christ or otherwise) unwittingly are changing what God specified!

…Or Does It?

You see, contrary to Rudd’s claim {scroll to “L.7.” in the outline} that there are “Nine New Testament passages to sing, [and] none to play instruments”, I’m aware of six verses in the NT epistles that do mention the use of instruments. They are as follows:

“and the nations for kindness to glorify God, according as it hath been written, ‘Because of this I will confess to Thee among nations, and to Thy name I will sing praise,’” (Romans 15:9 YLT)

“For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.” (1 Corinthians 14:14-15 ASV)

“What is it then, brethren? When ye come together, each one [TR adds “of you”] hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.” (1 Corinthians 14:26 ASV)

“addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart” (Ephesians 5:19 ESV)

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” (Colossians 3:16 ESV)

“Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise.” (James 5:13 ESV)

Now, you’re probably thinking: “Wait, where are instruments mentioned in these verses? And didn’t we just see Hamilton pointing out that the 4th and 5th of these don’t mention instruments at all?” Well, this is where the phenomenon I call “translational inertia” is showing its ugly face. As I’m sure many of my readers are aware, there are quite a few common terms throughout the NT that have acquired so much significance and baggage within Christendom that English translators would rather avoid being perceived as controversial (not to mention potentially hurting their sales numbers in the process) by continuing to render them “the generally-accepted way”, rather than providing the actual English equivalent. A prime verse for demonstrating this is 2 Corinthians 1:1. Here’s how the KJV renders it: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:” Now here’s how the LGV renders it: “Paul, Emissary of Jesus Anointed by the will of God, and Timothy the brother, to the assembly of God, the one in Corinth, together with all the holy ones being in the whole of Achaia.” Where the KJV transliterated the words ἀπόστολος (apostolos) and Χριστός (Christos) and gave the theological jargon corresponding to ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia) and ἅγιος (hagios), the LGV rendered all 4 words with their actual English equivalents.

Unfortunately, when one uses such transliterations and jargon, it becomes easy, with time, to impose whatever ideas you want on the terms, rather than letting the text speak for itself. Indeed, Church of Christ teachers have long pointed out some false teachings that are given cover by such renderings. A prime example is when congregations who practice sprinkling water on someone or pouring water over their head get away with calling it a “baptism”, because most English versions transliterate the Greek word βαπτίζω (baptizō) as “baptize”, a word that can mean whatever the reader wants it to mean. Such false teachers wouldn’t gain anywhere near as much traction if βαπτίζω was properly translated as “immerse” or “submerge”!

Yet ironically, Church of Christ teachers make this exact mistake with two key Greek words that show up in the 6 verses I presented at the start of this section. Watch how these verses read when every word is translated, with none of them being transliterated:

“Moreover, the nations [i.e., Gentiles] concerning [God’s, cf. verse 8] mercy, to glorify God, inasmuch as it has been written, ‘Through this I will celebrate to You with nations, and to the name of You, I will strum.’” (Romans 15:9 my word-for-word translation, boldface added)

“For if I might pray in a tongue, the breath/spirit of mine prays, but the mind of mine is fruitless [because I can’t understand the language in which I’m praying!]. Which, therefore, is it? I will pray with the breath/spirit, but I will pray also with the mind. I will strum with the breath/spirit, yet I will strum also with the mind.” (1 Corinthians 14:14-15 my word-for-word translation, boldface added)

“What, therefore, is it, brethren? Whenever you may come together, each one [TR adds “of you”] has a praise-ballad, has a teaching, has a disclosure [i.e., “revelation”], has a language, has a translation. All things toward building up should come to pass.” (1 Corinthians 14:26 my word-for-word translation, boldface added)

“Speaking to yourselves with praise-ballads and sacred odes and spiritual songs, singing and strumming with the [collective; “heart” is singular but “of yours” is plural] heart of yours to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:19 my word-for-word translation, boldface added)

“The word of the Anointed One must dwell [imperative] in you [plural] abundantly, in all wisdom teaching and cautioning yourselves with praise-ballads, with sacred odes, with spiritual songs; with the graciousness singing in the hearts of yours to God.” (Colossians 3:16 my word-for-word translation, boldface added)

“Someone is undergoing hardship among you? He should pray [imperative]. Someone is joyful? He should strum [imperative].” (James 5:13 my word-for-word translation, boldface added)

The noun I’ve rendered “praise-ballad” above is G5568, ψαλμός (psalmos), a word that refers to a pious piece of music that was to be played on a stringed instrument and sung along to {what I’ve presented here is a synthesis of all the definitions available at the page cited}. The verb I’ve rendered “strum” above is G5567, ψάλλω (psallō), which refers to plucking or twanging a stringed instrument, with or without vocal accompaniment. In fact, there was an ancient Greek stringed instrument called the ψαλτήριον (psaltērion) {sorry to link to Wikipedia, but I couldn’t find any other search results with a decent amount of images!}; its name gave rise to the English word “psaltery”.

While “strum” was easily the most concise English equivalent I’ve ever seen for psallō, coming up with an English equivalent for psalmos was considerably more difficult. At first I was thinking “harp-song”, to emphasize that strings are being plucked on a musical instrument, but then I realized that this term wouldn’t necessarily imply vocals (it also seems to limit the type of stringed instrument used). Even the LGV transliterates the word as “psalm” in 1 Corinthians 14:26 {scroll to p. 27} and “psalms” in Colossians 3:16 {scroll to p. 10}, renders the word as “play” in Romans 15:9 {scroll to p. 33}, and most descriptively translates the word as “instrumental music” in Ephesians 5:19 {scroll to p. 11}. Unfortunately, all my years of listening to instrumental metal songs has taught me that the term “instrumental music” implies a lack of vocals, so that’s not gonna work here, either! When I tried looking up an English term on Google using my phone, the AI Overview said that there’s no universally accepted term, but the closest ones would probably be “folk song” or “ballad”. Between the two, I’d go with “ballad”, since ballads are traditionally played on stringed instruments (guitar, fiddle, etc.), and they blatantly involve vocals; the only problem is that I typically think of a ballad as telling a story, which isn’t necessarily the case with a psalmos; so to clarify the song as being pious in nature or used for worship, I prefixed the adjective “praise” to it. This highlights a better reason why English translators keep transliterating psalmos instead of translating it: they’re hard-pressed to give an accurate-enough translation!

Now, the common response to this would undoubtedly be that “they were referring to responsively reading chapters from the book of Psalms”. But that assumes that psalmos was being used exclusively as a proper noun at this time, and had lost its meaning as a common noun. That might be more believable if the Greek title of the book of Psalms was simply a transliteration of the Hebrew title, but that’s not even close to the case: in what universe would Ψαλμός (Psalmos) be considered a transliteration of תְהִלִּים (Tehillim)? The Hebrew word tehillim literally means “praises” or “praise-songs” {scroll to entry 3. Under “Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon”}, reinforcing my choice of “praise-ballad” as the closest English equivalent to psalmos. This is consistent with psalmos being an already-existing Greek word that meant the same thing as tehillim at the time the LXX was translated. It clearly wasn’t until later that “psalm” was being transliterated as if it was a proper noun (e.g., the book of Psalms is named Liber Psalmorum in the Latin Vulgate); even in the Quran, the book of Psalms is referred to with the Arabic word زَبُورُ (Zabūr), meaning “inscription” or “writing” (perhaps they got this term from the traditional Jewish threefold division of the OT: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, the book of Psalms being the first and longest book in the third section). Even setting aside all that, this argument fixates on the noun psalmos, while ignoring the verb psallo. Unless you’re willing to render that word as “psalming” in English bibles and expect readers to understand what that’s supposed to mean (without explaining it in a margin note), this argument won’t get you anywhere.

Having established, then, that these passages clearly show that Paul wholeheartedly approved of the use of stringed instruments in worship, I should note that they also present some caveats:

  1. The first passage is quoting from 2 Samuel 22:50 & Psalm 18:49, which David originally spoke “on the day that the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies” (Psalm 18:1b NKJV). In fact, it’s been pointed out {scroll to “New Defender’s Study Bible Notes” on verses 9-12} that this is the first of 4 seemingly obscure OT passages that Paul quotes in Romans 15:9-12, all of which mention Gentiles glorifying, rejoicing over, praising, or trusting in the God of Israel. So this mention of “strumming” seems to be less prescriptive of what Gentile believers should do, and more descriptive of David’s desire to bring the Gentiles to God in the first place, something that was ultimately fulfilled in his descendant, Jesus — note that the passages Paul was quoting from in Romans 15:9 end with a mention of God showing “mercy to His anointed, To David and his descendants forevermore.” (2 Samuel 22:51c & Psalm 18:50c NKJV)
  2. The context of the second of these passages is discussing the misuse versus proper use of spiritual gifts in the assembly (1 Corinthians 14:12-19) — which clearly shows that the church at Corinth was dealing with the issue of tongues being misused in the assembly even while singing along to stringed instruments! This not only establishes that at least some congregations at Corinth were playing stringed instruments and singing along to them in their assemblies, but it gives us the additional instruction that such songs should only be used if the lyrics can be understood by the congregation at large (because otherwise, the congregation at large won’t benefit from those lyrics)! This tells us there’s nothing wrong with, say, English or Spanish-speaking congregations using songs that include Hebrew, Greek, or Latin words in their lyrics, so long as the meanings of those foreign words are either already known by everyone in the assembly, or somehow explained to those who don’t know in the course of the assembly (verses 9, 13 & 27-28).
  3. The third passage tells us the song should only be accepted if it is of an edifying nature (e.g., screaming lyrics like many metal bands do should be rejected, since it makes the lyrics harder for the listeners to understand and be edified by; and as I mention in my upcoming book, singing isn’t very edifying to the hearers if the instruments are so loud that you can’t hear the singing! {HIDMF, p. ##}), and the greater context (verses 26-33) tells us that the use of such praise-ballads in the assembly should be as orderly (verse 40) as the other things mentioned in verse 26.
  4. The fourth passage tells us that the singing needs to be done with the congregation focused on God (the Greek sentence structure suggests that the qualifier for “singing and strumming” isn’t merely “with/in your collective heart”, as some might claim in an effort to make the “strumming” figurative — which would also require the “singing” to be figurative, to be consistent! — but “with your collective heart toward the Lord”), rather than mere entertainment as seen in far too many congregations today.
  5. The fifth passage saying basically the same thing as the fourth, but with “heart” being plural instead of singular, tells us this also applies on the individual level, lest one wind up just “going through the motions” like many of the Jews who rejected Jesus had gotten into the habit of doing in temple worship.
  6. It’s significant that the one passage from James is the only one of these where the verb psallō is in the imperative mood — indicating a command. Yet not only is this command clearly meant on the individual (not congregational) level, but it’s obvious that James was giving prayer and strumming as examples of what Christians should do in hardship and joy (i.e., they’re not the only things permissible for Christians in such circumstances). The complete lack of any other instances of psallō in the imperative mood, combined with Paul’s obvious approval of doing this action in the assembly, would’ve yielded an unmistakable implication to the 1st-century Christians who were reading these passages in the original language: stringed instruments are allowed in worship, but not required; so whether to use them is up to each congregation within a city.

As far as I can tell, this is the Biblical position on the use of instruments in Christian worship. (But feel free to tell me if I’ve overlooked something in the text!)

A Brief History Lesson on Ancient Music

It’s important to bear in mind that for most of the world throughout history, musical instruments have been prohibitively expensive. (I’ve even found a Reddit post asking how jazz musicians of the early-to-mid 20th century were able to afford their instruments and suits — and the answers give good insight into just how many sacrifices they had to make to do so!) This meant that the majority of synagogues and local churches couldn’t have afforded instruments for use in their worship, which is probably why Paul approved of the use of stringed instruments, but didn’t command it — he was accommodating the assemblies who simply couldn’t follow such a command. This may also help us understand one of the quotes Steve Rudd offered to show that Jewish synagogues had banned the use of instruments before the temple was destroyed:

“For Me an instrument of ten strings, and for Me the psaltery (Ps. 92:4). Among the people of Israel all assemblies [synagogues], to be legally valid, require the presence of ten men, even as the harp upon which David played had ten strings. The service at [the burial of] the dead requires the presence of ten men; the service at a circumcision requires the presence of ten men; the blessing of the Lord requires the presence of ten men; Chalishah requires the presence of ten men; the marriage service requires the presence of ten men, for it is said And he took ten men of the elders of the city (Ruth 4:2). The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I desire from Israel not music of the harp but the solemn utterance of their mouth, as is said For Me a solemn sound, more than a harp (Ps. 92:4).” (The Midrash on Psalms, Tehillim, Psalm 92)

{Red text, content in brackets, and citations in original. Boldface mine.}

Notice that the website I lifted this quote from fixates on the final statement in red (which is nowhere to be found in the Bible, by the way; note that “(Ps. 92:4)” is cited in two places in this quote, but only the first one actually matches the corresponding quote, by the Masoretic Text’s verse numbering — we’ll see later that this isn’t an isolated incident, by the way!) to justify banning instruments in worship, while totally ignoring the sentences leading up to it that explain the justification for giving that statement at all. As far as the Rabbis quoted in the Talmud were concerned, either all synagogue gatherings must have ten men playing harps, or none of them can; if even one assembly can’t afford 10 harps, then all assemblies must worship with no harps whatsoever. This may even give us more insight into just how selfish and greedy the temple priesthood had become by the Apostolic period: they’d been making a killing by using the temple complex as “a house of merchandise” (John 2:16c ASV), yet they couldn’t spare any money to purchase harps for use in the synagogues?

I should probably also mention that melodies in the Biblical period were considerably shorter and simpler than what we’re used to hearing in developed countries today. Perhaps you’ve seen an old movie with a scene involving a native American or African tribe dancing around a campfire while playing highly repetitive music with occasional improv and only 1 or 2 — maybe 3 — different instruments contributing to it. As racist as some of the other details in those scenes may be, this portrayal of the music is historically realistic. In fact, that’s just about how intricate music could get, anywhere in the world, until musical notation was developed circa A.D. 800-1050. Had musical notation (and audio recording) never been invented, the music we produce and listen to today would probably be very similar to that! You see, before musical notation was invented (enabling music to be written down, eliminating the cultural necessity of memorizing every note), music had to be passed on exclusively through oral tradition. That meant that how long or elaborate a piece of music could get was limited to whatever could be passed on to and memorized by successive generations. If there were any further elaborations before then, they were lost to the mists of time because successive generations couldn’t memorize them reliably enough to retain them (which is why that “improv” mentioned above is pretty much the greatest extent of elaboration they could achieve).

Tracing False Teaching Back to the Source

So now that we’ve established that Paul did indeed authorize Christian churches to use stringed instruments in worship, we must now tackle the obvious next question: why has the use of any instruments, including stringed ones, been so vigorously condemned throughout church history? This is where I felt compelled to apply the 10th foundational principle of the Bereans Bible Institute: “Whenever possible, trace modern doctrines back to the source to see when, where, why, and how they originated.” {Italics in original} As Tim Warner explains:

These principles are intended to remove personal bias and faulty presuppositions as much as possible. The first nine principles guide our handling of Scripture. They would be entirely sufficient if we did not have nearly two centuries [sic; I’m pretty sure he meant “millennia”] of theological baggage polluting our modern understandings of the Scriptures. Most of us are not new to Christianity or to the Scriptures. We have been indoctrinated for many years by various denominations and the pastors and teachers in our churches. Some of us have also been indoctrinated by Christian college and/or seminary professors, reading required theological source material, and the various theological systems of the schools we attended. This exposure colors our thinking and imposes biases and presuppositions, many of which do not reflect the pristine teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Most Christians are oblivious to the fact that their minds have been conditioned to assume certain things as being true and other things as being anathema and heretical without solid proof. Most have not even attempted to apply Paul’s admonishment objectively or thoroughly – “Test all things; hold fast what is good.”
It is because of this theological baggage that the tenth principle is absolutely critical if we expect to arrive at the whole truth. This principle provides a check against the possibility that we might have overlooked something important, or are still being influenced by personal biases of which we are not aware. If our conclusions cannot be found in the writings of the earliest Christians, we need to know why. The last thing we want to do is come up with something unique that was not taught by Jesus and His Apostles and thus faithfully passed on to the earliest Christian assemblies. Worse yet, we do not want to teach something that was considered heresy by the earliest Christians who were instructed by the Apostles.

{Ibid. Italics in original}

Indeed, if you look through that list of quotations condemning the use of instruments in worship I mentioned earlier, you’ll see that Scriptural citations are relatively rare; and whenever they do name names, the names are almost always of people who lived multiple centuries after the Apostles (who thus had their own theological baggage coloring their views), meaning the argument amounts to: “We do it this way because that’s what my teacher taught me, and it’s what his teacher taught him…” Yet in no instance does the chain of teachers ever end with an Apostle. However, there is one authority figure within Christendom who wrote on this subject within 150 years of the Apostle John’s death: Clement of Alexandria (there is another, actually, but we’ll get to him later). All other witnesses cited in that list were writing in A.D. 300 or later, so this is the earliest extra-biblical authority Rudd cited on the subject. We already know that Clement of Alexandria preferred to interpret the Bible allegorically in order to make Christianity more palatable and respectable to pagan Greek intelligentsia (who were very fond of interpreting things allegorically). In light of that background knowledge about Clement of Alexandria and his situation, his take on music is quite understandable:

“Moreover, King David the harpist, whom we mentioned just above, urged us toward the truth and away from idols. So far was he from singing the praises of daemons that they were put to flight by him with the true music; and when Saul was Possessed, David healed him merely by playing the harp. The Lord fashioned man a beautiful, breathing instrument, after His own imaged and assuredly He Himself is an all-harmonious instrument of God, melodious and holy, the wisdom that is above this world, the heavenly Word.” … “He who sprang from David and yet was before him, the Word of God, scorned those lifeless instruments of lyre and cithara. By the power of the Holy Spirit He arranged in harmonious order this great world, yes, and the little world of man too, body and soul together; and on this many-voiced instruments of the universe He makes music to God, and sings to the human instrument. “For thou art my harp and my pipe and my temple”(Clement of Alexandria, 185AD, Readings p. 62)

“Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men. The Spirit, to purify the divine liturgy from any such unrestrained revelry chants: ‘Praise Him with sound of trumpet,” for, in fact, at the sound of the trumpet the dead will rise again; praise Him with harp,’ for the tongue is a harp of the Lord; ‘and with the lute. praise Him.’ understanding the mouth as a lute moved by the Spirit as the lute is by the plectrum; ‘praise Him with timbal and choir,’ that is, the Church awaiting the resurrection of the body in the flesh which is its echo; ‘praise Him with strings and organ,’ calling our bodies an organ and its sinews strings, for front them the body derives its Coordinated movement, and when touched by the Spirit, gives forth human sounds; ‘praise Him on high-sounding cymbals,’ which mean the tongue of the mouth which with the movement of the lips, produces words. Then to all mankind He calls out, ‘Let every spirit praise the Lord,’ because He rules over every spirit He has made. In reality, man is an instrument arc for peace, but these other things, if anyone concerns himself overmuch with them, become instruments of conflict, for inflame the passions. The Etruscans, for example, use the trumpet for war; the Arcadians, the horn; the Sicels, the flute; the Cretans, the lyre; the Lacedemonians, the pipe; the Thracians, the bugle; the Egyptians, the drum; and the Arabs, the cymbal. But as for us, we make use of one instrument alone: only the Word of peace by whom we a homage to God, no longer with ancient harp or trumpet or drum or flute which those trained for war employ.” (Clement of Alexandria, 190AD The instructor, Fathers of the church, p. 130)

{Punctuation, spelling, and citations in original.}

However, Rudd (or more likely, as we’ll see below, the source he relied on) seems to have muddled these quotes a bit: when we look at these statements in their contexts, we see that Clement of Alexandria was saying something very different. Bear in mind that going into the first case, Clement had used Greek myths about the power of music to set up a contrast with Judeo-Christian teachings:

The silly are stocks and stones, and still more senseless than stones is a man who is steeped in ignorance. As our witness, let us adduce the voice of prophecy accordant with truth, and bewailing those who are crushed in ignorance and folly: For God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham; Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8 and He, commiserating their great ignorance and hardness of heart who are petrified against the truth, has raised up a seed of piety, sensitive to virtue, of those stones — of the nations, that is, who trusted in stones. Again, therefore, some venomous and false hypocrites, who plotted against righteousness, He once called a brood of vipers. Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7 But if one of those serpents even is willing to repent, and follows the Word, he becomes a man of God.

Others he figuratively calls wolves, clothed in sheep-skins, meaning thereby monsters of rapacity in human form. And so all such most savage beasts, and all such blocks of stone, the celestial song has transformed into tractable men. For even we ourselves were sometime foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. Thus speaks the apostolic Scripture: But after that the kindness and love of God our saviour to man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy, He saved us. Titus 3:3-5 Behold the might of the new song! It has made men out of stones, men out of beasts. Those, moreover, that were as dead, not being partakers of the true life, have come to life again, simply by becoming listeners to this song. It also composed the universe into melodious order, and tuned the discord of the elements to harmonious arrangement, so that the whole world might become harmony. It let loose the fluid ocean, and yet has prevented it from encroaching on the land. The earth, again, which had been in a state of commotion, it has established, and fixed the sea as its boundary. The violence of fire it has softened by the atmosphere, as the Dorian is blended with the Lydian strain; and the harsh cold of the air it has moderated by the embrace of fire, harmoniously arranging these the extreme tones of the universe. And this deathless strain — the support of the whole and the harmony of all — reaching from the centre to the circumference, and from the extremities to the central part, has harmonized this universal frame of things, not according to the Thracian music, which is like that invented by Jubal, but according to the paternal counsel of God, which fired the zeal of David. And He who is of David, and yet before him, the Word of God, despising the lyre and harp, which are but lifeless instruments, and having tuned by the Holy Spirit the universe, and especially man — who, composed of body and soul, is a universe in miniature — makes melody to God on this instrument of many tones; and to this instrument — I mean man — he sings accordant: For you are my harp, and pipe, and temple. — a harp for harmony — a pipe by reason of the Spirit — a temple by reason of the word; so that the first may sound, the second breathe, the third contain the Lord. And David the king, the harper whom we mentioned a little above, who exhorted to the truth and dissuaded from idols, was so far from celebrating demons in song, that in reality they were driven away by his music. Thus, when Saul was plagued with a demon, he cured him by merely playing. A beautiful breathing instrument of music the Lord made man, after His own image. And He Himself also, surely, who is the supramundane Wisdom, the celestial Word, is the all-harmonious, melodious, holy instrument of God. What, then, does this instrument — the Word of God, the Lord, the New Song — desire? To open the eyes of the blind, and unstop the ears of the deaf, and to lead the lame or the erring to righteousness, to exhibit God to the foolish, to put a stop to corruption, to conquer death, to reconcile disobedient children to their father. The instrument of God loves mankind. The Lord pities, instructs, exhorts, admonishes, saves, shields, and of His bounty promises us the kingdom of heaven as a reward for learning; and the only advantage He reaps is, that we are saved. For wickedness feeds on men’s destruction; but truth, like the bee, harming nothing, delights only in the salvation of men.

You have, then, God’s promise; you have His love: become partaker of His grace. And do not suppose the song of salvation to be new, as a vessel or a house is new. For before the morning star it was; and in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 Error seems old, but truth seems a new thing.

{Clement of Alexandria. “Exhortation to the Heathen”. Chapter 1. Italics and verse citations by Wilson/Knight. Boldface mine.}

Notice that Clement portrays David’s harp playing as a sort of one-up to Greek myths; that certainly sounds like he was agreeing with the idea that music has power (note that David is said to have cured Saul just by “playing” rather than “singing”). Yet he also compares David’s harp playing with what Christ has been doing to orchestrate history (pun intended). The allegories are thick in this passage, lining up with what we know about Clement’s hermeneutic. Yet these additional details make it clear that when Clement said Jesus “despised the lyre and harp”, he didn’t mean that Jesus hated them, but merely ignored them in favor of something else. Overall, a careful reading of this passage shows that it’s not merely ambiguous, but utterly silent on the use of instruments in worship. However, the other passage goes over quite a bit of nuance about instrument usage (among other things) in feasts. Please bear with me; I think quoting the entire chapter is necessary to see just how selective Rudd’s quotation of it is:

Let revelry keep away from our rational entertainments, and foolish vigils, too, that revel in intemperance. For revelry is an inebriating pipe, the chain of an amatory bridge, that is, of sorrow. And let love, and intoxication, and senseless passions, be removed from our choir. Burlesque singing is the boon companion of drunkenness. A night spent over drink invites drunkenness, rouses lust, and is audacious in deeds of shame. For if people occupy their time with pipes, and psalteries, and choirs, and dances, and Egyptian clapping of hands, and such disorderly frivolities, they become quite immodest and intractable, beat on cymbals and drums, and make a noise on instruments of delusion; for plainly such a banquet, as seems to me, is a theatre of drunkenness. For the apostle decrees that, putting off the works of darkness, we should put on the armour of light, walking honestly as in the day, not spending our time in rioting and drunkenness, in chambering and wantonness. Romans 13:12-13 Let the pipe be resigned to the shepherds, and the flute to the superstitious who are engrossed in idolatry. For, in truth, such instruments are to be banished from the temperate banquet, being more suitable to beasts than men, and the more irrational portion of mankind. For we have heard of stags being charmed by the pipe, and seduced by music into the toils, when hunted by the huntsmen. And when mares are being covered, a tune is played on the flute — a nuptial song, as it were. And every improper sight and sound, to speak in a word, and every shameful sensation of licentiousnes — which, in truth, is privation of sensation — must by all means be excluded; and we must be on our guard against whatever pleasure titillates eye and ear, and effeminates. For the various spells of the broken strains and plaintive numbers of the Carian muse corrupt men’s morals, drawing to perturbation of mind, by the licentious and mischievous art of music.

The Spirit, distinguishing from such revelry the divine service, sings, Praise Him with the sound of trumpet; for with sound of trumpet He shall raise the dead. Praise Him on the psaltery; for the tongue is the psaltery of the Lord. And praise Him on the lyre. By the lyre is meant the mouth struck by the Spirit, as it were by a plectrum. Praise with the timbrel and the dance, refers to the Church meditating on the resurrection of the dead in the resounding skin. Praise Him on the chords and organ. Our body He calls an organ, and its nerves are the strings, by which it has received harmonious tension, and when struck by the Spirit, it gives forth human voices. Praise Him on the clashing cymbals. He calls the tongue the cymbal of the mouth, which resounds with the pulsation of the lips. Therefore He cried to humanity, Let every breath praise the Lord, because He cares for every breathing thing which He has made. For man is truly a pacific instrument; while other instruments, if you investigate, you will find to be warlike, inflaming to lusts, or kindling up amours, or rousing wrath.

In their wars, therefore, the Etruscans use the trumpet, the Arcadians the pipe, the Sicilians the pectides, the Cretans the lyre, the Lacedæmonians the flute, the Thracians the horn, the Egyptians the drum, and the Arabians the cymbal. The one instrument of peace, the Word alone by which we honour God, is what we employ. We no longer employ the ancient psaltery, and trumpet, and timbrel, and flute, which those expert in war and contemners of the fear of God were wont to make use of also in the choruses at their festive assemblies; that by such strains they might raise their dejected minds. But let our genial feeling in drinking be twofold, in accordance with the law. For if you shall love the Lord your God, and then your neighbour, let its first manifestation be towards God in thanksgiving and psalmody, and the second toward our neighbour in decorous fellowship. For says the apostle, Let the Word of the Lord dwell in you richly. Colossians 3:16 And this Word suits and conforms Himself to seasons, to persons, to places.

In the present instance He is a with us. For the apostle adds again, Teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your heart to God. And again, Whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and His Father. This is our thankful revelry. AND EVEN IF YOU WISH TO SING AND PLAY TO THE HARP OR LYRE, THERE IS NO BLAME. You shall imitate the righteous Hebrew king in his thanksgiving to God. Rejoice in the Lord, you righteous; praise is comely to the upright, says the prophecy. Confess to the Lord on the harp; play to Him on the psaltery of ten strings. Sing to Him a new song. And does not the ten-stringed psaltery indicate the Word Jesus, who is manifested by the element of the decad? And as it is befitting, before partaking of food, that we should bless the Creator of all; so also in drinking it is suitable to praise Him on partaking of His creatures. For the psalm is a melodious and sober blessing. The apostle calls the psalm a spiritual song. Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16

Finally, before partaking of sleep, it is a sacred duty to give thanks to God, having enjoyed His grace and love, and so go straight to sleep. And confess to Him in songs of the lips, he says, because in His command all His good pleasure is done, and there is no deficiency in His salvation.

Further, among the ancient Greeks, in their banquets over the brimming cups, a song was sung called a skolion, after the manner of the Hebrew psalms, all together raising the pæan with the voice, and sometimes also taking turns in the song while they drank healths round; while those that were more musical than the rest sang to the lyre. But let amatory songs be banished far away, and let our songs be hymns to God. Let them praise, it is said, His name in the dance, and let them play to Him on the timbrel and psaltery. And what is the choir which plays? The Spirit will show you: Let His praise be in the congregation (church) of the saints; let them be joyful in their King. And again he adds, The Lord will take pleasure in His people. Psalm 149:4 For temperate harmonies are to be admitted; but we are to banish as far as possible from our robust mind those liquid harmonies, which, through pernicious arts in the modulations of tones, train to effeminacy and scurrility. But grave and modest strains say farewell to the turbulence of drunkenness. Chromatic harmonies are therefore to be abandoned to immodest revels, and to florid and meretricious music.

{Clement of Alexandria. “The Instructor”. Book 2, Chapter 4. Italics, parentheses, and verse citations by Wilson/Knight. Boldface, underlining, and all-caps mine.}

Clearly, Clement wasn’t calling for a wholesale ban on Christians using instruments when assembling, but for them not to be used in the sinful ways that the unbelieving world has come to use them. This lines up perfectly with what we’ve already seen Paul approved of: “playing stringed instruments with your hearts toward God”. Some might claim this refers to feasts, not assemblies. But setting aside the fact that a feast is a type of gathering (assembly), Paul commanded the early Christians (including Gentiles in Corinth!) to observe the feast of Passover, albeit with a different focus than Israelites historically had: “Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, [literally, “Therefore, let us keep the feast-day,”; the verb is subjunctive, but it’s a hortatory subjunctive — acting as a 1st-person imperative, because the imperative form can’t be used in the 1st person {“Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament”. Wallace, Daniel B. 1996. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic. 464-465. 1 Corinthians 5:8 is listed as an example.}; also, while the Greek verb occurs only here in the NT, the rendering “keep (a/the) feast-day(s)” fits every context where this word occurs in the LXX {scroll to “Concordance Results”}] not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1 Corinthians 5:6-8 1995 NASB, boldface added)

The Real Problem Exposed: Bad Scholarship

Now, for a while I was thinking that the widespread condemnation of music since the Apostolic period was a result of the anti-Semitism that was starting to become more prominent in Christendom at large in the later 2nd century, because in another version of this list, I came across a couple passages with such import, dated before all the others and attributed to Justin Martyr:

MARTYR “Simply singing is not agreeable to children (Jews), but singing with lifeless instruments and with dancing and clapping is. On this account the use of this kind of instruments and of others agreeable to children is removed from the songs of the churches, and there is left remaining simply singing.” (Justin Martyr, 139 AD)

MARTYR The use of music was not received in the Christian churches, as it was among the Jew, in their infant state, but only the use of plain song.” (Justin Martyr, 139 AD)

{Punctuation and “citations” in original.}

Note that I put “citations” in quotation marks; “Justin Martyr, 139 AD” doesn’t tell us where Justin said this. In keeping with my methodology up to this point, I started running internet searches to determine which of Justin’s works these quotes came from, so I could place them in their proper context(s). But New Advent wouldn’t yield anything like these quotes no matter what I tried typing into their search bar. And eventually, I came across a blog post by Jason L. Weatherly that confirmed what I was starting to suspect: these quotes don’t come from Justin Martyr at all! As far as scholarship has been able to determine, at least one of these statements more likely came from Theodoret, who lived three centuries after Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 versus c. 393-460) and is now recognized as one of the Pseudo-Justinian authors (an author of a work falsely attributed to Justin Martyr, which is probably what caused this confusion in the first place). This is probably why Rudd didn’t include these alleged quotations of Justin Martyr in his list (at least, I hope that’s why).

In fact, Weatherly’s blog post already did much of the work for me regarding this list, presenting the original contexts of some quotations, calling out the absurd citation errors associated with others (e.g., citing page 961 of a volume that doesn’t even have 700 pages!), pointing out the biases of some of the more modern historians quoted, and even highlighting some patristic quotations that advocate in favor of musical instruments in worship!

Yes, you read that right; there are patristic quotes that actually approve of musical instruments in worship! The sentence I put in all-caps in my above quotation of Book 2, Chapter 4 of Clement of Alexandria’s “The Instructor” is just one example — and it’s not even the earliest. As far as I’m aware, the very earliest of those are the following quotes from Dialogue with Trypho, which Justin Martyr wrote sometime in the mid-to-late 150s A.D. — meaning they predate every last quote in Rudd’s list!

Then Trypho said, “We know that you quoted these because we asked you. But it does not appear to me that this Psalm which you quoted last from the words of David refers to any other than the Father and Maker of the heavens and earth. You, however, asserted that it referred to Him who suffered, whom you also are eagerly endeavouring to prove to be Christ.”

And I answered, “Attend to me, I beseech you, while I speak of the statement which the Holy Spirit gave utterance to in this Psalm; and you shall know that I speak not sinfully, and that we are not really bewitched; for so you shall be enabled of yourselves to understand many other statements made by the Holy Spirit. ‘Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth: sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His salvation from day to day, His wonderful works among all people.’ {Quoting from Psalm 96:1-3, 95:1-3 by the LXX verse numbering} He bids the inhabitants of all the earth, who have known the mystery of this salvation, i.e., the suffering of Christ, by which He saved them, sing and give praises to God the Father of all things, and recognise that He is to be praised and feared, and that He is the Maker of heaven and earth, who effected this salvation in behalf of the human race, who also was crucified and was dead, and who was deemed worthy by Him(God) to reign over all the earth. As[is clearly seen] also by the land into which[He said] He would bring[your fathers];[for He thus speaks]: ‘This people[shall go a whoring after other gods], and shall forsake Me, and shall break my covenant which I made with them in that day; and I will forsake them, and will turn away My face from them; and they shall be devoured, and many evils and afflictions shall find them out; and they shall say in that day, Because the Lord my God is not amongst us, these misfortunes have found us out. And I shall certainly turn away My face from them in that day, on account of all the evils which they have committed, in that they have turned to other gods.’ {Quoting from Deuteronomy 31:16-18 LXX}

{Justin Martyr. “Dialogue with Trypho”. Chapter 74. Content in parentheses and brackets theirs. Boldface, underlining, and content in curly brackets mine.}

“Let us glorify God, all nations gathered together; for He has also visited us. Let us glorify Him by the King of glory, by the Lord of hosts. For He has been gracious towards the Gentiles also; and our sacrifices He esteems more grateful than yours. What need, then, have I of circumcision, who have been witnessed to by God? What need have I of that other baptism, who have been baptized with the Holy Ghost? I think that while I mention this, I would persuade even those who are possessed of scanty intelligence. For these words have neither been prepared by me, nor embellished by the art of man; but David sung them, Isaiah preached them, Zechariah proclaimed them, and Moses wrote them. Are you acquainted with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures, or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe them; but you, though you read them, do not catch the spirit that is in them. Be not offended at, or reproach us with, the bodily uncircumcision with which God has created us; and think it not strange that we drink hot water on the Sabbaths, since God directs the government of the universe on this day equally as on all others; and the priests, as on other days, so on this, are ordered to offer sacrifices; and there are so many righteous men who have performed none of these legal ceremonies, and yet are witnessed to by God Himself.

{Ibid. Chapter 29. Boldface and underlining mine.}

I quoted these chapters out of sequential order because the boldfaced statement in Chapter 74 is the actual example, while the boldfaced statement from Chapter 29 reinforces the legitimacy of the example. After all, these quotes don’t seem so conclusive until you check the underlying Greek text. The underlined phrase in the first quote is the Greek verb ψάλλοντας (the accusative plural masculine present active participle of psallō), and the underlined phrase in the second quote is the Greek verb ἔψαλλεν (the imperfect active indicative 3rd-person singular form of psallō). Sure, they aren’t translated here in a way that implies instruments are involved (no surprise there, I suppose…), but the latter term is used twice (also with reference to David) in the Septuagint version of 1 Samuel:

καὶ ἐγενήθη ἐν τῷ εἶναι πνεῦμα πονηρὸν ἐπὶ Σαουλ καὶ ἐλάμβανεν Δαυιδ τὴν κινύραν καὶ ἔψαλλεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνέψυχεν Σαουλ καὶ ἀγαθὸν αὐτῷ καὶ ἀφίστατο ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ πονηρόν (1 Samuel 16:23 LXX, boldface and underlining added)

And it came to pass when the evil spirit was upon Saul, that David took his harp, and played with his hand [literally, “David was taking the Kinnor (a type of stringed instrument) and was strumming with the hand of his”]: and Saul was refreshed, and it was well with him, and the evil spirit departed from him. (1 Samuel 16:23 BLXX, boldface and underlining added)

καὶ ἐγένετο πνεῦμα θεοῦ πονηρὸν ἐπὶ Σαουλ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν οἴκῳ καθεύδων καὶ δόρυ ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ Δαυιδ ἔψαλλεν ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ (1 Samuel 19:9 LXX, boldface and underlining added)

And an evil spirit from God was upon Saul, and he was resting in his house, and a spear was in his hand, and David was playing on the harp with his hands [literally, “David was strumming with the hands of his”]. (1 Samuel 19:9 BLXX, boldface and underlining added)

The context of the latter passage is the famous incident where Saul threw a spear at David while he was playing music for him. The inclusion of the qualifier “with his hand(s)” in both passages makes it obvious that the action being referred to in both places was David plucking strings on an instrument, not singing a cappella. Indeed, the corresponding Hebrew word in both passages is נָגַן (H5059), which always refers to playing a stringed instrument! This should make it crystal-clear that my understanding of the Greek verb psallō is exactly the same as that of the LXX translators, and that Justin Martyr used this verb in the same way the LXX translators did some 300-400 years after them (after all, the LXX set the “Biblical precedent” for how early Christians were to use and understand this Greek term) — and by implication, that all the 1st– and 2nd-century Christians who lived between the LXX translators and Justin’s use of this verb in “Dialogue with Trypho” also understood the verb this way!

I decided to keep my above discussions in the present post as a supplement to Weatherly’s blog post, since I felt like bringing out some points that he didn’t. In fact, not only does his post specifically cite Rudd’s article, but it points out that it’s only one of many that present, with few exceptions, the exact same dozens of quotes — erroneous citations and all! This shows that these one-sided lists of cherry-picked quotations have just been copied-and-pasted from one website to another, without even bothering to check whether the citations are correct, let alone whether they accurately represent the entire view of the author responsible for each of them!

This just might be worse than what Grant Jeffrey did to make it seem like some ante-Nicene Church Fathers taught a pre-Tribulation rapture! It’s admittedly a close call though, since Jeffrey utilized a tactic I haven’t noticed in any of these lists:

On page 91, Jeffrey listed another quotation he said comes from “Lactantius’ Commentary on the Apocalypse.” He then proceeded to quote the very same passage he had previously attributed to “Victorinus’ Commentary on the Apocalypse” on page 89! I don’t know how this mistake was made, but, Lactantius did not write a commentary on Revelation. Was Jeffrey trying to make it appear that he had even more ancient “pretribulation” writers? One might suspect that this was just an editing error. But, Jeffrey made another identical major blunder, by listing the “Didache” on page 87, and his quote from it, and then on page 91, listing “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” and the very same quote again, but from a different translation! These are exactly the same document. (The word “Didache” is the Greek word for “Teaching” and is the abbreviated name for “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.”[)] Jeffrey quoted both of these passages twice, both times using different names or titles, as though this added more to his pile of evidence! Are these simply editing errors? Or, is there something more going on here?

{Scroll to p. 14-15 in the PDF at the previous hyperlink. Parenthesis in brackets added to correct a punctuation error.}

Yet I still see people appealing to the writers Jeffrey cites {again, see the article just cited} as support for pre-Tribulationism, and Church of Christ teachers (such as Rudd) presenting these quote lists to denounce the use of any musical instruments in Christian worship. Both groups of people should be called out for using such quotes (and for giving ammunition to evolutionists who promote the false accusation that most if not all creationists rely on quote-mining to make their cases). This sort of sloppy scholarship and mindless parroting is unacceptable for children of God. Grant Jeffrey died in 2012 (so we can expect God to hold him accountable for these tactics1 at Jesus’ return — assuming, of course, that he really was saved; I haven’t found any statements about his baptism, but maybe I just didn’t look hard enough…), but Church of Christ teachers who are still alive owe it to themselves and their students (not to mention our Lord Jesus) to do better. I don’t have a problem with people taking a position on a topic and trying to support it; what I have a problem with is when they do so in an intellectually dishonest way. So if you come across anyone doing these things to promote those ideas, feel free to direct them here and to Weatherly’s above-mentioned blog post (or to Warner’s article linked to above the previous blockquote, in the case of patristic quotes supposedly showing early belief in pre-Tribulationism — I don’t know of any such ante-Nicene quotes that aren’t just taken from Grant Jeffrey’s book; but if you come across any that aren’t covered there, feel free to let me know in the comments!). That way, they have an opportunity to learn the truth of the matter.

Conclusion

I’d like to add one more fascinating point that’s admittedly weaker than the ones I’ve already brought to bear on this topic. Out of all creatures that have auditory systems, only humans are known to derive pleasure from hearing music. Other animals (including songbirds) can hear music, of course; but they don’t get pleasure from doing so. This is circumstantial evidence that the capacity for enjoying music is a part of being made in God’s image.

Now, to be perfectly transparent, I say all this as someone who prefers congregations that don’t use instruments, simply because it’s easier on my autistic nervous system, leaving me less overwhelmed and better able to focus on worshiping alongside everyone else. The sudden shock of an organ starting to play can mess with me more than you might think. Then again, I’ve never attended a congregation that only uses unamplified harps, guitars, etc.; so I might change my tune (pun intended) if I find one of those.

I personally suspect that’s why God singled out stringed instruments in the New Testament: music from stringed instruments (particularly unamplified ones) tend to be less piercing (and thus, less jarring for worshipers who need to focus more) than the alternatives. Maybe God will bring back other instruments for worship in the New Heavens and New Earth, when the tree of life will be available for those of us who are easily jarred by other instruments to reset our nervous systems to a pristine state where such instruments won’t bother us.

To summarize: Contrary to what Christians may have been taught in many different congregations and/or denominations, the early church’s position on musical instruments in worship wasn’t monolithic. There were some congregations that used them, and some that didn’t. Again, this coheres perfectly with what Paul actually wrote: He approved of the use of stringed instruments in worship, but didn’t command it. Hence, Paul left the question of whether to use them in worship as something to be decided on the congregational level (after all, some congregations, especially in the early centuries when Christianity was subject to intense persecution, wouldn’t have been able to afford instruments). Any early Christian (and Synagogal) quotations that seem to argue one way or the other on the musical instruments issue would be better understood as justifications for why that writer’s congregation operated the way it did. Yet Paul’s divinely-inspired stance implies that all such justifications will be inconclusive.

So, all those congregations (and their attendees) who accuse other congregations of doing something wrong for taking a stance on this issue opposing their own should stop doing so. Christian Unity does not require all congregations on the planet to worship in exactly the same ways as each other. There are already plenty of truly dangerous teachings that erring congregations should be rebuked for, without attacking minor variations in worship that the NT permits (as it’s well been said many times, it’s a sad testimony that entire congregations have split over the color of the carpet). As I hinted at above, it’s good for congregations to have reasons (however inconclusive they may be) for making the decisions they do on issues like this. But talking as if the use of any musical instruments in worship is sinful amounts to adding to God’s word. And claiming the NT never authorizes us to use any musical instruments in worship amounts to subtracting from God’s word. I’m sure those who’ve done either of these things in the course of their teaching are well aware of the consequences of doing such things with God’s word (e.g., James 3:1; Revelation 22:18-19), so it’s my prayer that such teachers who read this post will adjust their behaviors and attitudes accordingly, especially now that they can no longer claim they don’t know any better (Luke 12:47-48; James 4:17).

  1. Warner mentions in an earlier version of the article just quoted that “I have tried to give the man the benefit of the doubt. But, I am at a loss to explain how he could not have known he was misrepresenting these ancient witnesses.” {p. 1} Indeed, Grant Jeffrey originally published the book in which he presented his supposed ante-Nicene pre-Tribulationist quotes in 1992, when internet search engines for the patristic writers hardly existed. Since nobody else is known to have claimed that any ante-Nicene Church Fathers were pre-Tribulationist before Grant Jeffrey published this, I can only see 2 ways that he could’ve acquired the quotes he presented in his book: (a) he exhaustively read the patristic writings, extracting these snippets as he encountered them; or (b) he took these quotes from one or some of the several books that had already been published during the several decades prior, in which these quotes were presented in-context to illustrate the post-Tribulationism of the Church Fathers! Either way, it’s impossible for Grant Jeffrey to have not known the original contexts of these quotes — and by implication, it’s impossible that Grant Jeffrey didn’t know he was taking these quotes out of context when presenting them in his book! No matter how you look at it, Grant Jeffrey was deliberately lying to his readers. ↩︎

Is Jesus Reigning Now? And If So, To What Extent? Part 2: Attempted Rebuttals

Part 3 of this series

In Part 1 of my blog post on this topic, I laid out the position I hold regarding the titular questions, then exegeted it from Scripture. In this post, I’ll deal with the proof-texts Pulliam offers for the notion that Jesus’ reign is present to the fullest extent it will ever have: Acts 2:30-36, Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:20-23, and 1 Corinthians 15:20-26.

Acts 2:30-36

He presents the first of these in a chart on p. 85 (in Lesson 8) that’d take a lot of work for me to replicate to a degree I’d be personally satisfied with, so I’ll just present a photo of the page and show the problems with his analysis before presenting Pulliam’s claims about the other proof-texts. Please read the page shown in the photo before reading my response underneath it.

As a quick aside, Pulliam’s claim above the chart about why Peter quoted Psalm 16 (verses 8-11 LXX, to be exact, in Acts 2:25-28) ignores the Psalm itself. Nowhere in the Masoretic or Septuagint versions of Psalm 16 is there any mention of a throne, kingdom, etc.; linking the “inheritance”, “cup”, and “heritage” mentioned in verses 5 & 6 with David’s throne is an unwarranted leap, given that even commoners were understood as having their own of each of these things (ever heard the saying “my cup runneth over”?). Pulliam is once again assuming that Peter was interpreting Old Testament prophecy mystically, despite a lack of incontrovertible evidence that the Apostles ever operated that way. Psalm 16:8-11 was certainly fulfilled in Jesus’ resurrection, but Jesus sitting on David’s throne can’t be gotten from that passage, or even the rest of the Psalm leading up to it. Even in Acts 2, Jesus being “exalted to the right hand of God” need not imply exaltation to David’s throne; in fact, Peter and David went on to state (in Acts 2:34-35 and Psalm 110:1, respectively) that Jesus won’t be on David’s throne as long as he’s at God’s right hand, as we’ll see below.

Moving on to the chart itself, you may have already noticed that Pulliam was quite selective in what he chose to boldface in the left-hand column of his chart; but I actually agree with most of the points Pulliam brings out in the right-hand column. So I’ll just quote the snippets in the right-hand column where I disagree before explaining what’s wrong with them.

“The descendant also received from the Father what had been promised by the Holy Spirit.”

Pulliam is clearly linking the phrase “the promise of the Holy Spirit” with the prophecy given through David. But note that the Holy Spirit hadn’t actually been mentioned anywhere in this passage since the quotation from Joel; rather, Pulliam imported that idea into the text by appealing to a letter that Peter wouldn’t write until over 35 years later! Also, not only was Peter giving this sermon at Pentecost of A.D. 30, but while Pulliam boldfaced the phrase “having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit,” he failed to boldface the phrase “He has poured forth this which you both see and hear” immediately after it! Just a few weeks earlier, Jesus himself had given his disciples a heads-up that he would send them the Holy Spirit (John 16:7). Clearly, the greater context and historical background to Peter’s statement in verse 33 indicates that “the promise of the Holy Spirit” was the promise that the Holy Spirit would be poured out on believers; that is, the Holy Spirit is what had been promised (see how flexible that little word “of” is?)! As I’ve explained elsewhere, Peter was saying that the events of Pentecost were a one-time microcosm of what would be occurring all the time once Joel’s prophecy is fulfilled.

“David said of his descendant’s position…

Question: What was the significance of Peter bringing up the throne of David, Jesus being the promised descendant to receive that throne, and then telling his hearers that God had made Him “both Lord and Christ”?”

Pulliam is trying to paint the reader into a corner, forcing them to conclude that Jesus is sitting on David’s throne already — but he does so by ignoring a critical detail in what “David said of his descendant’s position”: “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.’” As I’ll explain more thoroughly in a future post{I’ll link directly to the relevant paragraph once I’ve uploaded it}, since Jesus’ enemies being made his footstool is a metaphor for them being placed under his kingly authority, and the tense of the verb for “make” in the OT verse being quoted here (Psalm 110:1) tells us that subjugation process won’t even begin until Jesus is no longer at the Father’s right hand (a position we all agree Jesus is at right now), Jesus must have a kingly reign over his enemies that won’t begin until he’s left his Father’s right side! Why the phrasing “has made Him both Lord and Christ”? Because as I explained in Part 1, Jesus is presently Lord and Christ over the heavenly dominions (which, at the time Peter said this, would’ve included the 11 Disciples, Matthias, and the 108 other people — per Acts 1:15 — that the Apostles had baptized before the events of Pentecost A.D. 30; Matthew 28:19 & Mark 16:16 show that Jesus commanded this of them before sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost1, so it makes sense that they would’ve gotten started on it just after receiving the Great Commission!) as a co-regent with the Father; those things presently outside the heavenly dominions (unbelievers, disbelievers, governments, economies, societies, etc.) are generally under the dominion of Satan, the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV), who himself can only do what the Father allows him to.

Intimidation Trying to Pass as Exegesis

Now let’s deal with Pulliam’s other three proof-texts. But let’s start off by considering the intimidation tactic that Pulliam engages in after his initial run-through of all three.

[From lesson 8] What more is there for God to give Jesus regarding rule and authority? All authority has been given to him (Mt 28:18). To say that there is more to give denies His very own words! Is there more dominion or power for Him to receive? Paul wrote, “He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.” (Eph 1:20-23) Paul also wrote, “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.” (I Cor 15:25f) Would the Dispensationalist tell us that this one enemy makes his rule incomplete?” Even in the 1,000 year reign, which the Dispensationalist looks for, that enemy will not have been vanquished (Isa 65:20). Are we to conclude that sitting on earth would make Jesus more powerful than He presently is in heaven? Certainly not.

Not only is Dispensationalism wrong regarding the rule of Jesus on David’s throne, but it is also blasphemous. To deny that Jesus has the prophesied position Scripture presently places Him in, is an act of speaking against the King’s authority. This is no innocent opinion that one may toy with and remain in God’s favor. This is about Jesus presently ruling until the time when He will turn the kingdom over to the Father (I Cor 15:24-25 studied in lessons 14 & 20).

[From lesson 14]…Paul dealt with a different problem among the Corinthians. Some were saying that there is no resurrection.[I Corinthians 15:12.] Paul quickly gets to the point, showing the inconsistencies of false teachers, and providing a picture of hope in the resurrection of Jesus. He points out that they cannot deny a general resurrection and uphold Jesus’ resurrection at the same time. Jesus is actually described as the “firstfruits,” which necessarily implies more to come.[I Corinthians 15:23.] So, when Jesus comes again, the Corinthians could be sure that a resurrection will take place. When Jesus does come, Paul says, “then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father.”[I Corinthians 15:24.] Rather than the beginning of a Millennial reign, the coming of Jesus will be the end of His reign, because He will relinquish His present rule over the kingdom to the Father. Jesus is presently reigning until He has put all of His enemies under His feet. The last enemy will be death.[I Corinthians 15:26.] He will have conquered that enemy in this final and glorious resurrection about which Paul is writing.

[From lesson 20]…In fact, we must wonder why the Dispensationalist insists on inserting 1,000 years between verses 23 and 24 (see chart at left). Christ is already reigning over a kingdom, so, when these events occur, “then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to” God (I Cor 15:20-25). God makes it simple, people make it hard.

{“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 87-88, 147-148, 219. Italics, boldface, and capitalization in original. Scripture citations in brackets are the footnotes Pulliam indicates at that point in the body text.}

I’ll give you the chart mentioned in that last snippet later. But first, note that Pulliam is calling the idea that Jesus isn’t on David’s throne right now “blasphemous”. I presume this is why he told me to my face that he disagrees with my assessment that “your view on eschatology is only a matter of salvation if ending up wrong about it leads you to fall away” {HIDMF, p. ###. Boldface in original.} Now, just to clear the air a little, let’s consider what I explain in my book about blasphemy: “The word “blasphemy” is religiously-charged in our day, but the Greek word had a much broader meaning. The word βλασφημία (blasphēmia, pronounced blah-sfay-MEE-ah; Strong’s Number G988) more generally meant: “slander, detraction, speech injurious to another’s good name”.” {HIDMF p. 68. Italics in original.} Based on the sentence after the italicized instance of “blasphemous”, I presume that Pulliam is also using this definition. Now, if a Christian were to claim that Jesus isn’t reigning over Christians right now, I agree that would constitute slander against the one they’re supposed to be calling their Lord! However, if a Christian were to claim that Jesus isn’t on David’s throne right now, that would be slanderous only if we can conclusively demonstrate that the Bible clearly teaches that he is (in which case, claiming he’s not would constitute “detraction”). It’s clear throughout the NT that Jesus is presently at the right side of the Father, but no passage explicitly teaches that Jesus is on David’s throne at the Father’s right side. The sheer number of passages I’ve brought to bear in Part 1 showing that Jesus’ reign is not yet in its fullest form, and in fact is talked about as future throughout the epistle to the Hebrews, makes it clear that Pulliam can’t claim Jesus being on David’s throne (reigning to the fullest) now has been conclusively demonstrated (indeed, I’ve already shown that his argument from Acts 2:30-36 isn’t even close to conclusive!). However, he can weaken my position considerably by explaining how all of the passages I’ve raised that contradict his claims, actually don’t contradict his claims. If Pulliam (or anyone else who happens to be reading this) thinks they can do this with all of the passages I’ve raised throughout this series, feel free to do so; but make sure your overall position is at least as internally consistent throughout as mine is.

Now, returning to Pulliam’s remarks about his proof-texts (yes, the 1 Corinthians passage is the only one he says anything of substance about in multiple places), note that the latter 3 of these 4 paragraphs assume that Pulliam has already proven that Jesus’ reign is present in its fullest form. Since we’ve already seen the problems with the argument he made on p. 85, only the first paragraph of the previous blockquote can be considered a still-viable attempt to prove this.

The 3 remaining proof-texts are Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:20-23, and 1 Corinthians 15:20-26. These proof-texts for Jesus’ rule being at its fullest extent now all suffer from the same problem: the Greek text doesn’t support Pulliam’s claims!

Matthew 28:18

At first glance, Matthew 28:18 looks particularly straightforward: “And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”” (1995 NASB, boldface added). The perfect tense of the emphasized phrase is certainly compelling–or it would be, if the Greek verb being translated was itself in the perfect tense! The Greek word, ἐδόθη, is actually the aorist, passive, indicative, 3rd person, singular form of δίδωμι (G1325): it properly means “was given”. In Greek, the perfect indicative denotes an action done in the past whose results are still ongoing; the aorist indicative denotes an action done in the past, but says nothing about the results (or even if there were any results). This subtle difference means that the Greek text doesn’t demand that Jesus had “all authority in heaven and on earth” at the time he said this.

The obvious next question is: “So if Jesus meant that ‘All authority in heaven and on earth was given to me’, then what was he talking about”? This would simply be a reference to all the occasions in the OT where the Son of God, before becoming human, had interacted with humans in his Father’s name and on His behalf — and thus, with His authority (which was, of course, over everything “in heaven and on earth”). Jesus relinquished this authority when he entered Mary’s womb (Philippians 2:7), but he was now effectively telling his disciples: “My Father gave me all authority in heaven and on earth before–so He can do it again, and He will do it again!”

In fact, I’m struck by how closely the portion of the Great Commission preserved in Matthew parallels the suzerainty treaty format followed by the book of Deuteronomy {HIDMF, p. 90}:

DeuteronomySuzerainty Treaty SectionPurpose of SectionMatthew 28:18-20 (my translation of the Greek)
1:1-5PreambleIdentify the author of the covenantAnd Jesus, having come near, spoke to them, saying,
1:6-3:29Historical PrologueA retrospect of the past relationship of the two parties involved, giving past benevolence by the suzerain as a basis for gratitude and future obedience on the part of the vassals“All authority was given to Me in heaven and on the earth.
4-26StipulationsOutline the obligations the suzerain is laying on the vassalsSetting out, therefore, you must make students of all the nations, immersing them unto the name [i.e., “the authority”] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit/Breath,
28:1-68Blessings and CursesTo be brought upon the vassals for keeping or breaking the covenant […all the nations] in My name,2
31:9,24-26DepositionPlace a copy of the treaty in the vassals’ sanctuaryteaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you; [see also 1 Corinthians 6:19 regarding Deposition]
31:10-12Periodic Public ReadingTo remind the people of the covenant terms
31:30-32:47WitnessSelf-explanatoryand behold, I am with you all the days, until the border [literally, “the together-end”] of the age.”

It’s not a perfect parallel, but it’s close enough that the Jews Matthew originally wrote his Gospel to would’ve at least thought, “this seems familiar…”. Also bear in mind that this format would’ve been different from anything else they would’ve been familiar with, since suzerainty treaties hadn’t been divided into these particular sections in over 1,000 years — this style was in vogue in the 14th & 13th centuries B.C., and of all known suzerainty treaties from around that time, only Deuteronomy (written in the late 15th century B.C.) placed the Witness section after all the other sections. As such, Matthew 28:18-20 having the sections in this order had to be intentional. Indeed, I’m hard-pressed to think of a more effective way for Jesus to convey to his 11 remaining disciples (or for Matthew to convey to his Jewish readers) that his commands superseded the Mosaic Covenant (which had been finalized by Deuteronomy)! The important point for our purposes here is that Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:18 parallel the Historical Prologue section of a 2nd-millennium-B.C. suzerainty treaty, one purpose of which is to bring up past benevolence by the suzerain to justify future obedience of the vassals. This lines up perfectly with my paraphrase of what Jesus was telling his 11 remaining disciples here: “My Father gave me all authority in heaven and on earth before [so I could interact with Our people for their benefit and Our enemies for their destruction]–so He can do it again, and He will do it again!”

Even so, going with the usual “has been given” interpretation doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion Pulliam’s trying to draw. Since this statement is immediately followed by “Setting out, therefore…”, the implication is that the very authority being referred to in verse 18 was now being passed on to the Apostles to enable them to fulfill the Great Commission. Hence, this authority is limited in scope to the purposes of the Great Commission: this includes the authority to preach the Gospel and the New Covenant, the authority to declare the Mosaic Law obsolete for the faithful, the authority to contradict the apostate Levitical priesthood, the authority to proclaim the new means of salvation, etc. While this solution to the apparent conflict would be much more simple and straightforward, I find it difficult to pass off how perfectly the “was given” interpretation lines up with the format of Deuteronomy as a mere coincidence. I guess I’ll need some more time to make up my own mind on my preferred solution, but what’s certain for now is that Pulliam’s conclusion is not a necessary inference from this verse.

Ephesians 1:20-23

Pulliam’s next proof-text was Ephesians 1:20-23:

which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places [actually, “in the heavenly dominions”; see my explanation in Part 1], far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. (1995 NASB, boldface added)

The main issue with this passage is pretty much the same as what we saw in Part 1 for Ephesians 6:12 — the phrase “to the church” is acting as a qualifier for both instances of “all things” in the phrase “He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things” (after all, aren’t both instances of “all things” referring to the same “things”?). But there’s an extra twist this time: in the Greek, the boldfaced phrase is τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. This phrase is in the dative case, which normally has a preposition attached to it. But this phrase has no Greek preposition attached to it, so the intended preposition must be inferred. Most English translations infer the preposition to be “to”, but the resulting sentence with the phrase surrounding the first instance of “all things” (“He put all things in subjection under His feet… to the church”) hardly makes sense. So what happens if we infer the intended preposition to be “in” (the most-common dative-case preposition) instead, as the LGV does {scroll to p. 4 in the PDF}? “And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things in the church.” Clearly, the qualifier “in the church” makes sense with both halves of this phrase! Hence, this verse is referring to Jesus having authority and being head over “all things in the church”; this phrase is limiting the scope of Jesus’ present authority — precisely what Pulliam is trying to claim the NT doesn’t do!

And now you know why, in Part 1, I defined the scope of Christ’s authority at present as including “Christian institutions, such as Christian households, churches, seminaries, parachurch organizations, etc.”: all such institutions have overtly submitted themselves to Christ’s authority (in contrast to secular institutions, which are still under worldly authority)! That’s not to say that Christian institutions aren’t also subject to worldly authorities, but that their allegiance to Christ supersedes their allegiance to “all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come” – that is, worldly institutions that are presently outside the heavenly dominions, but will become subject to Jesus “in the [age] to come”; for now, they’re under the thumb of Satan, whose own authority is limited by the Father, who in turn has presently delegated authority over Christians and their institutions to His co-regent, Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:20-26

That makes for an excellent segue into Pulliam’s last still-viable proof-text for Jesus’ authority being at its fullest extent now. Given how long this discussion has gone on since I quoted what Pulliam had to say about these verses, let’s repeat those snippets first:

Paul also wrote, “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.” (I Cor 15:25f) Would the Dispensationalist tell us that this one enemy makes his rule incomplete?” Even in the 1,000 year reign, which the Dispensationalist looks for, that enemy will not have been vanquished (Isa 65:20). Are we to conclude that sitting on earth would make Jesus more powerful than He presently is in heaven? Certainly not.

…This is about Jesus presently ruling until the time when He will turn the kingdom over to the Father (I Cor 15:24-25 studied in lessons 14 & 20).

…Paul dealt with a different problem among the Corinthians. Some were saying that there is no resurrection.[I Corinthians 15:12.] Paul quickly gets to the point, showing the inconsistencies of false teachers, and providing a picture of hope in the resurrection of Jesus. He points out that they cannot deny a general resurrection and uphold Jesus’ resurrection at the same time. Jesus is actually described as the “firstfruits,” which necessarily implies more to come.[I Corinthians 15:23.] So, when Jesus comes again, the Corinthians could be sure that a resurrection will take place. When Jesus does come, Paul says, “then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father.”[I Corinthians 15:24.] Rather than the beginning of a Millennial reign, the coming of Jesus will be the end of His reign, because He will relinquish His present rule over the kingdom to the Father. Jesus is presently reigning until He has put all of His enemies under His feet. The last enemy will be death.[I Corinthians 15:26.] He will have conquered that enemy in this final and glorious resurrection about which Paul is writing.

…In fact, we must wonder why the Dispensationalist insists on inserting 1,000 years between verses 23 and 24 (see chart at left). Christ is already reigning over a kingdom, so, when these events occur, “then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to” God (I Cor 15:20-25). God makes it simple, people make it hard.

{“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 88, 147-148, 219. Italics, boldface, and capitalization in original. Scripture citations in brackets are the footnotes Pulliam indicates at that point in the body text.}

Finally, Pulliam quotes all 7 of these verses in the chart he mentioned in that snippet from p. 219, so I’ll let that chart speak for itself:

I disagree with the A.D. 33 date for Jesus’ resurrection (it was actually A.D. 30 {HIDMF p. ###-###}), and with the dispensationalist idea that the rapture precedes the 2nd coming by 7 years (they’ll actually occur at the same time {HIDMF p. ###-###}). But with respect to the present topic, that’s just nitpicking.

Right off the bat, we can see that his recommendation to “compare with Heb 1:8-13 & 10:12-13” doesn’t help him! I showed in Part 1 that Hebrews 1:13 & 10:12-13 both place Jesus’ reign over his enemies in the future (the former is quoting Psalm 110:1, the Hebrew text of which has the verb for “make” in the imperfect tense, which indicates an action that’s not yet complete — either entirely future or in-progress; hence, the relevant phrase is actually saying “sit at my right side, until I am in the process of making your enemies your footstool” — in conjunction with the word for “until”, this forces us to conclude that the process of Jesus’ enemies being made his footstool won’t begin until he’s no longer at the Father’s right side).

Now, I obviously agree with most of the points Pulliam made on p. 147-148 about 1 Corinthians 15. In fact, I agree with everything in that paragraph up to and including the phrase “a resurrection will take place”. It’s not until he starts talking about verse 24 that I start to disagree with him — and that photo of his chart on p. 218 contains the crux of the issue: the inferences he draws from the word “then” in verse 24. The Greek word is εἶτα (G1534), which can mean “then”, “next”, “after that”, “afterwards”, etc. In fact, Strong’s Concordance defines this word as “a particle of succession (in time or logical enumeration)”. However, the word for “after that” in verse 23 is ἔπειτα (G1899), which is εἶτα prefixed with ἐπί (G1909), meaning “upon”; hence, ἔπειτα means “thereupon”. “Upon” what? “Upon” the resurrection of “those who are Christ’s at His coming [parousia; G3952]”. The boldfaced phrase refers to Jesus’ physical return, something that hasn’t happened yet — again, parousia was originally a word for a visit from a ruler (featuring pomp, celebration, and addressing of requests and/or grievances), which demands that the ruler be physically present, and Jesus hasn’t been physically present since he ascended to the Father in his disciples’ presence in Acts 13; this gives us a timing element for the resurrection Paul was talking about here. As such, I can turn Pulliam’s question at the bottom of this chart back on him: If “after that” in verse 23 could refer to an event occurring at least 1,991 years after the event mentioned just before it, why can’t “then” in verse 24 refer to an event happening only 1,000 years after the event mentioned just before it? Indeed, Koine Greek had a word that would’ve worked excellently here for placing “the end” at the same time as “His parousia”: τότε (G5119), meaning “at that time”. In fact, this word is used further into the same passage: “When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:28 1995 NASB, underlining added). All these considerations together make it virtually certain that εἶτα in verse 24 was intended to indicate the order of the events it connects, not the immediacy of one event relative to the other.

“For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.” (I Cor 15:25f) Would the Dispensationalist tell us that this one enemy makes his rule incomplete?” Even in the 1,000 year reign, which the Dispensationalist looks for, that enemy will not have been vanquished (Isa 65:20). Are we to conclude that sitting on earth would make Jesus more powerful than He presently is in heaven? Certainly not.

No, what makes Jesus’ rule incomplete is the fact that, at present, only those who are willing to submit to him are under his authority; those who aren’t willing to submit to him get away with it for now. Upon his return, those who aren’t willing to submit to him will be under his authority whether they like it or not; that is what will make him more powerful than ruling over only believers from heaven. And once the very last wicked person dies in the Lake of Fire at the end of the Millennium, that is when death “will be abolished”. Jesus will have plenty of other enemies to conquer before then! (After all, Isaiah 63:1-6 tells us that the day Jesus returns will be a bloodbath! And Psalm 2:9a LXX informs us that the Father promised His Son “You will shepherd them with a rod of iron” — see Revelation 2:27, 12:5, & 19:15, where this phrase is consistently quoted with “shepherd” instead of “smash”, as seen in the Masoretic Text — implying that Jesus will be using force to some degree!)

Also note that every instance of “He” and “His” in verse 25 is capitalized; Pulliam seems to be assuming that all 4 instances refer to Jesus, and that none of them refer to the Father. But consider how Warner translated this verse to try making this more explicit: “(For it is necessary for [God] to reign until He should place all enemies under His feet).” (LGV, content in brackets in original) He justifies this in a footnote by saying that: “The personal pronoun “Him” refers back to the Father, not to the Son.” After all, the Father is explicitly mentioned in the previous verse. Hence, verse 25 could just as easily be saying that God the Father is to continue reigning over whatever His Son doesn’t until He places all enemies under His Son’s feet (Warner cross-references this with Psalm 110:1, Hebrews 2:8-9, & 10:13 — which put Jesus’ reign over the earth & his enemies after his present time at the Father’s right side).

Conclusion

In conclusion, not a single passage Pulliam gave to prove that Jesus is on David’s throne right now, reigning to the fullest, conclusively does so. All of the passages he offered cohere with my position just fine. Warner once summarized the arguments for the false doctrine of “Once Saved Always Saved” by saying the case for it “is based on proof texting a few select verses, ignoring many conflicting Scriptures, taking certain verses out of context, and pressing grammatical points that are not demanded by the Greek text.”{Scroll to p. 5 of the PDF} We have now seen that the same can be said of the idea that Jesus is presently on David’s throne and that his reign is already at its fullest extent.

  1. Admittedly, there’s an archaic variant reading of Matthew 28:19, preserved by several {scroll to pages 11-15 in the PDF} of Eusebius’ ante-Nicene writings and some eastern writers like Aphrahat and Chrysostom, that didn’t include a command to baptize, simply reading: “Going, [or “Go ye and”] make disciples of all the nations in my name.” {e.g., scroll to chapter 46 in this document} I hope to investigate the viability of this reading more thoroughly in a future post. For now, let’s just say there’s a reason the last column of my table further into this post specifies that it’s my translation of the Greek. On the other hand, the overall patristic and manuscript evidence favors the idea that the so-called “Longer Ending” (Mark 16:9-20) was the original ending to Mark’s Gospel, so verse 16 does constitute a divinely-inspired command to baptize (and an exegetically-conclusive one, at that!) before Jesus’ ascension. ↩︎
  2. If we take (for the sake of argument; I’m not ready to be dogmatic about this!) the Aramaic variant preserved by Eusebius (taken from the Aramaic copy of Matthew that was at the library in Caesarea, where Eusebius worked) as the original reading, then this phrase would arguably fall under “Blessings” in light of something Eusebius happened to bring out about this particular phrase (which was evidently a single word in the original text):

    “But observe of Him, who availed himself of nothing either human or mortal, how, in reality, He again put forth the word of God in the precept, which He gave to these His powerless Disciples, (viz.) “Go ye and make Disciples of all nations!” It is likely too, His Disciples would thus address their Lord, by way of answer: How can we do this? For, How can we preach to the Romans? And, How can we discourse with the Egyptians? What diction can we use against the Greeks; being brought up in the Syrian language only? How can we persuade the Persians, the Armenians, the Chaldeans, the Scythians, the Hindoos [Hindus; i.e., Indians], and other nations called Barbarians, to desert the gods of their forefathers, and to worship the one Creator of all things? And, upon What superiority of words can we rely, that we shall succeed in this? Or. How can we hope, that we shall prevail in the things attempted? (viz.) that we shall legislate for all nations, in direct opposition to the laws laid down from ancient times, (and this) against their gods? And, What power have we upon which to trust, that we shall succeed in this enterprise? These things therefore, the Disciples of our Saviour would either have thought, or said. But He who was their Lord solved, by one additional word, the aggregate of the things of which they doubted, (and) pledged them by saying, ”Ye shall conquer in my name.” For it was not that He commanded them, simply and indiscriminately, to go and make Disciples of all nations; but with this excellent addition which He delivered, (viz): “In my name.” Since it was by the power of His name that all this came to pass; as the Apostle has said, “God has given Him a name, which is superior to every name: that, at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow which is in heaven, and which is in earth, and which is beneath the earth.” It is likely therefore, that He would shew forth the excellency of the unseen power, which was hidden from the many, by His name; and, (accordingly) He made the addition, “In my name.” He thus accurately foretold moreover, something which should come to pass, (when) He said, “It is expedient that this my Gospel be preached in the whole world, for the testimony of all nations.” Now, this matter was then declared in a corner of the earth, so that those only who were at hand could have heard it. But, How could they have believed Him when He said this, unless they had taken experiment as to the truth of His words, from the other Divine acts which were done by Him? For this, you are compelled to confess when it is considered, that they gave credence to what He said. For, when He gave them the command, not so much as one sought to be excused; but they confided in what He had intimated: and, just as His promises had been, so DID they make Disciples of the whole race of men! They did go forth from their own land into all nations; and, in a short time, His words were seen in effect! His Gospel was therefore shortly preached, throughout the whole creation, for the testimony of all nations, so that the Barbarians and Greeks received the Scriptures, respecting the common Saviour of all, in the handwriting of their Progenitors, and in the words of their spiritual Fathers.“
    {Eusebius. Theophania. Book V. Chapter 46. Italics indicate Biblical quotations. Boldface mine.}

    The fact that this reading would make the overall structure of Matthew 28:18-20 line up even more with the suzerainty treaty format of Deuteronomy than what we see in extant manuscripts is certainly intriguing, especially considering that Eusebius almost certainly wouldn’t have known about the sections in 14th-century B.C. suzerainty treaties, and thus couldn’t have made this connection between Matthew 28:18-20 and the section purposes himself. ↩︎
  3. About the closest Jesus has come to being back on earth since then was the times when he appeared to Paul, and then to John in the vision recorded in the book of Revelation. But in both cases, Jesus was still at the Father’s side; it’s just that Paul and John were there in “visions and revelations of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 12:1c KJV). The Greek word for “visions” (G3701) in this verse is often used in Scripture for experiences that don’t actually relocate a prophet, but appear real and tangible to their perception (e.g., see Luke 1:22, 24:23, and the LXX of Daniel 9:23, 10:1,7,8,16); note that Paul’s companions on the road to Damascus could see Paul and hear him and Jesus talking (but even then, they couldn’t understand them because the conversation was in Hebrew/Aramaic, but his companions only knew Greek; see Acts 9:7, 22:9, & 26:14), but couldn’t see Jesus. For a fuller explanation of Jesus’ appearances to Paul (yes, there was more than one!), see the Notes on 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 LGV {scroll to p. 16 in the PDF}. ↩︎

Is Jesus Reigning Now? And If So, To What Extent? Part 1: My Position

Part 2 of this series

I split the titular question into two questions to illustrate how Pulliam (and amillennialists in general) seem to have fallen for (and therefore perpetuate) the fallacy of the complex question: where they ask a loaded question that should be split into 2 questions in order to prevent potential answers from being problematic. The classic example is “Have you stopped beating your wife?”, where “yes” or “no” would be equally problematic because both would imply that the answerer did beat their wife at some point; it should be split into: “Have you ever beaten your wife? If so, have you now stopped doing this?” Amillennialists likewise ask: “Is Jesus reigning now?” as if it’s an all-or-nothing situation — presumably because they don’t realize there’s a spectrum of conceivable answers, rather than a simple yes-no binary.

As I first intimated at the start of this series, the position I hold is between the extremes Pulliam offers: I accept (as he does) that Jesus is the Christ, is currently in heaven, and has authority and is ruling over Christians’ hearts (as well as Christian institutions, such as Christian households, churches, seminaries, parachurch organizations, etc.) now at the Father’s right side — but I also hold (in contrast to Pulliam) that upon his return, he will ascend to David’s throne and rule over the earth (including governments, societies, etc.) for 1,000 years before handing the Kingdom back to the Father for the rest of eternity. Let’s flesh this out more before dealing with Pulliam’s objections to Christ’s kingship being limited at present. Consider the following passages:

And I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’ (Acts 26:15-18 1995 NASB, boldface added)

This tells us that before Gentiles come to God, they are under the dominion of Satan. The Apostle John agreed: “We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19 1995 NASB, boldface added) It’s not that they worship Satan, or are even necessarily on the track to Hell (after all, what about so-called “virtuous pagans” who haven’t heard the Gospel? or Gentiles who don’t yet understand right from wrong because they haven’t matured enough, e.g., infants?), but that their lives are lived under worldly authority, which has belonged to Satan ever since he tricked Adam and Eve out of their rightful place of having dominion over the earth (see Hebrews 2:5-8). I suspect this is one aspect of a technical term for Adam & Eve’s Fall that’s used in 10 NT verses: “the casting down of the world order” (καταβολῆς κόσμου, incorrectly rendered “the foundation of the world” in most English translations, due to the phrase never appearing in the LXX or earlier secular Greek literature, and thus being prone to being interpreted and translated in light of the reader’s preconceived notions — which, in many cases, both early on and down through church history to the present, were/are rooted in pagan Greek philosophical ideas).

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12 1995 NASB, boldface added)

At first glance, this verse seems to have antiestablishment overtones (and some charismatics have tried to “take over” cities because they’ve taken that idea and ran with it). But the critical phrase here is “in the heavenly places”. Note that “places” is italicized, because it’s not actually in the Greek text: the Greek phrase is “ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις”, but since τοῖς is a definite article, ἐπουρανίοις is an adjective, and no noun is connected to it, the English translator must add a noun to make the phrase grammatically valid. As Tim Warner explains {scroll to Appendix C on p. 5-10 in the PDF}, most English translators add the word “places”, based on the fact that most lexicons follow the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) in defining ἐπουράνιος (G2032, the base form of ἐπουρανίοις) as relating to the “highest heavens”. This definition was influenced by the amillennial bias (of the TDNT editors) toward the concept of Christians having a “heavenly destiny” (as Pulliam also believes); dispensationalists haven’t corrected their faulty definition because they depend on that same concept to prop up their own eschatological system (with its notion of the Jewish nation having an “earthly destiny”, and Christians having a “heavenly destiny”). But the fact is, despite their loud proclamations of following a “literal” hermeneutic, dispensationalists are stuck performing the same hermeneutical gymnastics as their amillennialist counterparts on several passages where this definition utterly clashes with the context. Warner gives a sampling of these passages in the same PDF I just linked to:

If we assume Kittle’s [the TDNT’s] definition, we are left with the following absurdities:

    • Matt. 18:35 (Majority Text & TR) violates Sharp’s 2nd rule, making “The Father” synonymous with “the heaven” itself (“the Father heaven”).
    • Eph. 2:6 puts Paul and the entire church of Ephesus in heaven at the time he wrote to them, being seated snugly on the throne of God along with Jesus at the Father’s right hand.
    • Eph. 6:12 puts all the minions of hell in the highest heaven, where Paul and the Ephesians were allegedly seated beside Christ.
    • Heb. 11:16 claims that while Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were living in tents in the Land that God promised to give them as an age-enduring inheritance, they were instead longing for a city and inheritance in heaven. This contradicts both Genesis and the context of Hebrews 11. It makes the “promise” to Abraham (which both Genesis and Hebrews claim was the Promised Land inheritance) into a promise of a city in heaven, no hint of which can be found in the Genesis account.

{Scroll to p. 7 in the PDF, under “Appendix C: The meaning of “Heavenly” in Ephesians and Hebrews”. Boldface added}

The linguistic justification for the TDNT definition is that ἐπουράνιος is a compound of ἐπί (G1909) and οὐρανός (G3772). The latter word is the noun for “heaven”, while the former is a preposition to indicate superimposition or coverage, typically rendered “upon”, “over”, etc. The TDNT claimed that for this word, ἐπί acted as a superlative, yielding the sense of “highest heaven”, i.e., Heaven itself; but more recent scholarship has indicated that this prefix carries its usual meaning (superimposition, coverage) for this compound word, so the word instead refers to Heaven’s authority over things, i.e., the heavenly “sphere of influence”.

Now, if we go to every passage in the NT (and even the LXX) where ἐπουράνιος is translated as “heavenly places” and replace it with “heavenly dominions” (or in the case of Hebrews 11:16, replace “heavenly one/country” with “heavenly dominion”), something incredible happens: all the absurdities vanish, and every sentence that made sense before still makes sense! Warner showcases some examples of this on p. 8-10 of the PDF linked to above, and one of them is Ephesians 6:12.

So, finally returning to that verse: “For our struggle is… against the rulers, against the powers [or “authorities”; G1849], against the world forces [κοσμοκράτορας, the accusative plural masculine form of G2888, literally meaning “world-rulers”] of this darkness [Thayer explained that the phrase “τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου” (“the world-rulers of this darkness”) is an epithet for the demons, including Satan], against the spiritual forces of wickedness, in the heavenly dominions.” I added that last comma in an attempt to clarify that the phrase “in the heavenly dominions” is acting as a qualifier for everything listed before it (not just “the spiritual forces of wickedness”). Far from being antiestablishment, this verse limits the scope of Christians practicing spiritual warfare to domains that are already under Christ’s authority — the important implication for us, of course, being that some things (particularly, most rulers and authorities; after all, rulers and authority figures who happen to be Christians should be on the same side as their fellow Christians in this spiritual war!) are presently not under his authority!

For He rescued [literally, “Who rescued”] us from the domain [literally, “the authority”] of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son [literally, “of the Son of His love”]. (Colossians 1:13 1995 NASB, boldface added)

This is another clear statement that things that are under the authority of darkness are not under the authority of Christ.

You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:4-6 1995 NASB, boldface added)

Again, Christians are under the authority of Christ now, but unbelievers are under the authority of the world — which, as we saw above, is under Satan’s dominion.

As if that’s not enough, the epistle to the Hebrews often talked about Christ’s kingly duties and priestly duties. And as I point out in my upcoming book:

in Hebrews, Jesus’ priestly duties or functions are talked about as past or present (e.g., Hebrews 4:14-15; 8:1-3; 9:11-14, 23-25) but his kingly duties or functions are talked about as future (e.g., Hebrews 1:13; 2:5-10); see especially Hebrews 10:12-13. {HIDMF p. ###. Boldface and italics in original.}

Pulliam has a proof-text against this point, which I deal with in the first half of another post {I’ll link to it once it’s uploaded}. But there’s also a thing or two hiding in the Greek text of Hebrews 10:12-13: “And He, for sin one sacrifice having offered — to the end, did sit down on the right hand of God, — as to the rest, expecting till He may place his enemies as his footstool” (YLT, underlining added). Before I expound on the underlined phrases, note that these 2 verses bear out the quote I just gave from my book: “for sin one sacrifice having offered” refers to a past action pertaining to Christ’s priesthood, “expecting” is a present action pertaining to Christ’s current position, and “till He may place his enemies as his footstool” is a future action pertaining to Christ’s kingship.

The second underlined phrase in Greek is the accusative singular neuter phrase “τὸ λοιπὸν”, which Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines as follows: “left:… Neuter singular adverbially, τό λοιπόν what remains”. While Thayer categorized this instance under definition a, “hereafter, for the future, henceforth”, the sentence structure makes it more likely that definition c was intended by the author of Hebrews here: “τό λοιπόν, dropping the notion of time, signifies for the rest, besides, moreover (A. V. often finally), forming a transition to other things, to which the attention of the hearer or reader is directed” {boldface in original}. Thus, the author was telling us, first, that Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice for sins “unto the carry-through” [“εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς”, the last word being διηνεκής (G1336), a compound of διά (G1223, a preposition meaning “through”) and an aorist form of φέρω (G5342, a verb meaning “bear” or “carry”), emphasizing an action occurring at a point in time] — the first underlined phrase, which most other translations render “forever” or “for all time” — but the “carry-through” of what? Well, the author went on to say that after this sacrifice, Jesus sat down at God’s right side, awaiting “the remainder” until “He may place his enemies as his footstool”. Taken altogether, “the carry-through” refers to when the Father would carry out His promise to give His Son “the remainder” of what he was promised to inherit (i.e., the phrases in Psalm 110 that haven’t been fulfilled yet). Since this wouldn’t happen “till” Jesus’ enemies would be subjugated to him, these verses must be referring to when Jesus’ authority will be expanded to include everything that’s presently outside of it.

Well, everything except for his Father, per 1 Corinthians 15:27 — “for all things He did put under his feet, and, when one may say that all things have been subjected, it is evident that He is excepted who did subject the all things to him” (YLT, boldface added)! Pulliam might try to counter that the first verb (“He did put”) being in the aorist tense and indicative mood (which is normally equivalent to the English simple past tense) indicates that everything being put under Jesus’ feet is something that had already happened when Paul wrote it. But note the remark shortly before this verse that “it behoveth him to reign till he may have put all the enemies under his feet” (verse 25c YLT, boldface added), where “may have put” is translated from the two words “ἄν θῇ”; the former word in the latter phrase, (G302) indicates “a supposition, wish, possibility or uncertainty” {Scroll to “Strong’s Definitions”}, and the latter is in the subjunctive mood, which indicates “possibility and potentiality”. Either of these facts alone would be enough to establish that Jesus’ enemies being “put… under his feet” was still future from when Paul wrote this (and this sheer redundancy may explain why the NT critical texts of this verse follow manuscripts that have θῇ, but not ἄν)! The fact that the Greek word for “one may say” (εἴπῃ) in verse 27 is also in the subjunctive mood reinforces the conclusion that the aorist indicative verb Young rendered “He did put” was past-tense from the perspective of the future time when the possibility indicated by the 3 words just discussed would be realized. You could capture the sense using the English “future perfect” tense: “for all things He will have subjected under his feet…”

So, what else is under Christ’s authority at present? What’s my justification for including “Christian institutions, such as Christian households, churches, seminaries, parachurch organizations, etc.” in the summary at the start of this post, and not just Christians themselves? I’ll save that for the next post, since one of Pulliam’s proof-texts against what I’ve laid out here provides me with a golden opportunity to explain it.

“This” or “Here”? How the Apostles REALLY Handled Old Testament Prophecies

Part 1 of this series

I’ve already typed several of the articles that will be part of my series critiquing the book “In the Days of Those Kings”, by Bob Pulliam. But I decided to lead off with this one because there have been so many occasions where people have, in my presence, used the exact logic Pulliam uses on the first passage I’ll discuss in this post, and I’ve been saving my breath all this time because simply directing them to this post would treat them to a much more comprehensive response (not to mention, one that won’t be perceived as an interruption!).

So anyway, Pulliam makes a couple of interesting claims about three passages in Acts:

When Peter tells us that Joel 2 was fulfilled (Acts 2:14ff), we shouldn’t look for a further development 2,000 years later. When James tells us that the tabernacle of David has been rebuilt (Acts 15:13-21), we don’t second guess the way God did it, and wait for Him to add what we believe is lacking. Turning fulfilled prophecy into partially fulfilled prophecy is an interpreter’s way of “proving” his doctrine.

…When we turn to the New Testament, we find Jews gathered “from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5), and the days “announced” by the prophets had come (Acts 3:24). What days had been announced? The days when the “sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers” would be fulfilled (Acts 3:25). The last promise of the Abrahamic covenant is applied to the first century (“in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed”). Peter tells the multitude, “for you first” these things had been done (Acts 3:26; cf. Mt 15:22-24). A “first” implies something later, and the Gentiles are what God had planned for after the “first” (Acts 13:46).

{“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 36, 73. Italics in original.}

Did Peter say Joel 2 was fulfilled on Pentecost of A.D. 30? Did James say the tabernacle of David had been rebuilt by the time of Acts 15? Did Peter say in Acts 3:24 that the covenant God made with the Genesis patriarchs was fulfilled in the first century?

As you probably guessed, the proper first step in assessing these claims is to read the Acts passages in their original contexts. And doing so reveals something interesting:

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?… we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” But others were mocking and saying, “They are full of sweet wine.”
But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but this [nominative singular neuter form of οὗτος, G3778] is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:

‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says,
‘THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND [literally, “ALL FLESH];
AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY,
AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS,
AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;
EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN,
I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT
And they shall prophesy.
‘AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS IN THE SKY ABOVE
AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BELOW,
BLOOD, AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE.
‘THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS
AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD,
BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME.
‘AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.’ (Acts 2:1-8,11c-21 1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added)

The lines in all-capital letters in this passage are quoting Joel 2:28-32a. Despite the fact that the actual word “fulfilled” (or grammatical variants thereof) is nowhere to be seen, Pulliam is clearly interpreting the boldfaced sentence (verse 16) as saying that the underlined statements before this verse are the events that fulfilled Joel’s prophecy. Indeed, this is a linchpin of his argument that the blood, fire, smoke, and darkened sun & moon associated with the Day of the Lord & Jesus’ parousia were never meant to be fulfilled literally {see his remarks on pages 34 & 205}. But while the people on the day of Pentecost were certainly speaking in tongues (which isn’t mentioned at all in Joel’s prophecy) and arguably “prophesying” in the process, where do we see them having visions or dreams here? And by what stretch of the imagination would the 120 people in the upper room (Acts 2:1, cf. 1:15) on whom the Holy Spirit was poured out before Peter’s sermon (2:33)–at a time when estimates for the global human population are in the range of 172-305 million {scroll to p. 168 in the PDF and see the row for “30”}–constitute “all flesh”? These are big discrepancies.

Why did I mention the parsing for the Greek word rendered “this”? You’ll probably figure it out as you read the context of the passage Pulliam brought up from Peter’s second sermon:

“And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also. But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence [literally, “the face”; πρόσωπον, G4383] of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until [achri] the period [literally, “times”; the word is plural] of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. Moses said, ‘THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you. And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ [Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19] And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these [accusative plural feminine form of οὗτος] days. It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.’ [Genesis 22:18, 26:4, 28:14] For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one [literally, “turning each”; ἕκαστος, G1538] of you from your wicked ways.” (Acts 3:17-26 1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added)

So in this passage, Pulliam is interpreting the phrase “these days” in the boldfaced sentence (verse 24) as referring to the time when the prophecies from Genesis mentioned after it were to be fulfilled, rather than the “times of refreshing” and “times of restoration of all things” mentioned before it.

This Is The Key — Literally, “This”

Did you catch that? Pulliam switched from interpreting οὗτος as referring to what’s mentioned before it to interpreting it as referring to what’s mentioned after it!

Pulliam himself talked in Lesson 12 as if this was a huge no-no! “If an inspired man said ‘this is that,’ meaning that something his hearers were witnessing was spoken by a prophet, we must respect that inspired declaration.” {p. 127} He explains in the footnote indicated at the end of that sentence that “Peter said ‘this is that’ regarding the events of Pentecost being a fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32.” {Ibid. Fn 3.} Yet here he is, starting at the bottom of the very same page, making this switch without a second thought:

Let’s begin with the great hope held out for all families of the earth: “And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Gen 12:3) This is part of the covenant God made with Abraham. The Dispensationalist tells us that the Abrahamic Covenant must be fulfilled in an earthly, Millennial kingdom. Peter tells us that this is not true. He told his first century hearers that “all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days” (Acts 3:24). The days being announced was the fulfillment of “the covenant God made with your fathers,” including the blessing promise (v25). For all of the emphasis the Dispensationalist puts on the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, you would think this text would settle the issue. Peter clearly announced the fulfillment in his own day. Jesus fulfilled the blessing promise as the great Messianic King. {Ibid. p. 127-128. Italics in original, boldface mine.}

But despite this hypocrisy, Pulliam has actually stumbled onto something here. In fact, this is the key to explaining these passages in a manner that coheres with the rest of Scripture! You see, in ancient Greek, the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος, just like its English counterpart “this”, could be used either way! For instance, the singular form could be rendered “this”, referring to something mentioned previously, or “here”, referring to something about to be mentioned. Most of the time, the context makes it pretty obvious which way the term was intended (e.g., compare the English phrase “This is crazy” in response to some wild occurrence at a party, versus “This is (or “Here’s”) what you need to understand” before explaining something). But these are two of the trickier instances. (See how what “these” refers to is obvious in that sentence?)

So what happens if we flip around which way we take οὗτος as being used in these two passages?

Suddenly, “this” in Acts 2:16 (“but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel”) is merely referring to the prophecy of Joel that’s quoted immediately after this verse — as distinguished from the events of Pentecost, which is reinforced by οὗτος being used alongside the word “but” and the clear reference to the events of Pentecost in verse 33c as “this” with the additional qualifier “which you both see and hear” (1995 NASB, underlining added). Indeed, the LGV makes this more explicit by rendering verse 16 as “But here is what has been declared through the prophet, Joel:” {Boldface mine. Scroll to p. 5 in the PDF}.

On the other hand, “these days” in Acts 3:24 (“And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days”) is referring neither to the time in which Peter was giving this sermon, nor to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, but to the “times of refreshing” and “times of restoration of all things” — which are still future (per the use of the word achri, referring to the time intervening until something happens) from when “heaven must receive” Jesus (and as far as I’m aware, all Christians agree that Jesus is in heaven right now), and during which “every soul that does not heed [Jesus] shall be utterly destroyed from among the people”.

Linking οὗτος to what comes before it in Acts 2, but to what comes after it in Acts 3, makes these passages consistent with Pulliam’s position that Joel’s prophecy and the Abrahamic Covenant have already been fulfilled. Linking οὗτος to what comes after it in Acts 2, but to what comes before it in Acts 3, makes these passages consistent with my position that Joel’s prophecy and the Abrahamic Covenant are not yet fulfilled. Contrary to Pulliam’s claims, these texts on their own don’t settle the issue, and Peter didn’t clearly announce their fulfillment in his own day; Pulliam’s claims about both passages are equivocal. Therefore, additional information is needed to determine which way Peter intended the term on each occasion.

The Logical Next Step That Amillennialists Don’t Take

Now, what additional information was available to the original hearers (and thus, that they would’ve understood Peter’s statements in light of) that would enable us to settle this question? You guessed it: Biblical precedent. Bear in mind that both of these sermons were given to Jews. This means that whenever Peter quoted phrases from OT prophecies, his hearers would’ve internally recalled the fuller contexts of those prophecies (just as they were used to doing whenever rabbis in general quoted distinctive phrases from OT passages); hence, they would’ve understood Peter’s use of these passages in light of their original OT contexts. As noted earlier, Peter cut off his quotation of Joel 2 partway through verse 32 of that passage. In the Masoretic Text, the solitary Hebrew letter ס appears at the end of Joel 2:27, and the next time this happens is at the end of 3:8; hence, Joel 2:28-3:8 is all one continuous minor train of thought. So let’s look at that whole train of thought:

“It will come about after this
That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind [literally, “all flesh”];
And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions.
“Even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.
“I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth,
Blood, fire and columns of smoke.
“The sun will be turned into darkness
And the moon into blood
Before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.
“And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Will be delivered;
{Now comes the part that Peter left out, but that his Jewish listeners would’ve recalled in their heads:}
For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
There will be those who escape,
As the Lord has said,
Even among the survivors whom the Lord calls.
“For behold, in those days and at that time,
When I restore the fortunes [literally, “the captivity”] of Judah and Jerusalem,
I will gather all the nations
And bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat [literally, “the vale of YHWH’s judgment”].
Then I will enter [Myself] into judgment with them there
On behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel,
Whom they have scattered among the nations;
And they have divided up My land.
“They have also cast lots for My people,
Traded a boy [literally, “And then they gave the boy”] for a harlot
And sold a girl [literally, “And they sold the girl”] for wine that they may drink [literally, “wine, and then they drank”].
Moreover, what are you to Me, O Tyre, Sidon and all the regions of Philistia? Are you rendering Me a recompense? But if you do recompense Me, swiftly and speedily I will return your recompense on your head. Since you have taken My silver and My gold, brought My precious treasures to your temples, and sold the sons of Judah and Jerusalem to the Greeks [literally, “to sons of the Javanim”; i.e., to people of Greek descent] in order to remove them far from [literally, “from upon”] their territory, behold, I am going to arouse them [literally, “behold My rousing them”] from the place where you have sold them, and return [literally, “and then I will bring back”] your recompense on your head. Also [literally, “And then”] I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the sons of Judah, and [literally, “and then”] they will sell them to the Sabeans [a nation on the Arabian Peninsula; see Gesenius’ entry for the Hebrew word for further explanation], to a distant nation,” for the Lord has spoken. (1995 NASB, boldface added)

As if I even need to point it out, there are MAJOR PROBLEMS with the idea that this passage was fulfilled at Pentecost of A.D. 30! For starters, neither Judah in general nor Jerusalem in particular was in captivity “among the nations” on the day of Pentecost, A.D. 30 (and that the Hebrew word’s literal sense of “captivity” was intended, rather than its figurative sense of “fortune”, is clear from the fact that the Greek word in the LXX of this passage — which was translated at least 2 centuries before Peter’s statements and is therefore free of any Christian eschatological biases, whether premillennial, amillennial, preterist, etc. — always means “captivity”, but never “fortune”!). So how can they be restored from a captivity spent “scattered among the nations”, “in those days and at that time” when the prophecy would be fulfilled, if the time in question was Pentecost of A.D. 30?!

This is an especially good question in light of how often Pulliam uses the time when a prophecy was given as an excuse to bend the genre and/or language of the prophecy to his preconceived notions. For instance, he claimed at that Wednesday night Bible study I attended that Ezekiel 37:11-14 refers merely to the return from the Babylonian exile, based merely on the fact that there were living Jews captive in Babylon when Ezekiel saw the vision in verses 1-10 (his full argument was substantially the same as the one that Church of Christ minister — and amillennialist — Norm Fields presented on page 8 of this PDF; Tim Warner refutes Fields’ points on pages 12-14 of this PDF). Pulliam seems to think that this one fact is important enough to warrant abandoning the commonsense communication rule that you must explain what a metaphor or allegory means in literal terms; otherwise, you’ll just confuse your audience even further. Even Pulliam himself admits this when interpreting Revelation 17:18 as referring to the city of Rome: “This statement is an explanation of symbolism already revealed. An explanation of symbolism always requires a use of the non-symbolic. To use more symbolism would explain nothing at all. When we make mysteries out of explanations, we deny that an explanation has been given.” {“In the Days of Those Kings”. 235.} Yet Pulliam’s claim that the terms “open(ed) your graves” and bringing “up out of your graves” in Ezekiel 37:12-13 referred to God bringing them back from the Babylonian exile amounts to claiming that God explained the metaphor/allegory of verses 1-10 by giving another metaphor/allegory! I mention in my upcoming book that I went to great lengths to ensure that I never contradicted myself within its pages {HIDMF p. ###, Footnote ####}. Evidently, Pulliam didn’t do the same with his!

Also notice that, despite the geographic spread of the nations mentioned in Acts 2:9-11 (from which Jews had traveled to Jerusalem in order to observe the Mosaic holiday of Pentecost) — as shown in the map at the start of this blog post — the area covered by “Tyre, Sidon and all the regions of Philistia” isn’t covered — as you can see in the map on this webpage — and none of these regions are mentioned anywhere else in Peter’s sermon. Far from being a poster child for the idea that the Apostles took Old Testament prophecy mystically {scroll to definition 1a} instead of at face value, Joel 2:28-3:8 exposes the fact that Pulliam’s hermeneutic must utterly ignore whole swaths of pertinent information to have a semblance of feasibility!

On the other hand, it’s clear once you look at this map that the Jezreel Valley (which is right next to Megiddo, making it a viable candidate for the valley where armies will gather for the Battle of Armageddon, a battle that I peg as occurring on the Day of the Lord) is a prime candidate for “the vale of YHWH’s judgment”. This is especially true once you realize that 7.3 billion people can fit, with 10 people per square meter on average, in the land covered by New York City alone, which is only about 3 times the size of Jezreel Valley. Of course, it’s clear from reading the book of Revelation (in a straightforward manner) that the world population is going to decline dramatically during the apocalypse, so it’s quite feasible that all of the wicked still alive by the end of it could fit in that land. However, I suspect there will be plenty of wicked people around the world who don’t go up with the armies; note that Joel 3:2 says that the vale of YHWH’s judgment is where God will enter into controversy {scroll to the section on the Niphal form under the word’s Brown-Driver-Briggs entry} with the nations – this valley is where the judgment will start, but it will certainly move elsewhere (e.g., Zephaniah 2:4 {click on “Using the map” under “Read Zephaniah 2:4-7.”}; it’s significant that the cities being judged in this verse are in the present-day Gaza Strip, which is – as of this writing – inhabited by Palestinians, not Israelites).

Clearly, this passage is referring to events that a straightforward interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (which Peter had been present to hear, meaning Peter himself would’ve linked Joel 2:31 with Matthew 24:29) places at the end of the apocalypse and during its aftermath (except for Joel 3:4-6, which is referring to what Tyre, Sidon, & Philistia had done to Israel by Joel’s day, and 3:7-8, which had already been fulfilled some centuries before Peter’s sermon {Scroll to the last paragraph under “Joel 3:2”}; also, the human trafficking mentioned in verse 3 obviously starts well before the end of the apocalypse). Peter was simply saying that the miracles his audience was observing on the day of Pentecost in A.D. 30 was a microcosm of what would be the norm once the entirety of Joel’s prophecy has been fulfilled. Similarly, Peter was saying in Acts 3 that at that same time (when Jesus’ Kingdom has arrived and so everyone in all nations must answer to him), everyone who refuses to acknowledge Jesus’ authority will die then and there (because they’re guilty of treason against the King of Kings and Lord of Lords). Bear in mind that the people hearing Peter’s second sermon had also been present at Pentecost to hear his first one (after all, every devout Israelite man was obligated to be present at Pentecost!): they already knew Peter’s former pronouncements about the Christ’s kingdom going into this speech, so they would’ve understood Peter’s statements here in light of his statements there.

A Quick Exercise

So the next time someone tries to tell you the Apostles interpreted Old Testament prophecies allegorically when the original OT context of one would suggest it was meant literally, you can prompt them to think about it by asking them: “Can you give me an unambiguous/unequivocal example?” If they cite Peter’s use of Joel 2:28-32a, you can tell them what I just explained about the word for “this”, and conclude the explanation with: “So that’s an ambiguous/equivocal example. Can you give me an unambiguous/unequivocal example?” It’s my contention that they’ll never be able to.

(But if they can come up with one that stumps you, feel free to tell me about it in the comments; I understand the psychological pain that can come with obsessing over that stuff, so I’ll get back to you about it ASAP!)

Claims About James’ Quotation In Acts 15

Oh, and Acts 15:13-21? Ironically, Pulliam’s own argument concerning it tacitly admits that it isn’t airtight:

In addition, we need to consider the application of Amos 9:11 by James when he said, “And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, ‘After these things I will return, And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, And I will rebuild its ruins, And I will restore it, In order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name’” (Acts 15:15-17). At the time that Amos prophesied, David’s house was “fallen down” due to destruction and captivity. God told Israel, I have not forgotten about David’s house. It is a fallen tent now, but I am going to “restore it.” Putting the Messiah on David’s throne is how God would rebuild the tabernacle of David. The Dispensationalist agrees that Amos 9:11 refers to the Davidic covenant of II Samuel 7. What he fails to admit is that James declares this prophecy of David’s throne fulfilled. James quoted Amos 9:11 for a reason, and we need to determine that reason. In context, it was all about God doing what he said He would do. James did not make His point with a prophecy God had not yet fulfilled, or had even partially fulfilled. This important point depended on fulfilled prophecy, and James used it to great effect. {“In the Days of Those Kings”. 86. Italics in original. Underlining and boldface mine.}

For starters, Amos prophesied nearly two centuries before the Babylonian exile (Amos 1:1, which mentions that he prophesied when Uzziah/Azariah was king of Judah and Jeroboam II was king of Ephraim; see 2 Kings 14:23, 15:1,13), not during it; this point about the historical context means all the phrases underlined in that last quote are false. Not the most crucial detail to this discussion, but it certainly reinforces my point that Pulliam is rather cavalier about the context of Old Testament prophecy (so we should think twice before accepting his claims about what the context is in the first place); indeed, you’re about to see that he was equally careless with the textual context of the prophecy of Amos that James was quoting, and even the New Testament context in which James quoted it!

Also notice that James actually said “with this the words of the Prophets agree”, not “have been fulfilled”. The verb isn’t πληρόω (G4137; the usual Greek word for “fulfill”), but συμφωνέω (G4856; meaning “sound together”, i.e. harmonize, be in accord; the English word “symphony” is derived from this word). James’ choice of words notwithstanding, Pulliam brings up the Amos passage on two more occasions further into his book:

…Peter wasn’t alone in the early use of prophecies about the Davidic throne. James quoted from Amos 9:11-12, stating that the events of that time fulfilled God’s promise to “rebuild the tabernacle of David… that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord.” (Acts 15:15-17) The “tabernacle of David” is agreed by all to refer to the “house of David” and had specific application to the Messiah taking His place on the throne of David. Peter and James say, “Prophecy fulfilled!”

…Many passages are used as “proof texts” of a future Millennium. Do they really prove what the Dispensationalist claims? We will use some of the more commonly used passages to briefly discuss prophetic fulfillment in Scripture. Several common passages will be omitted since they have already been (or will be) dealt with in this book (i.e. Isa 2:1-5; Jer 31:1-40; Amos 9:11-15; Zech 9:10).

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 128, 158. Italics in original. Underlining added.}

The discerning reader will notice that the underlined claims in these two quotations entirely hinge on the boldfaced statements from the quotation preceding them! So if Pulliam’s interpretation on p. 86 is refuted, then so are all his other claims about Amos 9:11-12… er, 15?

The Context of Amos 9:11-12

Did you notice that the last time Pulliam cited Amos 9, he claimed that he’d already dealt with verses 11-15 — despite the fact that he only ever quotes verses 11-12 in his book? Once we look at all 5 of these verses together, it becomes obvious why he never quotes verses 13-15:

In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when the harvest shall overtake the vintage, and the grapes shall ripen at seedtime; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall be planted. And I will turn the captivity of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities, and shall inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and shall drink the wine from them; and they shall form gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them on their land, and they shall no more be plucked up from the land which I have given them, saith the Lord God Almighty. (BLXX, emphases added; since James’ quotation of verse 12a (“That the residue of men might seek after the Lord”) substantially agrees with the Septuagint against the Masoretic Text, which instead reads: “That they may possess the remnant of Edom” (1995 NASB) the Septuagint version of this passage should be regarded as preserving the original, divinely-inspired reading)

Again, Israel wasn’t in captivity at the time of the Jerusalem council; moreover, the Israelites weren’t rebuilding ruined cities (in accordance with verse 14) in Apostolic times. But even more importantly, verse 15 foretold of a time when “my people Israel” would be planted “on their land, and they shall no more be plucked up from the land which I have given them” — something that has never been fulfilled to this day (after all, the modern nation of Israel doesn’t possess all of the land that ancient Israel did; and the current political situation in the Middle East doesn’t allow us to confidently say they’ll never be “plucked up from the land” they do have again by the time of Jesus’ return)! Pulliam can’t explain away this passage by claiming that the “captivity of my people Israel” that God would turn back to the land was the Babylonian exile, since the Israelites were “plucked up from the land” after that by the Romans!

No wonder Pulliam tried to sneak in verses 13-15 as being fulfilled by the time of the Jerusalem council along with verses 11-12! It utterly disproves his claim that the Bible never promised a restoration for the nation of Israel after Jerusalem’s second destruction in A.D. 70 — a claim he had the audacity to make to my face! It’s clear that making this claim requires him to ignore or allegorize away the greater contexts of the very OT prophecies he relies on when making his case. If you ask me, Pulliam’s citation of verses “11-15” instead of “11-12” on p. 158 was either the most unfortunate coincidental typo I’ve ever encountered, or a deliberate attempt on Pulliam’s part to get his readers to skip past the facts that undermine his view!

But the question remains: why did James quote this prophecy at the Jerusalem council? Look back at the boldfaced statements in my quotations from p. 86 of “In the Days of Those Kings”; these statements suggest that the thrust of Pulliam’s argument is as follows: “Sure, James didn’t explicitly say that this prophecy was fulfilled by the time he quoted it here; but can you think of a better reason why James would’ve quoted this prophecy when he did?”

As a matter of fact, I can.

Why James Quoted Amos 9:11-12 LXX At The Jerusalem Council

This is where Pulliam completely overlooked the greater context of James’ quotation. I explain in Chapter 6 of my upcoming book that the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 settled, once and for all, the question of which Mosaic Laws carry over into the New Covenant (verses 19-20, 23-29). This question had been prompted by early Judaizers who were claiming that Gentile converts to Christianity should obey the Mosaic Law (verses 1-6); it was during the time that Paul and Barnabas disputed with these Judaizers (mentioned in verse 2) that Paul must’ve written his epistle to the Galatians, since it deals extensively with the topics of Jews & Gentiles in relation to the Mosaic & New Covenants, yet never once appeals to the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 — undoubtedly because that council hadn’t happened yet. Peter said at this council that one thing he’d learned from his bringing the gospel to the Gentiles in Acts 10 was that God “made no distinction between us [Jews] and them [Gentiles], cleansing their hearts by faith.” (Acts 15:9c 1995 NASB) Also, you may have noticed that when Pulliam quoted verse 15a (“With this the words of the Prophets agree”), he failed to consider what “this” (the dative singular neuter form of οὗτος) referred to! The verses on either side of the quotation from Amos make it clear that οὗτος here refers to what was mentioned before:

Simeon [a variant of “Simon”; i.e., Peter] did declare how at first God did look after to take out of the nations a people for His name, and to this agree the words of the prophets, as it hath been written: After these things I will turn back, and I will build again the tabernacle of David, that is fallen down, and its ruins I will build again, and will set it upright — that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the nations, upon whom My name hath been called, saith the Lord, who is doing all these things.

Known from the ages to God are all His works; wherefore I judge: not to trouble those who from the nations do turn back to God,” (Acts 15:14-19 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

The word for “nations” here is rendered “Gentiles” in most other translations. All of this makes it clear that the real reason James quoted this prophecy at the Jerusalem council was to make the point that Jews and Gentiles had both been prophesied to participate in the Messiah’s Kingdom. As far as faith is concerned, God doesn’t make any distinctions between Jews and Gentiles. Therefore, James concluded, we in the church shouldn’t make any such distinctions either.

Nothing in the text of Acts 15 indicates whether the prophecy James quoted was fulfilled by the time he said it, or if its fulfillment was still future from the Jerusalem council. This question about the timing of the fulfillment can only be determined in light of other passages. And in any case, the immediate context of the prophecy James quoted indicates that there would come a time when faithful Israelites would be in their land, never again to be driven out of it — a time that didn’t come in the first century A.D. (indeed, exactly the opposite occurred then!), and still can’t be conclusively said to have arrived yet.

Conclusion

The interpretation of these passages that I’ve laid out in this post is perfectly consistent with the rest of the Bible, including OT prophecies when interpreted according to the grammatical-historical method (i.e., words are meant literally unless the genre or context demands otherwise). The only remotely good reason for assuming that prophecies as a genre are to be taken symbolically by default (rather than letting the context inform us on that point) was refuted in Tim Warner’s response to something that Norm Fields said in the course of their 2008 debate:

Fields: “What my opponent fails to acknowledge in his noble statement of harmony between Old and New Testament Scripture is that Old Testament Scripture must be understood in light of its New Testament usage.”

If I have failed to acknowledge this, let me do so now. Old Testament prophecy must be understood in the manner in which the New Testament writers interpreted it. However, what you will see from Bro. Fields is not clear examples where New Testament writers interpreted such prophecies allegorically (thereby diminishing their literal sense, which is essential to amillennial eschatology). On the contrary, New Testament writers understood Old Testament prophecy literally. What you will actually see is Bro. Fields imposing his own presuppositions on the Apostles, as he has already demonstrated in referencing Peter’s words in Acts 2:29-30.

Fields: “Premillennialism seeks to interpret New Testament Scripture so as to make it comply with Old Testament context. This is reverse to the manner in which proper interpretation is to occur. The Old is subservient to the New, not vice versa.”

What Bro. Fields actually means is you should violate the context and language of the Old Testament prophecies, under the supposed precedent of the Apostles’ doing so. But, the Apostles absolutely respected the contexts and language of Old Testament prophecy. They did not play fast and loose with Old Testament prophecy, as do amillennialists. Bro. Fields has indeed put his finger on the crux of this entire debate. But, he has not shown why his method is right. {Scroll to p. 7-8 of the PDF. Boldface in original. Italics mine.}

Neither has Pulliam. And as far as I can tell, Pulliam’s mindset (at least as it pertains to the passages in Acts I’ve investigated here) was excellently summarized by Warner’s latter remark: Pulliam feels free to “violate the context and language of the Old Testament prophecies, under the supposed precedent of the Apostles’ doing so” — a precedent that, on closer inspection, doesn’t even exist.

Why Bother Critiquing “In the Days of Those Kings?”

Introduction of this series

I think the titular question of this post deserves an answer. I’ve seen countless bogus arguments online over the years, and managed to save my breath on a decent percentage of them. Why should this book be among the remainder?

Well initially, my main reason for publishing a blog series on this book, “In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism” {2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing.}, is that I’ve attended two Sunday worship services and a Wednesday night Bible class that the author — Charlotte Church of Christ evangelist Bob Pulliam — preached at. And the congregation at large seems like it’s comprised of decent people who sincerely desire to live according to the truth; aside from Pulliam himself, they were very welcoming of me! So I feel bad that Pulliam doesn’t allow debate in his congregation, thereby depriving these wonderful people of the opportunity to hear what he’s getting wrong. Ironically, when I repeated Pulliam’s words to me on this – “we can debate this; just not in the church” — to Russ McCullough, pastor at the Archdale Church of Christ, he said: “Oh, please! Paul regularly debated people in the synagogues to correct their errors.” (And lest Pulliam think that this feature of ancient synagogues doesn’t carry over to Christian assemblies, “synagogue” comes from the Greek word συναγωγή (G4864), meaning “assembly”, just like the usual word for “church”, ἐκκλησία (G1577); indeed, James 2:2 uses συναγωγή with reference to the Christian assembly!)

Now, allow me to clarify right off the bat that the position being criticized in this book, traditional dispensationalism, is not the position I maintain (and was not at the time Pulliam handed me my copy). So right off the bat, we can see that his claim that he was giving me “a book that explains why you’re wrong” — yes, those were his exact words — is off-base. When I pointed this out to him, he told me that the arguments I was using were “things that a dispensationalist would say.” Maybe dispensationalists would say such things, but that doesn’t mean I’m in their camp on everything else! Indeed, amillennialists seem very prone to this error: they give arguments disproving dispensationalism in particular, and think that in doing so, they’ve disproven premillennialism in general! (Indeed, even McCullough, who I quoted above, often teaches against ideas specific to dispensationalism, but, to my annoyance, calls it “premillennialism” when doing so. He once defended this dangerous mislabeling to me by saying “I need to use terms most people are familiar with”. However, this fails to account for the fact that every Church Father of the first and second centuries — people who lived within living memory of the Apostle John’s ministry — who said anything about eschatology held to a teaching known as “chiliasm” — more colloquially called the “Millennial Week” — which is explicitly premillennial!)

I’ve also read how Pulliam explains away the “first resurrection” and its implication of a second resurrection in his book {p. 258-261}; he has to do this because he believes there will only be one future resurrection of the dead. Actually, he outright redefines the word “resurrection” to not require a physical body {p. 148}, despite the Greek word, ἀνάστασις (G386), meaning “a standing up again”; the “again” part implies that they’ll return to a state they’d previously been in! Is Pulliam willing to argue that Christians have already been totally immaterial spiritual beings, just to maintain the appropriateness of saying they’ll become such beings “again”? My upcoming book contains further discussion on the etymology of words for “resurrection” and the fact that most ancient Jews believed the dead would be resurrected bodily {HIDMF p. #, #; I’ll come back and add the page numbers to these posts once it’s published}. It’s getting pretty easy to see why Tim Warner says of amillennialists: “allegory is their default hermeneutic”! {Scroll to p. 7 of the PDF} Indeed, symbolism seems to be Pulliam’s “on-off switch” (and that of preterists and amillennialists in general, for that matter!) in precisely the same way that he calls dual fulfillment (or, to use his phrasing, “double reference”) the on-off switch for dispensationalists {p. 31} — they flip the switch to “on” in some passages and “off” in others, with no hermeneutical justification for which passages get which setting (i.e., they’re flip-flopping arbitrarily to suit their preconceived notions)! And, as I mention in my book {HIDMF p. #}, you can explain away darn near any not-yet-fulfilled prophecy just by claiming that an otherwise-unfulfilled detail symbolizes something else that has happened. Indeed, full preterists do exactly that to claim that every prophecy in the Bible was fulfilled by A.D. 70!

In contrast, I interpret the Bible in a straightforward fashion: where words carry their literal meanings unless the context (or in cases where God concealed the meaning at the time, later revelation shedding light on earlier revelation; e.g., Hosea 6:2 in light of John 7:2,10,33-37 & the doctrine of chiliasm, as I explain in Appendix D of my book) suggests otherwise. While we take this rule for granted in our everyday spoken and written language, many Bible translators make the mistake of ignoring this rule in several places due to what I call “translational inertia”: where Bible translators don’t fix an erroneous translation of a word in a particular passage because the erroneous rendering is so generally-accepted and ingrained in Christendom at large (and, of course, has been critical to the interpretations of so many expositors), that they know such a change to a word or phrase that’s been there for so many decades (or in most cases, centuries!) can be controversial enough to cause bad reviews and hurt their sales numbers (of course, I don’t care how controversial my corrections might be; all I care about is the truth!). Some prime examples occur with the words ψυχή (G5590) and πνεῦμα (G4151), often rendered by their more figurative/abstract meanings (“soul” and “spirit”, respectively) in contexts where their literal meanings (“life” and “breath”, respectively) would work just fine. This is presumably one reason Pulliam has gotten away with teaching his congregation (trust me, I’ve personally witnessed him doing so) that Ezekiel 37:1-14 has no future fulfillment in a bodily resurrection of the dead — Hebrews 4:12, if translated in a straightforward, word-by-word manner, blatantly proves otherwise: “For living is the Word of God [i.e., Jesus], and active, and sharper beyond any double-edged knife [used to expose every part of an animal when processing it for food], and penetrating until the distribution of life and of breath and of joints and of sinews, and is a judge of thoughts and sentiments of the heart.” The word for “until” is ἄχρι (G891), which refers to the time intervening before something happens — it’s never used for distance or extent. The word usually rendered “dividing”, “division”, or “separation” is μερισμός (G3311), which actually means “distribution” (think “dividing the spoils”); “distribution(s)” also works on all 3 of the other occasions this word appears in the Greek Bible — Hebrews 2:4, where most translations render the plural form of the word as “gifts”; Joshua 11:23 LXX, referring to when “Joshua gave them by inheritance Israel [i.e., the land of Israel, per the first part of the verse], by distribution according to their tribes” (my word-for-word translation of “ἔδωκεν αὐτοὺς Ἰησοῦς ἐν κληρονομίᾳ Ισραηλ ἐν μερισμῷ κατὰ φυλὰς αὐτῶν”); & Ezra 6:18 LXX, referring to “the Levites in their distributions on the basis of service of the God in Jerusalem” (my word-for-word translation of “τοὺς Λευίτας ἐν μερισμοῖς αὐτῶν ἐπὶ δουλείᾳ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐν Ιερουσαλημ”). So while Pulliam claims Ezekiel’s “Valley of Dry Bones” vision was fulfilled in the return from the Babylonian exile and has no future fulfillment, Hebrews 4:12 referred to “the distribution of life and of breath and of joints and of sinews” (a blatant reference to Ezekiel’s “Valley of Dry Bones” vision) as something that was still in the future from when the epistle to the Hebrews was written! The only reason this isn’t blatant in English is because the underlined phrase in this paragraph is persistently mistranslated due to translational inertia.

Now, while Pulliam seems careful in his book not to explicitly call himself an amillennialist, he evidently sides with them at least on a distinction he draws between dispensationalism & amillennialism in Lesson 1 of his book:

Dispensationalists tell us that Jesus is the Christ, but are still awaiting His ascension to the throne of David. Amillennialists contend that Jesus has ascended to the throne of David, and rules in heaven over a kingdom comprised of the hearts of men. Is He a King in waiting, or a King in realization of fulfilled prophecy? You must decide. {p. 11}

So right in the introduction to his book, we already have a false dichotomy — undoubtedly due to the fact that nearly all of Christendom (“nearly” being the operative word) holds to some form of either dispensationalism or amillennialism, probably not even realizing there are any alternatives!

As you may have guessed (I never actually make my position on this explicit in my book), my position on Christ’s kingship status is between the two that Pulliam presents as the only two possibilities: I accept that Jesus is the Christ, is currently in heaven, and has authority and is ruling over Christians’ hearts (as well as Christian institutions, such as Christian households, churches, seminaries, parachurch organizations, etc.) now at the Father’s right hand — but that upon his return, he will ascend to David’s throne and rule over the earth (including governments, societies, etc.) for 1,000 years before handing the Kingdom back to the Father for the rest of eternity. I’ll give Biblical exposition on this view later in this series.

This is similar (if not identical) to what Pulliam calls the “‘already-not yet’ concept.” {p. 106} He lists an entire table of verses on p. 107 where some refer to Christ’s kingdom as present & others refer to it as future (although his remark on 1 Corinthians 15:24 is erroneous, as he claims that passage mentions the kingdom as present and future; the verse just before this one places everything in verses 24-28 after Jesus’ παρουσία (parousia; G3952), which must be still future, as this word referred to a visit from a ruler or official, which requires the ruler himself to be physically present — so much for the preterist idea that Jesus’ parousia was his non-physical presence at Jerusalem’s second destruction!) — only to dismiss these distinctions (without even trying to reconcile the present-vs-future distinctions with his own view!) with the claim that “To say that there is a future, earthly kingdom of Christ, assumes that these texts refer to a kingdom upon this earth.… No passages implying a future kingdom even hint at that kingdom being on earth.” {p. 108. Italics and boldface in original.}

Pulliam makes a good case that all the erroneous doctrines of traditional dispensationalism can be undercut by refuting their view of a single starting premise: namely, the time range over which the Abrahamic Covenant was to be fulfilled {p. 21}. It’s ironic, then, that most of Pulliam’s views on eschatology can also be undercut by refuting a single starting premise: the idea that the future kingdom of Christ will be in heaven, not on earth. I can bring up one verse that conclusively disproves this assumption. As long as Pulliam told me he typically uses the NASB (indeed, the Scripture quotations in his book are all from the 1995 NASB), why don’t I quote that version of this verse, including its margin note? “For He did not subject to angels the world [literally, “the inhabited earth”] to come, concerning which we are speaking.” (Hebrews 2:5, boldface added) The Greek word for “world” here is οἰκουμένη (G3625), which means “inhabited earth” or “inhabited land”. This word has physical land built into its definition! I have yet to see ANYONE reconcile a “heavenly destiny” for Christians with the use of this word in Hebrews 2:5 (let alone cogently and conclusively).

With this, we see that, contrary to Pulliam’s insistence, the eternal Kingdom of God will be on the physical earth we inhabit now. This is also borne out by 2 Peter 3:13 referring to the end result of the judgment by fire as “new heavens and a new earth”, with “new” being the Greek word καινός, which refers to freshness, not youth (as I explain in my book {HIDMF p. #}, the fire that burns the heavens and the earth — verses 10 & 12 — doesn’t annihilate them, but rather purifies them); moreover, when Peter said “we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth” (verse 13b KJV, boldface added), the “promise” in question had been recorded in Isaiah 65-66 (65:17 & 66:22 LXX use καινός, too!), which makes it abundantly clear that this “new earth” will be a physical one in which “flesh” dwells1 (66:23-24)! As if all that isn’t enough, Jesus himself strongly implied that his Kingdom would be on Earth at the start of the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.… Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.” (Matthew 5:3,5 1995 NASB) There are only 2 ways that both of these Beatitudes could come true: either (a) the poor in spirit and the gentle (“meek” in most English translations) will have mutually-exclusive destinies (which makes one wonder about the fate of a Christian who displays both qualities!) or (b) the kingdom of heaven will be on the earth. Is anyone out there willing to mount a serious case for (a)? (I’d love to see someone try!)

It therefore is possible (indeed, certain in light of the Matthew and Hebrews verses), despite Pulliam’s insistence, for the participants in the Abrahamic Covenant (which includes Christians, not just Jews, per Galatians 3:14-18; see {HIDMF p. #} for further explanation) to have access to the land promised to Abraham for the rest of eternity.

But while that may be the most glaring problem with the eschatology outlined in “In the Days of Those Kings”, and all the flip-flopping between literal and allegorical interpretation regardless of how each text’s context would have us take it is the most pervasive problem, neither of these is actually the most serious problem. For a handful of weeks I was considering following church practices more strictly, by being respectful and limiting my harshness when trying to persuade him of his errors as a brother in Christ. But I changed my mind about that when I came across a statement Pulliam wrote that tells me he’s actually preaching against Christ — by teaching an outright heresy!

Paul says that we will not only be raised from the dead, but we shall also be changed in an instant. We will not be physical, or mortal. We will be immortal. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, so we will obviously be spiritual beings. This agrees with John’s description of that great day when “we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is.” Although Jesus was raised in the flesh, He was glorified before ascending to the Father. That state to which we shall be transported is far beyond anything that our mortal minds can imagine. Paul also described it as a transformation that will bring our humble state into conformity “with the body of His glory.” On that day, all that once held substance will be gone and the unseen realities of the spiritual realm will endure. Judgment will commence for both righteous and wicked. {p. 148-149. Italics added}

…logically, if we are to be changed in seeing Him (I John 3:2), then He must no longer be flesh and blood. Otherwise, no change would be necessary. In reverse, if we are to become imperishable in our change (I Corinthians 15:51-53), then Jesus must have already undergone this change for us to become “like Him” (I John 3:2). {p. 148, fn 27. Italics added.}

Now, anyone who knows me can attest that I hardly ever accuse anyone of “heresy”, precisely because it’s such a strong word, and I’d rather give people the benefit of the doubt on their motives. But in this case, the Apostle John himself, in the very letter that Pulliam quotes here, strongly condemned anyone who teaches that Jesus isn’t in the flesh now:

By this you know the Spirit [literally, “Breath”] of God: Every spirit [literally, “breath”] that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit [literally, “breath”] that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit [literally, “is that”] of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. (1 John 4:2-3 NKJV, boldface and underlining added)

Each instance of the verb for “has come” in verses 2 & 3 is a perfect-tense active participle, indicating a past completed action resulting in a present state. So John was here condemning anyone who didn’t teach that Jesus had come in the flesh, or still was in the flesh when John wrote this decades after Jesus’ ascension! Moreover, the phrase “this is that of the Antichrist” becomes especially pointed when you consider that in Koine Greek, the prefix “anti-“ didn’t mean “against” (as we generally use it today), but “instead of” or “in place of”, having connotations of substitution or exchange {“Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament”. Wallace, Daniel B. 1996. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic. 364-368.}. Thus, the Apostle John not only branded an idea that Pulliam built his view of the believer’s destiny on as a heresy, but claimed that anyone who teaches that idea is preaching an alternative (i.e., counterfeit) Christ! In fact, John wrote the verses I just quoted to call out one of Christianity’s earliest ideological enemies: Gnosticism! And anyone who’s studied the first couple centuries of church history would recognize many of the ideas in the paragraph I just quoted from p. 148-149 of “In the Days of Those Kings” as being eerily reminiscent of Gnostic beliefs! Indeed, when I quoted some of the things Pulliam said to me in person to McCullough, he beat me to this point by interjecting: “He almost sounds like a Gnostic”. (Also, this is slightly off-topic, but when I talked on the phone with a friend of mine who’d spent the last year or so studying the history of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their doctrines — he feels called to reach out to them with the truth — and I paraphrased a statement of Pulliam’s about the time gap between the 69th & 70th weeks of Daniel 9 {once the hyperlink to this future post is here, I’ll try to link to the quote from p. 167 specifically} — I couldn’t find the actual quote during the phone call — as “the only reason for thinking there’s a time gap here is because dispensationalism demands it”, he chuckled: “He sounds like a Jehovah’s Witness!”)

Wow. With the points I’ve brought up in this post alone, the majority of the arguments in Pulliam’s book collapse upon their foundation of false premises! But as implied above, it isn’t really sufficient for me to just show Scriptural passages that refute my opponent’s position. I must also show how the passages he offers to support his own position don’t contradict mine; otherwise, neither of us has been established as teaching the truth. And so, most if not all of the remainder of this series will be spent doing just that (but if you haven’t already, check the Footnote of this post for one example).

P.S.: Debate Challenge

If Bob Pulliam still thinks his understanding of eschatology is correct after reading this series of blog posts (and, ideally, at least Appendices D & E of my upcoming book), and continues to think (as he said to my face that fateful Wednesday night) that I’m “not qualified to teach about this”, then let him try showing me up in a public debate. I’m still relatively new to the Charlotte area, but McCullough has already suggested a couple of possible debate venues!

  1. Pulliam tries to disprove this idea by partially quoting 1 Corinthians 15:50: “Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” (1995 NASB) However, the underlying Greek phrasing (“Τοῦτο δέ φημι, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομῆσαι οὐ δύναται οὐδὲ ἡ φθορὰ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν κληρονομεῖ.” — NA28, boldface added) doesn’t demand the conclusion Pulliam is trying to reach here. This sentence literally means: “But this I am saying, brethren, since flesh and blood doesn’t have power in itself to inherit the kingdom of God nor does the corruption inherit the incorruption.” Note that “inherit” is aorist active infinitive the first time, but present active indicative the second time; only the latter verb is a mere statement of fact. The phrase usually rendered “cannot”, οὐ δύναται, is the particle of absolute negation, followed by the present middle indicative 3rd-person singular form of G1410, the verb for “be able” or “have power” (the corresponding noun gave rise to English words like “dynamo”, “dynamic”, and “dynamite”). The indicative mood of this verb tells us it’s the statement of fact that “to inherit” is acting as a qualifier for, while the middle voice tells us the subject (“flesh and blood”) is both doing and receiving the action in some sense; overall, the idea is that flesh and blood can’t inherit the kingdom of God under its own power. This in no way rules out the possibility of God enabling flesh and blood to do so. Indeed, Paul could’ve easily conveyed that sense simply by writing G1410 in the passive voice, in which case the boldfaced phrase would mean “flesh and blood can’t be empowered (or “enabled”) to inherit the kingdom of God” — yet he didn’t. ↩︎

The Apocalyptically-Significant Attitudes of Nick Fuentes

This is admittedly a strange choice for my very first post on this blog. I won’t normally waste my time talking at length about political commentators, “influencers”, extremists, or conspiracy theorists, since there’s too many of them spouting too much idiocy for me to pick one to focus on. Besides, God has given me bigger fish to fry. But this case hits close enough to home that I feel compelled to say something.

Nick Fuentes admittedly flew under my radar until it was brought to my attention not only that he posted “Your body, my choice. Forever. ” on Twitter/X in the aftermath of Trump winning the 2024 U.S. election, but also that he grew up in La Grange Park, Illinois and attended Lyons Township High School. Having grown up in Brookfield, Illinois (the town bordering La Grange Park to the east) and attended Riverside-Brookfield High School (a rival school to LTHS), it feels kinda fated that I should weigh in on this. It seems that, as usual, someone from RB will have to keep someone from LT in check (I was too emotionally-incompetent to handle school rivalries when I was actually in high school, but I’ve since matured to the point where I can joke about them)!

I won’t address every position I’ve seen reports of Fuentes taking, simply because some of them pertain to issues I don’t have an official position on. My aim with this post is threefold:

  1. Take a trip down memory lane, using this post as an excuse to talk about my school days (something I rarely get to do anymore);
  2. Speculate on what factors in our neighborhood may have contributed to Fuentes turning out the way he has, in the hope of prompting readers who actually grew up around Fuentes to do the same and more openly discuss what actually went down to lead him on the path he’s taken, so they can prevent their own kids from falling into the same traps; and
  3. Warn Christians how attitudes like the ones Fuentes holds that I do cover here can help set up the societal situation the Bible describes existing at the onset of the apocalypse.

Hilariously Bad Logic

I admittedly had to look up a fair amount about him on Wikipedia (and the page was updated quite a few times in the course of my research, might I add! {note how many edits were made between November 12th and 16th, 2024}); while we probably grew up somewhere between a few blocks and a couple miles away from each other, we’ve admittedly never met each other, due to the difference in our ages (he would’ve entered kindergarten the same year I entered 7th grade). But I must say, many of his claims would come across as hilarious if there weren’t people out there who took them seriously!

For example, consider his attempt to explain his position that being an “involuntary celibate” was “more heterosexual” than having intercourse with someone of the opposite sex:

“Having sex in itself is gay, I think. I think that it’s really a gay act. Think about it this way: What’s gayer than being like ‘I need cuddles. I need kisses … I need to spend time with a woman.’ That’s a little sus. …I think, really, I’m like the straightest guy.”

Those who went to high school in the late 2000s (like me) may remember when “gay” was thrown around as a slang word to describe an object or situation, typically as a substitute for “stupid” (e.g., “that looks so gay” instead of “that looks lame”; “this is so gay” instead of “this sucks”). LGBT ideology wasn’t taught as vigorously in those days as it has been in recent years, so most people who used the word this way got away with it. Regardless of whether one condones using the word “gay” with this definition, Fuentes’ line of reasoning is clearly using it when referring to “need[ing] cuddles”, “need[ing] kisses”, and “need[ing] to spend time with a woman” as “gay”, only to switch it to being a synonym for “homosexual” in order to reach his conclusion that he’s “the straightest guy” (of course, a hug-obsessed person like me thinks he’s depriving himself with his attitude on cuddles!). This is even worse (in the sense of “more blatant“; subtle equivocation fallacies are more dangerous because they’re easier to fall for) than the equivocation fallacies on the word “homosexuality” that I bring out in Chapter 13 of my upcoming book; in those cases, the equivocation is subtle enough where you need to actively pay attention for it!

Insights From A Local

Fuentes claims to be Catholic. Let’s take that at face value, and consider the possibility that he may have gone to St. Louise de Marillac School in La Grange Park (which closed down after the 2019-20 school year). I don’t know whether Fuentes ever went to the school or its Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) program at any point between kindergarten and 8th grade, so it’d be nice if anyone who grew up within his circle(s) could confirm or deny this, since it would determine the relevancy of what I’m about to discuss. That school was built in 1956, with the church building having opened the previous year. According to this heritage page, the St. Louise de Marillac Church (now the North Campus of the Holy Guardian Angels Parish) is the second-oldest church building in the village of La Grange Park, after St. Michael’s Lutheran Church (which I attended with my mom and step-dad in my early twenties, incidentally), which opened in 1953. My dad and some of his siblings were students at St. Louise in its earlier years, and my sister and I attended its CCD program on Wednesday nights for a handful of years, to the point where each of us went through the “First Communion” ritual (although we were pulled out before going through the “Confirmation” ritual, like my best friend eventually did at the Catholic congregation his family attended). Moreover, I attended kindergarten through 4th grade at Brook Park Elementary School, whose playground is directly across the street from the main entrance to the church building. In fact, the very first general election I was old enough to vote in (2012), the easternmost entrance hall of St. Louise’s school was the poll location where I cast my ballot!

As I explain in Chapter 1 of my upcoming book, my mother pulled my sister and I out because shortly after I was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, one of the teachers was talking with my mother and casually mentioned that “Karl can be a bit disruptive, but I just yell at him and he stops” (apparently, the CCD teachers hadn’t received the memo about my diagnosis, and so assumed — as they had in previous years — that I was just another troublemaker). And even while I was attending, I recall asking quite a few questions of my CCD teachers in an effort to understand what they were teaching better, and half of my questions were perceived as “disruptions”! (In hindsight, I suspect this is one of the reasons I got so into apologetics once I was exposed to it in 2003 — I legitimately wanted the answers!) I even remember some nights when our class was shown videos, and I’m disturbed in hindsight about the propagandistic emotionalism of some of them (e.g., a cartoon about a group of friends in a culture where Christians were persecuted, where one of them ends up captured and killed after they cut corners while praying the Rosary {scroll to “The steps to praying the Rosary are:”; wherever it says to “Pray” “the ‘Our Father'”, “Hail Marys”, or “the ‘Glory Be'”, they just said the name of the prayer the number of times stated}; and a short live-action film about a kid who wants his grandma’s famous dessert at his First Communion party where she dies before his First Communion, but the family finds her recipe book and is able to have her cooking at his party after all). Even worse, I recall an older acquaintance or two who attended their school around the same time as my dad who said he was offended that a certain priest never molested him, thinking it was because he “wasn’t pretty enough” compared to the boys who were (I think it goes without saying that they dodged a bullet)! Also, my dad is left-handed, and the Nuns tried to teach him to write right-handed, evidently having bought into the entirely un-Biblical idea that Satan was left-handed; the teachers eventually gave in, but none of them had experience teaching a lefty to write, so my dad has bad handwriting to this day.

Long story short, I have good reasons to think that St. Louise produced at least as many apostates as it did devout Catholics. If whatever Catholic upbringing Nick Fuentes had in La Grange Park was anything like how things were done at St. Louise, I can understand why he latches on so readily to ideas with no basis in sound Biblical teaching (and ideas contrary to it, to boot!), and why his attempts to defend his positions can get as incoherent as the example quoted in the previous section! Indeed, Ken Ham & Britt Beemer’s book “Already Gone” dug into the reasons why 2/3 of American Millennials who used to attend church on a regular basis have since left it behind, and the survey they conducted along the way revealed that it was generally due to the very factors alluded to above: people not sufficiently answering their sincere questions, and hypocrisy, legalism, and/or self-righteousness in the congregations they attended; how they were taught even comes in for special mention in their chapter on Sunday School {Scroll to “Taught but Not Caught”}. The cruel irony is that this book was published in 2009, when Nick was just entering his formative years; so his life trajectory very well could have been altered for the better if his parents had gotten a copy of this book and utilized its recommendations.

Speaking of books, it’s also possible that LT psychologically broke him, if its reading curriculum was anything like what my Freshman class at RB had to read. I was in Honors English 9, admittedly, so maybe the regular English 9 courses had a curriculum that wasn’t so actively depressing. What do I mean by “actively depressing”? They gave us pretty much all of the most depressing books possible: The Pearl by John Steinbeck, 1984 by George Orwell, Lord of the Flies by William Golding, Night by Elie Wiesel — it was as if whoever designed the curriculum was trying to make us all emo! I got a “D” on the work I handed in for Night (the book with the happiest ending of the four listed above!), with a note from the teacher that said, in part: “You cannot dodge the assignment.” Believe me, I would’ve done the assignment correctly, if reading dozens of pages of first-hand eyewitness accounts of what people were put through at Auschwitz hadn’t emotionally overwhelmed me to the point where I couldn’t focus on doing the assignment correctly, and just wanted the whole ordeal to be over! While working through the third set of chapters (my class was assigned starting and stopping points each week), I was having a meltdown and told my dad that I was upset over the book, and he told me “Then stop reading it! They shouldn’t be making you read stuff that makes you this upset.” Alas, the course I was reading it for was required for graduation, so I included my dad’s remark in the portion of the assignment I wrote that night; obviously, my teacher didn’t agree — and there was even a built-in excuse for making 14-and-15-year-olds, people who are extremely prone to severe mood swings and just starting to figure out how to navigate more adult emotions, read books like this: Elie started going through the stuff described in the book when he was younger than us. And bear in mind that during the year I read these books (and a handful of years on either side of it), one of the meds I was on was Zoloft — an antidepressant that made my normal disposition in those years “deliriously happy”, to quote my mother.

If my Freshman reading curriculum got that close to psychologically breaking me, just imagine how much it could’ve messed up someone even more psychologically unstable! If anyone who went to LT in the early-to-mid 2010s can confirm or deny that their required reading curriculum was similarly depressing, I would greatly appreciate it. For all we know, Fuentes’ current status as a Holocaust-denier may have started out as an overreaction to being so traumatized by reading Night when he wasn’t emotionally-ready to handle it, that he wanted to convince himself it was a work of fiction!

It’s scary to think that if that CCD teacher had never mentioned yelling at me to my mother, if I’d never been introduced to Biblical apologetics, and if I’d been on a different combination of drugs in my Freshman year that left me just a little more emotionally-unstable, just a couple more bad influences may have been all I needed to end up like Nick Fuentes. Praise God that it all worked out for me!

Those Who Don’t Know Their History…

I think it’s also worth taking a detour to address the claim that Fuentes’ goal is to turn the Republican Party into “a truly reactionary party”. Granted, I’ve only been able to trace this quote to an article by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has become more and more unreliable over the last several decades; however, Fuentes seems to be in one (heck, several) of the categories where the SPLC still gets things right for the most part (I bring up the categories where they’ve abandoned all integrity in Chapter 12 of my upcoming book). And granted, I’m not a Republican, so how that party bills itself is of no consequence to how I live my life. But reactionary movements, more often than not, end up being just as in the wrong as the problems they’re reacting to. Tim Warner brings this up in a context that brings this discussion back into my wheelhouse {Scroll to pages 13-14 in the PDF, under “The Rise of Modalism in Phrygia: Praxeas, Noetus, & Sabellius:“}:

The opposition in Phrygia of Asia Minor where Montanism began [in the third quarter of the 2nd century A.D.] was in part concerned with the multiplying persons of the Godhead and the apparent obfuscation of monotheism. AS WITH MANY REACTIONS AGAINST GROSS HERESY, THE OPPOSITION OVER-CORRECTED BY GOING TOO FAR IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. The “fix” took the earlier (Jewish & Christian) concept of the Spirit as being a limited manifestation of God Himself and emphasized it to the point of applying the same idea to the Son. The new doctrine sought to stress rigid monotheism by claiming the unity of God as one Person against charges that (Montanist) Christianity was a form of poly-theism [sic]. According to this view, God has always manifested Himself through a limited aspect of His own Person, sometimes referred to as Logos, or Son, or Wisdom, or the Messenger of the Lord, or the Spirit of God. None of these manifestations had an individual identity apart from the Father Himself. (This was in contrast to the earlier view that Logos was “begotten” by God, and thus had become a distinct Person at the beginning of creation). Consequently, Jesus in the flesh was also a limited manifestation of God Himself. God simply manifested some portion of Himself in a form that temporarily assumed flesh. The new interpretation was intended to oppose Montanus’ multiplication of the Godhead to three distinct Persons.

This reactionary form of monotheism has had a revival of sorts in modern times among Oneness Pentecostals. The official modern theological term is “Modalism,” indicating that the Son and Spirit are merely “modes” through which God has interacted within the creation and with man. The churches which teach this view today often refer to themselves as “Apostolic Churches.” Yet this concept is anything but “apostolic.” It actually appeared first outside of Christianity in apostolic times with the claims of Simon Magus whom Peter denounced in Acts 8. Simon Magus was designated the father of Gnosticism by several of the earliest writers. Irenaeus wrote that Simon was “glorified by many as if he were a God; and he taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, but descended in Samaria as the Father while he came to other nations in the character of the Holy Spirit.” Thus Simon Magus was the first to teach this concept. However those who held this view in Asia Minor [circa A.D. 175] had no apparent link to Simon or his teaching earlier heresy.

{Italics, boldface, underlining, and content in parentheses in original. All-caps and content in brackets mine.}

Of course, I’m not surprised that Fuentes is ignorant of the history behind views of the Godhead that pre-date the Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Trinitarianism that Catholicism and most if not all of its daughter denominations hold to be so unquestionable. Quite frankly, most of Christendom is! {If you’d like to educate yourself on this, click here and scroll to “The Evolution of God Series:“; the article I just quoted from is part 5.} But as we all know — yet all too often fail to heed — those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it.

With how badly the Democratic party and its adherents have been messing up our society for quite some time now, what do you suppose the odds are that a “reactionary” Republican party will only go as far as reasonably necessary in the opposite direction? Our nation is at a point where I see no way that such reactions won’t backfire. The Republicans who now control the Presidency, the Senate, and (more narrowly) the House can change as many laws as they want, but no change brought about will last for any significant time unless hearts change — otherwise, they’ll just change all the laws back, and then some! This battle needs to be fought in the heavenly dominions where spiritual warfare applies (Ephesians 6:12; I explain this verse here), not the earthly dominions where political maneuvering gets things done (for better or worse). And the reality is, 4 years is not enough time to change the hearts of the sheer number of people in the U.S. that the demonic forces have successfully brainwashed into calling evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). And when the Republican party wields lawfare as a weapon and cite Christian beliefs (actual or purported) as the reason for it, they’re setting Christians up to be persecuted once the shoe inevitably comes back on the other foot.

Why do I say “inevitably”, when Trump’s win so clearly showed that people are fed up with the direction that Democratic leaders have been taking things? Well, as I demonstrate in Appendix D of my upcoming book, the 70th “seven” of Daniel 9:27 will already be underway 5 years from now. Maybe Trump (or Vance, if an assassination attempt on Trump eventually succeeds; I said sometime back in the 2020 campaign season that I expect whoever wins in 2024 to be assassinated in 2025, based on my assessment of the U.S.’s societal situation at that time — and I’m hoping more than ever that I’m wrong!) will enforce Christian nationalism to the extent that the wicked will revolt against it all after (or even before!) the 2028 election, leading the U.S. into enough chaos that another nation (perhaps the 10-king confederacy mentioned in Daniel 2:41-44, 7:7,23-24; & Revelation 17:12-17) can conquer it, throwing the U.S. Constitution out the window and enabling Christians to be killed in the very place that’s prevented Christians from being persecuted more than anywhere else in history. Or, maybe one of the nations that will ultimately merge with others to become the 10-king confederacy will do so before the U.S. can even have another election in 2026, and Christians will already be tortured and killed in this land before the 10-king confederacy even officially exists.

There are quite a few different ways the U.S. could cease to be a (prominent) nation (nothing recognizable as the U.S. is ever mentioned in end-times prophecy, implying we’ll no longer be a world superpower by the time any end-times prophecies are fulfilled), and the 10-king confederacy could come into being as the new domineering world superpower; but the only details we know for sure are the ones the Bible actually gives us, which don’t pick up until a time when the 10-king confederacy is already underway, per the Aramaic text of Daniel 2:42 specifying that it’s describing “part of the kingdom’s end” (מִן־קְצָת מַלְכוּתָא) as being “strong”, and part as being “broken” (I’ll give an obsessively-accurate word-for-word translation of Daniel 2:31-45 — seriously, I spent 2 nights translating the whole passage as accurately as possible from the Aramaic! — in a post that I’ve already written but haven’t posted yet, so you’ll get more clarification then); hence, the 10-king confederation could even exist for a little while before the apocalypse starts. What chain of events will get the world to that point, the Bible simply doesn’t say.

As such, I won’t pretend to predict (much less know) all the details behind which public figures have to make which (geo)political maneuvers, in what order, at what times, to bring about the situation the Bible describes at the onset of the apocalypse. But God knew all those details from the beginning of the universe’s existence (Isaiah 46:9-10), so I’ll just let Him surprise me. As long as I can (with God’s grace and providence, of course) withstand any and all devastation that happens to come my way, just knowing when it will unfold is enough to keep my sanity grounded. My priority is to spiritually-prepare myself to depend on God and follow His instructions through it all, and to help others to do the same.

That said, I have been researching about and paying attention to the trajectory that tolerance toward Christian beliefs has been taking in the U.S. over the last few decades, so I can make some reasonable guesses as to what will contribute to Christians here starting to be persecuted as badly as they have been in most other places throughout the Christina Era. Indeed, Jesus warned his followers that by the first half of the apocalypse there wouldn’t be any nations where Christians are generally safe.

“See to it that no one misleads you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will mislead many people. [Note that the quotation marks around “I am the Christ” were added by the translators; if they’re omitted, then this verse is referring to people who profess Jesus, but teach false doctrine — and how many preachers like that have there been throughout the Christian Era?] 6 And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pains [i.e., the apocalypse will be preceded by a period in history when everything mentioned in verses 5-7 is happening all over the world, simultaneously].

9 “Then they will hand you over to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 And at that time many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will rise up and mislead many people. 12 And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will become cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.

(Matthew 24:4c-14 2020 NASB, boldface added)

“All [the] nations” includes the U.S.A. (or whatever’s left of it by that point). And Nick Fuentes embodies many of the “ideals” that I suspect will get the U.S. (or at least a significant fraction of its citizenry) to finally abandon the 1st Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause wholesale when it comes to Christians. More on that later.

Gen Z Mindsets At Their Worst

Fuentes evidently has some method to his madness: when answering viewers’ questions, he often bills them as “jokes”. Click here for a prime example that someone posted on X. He’s even gone on record explaining that this gives him probable deniability in a segment that gives us some additional insight into his worldview. {Watch starting at the 1:04 mark; skip to the 3:22 mark when you reach the first ellipsis (…) }

I don’t know if I’ve ever explained this — and I don’t know if I should, even — but, irony and post-irony is [sic] so critical for a variety of reasons. …beyond that, irony is so important for giving a lot of, like, cover and plausible deniability for our views. That’s what these people don’t understand… Earnestness, this sort of academic filibustering, obfuscating — this is not effective political communication, especially not when you’re dissident [I originally misheard this word as “dissonant”], and especially not for young people. What is required is somebody who is tactical with their language. Tactical, okay? Use irony because — you know, when it comes to something like Holocaust revision — I mean, this is a subject that you cannot deviate from the popular consensus on, but you also, you also can’t, like — I also think you really can’t (chuckle) tell the truth if you adhere to that. …When it comes to a lot of these issues you need a little bit of maneuverability that irony gives you. Oh, well, you know, “what does that mean?” Well, I was being ironic. Well, I was joking. Well, it’s whatever. Well, you don’t understand the tone. Well, you don’t understand humor. And that’s true — and it is true, to a great extent. …Irony is a very important, like, linguistic and rhetorical weapon, so that we can be subversive. And that is what they don’t understand. We are dissidents. And as dissidents, they want to crush our ideas, our modes of communication, our organizing, our networking, that is why we must subvert those rules. We must be tactical. I use sardonic humor to convey a point subversively. I’ve never, you know — well, I do actually, literally, on my show say “Just kidding! That’s a joke, whatever.” But the point is made, but the point is delivered. It’s all a joke, bruh! (Laughs)

When watching the video and transcribing what Fuentes said, I originally misheard him as saying that academic filibustering and obfuscating is ineffective politically, “especially when you’re dissonant”. In my defense, “dissident” and “dissonant” both make sense in the context. But I do think Fuentes’ “sardonic humor” is an attempt to make his own cognitive dissonance palatable. You’ll see in my upcoming book and as I post more on this blog that I’d rather take the intellectual high road by going out of my way to reassess my worldview until I’m not dissonant! Of course, in a book he wrote in 2002, Ken Ham spent a chapter discussing the mindsets of different groups of people in our day, in terms of obstacles to successfully evangelizing to them. Consider some of his warnings about people in the final category:

I believe this group represents where our culture is heading. In my opinion, it is probably the hardest group to reach. These people are the products of our universities and public education. They are now starting to get positions of power in the government at local and national levels. As they are the products of the influence of Group 6, they have provided the mystical element they need: the universe (or nature) is ‘god.’ This is all part of the New Age religion that is sweeping the world. Of course, in one sense it’s nothing other than a form of Hinduism, but because it’s been birthed in our Western culture, it’s often entwined with our scientific mindset.

…If ‘god’ is nature, then how can ‘god’ be both good and evil, health and disease, full of joy and suffering? The universe seems very contradictory. It’s only the Bible that explains why this is so. The Bible not only explains the origin of evil but also the reason for the existence of death. Because this group of people is interested in supernatural things, sometimes they will listen when you argue authoritatively from the Bible. However, sometimes they will accept what you say and yet accept what they believe at the same time. Because truth is relative [in their view], they live in the world inconsistently anyway. They are happy to live illogically and inconsistently.

{Boldface and content in brackets mine.}

I think Ham’s prediction was spot-on. And speaking of “the influence of Group 6” (click the phrase “a chapter” above and read the description of Group 6, so their connection to the quote below will be more clear), Fuentes gave us some additional insight into his worldview and the thought process of many people in Gen Z (Nick Fuentes is definitely in Gen Z; I was born around 2/3 of the way through Gen Y) earlier in that same video:

my generation is completely nihilistic, I mean that is really the backdrop of what we’re talking about — all of it is contextual. Nobody gets that; everything is contextual, okay? …Our generation, my generation [in] particular’s coming up where everything has been destroyed, I mean, we are living in the ruins of everything earnest, everything sincere, everything that actually had meaning — religion, ideology, nationalism, all of that, it’s all gone — you know, even the family, we have nothing, okay? I came up in school, and it’s like, literally like a dystopian, like liberal, Fukuyama wasteland where it’s about holding hands and the diversification of America and all the — you know, lab coat feminist, all this s***. And so, that being the backdrop of my generation, being ironic is sort of the language of this nihilistic era. I, I think, at least… talking in a post-ironic, ironic way, is very much symptomatic of that condition. You know, earnestness, sincerity, this sort of “true belief” — that, that doesn’t exist for this generation, so I think irony is actually very important for communicating with young people, I think other young people understand that… Why do you think it is that young people watch my show? As opposed to, you know, watching Fox News or, even things like Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder? It’s because I am speaking the language of other Zoomers.

Indeed, the comment section of this YouTube video was full of people calling Fuentes “based” and expressing desire to go check out more of what he has to say! (Checking the profile of the video’s uploader reveals that his sense of humor — and so, likely, that of the people who tend to watch his uploads — is typical of someone from Gen Z or late Gen Y; trust me, I’ve seen stuff from way too many of the channels listed under his “Subscriptions” and “Favorite Channels”!) After hearing from my sister and her friends about what was going on at RB in their senior year (the second year after I left), I can confirm that Fuentes’ description of school became more accurate there pretty much just after I graduated in 2009. And from being involved with Snowball during all 4 years I was at RB, I can confirm that the “holding hands and the diversification of America” part was reasonably accurate even while I attended. I would honestly be surprised if anything about his description of LT in the early-to-mid-2010s was inaccurate!

That point Ham made about people who are “happy to live illogically and inconsistently” may explain why Fuentes was willing to say “Your body, My choice” {italics added}, despite the fact that he’s not calling any of the shots with abortion policy. I also can’t resist pointing out that his statement is more accurate under a pro-choice regime, if you understand “My” as meaning “the man’s” (as all the pro-choice women who had this message spammed to them after Trump’s victory were clearly meant to take it). I’m still having conniptions over how masterfully Ham brought this out just a few months ago when responding to a statement by Pete Buttigieg:

Men are more free in a country with access to the murder of children? Yes, men are “more free” to abandon the women they use sexually, with no consequences. More free to “sleep around,” refuse to marry, or selfishly use their time, resources, and finances for themselves, instead of the child they helped create. Yes, more free to have affairs and cover them up or “pimp out” women and girls through sex trafficking and prostitution. Yes, men are “more free” when they can sacrifice their own children on the altar of their own pleasure—more free to sin against women, against their own children, against their own bodies, and against their Creator.

Fuentes having no problem with inconsistency in his views may also contribute to why he has so many white supremacist beliefs, yet claims not to be a white supremacist, passing off the term “white supremacist” as an “anti-white slur”. Unfortunately, the Anti-Defamation League documents that “Rather, Fuentes positions himself as [a] ‘Christian conservative’ who opposes societal shifts – on immigration, abortion and more — as nefarious efforts, led by the left, to fundamentally erode America’s Christian values. This cloaking of ideology is a ploy to attract mainstream support.” {Content in brackets mine.} And that’s where I fear Christians are going to really start getting screwed over in the years ahead.

Extreme Views Provide Excuses For Extreme Measures

You see, while I agree that many (though not all) of those “societal shifts” are part of deliberate efforts to erode the Christian values the U.S. was founded on (after all, the key players throughout the 20th century who got the ball rolling for many of those shifts said as much in their own writings!1), Fuentes’ calling himself a “Christian conservative” as an alternative label for “white supremacist” gives the impression that white supremacy is part and parcel of the Christian faith (or at least, a “conservative” version of it; of course, those who throw around this word never seem ready to specify exactly what “conservative” people are trying to conserve!). Of course, the Bible teaches exactly the opposite about white supremacy (indeed, “races” and racism in general) and hardly promotes wholesale opposition to immigration:

and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation [and the Bible leaves open the possibility that God’s process here may in some cases involve immigration on the part of someone and/or their parents], that they would seek God, if perhaps they might feel around for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us
(Acts 17:26-27 2020 NASB, boldface added)

But in a world that’s getting increasingly intolerant of Christian beliefs, we can expect more than a few people to pounce on statements that give such false impressions about Christianity and use them as excuses to persecute Christians.

For instance, some of his anti-Semitic remarks could be exploited by anti-Zionists to further their own cause, and “pro-Israel” Americans (not to mention Orthodox Jews) could be killed for dissidence in the event that Fuentes’ views ever become official policy. Or, anti-Zionists could be killed in a “guilt by association” scenario where someone decides that “people like Fuentes” should be killed. I can honestly see this going either way, since both of the mainstream views on how to relate to Israel are unbiblical. It also doesn’t help that denying or downplaying what Hitler did to Jews hinders interpretation of the 7 kings of Revelation 17:10 (I’ll explain this in a later post, too).

Fuentes has spoken in support of Catholic monarchy. He obviously doesn’t understand that the U.S. specifically included the Establishment Clause at the start of the 1st Amendment because they knew full well how much havoc the presence of a state church (including Catholic monarchies) had wreaked in Europe over the centuries; for crying out loud, that’s the whole reason the Pilgrims fled to America in the first place!

He’s also a Christian Nationalist and Catholic integralist. I was technically a Christian Nationalist myself (I wasn’t aware of the term at the time), before I started more thoroughly investigating the connections between Biblical covenants. This led me to realize that Biblical covenants don’t apply to unbelievers, except for the Edenic, Adamic, and Noahic Covenants, which apply to all of humanity because they were given to the heads of all humanity. (You can get a more thorough explanation in Chapter 6 of my upcoming book.) Hence, imposing any Biblical standards on society that aren’t included in those 3 covenants (see Genesis 1:28-30; 2:2-3,15-18,24; 3:14-21; & 8:22-9:17 — note that Genesis 9:5-6 in particular was where God instituted civil governments for humanity) is to apply those standards beyond their divinely-approved scope. That won’t remain the case forever, though: Jesus will be calling the shots for all nations once he returns (Psalm 2:8-9 LXX; Daniel 7:13-14,27; Revelation 19:16, etc.)! Sadly, I fear that many Christian Nationalists are effectively trading 1,000 years of ruling in Christ’s Kingdom and then enjoying the results for the rest of eternity, for 4 years (maybe 5) of living in a bastardization of that Kingdom.

Conclusion

Given all the articles I’ve cited that link Fuentes with Trump, I think it’s appropriate to close out by giving you some perspective on how I’m approaching Trump’s second term. After all, I never said much about what I thought about Trump during his first term (mainly because, living in the deep blue state of Illinois, I’d be chewed out for saying anything remotely positive about him)! Both then and now, my attitude would be best described as “cautiously optimistic”, but at the very least, I’m definitely going into it with more insight this time. In a comment on a post of his going into more detail on some of the things I bring up and/or allude to in this post, I think Warner said it very well:

I agree that the fervor in supporting Trump is misplaced, almost to the point of “worship.” Many Christians are putting their trust in a man instead of in God. I do not deny that Trump is being used as God’s tool. But I question whether that tool is actually to “Make America Great Again,” or as a test leading to judgement. My wife and I will vote for Trump, because the alternative is almost unthinkable. However, we will do so with the knowledge that God raised up both Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar for His own purposes of judgement.

P.S.: Regarding Post Length

Just a heads-up: compared to the other posts I’ve already written over the last few months, but have yet to post here because I just set up the website this last week, this post is pretty close to average-length for me (it’s about 6,500 words, including the paragraph you’re reading right now). Some of the posts I’ve already typed are little more than 2,000 words, and others are more in the ballpark of 10,000 words; one that’s still in progress is already so long that I plan on uploading it as a PDF! So if you’re a fan of longer “long-form content”, you’ve come to the right place!

  1. As just two examples, consider Margaret Sanger and John Dewey. Ironically, Fuentes and Sanger probably would’ve gotten along really well, assuming his parents didn’t immigrate to the U.S.! (In 1916, she opened her very first birth control clinic in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn because her target clientele was “immigrant Southern Europeans, Slavs, Latins, and Jews”. {Click the link on the phrase “Margaret Sanger” and scroll to “Racism and birth control clinics”. Boldface mine.}) ↩︎