Ever since I was granted the Truth & Wisdom and understanding that I have always prayed for pertaining to the whole area of eschatology, and denounced the goofy Hal Lindsey hypothesis of end times, I have marveled at the exact way things fit in Gods Word.
I have ever since then been awed by the fact that all through the old testament, God had an exact purpose, and into the new testament and today, it has all come to pass perfectly as He planned.
I am dismayed however by people who claim that when we say that the church IS Israel, we are said to be "replacing" Israel with the Church.
This I completely disavow. It as never been this way. Anyone who says it is, is wrong.
I believe that God always referred to His "nation of believers" as Israel, right from when he named Jacob 'Israel' (One who "strives with God", or "one conquered by God"). So whenever God referred to Israel, he was ALWAYS talking about the nation of believers, not the physical offspring of Jacob.
I take exception to people who assume that God is EVER talking about the physical descendants of Jacob when He talks of "Israel".
That is why I say there is no replacement, just a new word for Gods company of believers, and that being "Church". However, the company of believers is STILL "Israel", and always will be, and it is not talking about the physical decendants of Jacob, nor has it EVER been talking about them.
Why do I seem to be the only person in the world who sees it this way?.

(By the way, it was that idea originally that made me sue that Hal Lindsey and his ilk are all stark raving mad. Lindsey used to beleager the point that "the Church" is not mentioned after a certain point in Revelation, but only speaks of Israel after that point. I see that as the dead giveaway that Israel IS the Church, and the church IS Israel. NOT that the church has somehow been airlifted off of the face of the planet, as Lindsey ridiculously thinks.
So my question is, why don't you spokesmen for the Truth of amillennialism counter these people who claim we have "Replaced" Israel with the church? I mean counter them and tell them that their replacement idea is merely a symptom of their own misunderstanding of WHO Israel always has been.
My ideas are a little diffrent than most, as I am saying that the word Israel has NEVER meant physical descendants of Jacob, or 'National Israel' as people call it. (which doesnt exist because Israel has never meant physical descendants of Jacob)
I see that theologists like to say stuff to the effect of "Sometimes God is talking about the physical descendants, and other times he isnt". Well I say God NEVER meant physical descendants by that term.
I hope I have expressed my point, as this is a tough thing to relay.
So what do you say to this?
(By the way, I greatly respect your work and am grateful for your ministry).
James Paul

I an looking for an answer: John (rev 21) sees a new heaven and new eartn coming down.

Then he sees the New Jerusalem coming down.

These events cannot be future from us because people are already drinking from that river of life which is in the midst of the city. In other words the gates have already been opened!

Since it seems that the river is a metaphor for the Holy Spirit (John 7:38/Is.55:1 notice that the lord exhorts all to drink freely from that river), and since the new jerusalem=the bride=the church (rev 21:9-10/22:17), should we not also view the new heaven and earth as a metaphor (possibly for the new covenant)?

On what basis is it to be understood as literal in Rev 21?

If it is future why are people drinking from that river?

Why does the Spirit (river) and the Bride (new Jerusalem) exhort people to come and drink freely? Is this not the call of the gospel?

Hello Dr. Riddlebarger,
My question is regarding the amillenial interpretation of Jesus' self defense against the Pharisees recorded in Luke 11:14-23 and Matthew 12:22-32.
Amillenialists seem to jump on Matthew 12:29 and claim that it teaches that Jesus has bound satan (sometimes tying it into Revelation 20).
My first question is, given the hermeneutic rules of interpreting parables, isn't that a complete misuse of the passage? Given that the the issue is about Jesus' source of power and the amazing statement that it is the power of God that is casting out demons, not being in league with satan... The punch of the parable seems to be that Jesus is more powerful than satan (so the parallel passage in Luke doesn't mention binding but instead uses the word 'overpowering'), and to use the parable to make a theological point about satan being literally 'bound' is to abuse the passage. Could you please tell me how amillenialists defend this unusual and unique usage of metaphorical language?
Thank you in advance.

Dr. Riddlebarger,

I have been a dispensationalist for years. However, I have become increasingly convinced, from my study of Scripture, as a pastor, that the N.T. church is, at least in some sense, the true people of God and the goal to which O.T. redemptive history pointed. I now see much more continuity in God's program and present fulfillment of O.T. prophecies regarding Israel. However, I have not been convinced, at this point, by the arguments for amillennialism (I do plan to purchase and read your book soon). At the same time, I do see some significant problems with premil., so I am still open. I understand that one of the arguments for an amil. understanding of Rev. 20:1-10 is the fact that the thrones seem to be thrones set in heaven. The saints are seen reigning with Christ in the present, in a spiritual sense. My question is this, what do you make of verses like Matt. 19:28 and Rev. 2:26-27? The first indicates the apostles reigning over the tribes of Israel. The second certainly seems to indicate a political rule of believers over nations of the earth. This is, by any millennial interpretation, a quotation from Psa. 2 relating to Messiah's future (then) reign over the nations of the world, which seems to be a prominent theme of the whole book of Psalms and a significant part of O.T. theology as a whole. So, do you assign these passages to this age or to the new earth or both? In either case, in what way could the saints be said to be reigning or judging over nations, including the tribes of Israel?

Dear Dr. Riddlebarger,
I have been reading " A case for amillenialism", and I find it refreshing and challenging.
I have studied briefly Romans 9-11 prior to reading your chapter entitled "Romans 11--Is there a future for Isreal?".
I agree with most of your points, but I am curious about your analysis of Romans 11.26.
Why is the interpretation of 11.26 not simply this, that "all Israel" consists of all true believers of all ages and all ethnicities, and is not limited to national or ethnic Isreal?
Paul stated in Romans 9.6-8 that "they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham: but,"In Isaac your seed shall be called". That is , those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted as the seed".
During the time of the old covenant, righteousness was imputed to those who believed in the promise of God- that He would send a Messiah who would deliver people from the power and consequence of sin. The new covenant is the same, only with the Messiah having been revealed, and those who believe, being made righteous by imputation. True Israel ("all Israel" of Ro. 11.26) is comprised of all who believe in the same promise. Not so?

Hello:

I have seen that there is a great deal of emphasis amongst premillennialists on the seven feasts of Israel and how they are prophetic. They see that Passover is prophetic of the crucifixion, Unleavened Bread of Christ's burial, First Fruits of His resurrection, and Pentecost of the pouring out of the Spirit. I think the reasoning is pretty solid on the prophetic nature of these first four feasts. However it is the three fall feasts where I am uncertain. Premillennialists see the Feast of Trumpets as a prophecy of the Rapture, the Day of Atonement as a prophecy of the Second Coming and Tabernacles as a prophecy of the Millennial Reign of Christ. How would the Amillennialist view these feasts? I could see Trumpets being a prophecy for the Rapture/Day of Resurrection, Day of Atonement a prophecy for Judgment Day, and Tabernacles the inauguration of the Eternal State. Would you agree or is all this Feast stuff nonsense?

I do not understand Matthew 27:52-53. Who are these "holy" people, where were they and why are they out of the tomb now? I thought they were already in heaven?

Dr. Riddlebarger,
Your book has answered so many questions that have puzzled me about the notion of an earthly millenial reign of Christ Thank you so much.
.It seems that for many today Israel has become almost an idol of sorts. My question is this: If there is a false prophet, a false end-times church, and false Christs in the end-times as most premil Christians believe, might there not be a false Israel also?

Hello Dr. Riddlebarger,

I have a Literature professor (Bible as Lit.) who says, along with many other scholars, that the apostle Paul believed that the end of the world was at hand and it would occur in his lifetime. How should we respond to this idea and the texts they refer to demonstrate it? This idea in my opinion contributes to unbelief.

Dr. Riddlebarger:

I am teaching an adult SS class at my PCA church in Tucson, Arizon on "Reformed Eschatology." Wow, I had no idea how many people in the class do not have Reformed backgrounds. Some have let me know, sometimes in not so sutle ways, that they do not appreciate what I teach (I guess many had no idea what Covenant Theology really means before joing the church. As a lay elder, this teaching endevor is a real challenge, but thanks to several of your books (A case for Amil & The Man of Sin) as well as many other books from reformed writers, I am plowing ahead.

Question: Someone came up to me and said he was not a "Classical Dispen" but rather a "Progressive Dispen." Can you point me to some articles that explains the main difference among Classical, Revised, and Progressive Dispen?

I have just ordered Dr. Vern Pothress' book on Undeerstanding Dispen but I won't have it in time for this Sunday.

MANY THANKS!

Another question ...
If the 1000 years (as a symbol of a long period of time) occurs before the second coming then are we to assume that John considers the second coming to be a long way off?

Adam Olive

I've moved from dispensationalism a couple of years ago to historic premillenialism. But I am increasingly open toward amillenialism (This seems a common movement for people leaving disp.) My question is:

The idea of an abomination that desolates and the cessation of sacrifices in Daniel appears 5 times. In 4 out of 5 cases the references seems to be to Antiochus or the Antichrist.

(Daniel 7:25) "He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times [of sacrifices] and the laws [of temple observances]. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time."

(Daniel 8:11-14) "It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low. Because of rebellion, the host of the saints and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. … "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled--the vision concerning the [removal of the] daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?"

(Daniel 11:31-32) ""His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him."

(Daniel 12:11) ""From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

In these 4 passages above the reference is always to sacrifices ceasing due to the sinful action of Antiochus/Antichrist.

Within the context of Daniel doesn't it make more sense to interpret Daniel 9:27 as also describing the cessation of sacrifice to the same cause i.e. an Antiochus/Antichrist figure rather than to the positive action of Jesus?

Context within Daniel seems to be this is due to negative Antiochus/Antichrist figures (as I noted in the 4 other cases).

your sincerely,

Adam Olive

(Daniel 9:27) He shall make a strong covenant with many for 1 week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.

As amillenarians, we agree that there's substantial biblical evidence in favor of the amil view, as well as substantial problems with the premil view.

Nevertheless, the premil view wouldn't exist among those who hold a high view of the Bible if there weren't some passages and arguments that seemed to favor the premil view and/or pose difficulties for the amil view.

What, in your opinion, are the biggest challenges to the amil view? (Follow up questions: Are there any challenges that fit in this category which haven't been asked here? And how would you respond to such challenges?)

Dr. Riddlebarger,

Blessings this Christmas season to you and your family. My question is pretty quick and simple. Have you read Louis Brightons, Concordia Commentary, on Revelation. If so do you have any thoughts on it.

I've read some chapters, its large, and found it wonderfully helpful in strenghtening the faith of the believer, especially under suffering and trial, as I have all amillinial works which point strictly to the Cross.

Blessings in Christ alone,

Larry Hughes
KY

From where do many of you from the Amillennialists persuasion get the faulty understanding that believing in the 'secret' rapture requires Jesus touching down on planet Earth; ie. coming in 2 parts...? I see no one from the Dispensational camp saying that at all.

We Pre-mills believe Jesus will call The Church up to Him from the heavens...and at the end of the 7 year Tribulation...we return with Him. It seems many from the amillenial camp would like to use this Straw Man argument...its non-sense!

how do you interpret the mark of the beast in light of the soon to come RFID technology that the govt. is talking about implanting into people in order to create a cashless society and to make the people in a sence slaves? I am NOT dispensational, i see this reality, and i have nobody to answer this for me, so my only conclusion i have thus far is that RFID is the mark of the beast. you can read more about it at spychips.com or infowars.com or just google RFID.

Point 1: The Great Harlot ruled over the world (Global Hegemony). 18 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth." Rev 17:18

Point 2: The Beast ruled over the world (Global Hegemony). It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. Rev 13:6-8

Point 3: The Beast (along with the10 kings) hates the Great Harlot and destroys her with fire 16 And the ten horns which you saw on the Beast, these hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the Beast Rev 17:16-17

Therefore, the Great Harlot which ruled over the world is destroyed by the Beast and only then does the Beast rules over the world. Correct me if I am wrong but that is the only logical conclusion.

Now my question. In your opinion is Rev 13:7 The Beast made war against the Saints, Rev 17:16 the Beast made war against the Harlot, and finally Rev 20: 7-9 Satan and the deceived nations represented by Gog and Magog unit in battle against the beloved city (the Church) all describing the same global conflict?

Thanks Rick

Re: the pre-wrath rapture theory ... one more point:

In addition to the fact that Scripture nowhere pinpoints the rapture as occurring halfway between the middle and the end of the tribulation, but rather pinpoints the rapture as occurring at the very time of Christ's return, the pre-wrath view experiences yet another problem. Advocates of the pre-wrath rapture view rightly rake the pre-trib and mid-trib views over the coals for separating the coming of Christ into two future comings (once for the rapture, and a second for the second advent); yet they themselves insert a gap between the rapture and the second advent (cf. the five month torment during the fifth trumpet judgment in Rev. 9:5,10 - demanding at least five months between their rapture and their second coming!) ... meaning that despite their protestations, they themselves effectively believe in two separable future comings of Christ!

What is it that pre-tribbers, mid-tribbers and pre-wrathers just don't get about the biblical teaching that Jesus will come again (once) ... and that when He does, the dead will be raised, the living will be raptured, all will be judged, the cosmos will be renovated, etc.???

It seems to me that pre-wrathers are like a man with one eye open and one eye closed. With their open eye they can see the many errors of pre-tribulationism, but with their one eye closed they cannot see the grave problems with the system they substitute for the pre-trib view! Any thoughts?

My question concerns your assessment of the pre-wrath rapture position.

I've read and appreciated a handful of "post-trib" works (particularly those by Ladd, Gundry and Moo), which reveal not only the strengths of the post-trib view but also the weaknesses of the pre-trib view. I've also come across a few critiques of the so-called "pre-wrath" view, but such critiques generally come from the pre-trib rather than the post-trib perspective. (In fact, I know of no solid post-trib responses to pre-wrath theory.)

It seems to me that any validity of the "pre-wrath" arguments stem from concerns common to the post-trib and pre-wrath views: namely, the indefensibility of the pre-trib view. In other words, I believe that the pre-wrath view has rightly shot down any arguments in favor of the pre-trib view. HOWEVER, I see no basis for the pre-wrath view itself! It seems to me that all the pre-wrath pleading about the details of Revelation's seal/trumpet/bowl judgments, in an attempt to place the rapture sometime between the midpoint and the end of Daniel's 70th week (i.e., sometime around the sixth seal), not only follows the dispensational interpretive errors re: the 70th week, but also ends up being an incredibly strained system when it comes to attempting to pinpoint a rapture within the judgments of that week.

Moreover, it seems to me that the pre-wrath view is based on the same false assumption as the pre-trib view: namely, the assumption that "exemption from God's wrath necessitates prior evacuation from God's world." Pre-wrathers don't seem to realize that in the days immediately prior to the second advent, God: (1) can and does shield believers from divine wrath; and (2) can and does target unbelievers with divine wrath. Neither pre-tribbers nor pre-wrathers can come to grips with the fact that there will be bona fide believers on the earth prior to Christ's return, and that such believers will not be subject to God's wrath! It seems to me that this observation cuts the legs out of both the pre-trib and the pre-wrath positions. God's safekeeping can take forms other than removal (cf. Jn. 17:15).

In addition to all this, pre-wrath adherents, though rightly seeing the inception of the new heavens and earth at the second advent, nevertheless are premillennial ... and end up placing the millennium during the first 1000 years of the new heavens and earth ... thus mixing the sin and judgment of the millennium with the perfections of eternity future! (In other words, they place the millennium at the beginning of the age to come, rather than between this age and the age to come as per most premillennialists!)

I commend the pre-wrath view for seeing many of the errors of dispensationalism, and thus for moving away from the pre-trib view, and also for moving away from the view that there's a gap of 1000 years between this age and the age to come. However, I think that the pre-wrath view still holds on to an undue amount of dispensational baggage (specifically, the Israel/church distinction), and thus that it ends up recommending a pretty eccentric view of end time events! Oh, the beautiful simplicity that comes from the straightforward reading of the NT: the post-trib, amill view!

So ... do you have any reactions to the pre-wrath view of Rosenthal, VanKampen, Nigro, et al? What do you see as the key flaws in the pre-wrath system?

Hi Kim, Got a question for you. If the first century Christians understood the O.T. and some of the N.T. then why in the book of Revelation do they name the tribes by name and not just say, the elect, or the church, or Abrahams children?? Why do they name specific tribes?? Back then they didn't know the 'terms' we use now a days such as post, pre, a, and etc. So if they read the Bible, like the end of Isaiah, why would the Lord waist his time on things He knew wasn't going to happen on all those pages?? Thanks and looking forward to your response.