Full Preterism/Dispensationalism: Hermeneutics that Crucified Jesus

00:00

Full Preterism/Dispensationalism: Hermeneutics that Crucified Jesus

June 29, 2025

Full Preterism is heresy and many forms of Dispensationalism is as well. We hope to show why both are insufficient for understanding biblical prophecy.

Parallel Christian Economy⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Reflectedworks.com⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠USE PROMO CODE: FORTHEKING AT CHECKOUT FOR 10% OFF

EveryLife, a diaper company that celebrates and protects every life: use code "ROCKY10" for 10% off your first order at EveryLife.com

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

To see what I'm reading click ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ To keep up with my Substack blog click ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

To stack SATS at Fountain.fm page click ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Support:

To Donate Crypto click ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

For some Kingly Clothing click ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Contact:

Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠fortheking.substack.com

ChristianPodcastCommunity.org page click ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Email: forthekingpodcast@gmail.com

Transcript

Hello, friends. Welcome to the For The King podcast where we proclaim the edicts of the king, namely and chiefly, that Yahweh reigns. I know it's been a hiatus for me, but I'm back, stronger than ever, wiser than ever.

I think I've grown in some knowledge, so I hope this episode's edifying to you guys. I have a guest this time. I'm not flying solo, so really good.

One of my best friends, really good buddy of mine. I mean, we haven't even known each other a year yet. We're already hanging out a ton, and this guy's got a lot of knowledge, so I thought he'd be perfect for the topic today, which is going to be dicey as you see in the title.

So, Ethan, welcome to the podcast, brother. How you doing? Introduce yourself. Doing good.

Doing good. Thanks, Rocky. Thanks for having me on.

Yeah, so my name's Ethan Rogers, and I live in the same town as Rocky, and through being introduced to the CREC and this theological camp, I found out about the church plan that's going on here, and got involved in the community, and was introduced to Rocky, and it's just been a wonderful, fruitful friendship that I'm very, very glad to be connected to him. Likewise. So, yeah, so I was raised in a Christian home, and eventually, I got to the point where I started taking it on for myself, and I don't think I believed in the Christian claims my whole life.

If I did, it was a shallow kind of thing that didn't reflect in my life. But when I got into college, I started getting into the Bible, and that was a process until I got into real Christian living and real theological depth and searching out. And I was introduced to the idea of post-millennialism, and I looked into it, and lo and behold, I found out that I believed it was the most compelling eschatological view, and started listening to some things about, of course, with post-millennialism, partial preterism, and things on the Olivet Discourse, and one thing led to another after a few years of searching into these things and studying the Scriptures on them.

I essentially refuted my previous assumptions from just the culture I was raised in of dispensationalism and premillennialism, and started just getting into the whole eschatological debate that's even going on in the Reformed world right now. I heard about full preterism and why some people find that to be appealing, and listened to some of the things they say and the answers that they think that they provide ultimately to give the final solution to the eschatological questions of the Bible, and I found that lacking and in my pursuit of truth, I didn't go that direction. And so yeah, now we're here today, and I hope to work some of this out and discuss why I think that dispensationalism slash futurism, that view of prophecy, and full preterism, the total opposite end of the spectrum, both use a hermeneutic that would have led to them in the first century killing Jesus alongside the Jews.

Yeah. Okay. Mic drop.

Okay, awesome. Thanks, brother. Thanks for coming on, too.

So we've been talking, we've been bouncing back and forth for a while about this topic. We'll text back and forth dealing with some of the arguments and some of the specific texts that full preterists go to and discussing how we think about those as partial preterists. So we've been having a lot of fun thinking about this, and we're at a point now where we've discussed quite a bit and we want to share some of our gleanings with you guys, especially for any of you guys listening that are full preterists or dispensational.

Hopefully, this is a good challenge to you guys and will help you to turn away from your, well, for full preterists, your heretical belief. And for the dispensational, some forms of dispensationalism are heretical. There's many, many camps now of dispensationalists and some that are not, but it still is very damaging to Western Christendom, just dispensational in general, whether it's Orthodox, not heretical version of it, or a heretical version.

Both of them are just completely disjointed from the biblical reality of the covenants, but also just historically in Christian history. These are positions that have never ever been held by anybody in church history and are brand spanking new. Same thing with full preterism.

James Stewart Russell and a lot of these kind of like restorationist type people from the Reformation are where we get full preterist thinking. So neither of these views are rooted in history at all, and the creeds and confessions completely repudiate them. And up until post Reformation, when people started to try to just me and my Bible solo scriptura and try to interpret these things, this is where these theological systems come out of, is out of just a private interpretation of the scripture where you think you're making connections that go against scripture itself, but also you've broken scripture, but also all the creeds and confessions, like I just said.

So the topic today is warranted and needed because we're in a hyper individualistic time where you have all of these YouTube teachers or even what we're doing now could be very, very damaging, right? We're just like me and you are just kind of lone wolves on a podcast sending this out into the internet and whoever wants to listen can listen and be convinced by what we're saying. Now, what we're saying is backed up by creeds and confessions and historic Christianity. So I'm not too worried about what we're doing.

We're actually trying to fight against the hyper individualistic people that are online, leading people astray by their false full-preterist teachings, or vice versa, all the dispensationalism that has totally gripped all of Western Christendom specifically in America has taken a foothold. So we want to combat those on this episode and the way this episode is going to flow. We'll start with a bunch of different time texts in the Bible and that should please all the full-preterist listening.

You'll cheer us on the whole time. We're going through all those like, oh, you're recognizing these time texts. That's great.

And the futurist, which would normally be dispensational and we understand that there's a whole history of futurism. It's not just dispensationalism. There's classic pre-mail and we are more fine with classic pre-mail that a bunch of church fathers were classic pre-mail.

It's not at all a damaging view of Christianity. So we would be much more sympathetic to like a Spurgeon, Charles Spurgeon type classic pre-mail. That's not really what we're going at.

We're going after dispensational futurism and full-preterism. Both of these are extremely damaging to the church. So as we go through these time texts, the dispensational will be challenged by us recognizing the time texts and ripping away prophecies that they think are future and showing that they're not.

And the full-preterist will be on board the whole time. But by the end of this, where we're going through all these time texts, we're going to talk about a few time texts that full-preterists are inconsistent on. And then after that, we'll go through how the Old Testament interprets prophecy to show, and this will be more geared specifically for the full-preterist, but it also will have this dispensational futurist application as well.

And then at the end of that, end of that, we'll tease out what the second episode is going to be. This will be two episodes. So that's going to be the flow of the podcast.

Ethan, do you have anything you want to add by way of introduction before we like T.S. up? Anything else you want to T.S.? Yeah, I just wanted to say on the whole idea of the individualism and that leading to dispensational beliefs and full-preterist beliefs and the idea of solo scriptura versus solo scriptura while still recognizing authority. And what I think essentially happens with dispensationalist and full-preterists, both people gain traction because they, I'm not saying they act like they care about the text in the sense that they don't at all, but the name of the game for both views is, I'm gonna take the Bible seriously. Full-preterists are generally, from what I understand, first partial-preterists that probably were previously futurists, and their eyes were opened to partial preterism, and then they were introduced to partial-preterism because they were prioritizing the truth and taking the biblical text seriously.

And the full-preterist, they were, you know, caring about how does the Old Testament talk about prophecy, and then they look at New Testament prophecies in a similar way that they see that with various degrees of biblical symbolism. And then there's something that gets in the way. I think this happens with the dispensationalist and the full-preterist.

Something gets in the way that takes priority over the truth that eventually leads to them stepping into very destructive and dangerous teachings and beliefs, thinking that they have it figured out. The dispensationalist, the name of the game, John MacArthur, when I when I started in my Christian searching and stuff, got a MacArthur Study Bible. He said NASB, it's the most literal translation of the Bible.

We're dispensationalists. We take the Bible literally and seriously, and all those other guys are liberals. That's the general idea behind it.

He was close friends with R.C. Sproul, and obviously I didn't think he was a liberal, but that's the way they talk from the pulpit generally about it. That literal equals serious. And so I'm not gonna be a liberal.

I'm not, I'm not gonna like change what the text says, and I'm a new Christian, so I'm going to go in the direction of what these guys are saying. These guys seem to be the conservatives. These are the solid guys.

But essentially they're doing that out of a desire to, you know, step away from liberalism, and it's not just that they go too far in the sense of taking the Bible too seriously. That's not what I'm saying. But they run their harmonic too simplistically, and the thing that ends up taking priority over the truth in both of these systems is the desire to settle down in a thing that's already in a camp, essentially.

They're done searching, and there's already these camps out there, and then they decide to settle down in that camp rather than do the messy homework, essentially. And if anybody knows anything about how the New Testament uses Old Testament prophecy, it is not simple. It's not confusing if you actually study it.

It's not intuitive. Like when we come in our flesh, it's not intuitive to us. Yeah.

Yeah, and it's not, the Old Testament wasn't written like a systematic theology. It wasn't written like a prophetic handbook in the sense of these bullet points, that this is what the Messiah's gonna be like. That's what the, it's written in biblical narrative and all that, and we're gonna get into that later.

But it's stuff that needs to be worked through, but I think that in and of itself, seeing how the New Testament authors use the Old Testament, shows us the kind of caution that we need to take in settling down in an already established camp. Not saying that we're not in a camp vaguely, but it's just something that needs to be done with caution, and people walk into error generally when they do that without due caution. I think that's where the full produce and dispensationalists find themselves in.

Good, yeah. Cool. Last thing by way of introduction, I just want to say that we're not, outside of our purview in this episode, is historicism, idealism, amil, idealism.

We're not really gonna mess with that a whole lot. You know, just keep in mind our target is full preterism and dispensational futurism. That's kind of our target for this episode.

Yeah, trying to establish what we for sure do not believe concerning biblical prophecy. And we'll say a bunch of stuff we affirm, but just as a disclaimer, I do have idealistic leanings on a lot of my interpretation of prophecy, so I would be sympathetic to like R.J. Restudy's idealistic post-millennialism. So I'm fine with stuff like that.

Yep. Okay, so we've teed it all up. We're already 12 minutes in.

Here we go. So now let's spend our time, you know, wisely. So we're gonna go through some time text now.

Do you want me to go through the ones that would appear? Yeah, we have Matthew 10.23, okay? And this is not an exhaustive list. There are a bunch of time texts all throughout the New Testament. We're just gonna cherry pick a few just to, like we said, dispel the futurism that's rampant in the church today.

So the first one we have is Matthew 10.23, where Christ says he's speaking to his disciples as he sends them out to proclaim the gospel. And he says that, you know, they're gonna go through all these towns in Judea and the surrounding region. He says, when they persecute you, this is Matthew 10.23, when they say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Okay, there's a time text. They're gonna spend time going through the cities and there's only, he's talking to them, so you gotta, you know, know the audience of who Christ is speaking to. And they're not gonna live 2,000 years, right? So what he seems to be saying here, when he invokes the Son of Man, he's talking about, that's a prophetic title from the major prophets, Christ is the Son of Man.

And when he speaks about the Son of Man coming, that's him invoking that prophetic language of when he's gonna come back again in judgment. Okay, so what he seems to be saying here is you're gonna go preach the gospel through all Israel. And throughout your ministry, there's gonna be some things that are happening.

One of them is, I'm gonna die, I'm gonna be resurrected, and I'm gonna come back at some point before your work is completely finished. And then there will be more evangelistic efforts after, you know, the spirits poured out in Pentecost, which is pre-AD 70, and they're gonna scatter for a while, but then eventually evangelism continues to pick up, you know, heavily after that. And just to add, here we are.

This is prophesying the kind of persecutions that they're gonna go through, of course, like in the book of Acts and in the first century. Yeah. So it has nothing to do with any Son of Man coming in the lifetime of Jesus.

I've heard dispensationalists deal with it in that kind of way, and it's just not contextual. So it's clearly talking about a coming of the Son of Man at the time where they're going out to fulfill the Great Commission, essentially. Yeah.

And dealing with a lot of heavy persecution amidst that, which sounds a lot like what? The first century. Exactly. Okay, cool.

Alright, next one. Matthew 1627. This is probably my favorite.

You can go ahead and read it then and go for it. Okay. Okay.

I want to just read a few verses back just to establish the context. So in verse 24, then Jesus said to his disciples, if anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his father with his angels and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. Okay, so yeah, essentially Jesus is, you know, this is kind of a coffee mug verse, you know, there's the Toby Mac song.

I don't want to gain the whole world and lose my soul. Well, this is the context of it. If you seek to save your life by denying Christ, you're gonna lose it.

Where are you gonna lose it? You're gonna lose it in the judgment that he's talking about. When the Son of Man comes to repay every man according to his deeds. But instead, if you lose your life for the sake of Christ through this persecution and things like that, not denying the faith, persevering to the end, the Son of Man is not coming to judge you, but he's coming with essentially reward and redemption essentially in hand.

The opposite of what he has for those who would walk away from the faith for the sake of, you know, their lives and convenience. And so that's the kind of thing that he's talking about in the judgment. So the four at the beginning of verse 27 for the Son of Man is going to come is connected to that previous context there.

Yeah. The fact that the Son of Man is going to come in judgment is very connected to the very thing that he's talking about saying that don't deny me or this isn't gonna be a pleasant thing for you when the Son of Man comes. And he gives a deliberate time text.

This is one of the most deliberate time text I know of in the New Testament. And even dispensationalists that I've heard deal with it, deal with it in a partial, preterist way. They say that it's talking about the transfiguration which happened six days later, which sounds pretty awkward.

There are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death. I'm sure none of them died in six days. But some people say that it's partially fulfilled in the transfiguration.

We know that the Son of Man did not repay every man according to his deeds in the transfiguration. I'm potentially open-minded to where there's some partial fulfillment connection to the transfiguration. I really don't like it.

I prefer more so either what goes on at Pentecost and you can, I know Steve Greg, he has a good message on this one, either Pentecost or the events of 70 AD being a partial fulfillment type of thing. But my point is that even futurists who die on the hill of putting the prophecies in the New Testament totally in the future that are dealing with the coming of Christ, they can't get around this time text. So they read it in a partial, preterist way.

And I think that kind of leads us into maybe Matthew 24. Yeah, next one. Which is a huge section of scripture.

Yes, and we're not gonna walk through it all. There's been a lot of work done on it already. I know you can go to David Chilton and you know a lot of the partial, preterist guys they've dealt with this and you know there's some disagreeing on various things.

But generally the emphasis is this what we're talking about. Okay, so it leads, what I just read in Matthew 16 leads to what we're gonna talk about in Matthew 24, the Olivet Discourse. Because I think that the guys who are claiming we're gonna read the Bible naturally and literally we're not gonna do any weird textual gymnastics with it.

They should apply the same consistent standard with the deliberate time text of Matthew 16 27 to the deliberate time text in Matthew 24. They should do the same thing because they have the same dilemma to deal with. The same problematic prophetic passages to fit within the context of the near time statement of when the and what they do with Matthew 24 is instead they don't do this generally with the first usage of the term generation at the end of chapter 23 which is totally in the direct context of this.

They usually refer to that term generation as meaning clearly what it says but it's the second usage of generation in Matthew 24 34 that they then change the meaning of say it's the Jewish race or it's a people like this people or something like it's the generation that sees these signs or something they figure out a way to move it into the future because they need the whole Olivet Discourse with their abomination of desolation and hyper literal reading of the Olivet Discourse to to fit to fit their eschatological framework. So in Matthew 24 they're going to essentially massage the word generation to try to mean something else because why? According to their literal harmonic if they held both truths reading the term generation plainly and reading the prophetic text in a hyper literalistic way you're out of eschatological game if you affirm both of those things you're out of the Christian game if you refer to that because that would make Jesus a false prophet and so that's why they feel like they have to change this because they feel like they have to have that literalistic harmonic and we say there's a better way to deal with it where you can acknowledge the time text and partial praetorism is how you deal with the prophecy you look at it the same way you do Old Testament prophecy yeah well let me go into that okay so I'm not gonna read through the whole thing let me just give you the context essentially at the you know Matthew 23 is basically Christ laying down a bunch of woes judgments on the scribes and Pharisees further wickedness in general and then he talks about to them how in verse 34 chapter 23 he says therefore behold I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes some of them you will scourge and some of them you will kill and crucify and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city so that upon you may fall all the guilt may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barakiah whom you murdered between the temple and the altar truly I say to you all these things will come upon this generation yep Jerusalem Jerusalem who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her how often I want to gather your children together the way a hen gathers who chicks under her wings and you are unwilling behold your house is being left to you desolate that's very familiar Old Testament language about the destruction of Jerusalem with Babylon and all that for I say to you from now on you will not see me until you say bless it is he who comes in the name of the Lord going on into chapter 24 Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when his disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to him and he said to them do you not see all these things truly I say to you not one stone here will be left upon another which will not be torn down okay so he's still in the context of this judgment that's going to come upon this generation and I'm telling you dispensationalist take all that to be 70 AD okay and that's and that's what we're asserting but we take it farther than that he keeps going as he was sitting on the Mount of Olives the disciples came to him privately saying they tell us when will these things happen and what will be the sign of your coming into the end of the age now one important thing before we move on is to establish that essentially generally dispensationalist divide this up into two or three questions saying that in the all of it discourse in Matthew's account of it in Matthew 24 that Jesus didn't ask didn't didn't answer the first part of the question because they see clearly that when they say when will these things happen it's referring to the previous content which they affirm is so obviously talking about 70 AD including the reference to generation and because they have their literalistic framework they believe that the things that Jesus said were going to happen to that generation that the disciple to ask about when will these things happen because they're literalistic framework they have to then maneuver the term generation later to be talking about a different thing even though that's deliberately what he's talking about in the whole of a discourse he's answering their question so they say like in Luke 21 he's answering the first part of the question because Luke 21 is even more deliberate but it's it's a heavy parallel of Matthew 24 it's clearly talking about the same events but it uses different language that makes it even harder for the dispensationalist for example when it says in Matthew when you see the abomination of desolation was spoken which was spoken up through Daniel the Prophet you know flee from Judea basically and then there's some similar language in Luke 21 where he instead of using the term abomination of desolation he says when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies he doesn't reference Daniel the Prophet and then he has the same imperative those who are in Judea flee to the mountains and all that kind of stuff so the parallel accounts are really important and in our eyes clearly they're talking about the same stuff yeah in Luke's account of the all the discourse and Mark's account when they ask this question this is what they say they say when will these things happen and what will be the sign that these things are about to take place okay so Mark and Luke both talk about a sign in their question and if they wanted to be consistent in asserting that it's two or three questions and then in this whole convoluted thing of how to understand it the actuality of what they must have been asking was in the real moment when will these things happen and when will be the signs that these things are about to take place and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age now if you can in an honest intellectually honest frame of mind tell me that you think that that's what the disciples said to Jesus after he talked about what he said in Matthew 23 then I don't think you're being intellectually honest you're not caring enough about the truth you're coming in with bias yeah what's happening you can't entertain that yeah you're you're ice-ajeeting your view into the text because you feel that it's necessary and we're here to show you eventually that it's not so what I think is happening in the all of it discourse marks account and Luke's account you have Luke 17 and then you have Luke 21 as well mark 13 I think that the parallel is this both of them are saying when will these things happen referring to the events of 70 AD and what will be the sign of they both asked that I think you're coming in at the end of the age in Matthew is when Luke's and Luke and Mark say when will be this what will be the sign of these things the same things that were asked about in the first part of the question pointing back to 70 AD but I think Matthew is using language different than Luke to talk about the same event from what I understand Matthew's writing to a primarily Jewish audience Luke writing to Theophilus yeah he's gonna reference the the Prophet Daniel because the Jews would yeah let the reader understand yeah and so you already know that Luke's doing this kind of thing when he's not referencing the Prophet Daniel and then he's changing the abomination of desolation into Jerusalem surrounded by armies which when you go back into Daniel 9 they are that that's exactly it's yes the same thing that that's it's not like he's importing something that's not in the context of that passage in Daniel 9 when it talks about the abomination of desolation anyway so I think it's really important to establish that the disciples are asking about exactly what Jesus just said and they refer to as your coming and the end of the age okay and my view is that the disciples are not mistaken as there are various times where they are in their messianic expectations of things we know acts one is it at this time you're going to redeem Israel or whatever restore the kingdom to Israel yeah that kind of thing but generally whenever the disciples are wrong Jesus corrects them you don't see Jesus correct them in the olive a discourse yeah you see him essentially affirm yeah what they're saying in their question yeah they had a legitimate question yeah and so I'm not gonna walk through the whole olive a discourse because my first red flag that came in on my mind when I was introduced to partial preterism and post-millennialism was this guy is gonna seriously walk through the whole of it discourse and fit that into the first century but that I got to hear this and I advise you go hear it yeah listen to these guys who are doing this stuff because it's it's not a hard argument to make Christ uses the same reference to generation and Matthew 24 verse 34 where he says sure that I say to you this generation will by no means pass away to all these things take place so he's to your point about the continuation of the events that are talked about in Matthew 23 he uses the same phrase here this generation these things you know he uses up like yeah he references the book of Daniel you know there's so much prophetic fulfillment here that's not in our future so I think that's just that's important because the book of it's very clear that it's Rome so it has to be during this time because Rome's not with us anymore you have revelations beasts and yeah they all match up quickly so so that that's that's just like a I guess a little teaser on kind of how the argument would go so yeah we're not gonna go through everything in Matthew 24 and 25 but you know they're talking about 80-70 yeah okay let's move on to our next and I just want to say just so you're not like being like wait I thought you guys weren't full-praterist we're not when we say it's talking about 80-70 we're saying that essentially any text that has a time text that limits it to the near context to the hearers of the prophecy has to have at least a partial fulfillment in that near context we don't believe the fullness of the fulfillment of all of these prophecies took place but that would be full prayer is yeah and I think that's a very consistent way how the New Testament uses Old Testament prophecy with exact now and not yet fulfillment sack partial fulfillment so we're getting that later though yep yeah okay so our next time text is gonna be first Peter 120 so we've talked about in the Gospels there's all sorts of time texts that Jesus himself uses now the Apostles as they go to write scripture being inspired by the Spirit they also attest to these near events that Christ talks about throughout his ministry one of these instances is first Peter 120 where he says and this is referring to Christ he indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world but was manifest in these last times for you the last days are when Christ is incarnated and manifested to the world that's what that that's teaching first Peter 1 6 a little bit earlier on you can go ahead and hop in whenever you want to but I'm out of it now okay so first Peter 1 6 a little bit a few verses back he says in this you greatly rejoice though now for a little while if need be we do the wrong verse on that one it was basically a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time yeah sorry I think yeah earlier on it in that chapter he talks about the last time salvation is revealed to you yeah I didn't know I got the wrong reference up okay we can move on yeah yeah I was like mainly the reference to the earlier usage and I think verse 6 to the last time was more so that Peter was saying that like generally these last days not a 2,000 year period of time these last days but like the general period of time that they were in at that time was the last days and then he spoke forward to the near future I think last time and last days has to you know yeah be they sounds pretty similar but it's like a more pointed specific reference to something that's gonna happen in the near future yeah and be even more so the last time yeah and so there's gotta be a sense I think in which the events he's talking about have to be partially fulfilled at least exactly we Hebrews 1 backs that up yeah Hebrews 1 is the next one where it's the very first two verses God who at the prophets has in these last days spoken to us by his son blah blah blah blah so we see there that the last days are not in our future the last days are in our past now there still is a last day final final day of course there's many days of the ward but the the last days of the old covenant were during the time of Christ second Timothy 3 has a long list of sins that are going to be marking the time of the last days and so second Timothy 3 1 says this but know this that in the last days perilous times will come and then you know he goes through a bunch of sins and the markings of the last day now you'll hear you know kind of fear-mongering dispensationals quote this on Facebook when they're talking about prophecy clearly we're in the last day days we have this you know but we just saw from those last two texts that the way the New Testament uses last days it's very clearly talking about the time of Christ and so the context of this passage shows that there's near fulfillment because you got to ask hey why is Paul telling this to Timothy yeah why is he yeah I mean you know maybe he's just just giving him some doctrine about the two thousand thousand years you know I'm sure that kind of thing but if there is a reason to say that contextually it's seems to be straightforward last days in the same way these other texts are taking it we should look at that and observe the context and all I have to say essentially about that is that he is giving Timothy a lot of pastoral advice and let me find the specific text where he applies this in the last days men will be so he's talking about all this wickedness and stuff and this is how men are gonna be lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God holding to a form of godliness although they have denied its power and he tells Timothy avoid such men as these for among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak men and women way down with sins led on by various impulses always learning never able to learn and all that kind of stuff and then he transitions to saying now you follow my teaching conduct purpose faith patience all that kind of stuff and so he gives direct advice connected to the times he's living in yeah saying that this is very relevant for you Timothy yeah exactly yeah that's huge essentially because the last days are gonna be like this you need to know this because you need to know how to conduct yourself Timothy in the last days yes okay because they're pivotal they're very important yeah the old covenants being done away with now James 5 is what I have next okay I was just gonna reference acts acts to need to go there but basically Peter and first the first sermon of Christian Church essentially in acts Peter makes a reference to the prophet Joel in Joel to where essentially he's explaining what's going on with the whole tongues phenomenon that's happening yeah when people are saying that's drunk and they're drunk and Peter's like no they're not drunk this is what what was prophesied by Joel and Joel you know helping us partial predators out you know says he uses that same term last days and Peter's saying that this prophecy is fulfilled in this and Joel says that this prophecy is concerning the last days you can go to acts to if you want to look at that more specifically but yeah and I think there's a lot more I mean I know we'll cover the last few here but I know that my examination there was like at least 50 of these that are serious time texts that really don't take a lot of explanation to understand so if you feel like you can wiggle around a few of these you got a lot more homework to do yeah so let's let's keep going with the last few and yeah James 5 has a reference to the last days come now you rich weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you so it's making it seem imminent yeah those are rich for that time he says you have heaped up treasure in the last days in verse 3 and he's speaking to the rich and the luxurious during that time that are heaping up from them for themselves lots of judgment and he said you have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure you have fat into your hearts in a day of slaughter again near judgment the day of slaughter coming versus seven this sounds similar also to prophetic rebukes in the Old Testament yeah yeah he says in verse 7 therefore be patient brethren until the coming of the Lord so why is he saying this to James or sir why is James he wasn't saying wait 2,000 years yeah exactly see how the farmer waits for the precious for the earth waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain you also be patient establish your hearts for the nothing of the Lord is at hand you know when something's at hand we're not talking thousands of years we're talking this could happen in your life it's in reach yeah so I mean it'd be similar if I said you know China invading Taiwan or Iran attacking Israel is at hand yeah like any moment it's gonna happen and it will happen within your lifetime you know NASB says near is that hand too so and then and then he continues saying do not complain brethren against one another so that you yourselves may not be judged right there's moral imperatives that are really important for the original hearers of this behold the judge is standing right at the door and he's gonna stay standing there for 2,000 years no no that's not what he's saying yeah yeah I think that's essentially but like that's stuff that you got to get real awkward with if you're if you're essentially ripping it out of the near context fulfillment you have to do this with Old Testament text to you you can't just you have to say yes it's all talking about Jesus but it's also talking about the near events that they were talking about and that that gives a lot more weight in our understanding of how it does connect to Jesus yeah but you can't you can't just rip it out of its context and like that's not honest we don't tolerate that with any other worldview that's how you get to all kinds of heresies by doing that kind of stuff so first Peter 4 7 the end of all things is at hand therefore he's serious and walks forward your prayers first John 2 18 right there little children is the last hour and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming even now many Antichrist have come by which we know that it is the last hour it's the last days it's the final time and that's a reference a direct reference to when Jesus says that there will be false Christ he literally says that in Matthew 24 so John is you know you know attesting to Jesus's testimony about the future for the last days yeah I know there's false prophets and all that kind of stuff too and exactly and yeah just a side reference this is the only first first and second John I don't think third John are the only time the word Antichrist appears it's not in revelation news flash but yeah but you know maybe it's referring to the false prophet in Revelation but it's definitely not the beast yeah Jude 17 and 18 is a good one we're almost we're almost done with all these time texts and then we'll go into some more dialogue here he says but you beloved remember the words which were spoken before by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts we can connect that with what was said in 2nd Timothy where he's warning Timothy about what's gonna happen to the last time to the mockers and the revilers and the idolaters and all that but the thing that's unique about this one is Jude is specifically alluding to what the Apostles were teaching and it's taught in 2nd Timothy it's talking we do all that in 2nd Peter 2nd Peter 2nd Peter and Jude both if you read them side by side they do parallel each other quite a bit and so it seems clear like the the explicit deliberate prophecy he's quoting is what Peter talks about in 2nd Peter 3 and I guess if you're wondering how could 2nd Peter 3 be read in a partial Preterist way I would say look at Peter Lighthart's book on it yeah I forget what the title of it is but do some Google search and figure out Peter Lighthart's book on 2nd Peter 3 it's pretty good he proves from the context that essentially what Jude says is talking about the near future yeah Jude basically gives us a commentary on 2nd Peter 3 and John Owens Preterist too on that as well yeah yeah yeah so his commentary on 2nd Peter would be and that's that's a big one talking about the new heavens and new earth and quote in Isaiah's prophecy tying into Revelation and all that so yeah a lot of stuff to reckon with in that yeah okay so those are our main time texts that we're going with we're gonna also talk about Revelation and John in a second but where did we want to go next yeah I just want to say with Jude I may have offered some confusion but Jude doesn't deliberately say this is talking about the last times Jude just essentially uses that prophecy to say about something that was happening at the precise time Jude was writing he essentially said 2nd Peter 3 was being fulfilled at the time the Jew was writing yeah okay which was obviously in the first century yeah okay so now let's transition to revelation do we want to talk about the full Preterist now some time texts that they don't take seriously yeah yeah I guess I guess we can just like say there's there's a lot in Revelation just read the first chapter of Revelation and the 22nd chapter of Revelation there's a lot of stuff that are very deliberate time texts just read it with the same harm and nuke we're reading this other stuff and the only only thing I want to press on with chapter 22 in Revelation that's really important is that John is told deliberately about this prophecy and I don't believe that the near statements have have to do with the events that are supposed to happen after the I believe symbolic thousand-year millennium because he's not he's not saying that year 999 is near just like year number one is near yeah so so you have to take that in account and we'll get in that with full Preterism because they don't but everything else like the Revelation 19 coming of Christ and stuff says he's coming quickly and all that kind of stuff all the time text and revelation apply to that stuff and the rest of the stuff when that people put in the future and therefore John is told don't seal up the words of this prophecy because the times near the times at hand that parallels to Daniel who wrote 700 years before John and I think 700 years and he was told to seal it up because it was pertaining to the time of the end the end of the age the same thing we think is a being referred to in Matthew 24 when the disciples asked the question that Jesus said was to be fulfilled within a generation so I think I think that's mainly it yeah okay so now let's go into why specifically Revelation 20 with the millennium yeah you had teased out a little bit why why since the bookends are he's coming quickly it's soon every you know why can't we why shouldn't we say just everything that we see in the book of Revelation happened in 8070 or in that time period why does the millennium now introduce some uniqueness to it and let's start talking about that yeah well yeah well obviously you know not being dispensationalist you can tell that we take a lot of prophecy in a pretty you know symbolic way not saying that they're not processing real events but they're signifying things and seeing visions and all that kind of stuff a lot I'm kind of blanking gives me a put revelation 20 millennia yeah so we don't we don't take the thousand years to be a literal thousand years and then on year 1001 like then it's later that's not what we take so we obviously take it to be symbolic but still being said a thousand years will be the point of that it would be symbolic of a very long period of time and that very long period of time is to start after the Revelation 19 coming of Christ which I think the time texts are attached to that yeah generally people say that's the second coming I don't think that is and that's why people are pre-millennialists but you have to ignore the time text to be a pre-millennialist yeah and so the thing with full preterist like you know that's pushing away the future is pre-millennial dispensational view of it it's a very general number and all that kind of stuff and very symbolic book and all that that's another day for another time but we don't take that view of it but the full preterist the thing they major on is a mening to all the time texts we've been referencing to they like Rocky said they're cheering us on it all this kind of stuff but you know we're gonna say that you guys are inconsistent you guys do not honor the time text enough there's a lot of time texts that you do honor but you need to be consistent in applying that all the way forward one large time text is the after this revelation 19 coming and all this stuff that's supposed to happen soon you're gonna have a symbolic very long period of time until the rest of the events now they believe it depends on the full preterist I think that that 1,000 year period of time is symbolic like we say but it's symbolic of the 40 years between I don't know if it's the ascension of Christ and then the events around 70 AD so the thousand years is symbolic of I think they would probably just say a perfect reign but not a long period of time and that is referring to either the 40 years or the three years from 70 to 73 AD and so Keith I think it's Keith Matheson he has a you know real good quote where he says that the full preterist die on the hill that generation this generation can't mean 2,000 years into the future and we're like amen to that but then they get to Revelation 20 and they're like 1,000 years has to mean three years it's like whoa or generation 40 or or one generation like it's literally reversing yeah what they do with Matthew 24 and just like I call out the you know hyper literalist dispensationalists on their inconsistencies you guys and your pursuit of truth in the desire to fit into this already established system and not do your homework and due diligence before you set in your position essentially you skipped right over a gigantic time text now that thousand-year time text obviously is going to be a very long period of time we don't think it's literally 1,000 years and then the and then Revelation that's where we should 20 where it talks about that millennium and then there's a resurrection after that millennium there's a resurrection before it there's a resurrection after it and then there's the establishment of the new heavens and new earth and all that kind of stuff which we believe essentially that the new heavens and new earth have come in a already not yet way I am a new creation in Christ the old old covenant system the old heavens and earth passed away Isaiah Isaiah's prophecy of the new heavens and the earth is in direct context of the of Israel and Israel's exile and being brought back in the new covenant being made and all that kind of stuff it's directly connected to that and people essentially you know kind of take that out of the context they believe their future restoration of Israel but the New Testament clearly says that the new covenant is being fulfilled in the church which does comprise Jews and Gentiles obviously we have a covenantal view of that but in a general sense it's in the context of the covenant so we do believe that in a sense but it's not here yet in its fullness yeah we believe that it's inaugurated but not consummated yeah yeah it's the redemption of the world is accomplished in principle and working out through a post-millennial history and so I think that essentially yeah my point in that is that there's one other instance that I can't remember at the moment I know we're gonna go to John 5 Genesis 3 I want to jump to Genesis 3 let's say John 5 first and I'll tie back into Revelation 20 but when we get to Genesis 3 we're gonna tie back into this idea of how a post-millennial progressive long period of time now not yet type of fulfillment works into other texts in the Bible that have time texts in the Old Testament let's go to John 5 though because that's really important because there's two resurrections there too yeah and the way we generally reckon with Revelation 20 is seeing it paralleling John 5 yeah so it's John 5 specifically verse 28 well we can do I start in verse 24 so then yeah okay yeah yeah I have to provide a super brief background Daniel 12 talks about the resurrection that you know we're talking about with like all these things that you know these things gonna happen at the end of the age you know the New Testament clearly says it's at the end of the age that the resurrection is gonna happen that seems to be a near near time reference like we talked about in the Olivet Discourse with Jesus's generation term and Daniel 12 ties in the 70 ADs destruction with of the temple with as soon as the power of the holy people is shattered and in context it's obviously is referring to the 70 AD destruction yes the abomination of desolation earlier in Daniel 9 and a little bit later on this same beasts Rome and all that kind of stuff and so this Daniel 12 resurrection is going to take place it says all these things will be fulfilled as soon as the temple is destroyed essentially and so there's Daniel 12 is a time text too and the full preterists love that one but we're gonna use it against them here I think Daniel 12 is probably talking about the same at least in principle resurrection is Ezekiel 37 the typical dry bones passage this following the Ezekiel 36 New Covenant passage where essentially there is a resurrection that in one sense sounds very it's in one sense it sounds it's like dry bones being resurrected sounds very physical but in context even dispensationalists say that it's a national resurrection exactly with you know like it's covenantal kind of language and stuff like that but I but I don't think that Ezekiel 37 even if it's national resurrection is disconnected from Daniel 12 so the reason I bring in Ezekiel 37 Daniel 12 because I think Daniel 12 is talking about the same thing as Ezekiel 37 I think is it Ezekiel 37 is the same thing Jesus is talking about in John 5 okay I'm going to essentially argue we're gonna argue is that there is a now not yet a near and then far future fulfillment of the resurrection I'm not talking about Jesus being resurrected necessarily but we'll get into that Ezekiel 37 I'm not gonna go through the passage but if you guys are familiar with it you can read it dispensational should be familiar with it and same as for Preterist it's talking about a time where correct me if I'm wrong basically the Prophet is told you know tell these dry bones to live and they essentially hear that voice and then the bones come together and resurrect yeah so there's this idea of hearing the voice of the Prophet and Jesus the ultimate Prophet priest and King is in this passage speaking forth the word to make these dry bones live now listen to how Jesus uses it in verse 24 yeah John 5 truly truly I say to you he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life okay everybody believes that and does not come into judgment but has passed out of death into life that sounds like a parallel of Ezekiel 37 yeah right but we all know what he's talking about there he's talking about spiritual resurrection yeah right having passed out of death into life this is like Romans 6 this is like Galatians 2 I think and all the New Testament texts they're like you're a new creation in Christ you've died with Christ you're risen with Christ the Ephesians 2 yeah you were dead in your transgressions and he raised you up with Christ nobody takes that to be physical bodily resurrection right but there are passages that do talk about physical at the ultimate culmination involving all of humanity answering the problem of the death that was brought in through Adam in a more than spiritual sense we're not Gnostic so we don't we don't deny the goodness of the physical we believe that Christ came to redeem more than just the spiritual so he continues after saying but he has passed out of death into life you believe you hear the word spoken you have eternal life passed out of death into life resurrection right there truly truly and I like the heading of my Bible literally says two resurrections it's not inspired but yeah truly truly I say to you an hour is coming future from the time that Jesus is saying that right and now is present at the time that Jesus is saying that I think the now is is talking about what we just talked about in verse 24 when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live for just as the father has life in himself even so he gave to the son also to have life in himself and he gave him authority to execute judgment because he is the son of man do not marvel at this for an hour is coming future in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come forth this is a different kind of hearing and resurrecting because it's also unbelievers resurrecting it's it's not the kind of resurrection that is based it's now it's the resurrection of the just and unjust yeah and this is the same kind of language from what I remember the Daniel 12 uses yeah you know Marvel this for an hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come forth those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment okay the first resurrection the spiritual resurrection are are those who do the evil deeds partaking in that no no the unbelievers are not partaking in that resurrection so it's clear obviously he's talking about two different things two different time reference one that were presently partaking in one that they were presently partaking in at that time because Jesus said I am the resurrection in the life and there was a sense that right Lazarus physically died and that was to answer that and we know from all the New Testament passages about spiritual resurrection that those two ideas are connected physical resurrection for all of humanity at the end of time for the final judgment sheep and goats judgment which I also think is a partial predators thing I think there's a near fulfillment and a future for that we won't go into that but yeah and I think this is kind of a parallel to Revelation 20 because the kind of resurrection that happens before the millennium there's one after the millennium and before is the resurrection for the martyrs and the martyrs are I think it's reaching beyond just the context of correct me if I'm wrong I think it's reaching beyond just the immediate context of the Jewish war and the persecution of Nero I think it's referring to a resurrection this part that's was partaken in through all those who endured to the end yeah in fulfilling the Great Commission and did not like we talked about at the beginning with Matthew 16 did not save their life and therefore lose it by rejecting Christ they partake in this resurrection because Jesus said I think it's in the Lazarus passage which I forget where that's at in John 11 maybe 10 I don't not 10 I don't remember where he says that basically I think it's he who believes in me will never die but then it says even though he died he will live even though he dies he will live so so you have that same kind of idea there that death is not a fear to us anymore and we partake in this resurrection that we're already spiritually partaking in but we have that meant on the other side of death to look forward to them this future resurrection but yeah that's good I want to also know in one of the reformers his name is Peter Martyr vermigli he has a work called philosophical works and he takes the exact same line of reasoning that Ethan is taking about Ezekiel 37 about their being in the purview there's also a spiritual national resurrection of Israel but it's also playing on what everybody knew throughout the Old Testament like what Job says in my flesh I will see God it seems like all the saints in the Old Testament knew there was gonna be a physical resurrection at some point yeah in Daniel 12 he the resurrection he said deliberately you will go basically you will go to sleep for now and then you'll rise at the end of the age yeah and so there's a sense in which that sounds really physical yeah you're gonna physically dying then you're gonna rise at the end of the age and but yet the way that scripture uses it ties it into something bigger that's spiritual yeah and we we would affirm Ezekiel 37 won't get into it now that that there was a national resurrection yeah of the true Israel exactly the death was the old Israel along with the law yeah you know us dying to the law and all that kind of stuff and us being married to Christ the old Israel essentially dying and the new Israel which included Israelites yeah which was primarily Israelites at the formation of the church and acts rising out of those graves essentially so yeah anything you want to do before Genesis 3 no I think that's all good yeah let's move on to Genesis 3 yeah okay and if you don't like that argument there are other partial predators to take a different view on the resurrections in Revelation 20 so it's not a monolithic thing but I think that's the best way to understand it yeah so Genesis 3 okay so we've been talking a lot about this now not yet type of fulfillment this near fulfillment that's partial this fuller fulfillment that's in the future we know this is a kind of thing and we're gonna go into this a little bit when we get to Isaiah 7 through 8 to kind of close things off that a lot of times with Old Testament prophecies the way they're said said out are not just like deliberately like this is what the Messiah is gonna be like there are texts that are pretty deliberate like that but a lot of the prophecies about Jesus are written into the narratives and have near fulfillments that are partial fulfillment who was the son of David Solomon who was the son of David ultimately Jesus partial fuller fulfillment and then you have typology and all this and all that kind of stuff and we're gonna go into a partial future fulfillment thing a little bit later but that's that is something that is riddled throughout the Old Testament and it's something we really need to keep into account because God is the author of it all and so it seems to be a habit of God to write prophecy that way yeah so Genesis 3 essentially there is a time text in Genesis 3 so full predators listen up generally what full predators say about the death that Adam brought about in Genesis 3 through his disobedience was not physical death and the reason that they do that I don't know if this is what all of them do but this is generally what I've heard the reason they do that is because if there was a physical death brought on by the first Adam and a spiritual death I would say I would say I'll just if there was a physical death brought on by the spiritual Adam the the first Adam sorry then there will be a physical resurrection which they deny brought on by the second Adam that we you know with federal head headship and all that Christ being our federal head is the second Adam over the new creation we partake in that resurrection so the first Corinthians 15 essentially parallels the death brought on by Adam and the resurrection that's gonna be brought on by Christ seated and reigning as the psalm 8 new ruler as the son of man that he's going to essentially reverse the work of Adam do a parallel but the opposite of the work of Adam Romans 5 also talks about this through the one man's disobedience death came and sin and all that and through the one man's obedience life came and so the full predators can't take this to be physical death they think that physical death was going to like happen anyway because that would have some implications that would mess up their view and so I think that's super erroneous basically the point why it messes up their views because if physical death is inevitable and not an enemy therefore right now you look around people are so physically dying but that's not a problem for them right because we are the new heavens and new earth because physical death was never something that Jesus was set out to defeat yeah and in first Corinthians 15 it says that the last enemy that will be defeated at the coming of Christ they take it to be they don't take it to be the second coming like we think about will be death the last enemy will be death and so spiritual death yeah yeah so they say Christ wasn't trying to destroy physical death because Adam didn't bring on physical death you're totally wrong about that and that's a larger conversation later but you do see that physical death is obviously in view Adam lives for like 950 ish something years 930 or something and you see I think it's in Genesis 5 a timetable of the generations where the ages are getting lower and lower and lower through Noah and then I think you go to Abraham he lives to like 175 and get down to 120 and then Psalm 90 is like you got 70 years to live and now we look at what we're at now you got like 70 years to live so I think obviously there is death and decay that was brought on by the fall I think I think it's pretty obvious everybody seems to agree with that but full predators have to mess up with mess up Genesis to fit their view and I said you into it so there is a time text though full predators listen up in Genesis 3 and because we love the time texts let's love this one too okay I think it starts in Genesis 2 where God gives the command okay here it is Genesis 2 15 then the Lord God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it the Lord God commanded the man saying from any tree of the garden you may eat freely but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat for here's your time text in the day that you eat from it you will surely die okay I'm gonna ask everybody in the day they ate of the fruit did they die and I know there's various things that come up in your mind like as Christians were like okay I know he did bring on death but yeah he didn't like just deliberately die in the garden like he lived on for like 930 years or whatever and then so people generally say oh well it was talking about spiritual death he was separated from God there's a I won't go into this but there's an idea concerning the Garden Temple where essentially the whole point of the temple is to bring the presence of God the presence of God is in the garden with them and they are exiled from the presence of God when they disobey him they hide from God and all that kind of stuff and so there's this idea of spiritual separation covenantal covenant breaking in the Hosea it says that I think it was talking about Israel they said they broke the covenant like Adam which infers the Adam broke a covenant in the garden and therefore so there was this breaking of covenant there was this death there was this separation from the presence of God and there was this inability to then eat from the tree of life right so let me ask you this did something that sounds like death in some sense happen on the day they ate a bit yes right and we do believe that because we believe that Christ is not only restoring physical death we don't go to that extreme of emphasizing physical resurrection like we already talked about spiritual resurrection which is undoing you are dead in your sins and transgressions the fall to sin in Adam the Romans 5 talks about original sin all that kind of stuff spiritual resurrection having victory over sin and all that kind of stuff being made alive together with Christ is something that Christ is answering where the opposite of that thing spiritual death happened in the garden we fell into sin we fell from being free by our morals to obey obey God and he became slaves to sin which is tied into that death concept so however that's not all that happens right but that is there's a time text there's a near fulfillment that is what spiritual yet there's also kind of a physical element to it in the near time text because they get kicked out of the garden and why do they get kicked out of the garden it says in Genesis 3 22 then the Lord God said behold the man has become like one of us knowing good and evil and now he might stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever therefore the Lord God sent him out from the Garden of Eden to cultivate the ground from which he was taken so he drove the man out and at the east of the Garden of Eden he stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life okay so Adam was cut off also from his source of life because he would have only lived forever if he ate of the tree of life and part of the judgment in the death was that he wouldn't have access to the tree of life which Christ restores access to it you see that in Revelation which obviously involves physical and spiritual death resurrection and so there's a physical sense to it to where then Adam can't physically exile from the garden yeah not allowed to be physically in there any longer yeah and the byproduct of that is that you're cut off from the tree of life and I think Genesis 5 like with the timetable of death essentially taking hold of humanity and reigning over humanity in the decrease of age and all that kind of stuff to where people fear death he was two talks about that and we know that that kind of stuff is clearly introduced so there is a physical aspect to where Adam when does he die he dies 930 years later right and yet in a sense he dies on the day he ate of it so the time text is honored somewhere but it's not all there yeah exactly the the full preterist way of reading it would be on the day you eat from it you shall die so they spiritually die they recognize the new yeah and that's exactly what they do with the New Testament prophecy too but clearly just like we try to call the dispensationalist to like you know be intellectually honest with the text clearly in the overall biblical scheme of everything you see that physical death is introduced by the first Adam it's just blatantly clear and therefore did they physically die on the day they ate of it literally no not in the time text now I'll ask this also the Daniel 12 resurrection did it happen as soon as the power of the holy people the temple was destroyed in a sense yes in a sense no and that's why we we essentially take this example of God's inspired word using God's authority to bonk the full preterist upside the head just like we do with the dispensationalist and to say read Genesis 3 I understand an idea of don't be like the dispensationalist just it's face value and they're not really face value I'm not talking about that I'm talking about just being intellectually honest with the text this is what you guys are all about and this is why you got so far into partial Preterism and then you jumped ship from caring about truth ultimately and started making caveats and settling down and isituting into text things to make that make your theology fit that's not so so less scriptura that's what is you know brought about through solo scriptura but essentially our argument would be full preterist take the time text seriously Revelation 20 Genesis 3 and all the other time text frankly throughout the Old Testament and therefore use the Bible's harmonic to interpret these time texts take them seriously amen I'm not telling you not to okay but take them in the same way that they do so then now let's transition and in five minutes run through the Isaiah thing yeah is we're at an hour and ten okay use show go through Isaiah and call out one more inconsistency with full Preterism and how we interpret how the Bible interprets prophecy I guess a few other things I want to highlight while you're flipping there the the spiritual always has an implication on the physical and the the full preterist is basically just Gnostic in their interpretation of scripture it's a complete denial that the physical will ever be resurrected or redeemed it's a very sad way to view the world and scripture and it completely divorces the spiritual from the physical which scripture never does so like you said they're forcing their hermeneutic and just in the scripture let me write okay so now that you're there yeah you spend five minutes to go through this and then we'll tease out the next episode and save it for them okay okay so the reason we're going to Isaiah 7 is because in Isaiah 7 you find the prophecy of the virgin birth that Matthew quotes in Matthew 123 where he says behold a virgin will be with child and bear a son and she will call his name Emmanuel that's our you know one of our favorite Christmas verses and you know that's probably you know about all we know about the verse not the original context of it for a large portion of our lives but the original context is really important to understanding why does this connect to Jesus other than the fact that you have a virgin birth Matthew 122 essentially this is the birth narrative obviously and they're told you shall call his name Jesus Yahweh saves that's what the name means Joshua Yahshua Yahshua Jesus for he will save his people from their sins he Yahweh will save his people from what enemy their sins and we know reading the New Testament that that is what Jesus is all about conquering our spiritual enemies conquering the greatest problem we ultimately have and then it follows up that verse with and this took place to fulfill what was what was spoken by God through the prophet and then he quotes the verse behold a very virgin will be with child and bear a son and she will call his name Emmanuel Emmanuel means what and I think Matthew says this translated means God with us I don't think I need to really explain about how that applies to Jesus he is God he is the Word who is God and came down and dwell among us and so but the reason we want to do this is because we want to say Matthew is saying that Isaiah is prophesying the virgin birth of Jesus and yet he's not looking at the original context in in the through the dispensationalist harmonic Matthew's harmonic is not in line with the natural reading the literal reading the if you only have the Old Testament what would you believe rejecting New Testament priority emphasizing Old Testament passage priority all that kind of stuff that's not how Matthew is doing this and the whole reason Matthew has an application to Jesus is because he's not using the full preterist harmonic either there's a time text in this text in Isaiah seven and it's not seven hundred years so let's I'm gonna use Jesus's harmonic Matthew's harmonic the New Testament harmonic which is God's harmony they can use that authority to show you that this is a very very problematic and this is just the first New Testament quotation of the Old Testament there's probably a ton of these I mean hundreds hundreds yeah so I'm gonna zip through the near context read it yourself if it's too quick now it came about this is Isaiah chapter 7 in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham the son of Uzziah king of Judah that resin the king of Aram hold on to that resin remember that and Pekka the son of her Malia king of Israel went up to Jerusalem to wage war against it but could not conquer it so you got these two kings that are a threat against the people of God when it was reported to the house of David saying the Aramans have camped in Ephraim his heart in the hearts of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake with the wind then the Lord said to Isaiah go out now to meet a a has you and your son sheer just shove or something at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller's field and say to him take care and be calm have no fear and do not be faint-hearted because of these two stubs of smoldering fire brands on account of the fierce anger of resin and Aram and the son of her Malia son of her Malia I think that was Pekka the two kings resin and Pekka because Aram with Ephraim and the son of her Malia has planned evil against you saying let us go up against Judah and terrorize it and make for ourselves a breach in its walls and set up the son of Tabiel the king as king in the midst of it thus says the Lord God it shall not stand nor shall it come to pass for the head of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damascus is resin now within another 65 years that's the key right there's your time test Ephraim will be shattered and Ephraim being shattered seems to be directly connected to these two kings because it says yeah now within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered so there is no longer a people it says then and the head of Ephraim is Samaria right we've already talked about Samaria and the head of Samaria as the son of her Malia Pekka if you will not believe you shall you surely shall not last okay so you have this time text within 65 years essentially this threat that is causing fear in the people of God fear and a has is gonna be taken care of so that you can then have peace and have no fear within 65 years this is gonna happen then this is where the Emmanuel thing comes in then the Lord spoke again to a has saying ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God make it as deep as you'll or high as heaven but a has said I will not ask nor will I test the Lord then he said listen now Oh house of David is it to slide a thing for you to try the patience of men that you will try the patience of my God as well therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign before I read it what is the sign therefore it's to testify to the thing he just said to prove and show the thing that he just said that at the time this sign is given in his explanation of it these two kings gonna get taken care of right therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign as a 714 behold a virgin will be with child and bear a son and she will call his name Emmanuel he will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good for before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken so so fascinating yeah so why is the child that is born his name shall be called Emmanuel why is he gonna be eating curds and honey at the time basically where like what we think of I think is the age of innocence kind of thing where he knows enough he's reached a level of maturity in his youth to to know enough to refuse evil and choose good right at that time he will eat curds and honey why why when he reaches that level of maturity it says for this is the reason why for before the boy note will know enough to refuse evil and choose good the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken he's gonna be in curds and honey because it's gonna be peacetime the fear the fear is not gonna be there anymore and eating curds and honey is not something you do in wartime it's something you do when you have time to prepare those kinds of things they're not a quickly cultivated type of thing it's not the same thing as picking an apple off a tree that's the way I've heard it understood and it makes sense to me so that's this Emmanuel child right now I'm going to skip forward to chapter 8 that is in the same context I'm not I'm just doing that to save time but essentially you have people generally think like oh yeah it's Jesus Jesus right but think about the near context also then in chapter 8 then the Lord said to me take for yourself a large tablet and write on it in ordinary letters swift is the booty speedy is the prey and I will take to myself faithful witnesses for testimony Uri the priest and Zechariah the son of so I approached the prophetess and she conceived and gave birth to a son what does that sound like behold version will be with child and bear son right and then he's gonna get a name right then the Lord said to me name him my hair shall all hash bars which means swift is the booty speedy is the prey so his name is a sign his name and birth is a sign connected to that prophecy about what's gonna happen with the two kings name him then the Lord said to me name him my hair shall all hash bars for before the boy knows how to cry out my father or my mother same idea about before he knows with enough to refuse evil and she's good for before the boy knows how to cry out my father or my mother the wealth of Damascus in the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria so essentially saying the same exact thing and he's saying that in Isaiah 7 this child's gonna be born and that child is gonna be a sign that testifies to the fact that these two kings about to get wiped out and the fears gonna be removed this this physical enemy of Israel is gonna get relieved and then Isaiah 8 you have something that totally sounds like a near fulfillment of that yeah right and so where do we get Jesus in this let's talk about how the dispensationalist and the naturalistic the way they they think it's like an obvious thing we're just gonna take the Bible naturally literally believe what it says what would you believe if you were the original reader kind of all that kind of stuff they don't have a layered view of prophecy concerning eschatology and all that it's very flat and so is the full preterist they would read this at that time and then let's say essentially let's say if they were in the first century and they heard that Matthew was like using this text to talk about Jesus and then they look back at Isaiah and they're like grammatical historical this is talking about what happened in Isaiah 8 there's no room for Jesus that's not a fulfilled prophecy Matthew's wrong the New Testament's wrong and that would have led to them doing what along with this prophecy and all the others about Jesus probably somewhere it wouldn't apply but a lot of them and the way the New Testament uses them if they had a grammatical historical application of how they viewed Old Testament prophecy they would have rejected Jesus because a lot of the prophecies aren't coming about according to a grammatical historical kind of harmonic yeah and and so that that's why essentially I said at the beginning we're talking about the harmonic that killed Jesus a flat view of prophecy that's super simplistic would look at these prophecies and say no no this is this is deliberately what it's saying and they wouldn't have to mess with the time text because you know like clearly in Isaiah 8 it says that did happen yeah so they don't feel a necessity to do that so you do this with any of the kinds of things think about the Messianic expectations of Jesus in the New Testament they're expecting deliverance from physical enemies all that kind of stuff Lord is at this time you're gonna restore the kingdom to Israel John 6 they're trying to make him king physically they think he's gonna be that kind of Messiah and therefore he doesn't seem to admit fit the bill and probably those same people in John 6 I don't know but in general Israel's yelling crucify him and they end up putting him to death so my contention you can argue with it and all that but my contention is that the dispensationalist flat grammatical historical harmonic kicks Jesus out so you can be a Jew if you want to be a consistent dispensationalist a Christ rejecting Jew and I believe it's a heretical harmonic I'm not saying dispensationalism necessarily is always heresy there are heretical forms of it but it's a heretical harmonic because it's the kind of harmonic that have applied literally just 1900 or 2000 years removed if you were living in the first century you would have joined in the Christ crucify him this is not a tertiary issue it's a huge deal okay let me get to the full predators now time text time text 65 years generation all that they don't have a layered view of that they don't believe in it now not yet fulfillment it's not talking about Jesus because 65 years is not 700 years like generation is not 2,000 years yeah and I'm like amen acknowledge the time texts but the same flat harmonic that you guys apply to New Testament prophecy if you apply that to the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament you also kick out Jesus and if you were alive during the time of Jesus trying to apply that harmonic to the New Testament and what the Apostles were saying and what Jesus himself was saying you would have joined in the Christ selling saying crucify him and joined in on putting him on the cross really big deal it's no wonder the consistent views of full predatorism and dispensationalism when taken to its logical confusion or logical conclusion yeah you have in dispensationalism a Ezekiel rebuilt temple that reinstitutes animal sacrifices that are holy and honoring to God a reestablishment of circumcision and uncircumcision and the separation of Jew and Gentile and all that all that kind of stuff re establishment of the political priesthood it gets really messy when you try to actually take the take these harmonics to their logical conclusions that's why if you ask the full predators you can see consistently they shouldn't be taking the Lord's Supper anymore yeah they shouldn't be getting married anymore because in the resurrection they neither marry or nor are given in marriage but apparently they're like angels and I guess we're like angels now there's a lot of really really problematic results to these harmonics you deny a second coming you deny a future resurrection you're inconsistent biblically and like I said what happens with dispensationalism so my contention in light of all this is that we don't want to hold to the harmenudic that killed Jesus and that we need to not put eschatology on the shelf as a tertiary issue that we can agree to disagree about but when we're talking about the time text and your harmenudic of those the only Christian harmenudic of New Testament and Old Testament prophecy is partial preterism it is not futurism it is not full preterism and that would you know that you can find that within post-millennial circles amillennial and some historic pre-mill I don't think they take all the time text seriously still yeah I mean some amillennialist yeah so they're in the right direction they're not as extremist dispensationalist and you can see that because they're not taking that extreme approach on it you don't see it come out into wacky theology and all that but ultimately my contention is that the only God honoring thing that we can do with the New Testament and the prophecy the only option we have as Christians is to acknowledge every time text for what it clearly says and to therefore take whatever prophecies that are supposed to take place within those time texts in a partial preterist now not yet already not yet yeah a type of fulfillment that it has to have a near fulfillment and a future fulfillment good that was awesome brother that's just yeah that's great thanks for walking through that we can wrap up now we'll have a second part and just to tease out everything that Ethan just went through we're going in the second episode episode to look at instances like this and look at how the Bible interprets prophecy and show that the partial preterist idealistic kind of interpretation of scripture is what's called for and demanded by the way the Bible interprets itself the thing that I would kind of call it is it's the ancient hermeneutic the church has always had which is why every creed and confession rejects full preterism as heresy and rejects dispensationalism also as heresy and the reason is because they had what was called the quadriga is the fourfold sense of scripture and if you just focus on the literal then you're going to either fall into the dispensational ditch or you're gonna look at these time texts and say well it literally says look it's the time is at hand therefore there is no future resurrection and you're gonna fall into different heresy of full preterism what you need is the allegorical sense of the text the triplogical or the moral sense of the text and you need the eschatological sense of the text if you have these other senses of scripture when you're going through your hermeneutic that is the same hermeneutic that is being employed if you can see it on what Ethan just went through the way that Matthew is interpreting that prophetic text in Isaiah 7 is a quadriga like interpretation of the text he hits all four of them in his application that I don't ever do that so that's what we're gonna end on be looking for another episode at some point we'll try to get it into the next month or so and discuss this further if you have any questions or thoughts feel free to email me at for the king podcast at Juno.com or hit me up if you know me Ethan did you have any final thoughts? On a light note I'll quote the rapper theologian Timothy Brindle grammatical historical is actually deplorable if it doesn't point to him whose majesty is adorable listen to his unfolding album and it's a delight to listen to and he essentially disses on he says I'll interpret the Old Testament with Jesus as hermeneutic he's the author of God's Word so his interpretation is proper amen yeah let's follow in his footsteps all right well in Christ promised to that he'd lead us into all truth yep yeah all right to the king of the angels a mortal invisible the only God be honored and glory forever and ever amen solely Dale Gloria