In our second episode, my guest Cory Reckner and I discuss the historical Jerusalem and contrast it with the spiritual Jerusalem. We take a look at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the prophetic words of Christ regarding it.
In our second episode, my guest Cory Reckner and I discuss the historical Jerusalem and contrast it with the spiritual Jerusalem. We take a look at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the prophetic words of Christ regarding it.
Hello and welcome to the Restless Theologian podcast where we focus on having insightful conversations in biblical history and theology. I'm your host, Zechariah Eshack. In our second episode, we're gonna be discussing the old Jerusalem and the new Jerusalem. And today, I have on with me my good friend, Corey Reckner. Hi, Corey.
Hello, Zech. How are you? I'm doing good. How are you doing? Good.
Good. I figured we could go through this and kind of discuss a little bit of the understandings of Christ's return, and I thought that we could talk about kind a little bit of the differences between premillennialism and postmillennialism. And I also thought about going over Revelation 17 and about Christ coming in the clouds and what that means. Okay. So this is Revelation 17.
It says, Behold, he is coming with the clouds and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him. And all the tribes of the earth will wail on account of him, even so amen. And then there's a cross reference to this in Matthew 24:30. It says, then will appear in heaven the sign of the son of man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. I wanted to get your take on that and, you know, if you can just let me know what you think of it, and we'll go from there.
Sure. Sure. So lots of material in those verses. Yeah. And just like all of scripture, it seems like you can interpret it almost surface level, and then you can kind of keep going deeper, and then, you know, do a deep dive into more and more and more.
So obviously, from first impression when we go through that verse Yeah. It sounds like that is directly referring to Christ's physical return from the heavens back down to the earth. Would you say that sounds about right just from the first impression we get from that verse even? Yeah. And I would say that that's the general understanding that I have had of it.
Like, just growing up as more of an a premillennialist household, you know, I would take that as the sign of Jesus coming in the, you know, in the rapture before the tribulation. Absolutely. Yeah, and I think that that is a pretty normal view of, you know, these verses collectively with a lot of churches, it's that Christ through this passage is saying he's gonna be coming back, and once he comes back, the tribes of the earth will mourn at his return. And that's a pretty interesting passage I think too. I'm going to pull up the revelation one as well.
But yeah, Revelation 1:7, behold he's coming with the clouds and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn over him. So it is to be. Amen. So the part of that verse that stands out to me is, even those who pierced him.
Right? Yeah. So that's pretty interesting also. Those who pierced him will see him coming back. Right?
That's kind of confusing. As we know, that didn't happen back then. He didn't come back, right, from the clouds of heaven and from heaven, so that those who pierced him would see him. So what is your take on maybe that passage alone? What do you think about that?
Yeah, there's a couple different aspects to kind of look at. So even those who pierced him, we get the idea that it would have been the Jews in Jerusalem at the time who crucified or had Christ crucified. The way my view has changed on this passage, primarily, you know, Kenneth Gentry, doctor Kenneth Gentry, I think I think what I found really fascinating about that is just the idea of the son of man coming and, you know, with the clouds, and, you know, we always kinda thought that that's gonna be, you know, more of a physical thing. We're gonna see him. But when doctor Kenneth Gentry, he brought up Isaiah 19:1, and I'll just read it here, and he and it goes, in an oracle concerning Egypt, behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt, and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.
And so you kind of get this idea that he's going to bring judgment on the Egyptians in this passage. Yeah. Yeah, I'm with you there. And I guess the theme from those passages altogether ties to the idea of a type of a return from God, right? That's kind of a big idea, and would love to hear your take on this, but I know throughout scripture, a lot of times God wants to provide comfort to his people specifically.
Like you mentioned in the Isaiah verse, there's reference to the Egyptians there, and you can kind of get the feel that the Egyptians that are being talked about in this passage, they are not necessarily God's people in this instance, right? Right. So, and the way that stands out to me too, is because the passage says the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them. Sounds kind of harsh if this is directly tied to God's people specifically saying, you know, when the Lord returns, you guys are gonna die. Right?
Yeah. At least that's maybe what it kind of sounds like. But I think the passage itself is meant to convey comfort about God's returning to His people, and because of that, we can rest assured that the Lord is going to come back at some point and comfort His people to to save them. Right? So but yeah, I would love to hear your take on a little bit more of that as well.
Derek Well, I guess in referencing Revelation 1:7, you kind of see that the overall theme, or at least one of the main themes in Revelation is judgment. Now, I think that Christ refers to this in a passage about the day of vengeance coming. And I think his day of vengeance that comes is on the harlot. And so I wanted to get your take on, you know, who you think the harlot is, see if it differs from mine, and, you know, let me know let me know your thoughts. Yeah, yeah.
So always an interesting topic, right? The idea of this harlot, especially in Revelation. There's references in the Old Testament as well. And, yeah, I mean, there's some pretty harsh words said against this harlot throughout all the Bible. Specifically though, like you'd mentioned in these more eschatological focused pass passages, this harlot is viewed very negatively and I mean, called a harlot.
Right? So Right. Called a prostitute. And usually most people would view prostitute pretty negatively. They're like, oh, that's a you know?
So from scripture, there's definitely the idea that this is something bad, and the harlot itself, if we could talk about possibly who this harlot is, you know, being pictured as, it seems as though it's referring to a specific type of a system more than it is like maybe just one person. But the harlot itself is like a group of maybe people groups, maybe a specific type of system where it's tied to, you know, to use this word, sociopolitical stuff as well. Maybe even like, you know, some type of a, a community or whatever, but it's definitely some type of a system going on here that God is not pleased with. And the system itself is very anti Christ and very anti God. And as we see from these passages, you know, this return, this imminent return of Christ is going to be, you know, it's a couple different purposes there.
Right? It's to separate, like Jesus mentioned, the wheat and the chaff. Right? There's a lot of separation going on, sheep from the goats and all of that as well. So there's there's that.
And then there's also this harlot that's mentioned as well, which is reviewed as very negative and something that's very destructive as well. And my take on who this is, and this is just after going over a few different books and kind of referencing a couple passages, it really does appear as though this harlot is referring to the old system of, Babylon. And Babylon, which was a world empire at one point, you know, way before Christ, Babylon was pretty bad news for the most part overall, especially viewed from a Christian perspective. Babylon was a very idolatrous, violent, corrupt type of a system that, you know, was just, I don't know, it was brutal. You know, it was it was very harsh towards God's people especially, especially those who wanted to worship maybe one God, and Babylon was there to just get rid of the whole message of Yahweh, of anything related to Christ and everything.
So I think that this is being referenced the most in these eschatological passages, is that this world system of Babylon, which has corrupted the entire planet to some degree, and this has got to go away. This is gonna have to be put to death, and the way God views this is that it's it's as bad as a prostitute that just corrupts people. Right? So I think that overall, that's kind of my take on it. Like I said, that's after kind of referencing a few books and authors and just tying into the OT especially too when it comes to a lot of these passages.
Yeah. So you don't think it's a person or a place? You think it's more of an organization is is where you're coming from? Because I I kinda have a different take than that too. Yeah.
Well, let me hear what you have to say because it's so I would have to say if I could sum it up, I would say it's it's the Babylonian reference more than anything of the empire and how it takes people down. But I think that there are people involved, and I definitely think that there are groups that are involved with that as well. But yeah, I wanna hear what you have to say. Regarding the harlot, I think that I think she well, she's accused of in Revelation as committing fornication or spiritual adultery. Now, I think it's I think it's a place, or I guess I should say more specifically, a place and a people.
So I believe that it's Jerusalem in like the 1st century, because I believe that the Jews in Jerusalem were extremely wicked at that time, as like the historian Josephus records. Now, there's a passage that I wanted to bring up, just referencing because I believe that in order to commit spiritual or in order to commit adultery, one has to be married. And I think that Israel was God's first bride. And just to give you like a passage for that, Isaiah 545, for your maker is your husband, the lord of hosts is his name, and the holy one of Israel is your is your redeemer. The god of the whole earth, he is called.
So I think it's Jerusalem specifically, and I think that in Revelation, it accuses her of shedding the blood of the saints and the prophets. And I think that is exactly what Jesus accused the Jews in Jerusalem of in Matthew 23 when he's given the 7 woes. Yeah. That they have shed the blood of the saints and prophets because I'm just going to paraphrase here, but in Matthew 23, as Jesus has given the 7 woes to the Pharisees, one of the things he mentions, he says, all the blood that was shed on the earth, all the righteous blood that was shed on the earth from righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah, son of Berekiah, will be counted against this generation. So I believe that his wrath and his vengeance is going to take place against them.
And the reason why I think that is because they admit in that passage and Jesus confronts them about it, that they are the descendants of those who shed the blood of the saints and the prophets. So, have you, I mean, have you heard that before? And Mhmm. Okay. Yeah.
And so here's the thing, I'm as I'm always learning more about the Bible and, you know, if I can do enough digging and try to find out what it seems as though the authors were trying to convey with a lot of their passages, I like to try to keep an open mind with this stuff as well because I do think that there's a lot of possibility with what you're saying as well. Some of the Babylonian references that I gave, this was actually based off of a book which was based off of a podcast, funny enough. But it's a book by Michael Heizer. Okay. And he refers to the harlot and the bride in Revelation specifically where he talks about the the key differences, like you'd mentioned, you know, you think of, like, Jerusalem being an unfaithful bride.
But Michael Heizer, he'd said that the reason why there's a difference still between Jerusalem and somebody like a Babylon is that Babylon is keyed almost as though, like, this massive corporate entity that is influencing the entire planet to some degree also, and even like your Jerusalem as well. Whereas Jerusalem was the bride that became unfaithful instead. So almost as though Jerusalem was married to God, you know, so and so, and committed spiritual adultery nonstop. Heizer says the difference between a prostitute and an unfaithful bride is pretty big because a prostitute doesn't have to be married to somebody, whereas a bride who commits adultery, you know, does that unfaithful act. And it it's kinda confusing.
I'm not gonna lie. It's something where I don't know how settled I feel on a lot of this up to this point also, but I will say I'll give, you know, credence to the view that you take as well as maybe something like a hyzer because I think that, you know, with, excuse me, with all the referencing going on in Revelation specifically, it could mean 1 or the other, honestly. And I'm I I wanna say Babylon to me makes a little bit more sense just because of a lot of passages throughout scripture entirely talking about how there is a difference between like a world system and then the God system, and how the world system can always corrupt the God system at some point to at least the people of God. So I I wanna say I I agree with you, but I'm not sure as well. So that's that's kinda where I stand.
Like I said, I wanna say that Babylon seems a little bit more likely as an old testament reference specifically, but Jerusalem could be that unfaithful mention that they give as well. Yeah. No. I appreciate the open mindedness, and it is a it is a complex book. I mean, there's no doubt that Revelation is, you know, it's clothed in a lot of hidden meanings and a lot of symbolic references.
Mhmm. And it is you know, I mentioned this in the first episode, but it just it's a very you know, it sounds like it's written by an old testament prophet, and I think that that's intentional. Yeah. But, yeah, I guess I'll go through a few more reasons like why I believe it to be Jerusalem because, you know, I mean, there's been a lot of different takes on this. Mhmm.
But one of the things I wanted to bring up about that because I do believe that the beast that the harlot rides is Rome, but I believe it was Rome back then as in the government or nation because I think that it did the bidding of the woman riding it, which was Jerusalem. And I think that, Jerusalem, they said crucify him, crucify him. We know we have no king but Caesar. And I think that that is one of the reasons she's also guilty, that Jerusalem's also guilty of spiritual adultery is because, well, like you said before, unfaithfulness, because I think that she rejected her true king. And I think that that is the reason why it's because of that rejection that God is bringing vengeance upon Jerusalem, which is, you know, we'll get into later about, you know, the Olivet Discourse and some of the things that Jesus references there.
Another important passage I wanted to bring up about, just about how the Jews in Jerusalem, they went out of their way to say, let his blood be on us and our children. Mhmm. And I thought that that was very fascinating to think about that, that they intentionally said that knowing what Christ was proclaiming. You know what I mean? Like, it seems very fascinating to me that they would actually go out of their way to make that mention.
And I think that they are guilty before God because they crucified the true king. Mhmm. And so what do you what do you think about? Yeah. Yeah.
Well, and then once again referring to, the ancient Jews that, you know, were putting Christ to death. You know, Jesus even said you're of your father the devil. Right? And and he said that directly to them. And they were trying to hide behind their religion back then where, you know, they were saying, like you said, well, let the blood be on us, you know, if what you say is wrong, but we're pretty convinced it's right, you know?
And Jesus was like, you guys are not of God, you know? Yeah. And I think once again, that almost ties to this idea of these 2 different systems going on specifically, the devils and then gods. And the devil is always referenced in scripture, definitely by Paul, where he's, you know, the god of this world. Right?
He's he's angel of light, deceptively. He's he's the one that is leading people astray all the time. And in Jesus' time, Jesus' biggest confrontation was always with this group of religious folks that said they were Jewish, said they had Abraham as their father. Who do you think you are? Yeah.
But Jesus is like, but you guys are straight from the devil, and you guys wanna kill me because I said I'm he who can forgive sins. And he's like literally demonstrating that there's a difference between God's people and then the devil's people in his interactions with this group of people all the time. And I think that that is, you know, historically speaking, I think that's how it's always been too. There's been the people of God and then the not people of God, you know? Right.
It sounds very divisive, and Jesus said it would be. He said, I didn't come to bring a peace come to bring peace, but I came to bring a sword, you know? I don't think he was necessarily bringing a sword to mow people down. I was I think he was saying there is truth, and the truth is a sword. And the sword does it does dividing, you know?
And what it definitely divides are the people of God from the people that are not of God. And specifically that group, like you said, the group that confronted Jesus that said, well, you know, we have Abraham as our father. And that was their comfort. They're like, we know who we belong to. And Jesus said, you really don't know who you belong to.
Yeah. There was a lot of emphasis on them being physical descendants of Abraham. Yep. And like John the Baptist says, you know, God is you know, do not think to say to yourselves that we're sons of Abraham because I tell you that God is able to raise up sons from Abraham from these stones. Right.
And And I think that that's very fascinating because, I mean, Paul brings up too, I believe in Romans 9 about how not all of Israel is Israel. Like, not all of them are Abraham's children, but it was, you know, the children of the promise and not the physical descendants. And I think that that is where you see the crossover happening is in the in the great divorce of Israel or, you know, Jerusalem is that it switches from a physical Jerusalem to a spiritual Jerusalem. So I think that it is basically, it's God's divorce upon Israel, the first bride, and him taking a new bride, the Christian people. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, along with the destruction of the temple was very significant because it's going back to the Olivet Discourse, you know, kind of we briefly just brought it up, but one of the things he mentions there about how not one stone will be left upon another.
Mhmm. And I think that that kind of coincides with the ending of that age. Because when I was watching, R. C. Sproul, he mentions about how the I think it was the old king James actually translated the end of the age as the end of the world because of that, they just automatically assume that that's what that meant.
Mhmm. But I think it's interesting to think that it could actually be, and this is where I lean, is that it was the end of the Jewish age and not the end of the world that he was referencing. So you have this closure of a physical Jerusalem in a physical temple and that transference to a spiritual Jerusalem in a spiritual temple in which God dwells. Because I kind of thought back to when Christ was speaking to the woman at the well, he said the day is coming, I'm just paraphrasing, the day is coming when the people of God will not worship him on a mountain or in a temple, but they will worship him in spirit and in truth. And I think that as that's because we no longer have a physical destination.
We actually are you know, have the holy spirit indwelling us and therefore make up the temple. Yeah. No, that's such a good point. There is an Old Testament scholar, his name's John Walton, and John Walton is always referencing God's temple building and how when he created the heavens and the earth, his big intention was this idea of a temple and constituting it on earth. Right?
And how the sacred space where Adam and Eve were placed, it was this dwelling for God, you know? Yeah. So that's such a big topic throughout all of scripture too. It's this idea of God's dwelling. And like you'd referenced, such a key point, and Jesus said this, and then eventually the disciples and the apostles said it as well.
The biggest thing with God going forward nowadays is this indwelling holy spirit that we have. And God being the Trinity, being involved with us by indwelling, right? Yeah. And the temple focus as well. You know, like you said with Jesus mentioning to the woman at the well, you know, there will be a time where people will worship in spirit and in truth, not necessarily in a specific place.
It's it's through specific people instead. Right. So that's such a a really good point you brought up. I think that's that's a great topic too. Yeah.
We can talk about temples all day, honestly. There's a lot of temples out there, you know? Yeah. Yeah, so I wanted to go back to this idea of divorce very briefly, because in Matthew 532, when being questioned on it, Jesus gives a response. I'll let you get there.
Sure. Got it. Jesus goes, but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. And so the only grounds that Christ gives that's acceptable to divorce a spouse, and in this context, a wife, is on the cases of adultery. And I think that that kind of coincides with the idea of him divorcing his first bride, Jerusalem, because I know that you've read a little bit of Kenneth Gentry and maybe have seen some of his videos, but and he references about I think, the 7 bowls being God's judgment, and it basically an official divorce of Israel.
And when Sproul, for example, when he references the destruction of the temple and the destruction of Jerusalem, he brings up in Josephus's, I think, Jewish wars about how the Romans literally used catapults and they would use these just massive stones called Herodian stones. And so the Romans would, use these catapults to try to smash and destroy the city and try to basically tear down the wall that protected it. And one of the things I find fascinating is just that in the old testament, I think it might be an exodus that the punishment for adultery is stoning. So, and then you have Jerusalem over here being literally stoned. And I'm like, you can't get any more, I don't know, significant than that.
Like, I feel like that that stands out and, yeah, it just, yeah, I'd love to hear your your take on it. Oh, no. That's so good. Yeah. The the parallel, it's just too convenient to be inconvenient right here.
It's too too on the nose. I mean Yeah. There's a lot of, just, yeah, tie ins with scriptural passages like that too, and that's why scripture is so rich too. It's like there's so much reference always happening, and it's so hard to pinpoint it sometimes, and I think that's why a lot of these passages can be somewhat Wildly interpreted? Yes.
Yes. It's hard to kinda nail exactly what's being said sometimes because, you know, especially with a lot of the biblical authors, the way they would write things, it wasn't like we would write things today also, all the time. Right? There would be there'd be poetry, there'd be symbolism happening and it would be scattered throughout a lot of different verses as we would refer to them nowadays. You know a lot of different verses So and it could switch so fast too in like a single passage.
You know, the passage you just mentioned, Matthew 5, about adultery, Right? Right after that, the next the next verse actually says, again, you have heard that the ancients were told, you shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord. Right? And the reference that's going on there is specifically to Israel. He's not talking about any ancients.
He's talking about Israel's ancients and fulfill your vows to the Lord. That's not just like a, as far as we know, that's not like a huge common saying that was going on back then with like all different cultures, like Greek culture and all that. It was mainly just to Israel. So there's a lot of direct referencing going on to Israel in these passages specifically. But sometimes they allude to other things that makes it, like you'd mentioned, a little bit harder to interpret sometimes.
You know? Right. Yeah. I I kinda wanted to go back just briefly when Jesus is given the 7 woes, if you're okay with it. Yeah.
Yeah. So it says, Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings and you were not willing. And going back to what you had said about being true to your vows to God, I mean, I think that that's what he's basically accusing them of. And I think that there's just there's such an emphasis, at least in the gospels.
Before, I was completely kind of, like, oblivious to this view. And, a lot of times, I couldn't reconcile any of these passages as a premillennialist when there's plenty of times where he'll say, you know, these things will come upon this generation or that there will be some standing here that will not see death before these things take place. Mhmm. And in my mind as a premillennialist, I'm like, well, he must be speaking symbolically or figuratively, however you want to word it, because I couldn't reconcile that because of the plain and obvious meaning of a generation. Even though our understanding, you know, may be different now as opposed to, like, the Jewish understanding of, like, roughly 40 years, but I I just think back to when I was a premillennialist and just some of the crazy wild ideas.
And then I heard this view, and I'm like, how have I never heard this before? I've been a Christian for a long time, and it's just up until a couple years ago that I was brought to this. And it seems to be, from my understanding, like a very minority view. I mean, wouldn't you say that that's true that like premillennialism is more of a dominant view, at least within Christianity in America. Absolutely, and I think there's a lot of reason for that too.
I think I hate to even divulge this way, but it seems as though people love the idea of like a doomsday. Right? People love, you know, the concept that, Oh, the end of the world, the end of everything could happen while I'm living on this planet, you know? Right. Yeah.
I think that's why end of times movies are so good at the box office, because people love a good, like, end of everything story. Right? We all kinda like we like to, like, conspiracy theory it a little bit sometimes and say, oh, yeah. That could definitely happen. I I watched one not that long ago.
I can't even remember what it was called. It's a Moonfall. Did you ever hear of Moonfall? I've heard of it. I haven't seen it.
Okay. Yeah. And the whole movie is just so outrageous and so beyond probably, like, you know, the possibility of that happening. Maybe not. I don't know.
But just watching that movie, I'm like, this is so far fetched. But you know that they came up with this because people were talking about this thing maybe happening in our lifetime. Right? Right. And I think from the time that I was young, I've heard so many stories about end of time stuff with the antichrist coming, you know, while we were alive, to Jesus's return, the rapture and all of those end times eschatological, you know, concepts.
I mean, it's just so popular. You know, there's such a market for, like, promoting these ideas all the time. And I think, like you'd said, it's kind of unpopular to think, well, maybe this wasn't always meant for us. Right? Like the passage is referring to these things.
Maybe it was Jesus specifically catering his messaging to this specific target audience, you know? Yeah. Because the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem would have happened in the reference or the timeframe reference that he gives of, you know, a generation, which is roughly 40 years, and then come 70 AD, the destruction of the temple happens, and of the temple and Jerusalem. But one of the things I wanted to mention is that like, I do think that people are very fascinated with this idea of an antichrist and that, like, like, I grew up with movies like, I don't know if you've ever heard of, the thief in the night series. Mm-mm.
Yeah. Like, they're they're very bad acting. It's I mean, but they terrify you kind of when you're a little kid. Like, you watch this stuff and you have, like, the thief in the night. I mean, it was a series, I think, 3 or 4 movies.
But, you know, they had this group, you know, called Unite that would go around and basically gather up all the Christians. But, you know, it's that there's this rapture, takes all the Christians, and then those people get left behind. And then you have this start of this tribulation period where but from a postmillennialist view, when you think about, what Jesus says in the Olivet Discourse, you start to see how the tribulation is actually not something 2000 years into the future, because I mean, he says, you know, he makes a comment about these things happening to this generation and he even warns them to flee to the mountains and hills of Judea. Judea. And I'm like, but as a pre millennialist prior, I was thinking in my head, I'm like, well, what does that mean?
Because it's like, well, I'm in America. How am I gonna flee to Judea? Like, how am I gonna am I gonna hop on a plane and and, you know, try to flee to Judea? Do I have enough time? Right.
Like, you know what I mean? Like, it doesn't a hard trip. Yeah. Yeah. And I think the idea of an antichrist too, like, which I obviously, it's biblical, the man of lawlessness, the man of sin.
I think that their understanding of that and Gentry, you know, he's, he's with kind of sprawl on this about it being, you know, even, you know, 666 about being a cryptogram Yeah. For Nero. Nero, yeah. Who violently persecuted the Christians, who was an extremely evil and just just insanely mad person and, you know, who ends up, you know, killing himself, but not before persecuting the early church and, you know, sending them to their death. So, I mean, what's interesting about a cryptogram is is that it relates to and you're I'm sure you're aware of this, but like a number and letters, there's like that association there.
And so the cryptogram number will change depending upon the language that's being spoken because each language would have its own. Yeah. So there are some copies, I believe, of like the new testament or of revelation specifically that switched from 666 to 616, and and it coincided with it still being Nero's name, but I think it went from Hebrew to maybe Latin or Greek. I think. Yeah.
Latin. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Because that was the 616. It came out in Latin, but 666 was still Hebrew like you'd mentioned. I went over it last night just to Okay. Yeah. Yeah.
So I'm exactly what you're talking about. That's that's that's right. The 666, the cryptogram number for 6, it equaled out to Nero's name in Hebrew and 616 in Latin equaled out to Nero's name. Okay. So yeah.
Yeah. Which is kind of crazy because it's like, you know, prior to this, you know, I was thinking, you know, there's gonna be this antichrist that comes that's gonna deceive the world, And then, you know, because in the antichrist, you know, he takes his place in the seat of God or in the place of God, setting himself up above all that is all that is God. And, this goes back to I think it might be in the Olivet Discourse where Jesus talks about the abomination of desolation, and he references back to the prophecy of Daniel. And Sproul holds that it's going that the abomination of desolation is actually when I think Nero set himself up like at, you know, a statue in the temple for him to be worshiped, basically in God's place. So that's the that's what he holds as the abomination of desolation.
I think that that I it makes sense. I mean, I don't know, you know, like you said, I mean, it could be interpreted any number of ways, but just that idea of the Jews rejecting Christ and then saying, we have no king but Caesar, and then sure enough, Caesar's statue is to be worshiped in the temple, and it's like you could see how that would, you know Pretty significant. Yeah. Anger God. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And, you know, also the timeline of everything as well, right? I mean, just any Roman emperor, if they weren't worshiped, they'd be putting people to death because that was outrageous to them, and they quote unquote deserved all the worship.
Right? So, yeah. Then you have this kind of obscure sect of Judaism, also quote unquote, I'm doing quotes over here, you know, growing, but it's it's under the name of Jesus. Yeah. And Rome is like, oh, this is just ridiculous.
What is this? You know? And but as it keeps growing, it kind of becomes a threat to Roman worship and cultic worship especially too. Right. So that would definitely put a little bit of incentive under Rome's belt to try to try to get rid of the whole thing, you know?
Yeah. Especially if there was a lot of activity coming from the temple in Jerusalem also, like you said. Yeah. Yeah. Because because I wanna say that that the beast because it this is where it gets kind of tricky is that there's the beast generally that the woman rides or the harlot rides, and then there's like, you know, several beasts that are referenced.
I think maybe 7, and the 6th beast is who I think that they believe as postmillennialists, which, you know, I'm in the camp of. I obviously lean highly postmillennialists, and I think it's specifically partial Preterist, if I'm saying that correctly. And I don't know, like, this is where it gets a little bit difficult to understand because my understanding, I think that amillennialist and postmillennialist seem to have a lot more in common than differences. Mhmm. Not that they agree on everything, but like you have those 2 camps and then you have premillennialism, which to me seems like there's a lot more variety in what they believe and a lot more crazy takes, you know, like sometimes they'll think that Trump was the antichrist, that our Obama was the antichrist, and it's like the goal show the goalpost kind of just keeps shifting for them.
Yep. And because they're constantly looking for this future antichrist, this future tribulation, when sure enough, it's like, well, what if that has already happened? And that the premillennialists, I think, just get confused between the coming of Christ with, you know, with the clouds and the coming of Christ on the last day. Right. Because I think it's important to, like, distinguish those 2 because they see them as 1 and the same thing and it's like, well, what if they're not?
Mhmm. You know what I mean? Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely.
And it does get really confusing from other passages where, like, Paul mentions, you know, we will be caught up into the clouds with him. Yeah. Right? Paul said that, and he was talking to obviously a specific audience too, but that was 2000 years ago, you know? Yeah.
So it it gets really confusing with the timeline of everything and the order of operations there as well. I guess with him referencing being caught up in the clouds with Christ, and then you have the cloud reference and revelation. So you're like, is that gonna be the same? Because I think that full predatorism would hold that that the rapture happened then, like, their their understanding of the rapture would have happened then, where I think that Paul, at least I to me, it makes sense that I don't think it's outside the bounds to say that, we will be caught up in the clouds with Christ because if the dead in Christ will rise again and rise first, then he's well within his right to say that we will be caught up with Christ in the clouds. So you're saying because he if he's saying if if I die, I'll be among the dead that will be caught up first as well.
So, it's almost like a reference to everybody that will eventually pass away also. Yeah. Okay. And I think And I think this is where context is so important because we have we, us, are, all, you know, depending on the context, all might not be mean all or you know what I mean? Like Yeah.
Yeah. Like, you know, if there is a festival going on and we say, you know, all of this city was there and but, you know, do we know that all of this everyone in that city was there? Right. Probably not. There was probably people home.
There was probably people sick, you know, any number of things. So I think that that's where because I I because there are passages in scripture that seem to support universalism outside of, like, when you don't really know the context and just take it at face value, but you don't really bring in these other comparative verses and kind of a more broader understanding of the Bible, you could come away thinking that the Bible supports universalism, but it doesn't. Right. You know? Yeah.
Because there's other other non supportive passages that just annihilate universalism Yeah. And just pretty much just say it makes it fall, flat on its face. So, yeah, I mean, it's it's funny because it's kind of a pick and choose game sometimes too, especially with beliefs, especially with eschatology also. Right. And I think it's hard for interpreting everything together within scripture scriptural realms because there's a lot of different, like I said, I hate to keep using the word reference, but there's a lot of references going on all the time too.
And back in those days, especially during Paul's time, Paul was going out witnessing to everybody. And I mean so many different gods that people worshiped back then. I'm sure by now we probably have, you know, compounded that by a million, you know, retrospectively, but there's just so much dialogue happening between God's people that are writing these passages sometimes and the people they're writing to. At the beginning of Revelation, John says he's writing to the, is it the 7 churches of Asia Minor, right? Right.
And it's like, okay, like you just said, right? So one church is what? Like 20 people? No. Who knows?
Maybe it's like a 100 people. Maybe it's a couple 1000 people. You know, it's it's Well Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead.
No. I was just gonna say no. Like, you're right. Like, I think from a premillennialist view, they always have to kind of try to find some sort of excuse or explanation as to who those 7 churches are because it can't be that they were writing, that John was writing to 7 churches in that time frame, specifically warning them, but it's like from the postmillennialist view, you hold that, well, John uses, references of soon and near, and I understand that that can be kind of vague, but I also think that I think any sort of common sense person would be like soon and near, probably doesn't mean 2000 years into the future. Like, I I like, I highly doubt that that would be the terminology John would use if he's trying to give this impending warning.
And I think it's great that he even mentions that I, you know, your brother John in the tribulation. So he kind of says when the tribulation is or or at least is starting or that he is going to go through it. So, yeah, I think that that's kind of just, it's just something to think about, you know? Yeah. Yeah, it's good.
And I know there were, I mean, from what I was reading up on this, material beforehand, one of the most debated topics, like you'd said, like there's the unpopular view, which was that, you know, the book of Revelation was written leading up to the destruction of the temple. Yeah. By AD 70. That's more of the unpopular view. And then there's the more popular view, which is that the book of Revelation was written later in the 1st century closer to, like, 95 AD.
And that, you know, under the I think it was the rulership of Domitian, Domitian, I'm not sure how to pronounce his name, but Domitian, that's when John was writing, you know, this referential I keep saying the word. Sorry. This referential letter of revelation referencing all these different churches and referencing all this different timeline and everything. So that's like the 2 biggest debated timelines that this book was written, and it means everything. You know?
It does. It it It's so crazy. Yeah. It's crazy how it can impact your view because, I mean, I think that there's a part in Revelation where God has John measure the temple in Jerusalem, which would be pretty hard to do if it was destroyed. Right.
You know, like, I mean, how is he going to measure it? And that that is just some one aspect to think about, but I mean, how old do you think he would have been if it was like in the nineties, like they say. Right. And you know, and we know that people back then didn't live as long as they do. Well, but you know what I mean though, like in the 1st century, I, it seems unlikely that people were living to the age of a100.
Yeah. Jesus Christ is an old like not an old man, but like a a well advanced man by the time he was in his thirties, right? That was considered like our like sixties, maybe even seventies these days. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. So, yeah. I I guess one of the things that really struck me is when I learned this view. I think the the biggest thing that struck me is the fact that I just never heard of it in such a long time as of being a Christian. Mhmm.
And I think that that was was one of the things that was frustrating when I first started to learn about it because to me, it made a lot of these other verses that I couldn't reconcile or didn't really make sense, as a premillennialist. And now I look at them and I'm like, the Bible is very cohesive and there's a lot of continuity there, and I just don't know how I missed it. Well, and and I to add on to that as well, I mean, a lot of it is a lot of our conclusions with a lot of these really difficult passages come from what we're also taught as well. And I don't think a lot of people reference passages like these as being more historiographical and cultural. Like I kinda mentioned, people do love to tie everything into our current existence as well.
And sometimes it's hard to separate the 2 because, you know, people want to people want to fill in the the gaps a lot of times. Right. And people love to fill in gaps. Hate to say it, but kind of selfishly sometimes and say this is directly related to us right now. Right?
Right. Yeah. I think that that's a that's a big part of it is is reading scripture and and having that understanding that like, oh, what he is saying or what, one of the, apostles, what they're saying is directly applying to me and is meant for me. Well, it's meant for you in a way for you to be, you know, for it to be read and understood later. But like when he's giving these warnings, whether it's John or Jesus, there's warnings that are meant for us now in the sense of resisting temptation and just being obedient to Christ and a lot of different things like that, but then you also have stuff that I believe that was specifically directed at the Jews at that time.
And I feel like that's probably one of the more significant things is just understanding, like you said before, and Augustine brings this up too about how just how important it is to distinguish the figurative from the literal. And that's how, you know, you get a more proper understanding and that's, it helps you not misinterpret scripture. Absolutely. Yeah. And, like, we've we keep coming across this subject to just the idea of target audience too.
Right. Like Matthew. Right? We're referencing, like, the Olivet Discourse, and John. You know?
As far as we know, both very, very Jewish men that had communities of Jewish people around them all the time. And Matthew, his gospel is more so targeted towards highlighting the fact that Jesus is the Messiah for the Jewish people. Right? Right. So a lot of Matthew's wording and passages and references, sorry, a lot of that is strictly towards a Jewish audience for the most part.
Right? I think Matthew is obviously understanding enough that more than just Jewish people would be reading his gospel, but at the same time, you gotta kind of wonder, okay, well, so he's he's talking to a specific group of people most of the time in this story. And John, even though it's almost a little bit more broadband with Revelation, if John is the actual author of Revelation, which historically speaking, that's that's been who's decided to have been the one who wrote Revelation. Right? Right.
He makes references, Hebrew references, all the time. And he does it in a way that is a little bit more philosophical sometimes. I think the most philosophical is probably Paul, and that's why I think Peter even said he has some things that are hard to understand. Yeah. Because he just he goes all over the place sometimes.
Right? But he also had a lot of target audiences. I mean, each one of his letters was directly to a specific church. You know? So I think that's that's really significant as well too.
Like, you'd mentioned just when we were growing up, we would hear passages like the Olivet Discourse. And I don't know about you, but for me, every time I would hear anything like that, it was it was directly focused on me and the people I was around in my church or whatever. So everything was very narrowly focused towards us rather than, historically speaking, maybe somebody else, and we should glean from it from what was being taught to them back then, if that makes sense. No. That that totally makes sense.
Makes sense. I think that there's I I believe that that's a common trend now where it's just, like I said before, kind of popularized probably within more of the last 100 years, I would say, you know, especially with I think it was I may be incorrect on this, but I think one of the very popular books that kinda kicked off a little bit of this was, I think it was the late great planet Earth. Okay. If I wanna you know, I I could be wrong on that, but, I mean, I'm pretty sure that that's what it was called. And then you, like, have the thief in the night series, and you go from that to I think it's Tim LaHaye's, like, Left Behind.
Yeah. Yeah. And you like you said yeah. Like you said, you're just surrounded with this stuff where it's like they're interpreting scripture, in such a way that like a lot of these warnings and a lot of these things that may have been specifically meant for that generation is being applied today to us. Mhmm.
And that's how you get all these crazy notions about the, you know, the mark of the beast being this chip implant and, you know, or, you know, just any number of, you know, ideas. But I mean, I think that I think just over time, I think that people when they really listen to this view and understand it, like, I feel like for me, like, I've grown like, I've grown to endorse it more and more. And I think it's just because having come from the other view and seeing kind of a little bit more of the scare tactics and a little bit more of the, you know, constant doomsday and, you know, it's a little bit more about like, you know, preparing. And not that we shouldn't be prepared, you know, on the the the last day, but I think it's a little bit more of like there's a lot of fear mongering. I mean to to put it bluntly.
Yeah. Yeah. And and I mean it's it's it's it's pretty common for people to like to like to lord things over other people sometimes to keep maybe some measures of control going sometimes. Yeah. I don't think that's the case with like every church out there, but I think that sometimes, when you've got leaders that like to keep that fear mongering as like kind of a focus of their, you know, whatever, their counsel, it it can make things pretty messy sometimes.
Yeah. And I think that that's why in which I feel like you, you know, from the conversations you and I have had, you do such a good job of this. You like to kinda dig deep into scriptural meaning, into context, and all that. You reference a lot of really good theologians as well too. I mean, you wanna understand what the Bible is actually saying.
And that I think is the key right there. Because if the word of God is living and active and sharper than a double edged sword, able to penetrate all of us. Right? I think that it's really important that we handle it well and that we're teaching it well too so that it will, you know, help people apply wisdom to their lives. Like you'd said, you know, a lot of these passages weren't directly written to a quarry or to a Zac, but they are gonna be read by a quarry and a Zac.
So how do we take these passages and apply them into our lives, not so that we're living in this constant dreadful fear that we need to, like you said, book a plane to the mountains of Judea here sometime soon while comets are showering down on our planet, you know? Right. But at the same time, like, how how are we gonna read these passages and not, you know, utilize them incorrectly, which I think a lot of leadership in the world has done forever Yeah. And is capable of still doing as well. They're able to take scripture passages.
Like I said, Jesus said he came to bring a sword. They view it as yes, we're gonna we're gonna chop things off and down and everything rather than we need to, like, apply like we would any weapon with with carefulness and wisdom and timing also too, right? Yeah. And with precision. Precision.
Precision. Yeah. Yeah. And I think, before we let you go, I wanted to try to get ask of you, like, do you have any any videos or any books that you highly recommend to any of our listeners that you think that might be helpful and just just either like to be able to engage them and also to make them more well rounded on this subject? Yeah.
Yeah. So, I'd mentioned Michael Heizer's book, and I wish I could remember the name of it. But it's I think the book title is the book of Revelation and Old Testament references being used in Revelation. It's, like I said, it's based off of a podcast, I think, that he was doing. Yeah.
But it's really good because it kind of breaks down every chapter in Revelation. And I think he just does a good job overall just kind of reviewing things and referencing Old Testament passages specifically. Okay. So that's a really good one. I wish I could remember the name of it for you, but if you look up Michael Heizer, look up books that he's done like on Amazon or whatever on Google, you'll be able to eventually find that one.
It's it's his commentary on the book of Revelation and how it references old testament passages. So that's a really good one. We brought up Gentry. Right? I know you and I have been talking a lot about him.
Yeah. Yeah. Past past couple years, I think. And, yeah, Gentry's got a lot of cool stuff out there that really makes you think really hard about some of this stuff too, like you said, with Nero and everything. His one book that you actually turned me on to, The Beast of Revelation's a really good one.
Yeah. I really enjoyed that book. I was surprised how I'm a slower reader, and I was surprised how quickly I got to that book because not only do I think he's a good writer, but just the subject matter is just is very engaging. Like, it and too, it's just like his perspective. And he speaking of precision, I think that agree or disagree with the guy, he's very precise.
Yeah. Yeah. 100%. And and he's good at you know, some guys out there, you kind of get a gist when they're writing things. They're just trying to stir the pot.
Yeah. You don't really get that from him. You kind of feel that he's he's approaching everything from a very responsible place and also just a very like sensitive place also, but kind of a an attention grabbing place too. Like, let's look at this. Let's look at this passage again.
So I think, yeah, his book, Beasts of Revelation's great. He wrote 2 other books that I picked up, but I haven't read them yet. I've kinda scrum or, you know, scrolled through them a little bit. One is navigating through the book of Revelation. I think that's probably gonna be a good one.
And then the other one is before Jerusalem fell, I think. Yeah. I think before Jerusalem fell is I don't know, it might have been his dissertation. I think you're right. And I think it's a more fully developed and lengthier piece than the Beast of Revelation.
I feel like the Beast of Revelation is a little bit more specific Okay. Where it's the kind of a shortened version, I wanna say Gotcha. Of before Jerusalem fell. Okay. Cool.
So probably beast of revelation's definitely a good place to start then if anything Yeah. Because I think sums it up a little more. Yeah. Right. And I think it's only, you know, maybe 2, 300 pages at the most.
And and I think, RC Sproul, his video series, which, you know, you can easily find it like on YouTube, it's A Crisis in Eschatology, I think is what it's called. And it's based upon his book, The Last Days According to Jesus. Okay. Nice. That sounds good.
I know there's one more that I'll throw at you too. Yeah. And I'd mentioned this before from one of our conversations, but I brought it with me too if you wanna check it out afterwards. But Yeah. For sure.
It it's by a guy named Paul Benware and it's specifically, I think it's called End Times and Prophecy. But if you want like kind of a, I hate to say kind of a controversial book that kind of argues with Gentry's point of view too because he references Gentry a lot. And I will say yeah. As I was reading through it, I was telling you I was kinda going through some stuff last night. When when I was reading through his stuff about Gentry, I will say some of it almost seems a little like like unfair almost, kinda like he would mention like the cryptogramic stuff that Gentry brings up about Nero's name Yeah.
And he would kinda dismiss it almost like, oh, yeah. It's just not reliable. And I'm like, but we should look into this a little bit more. Right? But but I would say he does a good job in his book at summing up the views of, like you'd mentioned, amillennialism, postmillennialism, premillennialism, you know, pre tribulation, post tribulation, all that stuff.
He does such a good job at, like, listing and showing visuals of what those timelines look like also. Okay. So it's kind of a like I said, a little bit more antagonistic towards Gentry, but great at referencing what a lot of these views kind of, you know, represent and everything. Which I mean it's good to have a good like overall big picture of what these beliefs are advocating for and then kind of look at them and evaluate them for yourself. Yep, yep for sure.
Yeah, it's a good one. Okay, awesome. Well, thanks a lot Corey. I really appreciate you coming on the show today and I look forward to having you on again. Awesome.
Thank you, Zach. I appreciate it. Yeah, no problem. All right.