• Michael McCullough
    Posted at 20:47h, 24 November

    Thank you, Joel – another great episode.

    Kurschner mentioned Revelation 20, which contains one of the most perplexing passages in the Bible to me.

    “7 When the 1,000 years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle. Their number is like the sand of the sea. 9 They came up over the surface of the earth and surrounded the encampment of the saints, the beloved city. Then fire came down from heaven and consumed them. 10 The Devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

    – Revelation 20:7-10 (HCSB)

    I suppose that since the Bible devotes so little space to this event, then we shouldn’t concern ourselves too much with it now.



  • Nelson Walters
    Posted at 21:44h, 24 November

    Joel, The last five minutes are very inspirational with Alan reading Romans 8 and you describing life after the return of Christ. This is our blessed hope.

  • Joel
    Posted at 01:22h, 25 November

    I talked too much. But unfortunately, thats what I do.

  • BJ & Alisa
    Posted at 14:21h, 25 November

    Hello Joel & Alan,
    Great discussion! We thought that both of you brought out important points. The part about the 3 enemies of God was something that we knew about but now see in a new light & will be able to articulate more clearly.

    We agree with Nelson, we could see that Alan was being led by the Holy Spirit with his closing comments of encouragement.

    BJ & Alisa

  • linda keyes
    Posted at 15:39h, 25 November

    Thanks for the episode.

    I do have to scratch my head at the fact that some can read Rev 19 and 20, and not see that Jesus is coming back and will reign on earth for a thousand years before the rest of eternity,because in clear black and white that’s exactly what it says will happen.

    I’d actually say you’d have to be quite barmy to believe that satan is presently bound, if this is Jesus reigning, i dont think the lost would be impressed at all.

    I dont really think we need to analyse everything to death, just believe what we read, the Holy Spirit will reveal deeper truths when we as individuals are seeking His face and the lost.


  • linda keyes
    Posted at 16:14h, 25 November

    Sorry, just to clarify, i didnt mean we shouldn’t study, i just meant that some things are quite black and white, and dont need overly analysing.

  • Peter Stone
    Posted at 19:57h, 25 November

    Hi Joel,

    Would you ever consider releasing the Underground series in audio podcast?


  • Joel
    Posted at 20:24h, 25 November

    Hi Peter,

    My audio has ben the biggest thing I need to work on. Once I get that down, I will definitely start podcasting the shows. We are working with a small budget. : ) Little by little.

  • Greg
    Posted at 15:47h, 26 November


    Do you know if there is a correlation between Rev 19:11-16 and Is 63:1-2, etc?
    For my ref, I’m using NKJV.

    Specifically, I’m looking at the language in Rev 19:13 “robe dipped in blood” and Is 63:2 (for instance) “Your apparel red”, “like one who treads the winepress”.

    My question is whether or not there is a tie between these passages.



  • Greg
    Posted at 15:56h, 26 November

    I had another question on this same passage (related area).
    In this case Is 24:21-22 and Rev 20:1-3.
    Again, I’m using NKJV and curious if there is a correlation.

    I’m looking at the following language:

    Is 24:21-22 “the LORD will punish on high the exalted ones, And on the earth the kings of the earth. They will be gathered in the pit, And will be shut up in the prison; After many days they will be punished.”

    Rev 20:2 “He (the angel) laid hold of the dragon…bound him for a thousand years…”, v3 “…cast him into the bottomless pit…till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.”

    Again, I’m seeing what I think is a correlation, but asking for your thoughts.

    Thanks again,


  • Joel
    Posted at 18:36h, 26 November


    The picture of Jesus bursting forth from the sky with His robes dipped in blood is of course directly rooted in the prophetic picture of Isaiah 63.

  • Josh
    Posted at 23:01h, 27 November

    Hi Joel,

    I have a question regarding the following excerpt from the video:
    “You and I are not dispensationalists. So we don’t encourage a hands off abandonment idea: why polish the brass on a sinking ship…”

    My understanding is that there are two basic categories of premillenialism: historical premillenialism (i.e. covenant premillenialism) and dispensational premillenialism. It’s obvious from your books and the many videos that I have watched (which have been a tremendous blessing, challenge, and encouragement to my wife and I) that you certainly do not identify with historical premillenialism.

    My question then is: what do you mean by stating that you are not a dispensationalist? Are you simply distinguishing yourself as a “progressive” or are you distancing yourself somehow from all forms of dispensationalism?

    I certainly agree that there are many within dispensationalism who say things like: “We don’t really need to debate about Revelation. It’s enough to know that God wins in the end.” It’s as if they take are taking some sort of high road by saying in effect that “my faith is stronger than yours because I don’t really even need to bother figuring out what Jesus communicated in Revelation.” I think that is probably a good representation of what you meant by polishing the brass on a sinking ship.

    However, I, and many others, identify myself with dispensationalism and have never agreed with an abandonment approach towards eschatology. So, I’m still wondering what you meant specifically by stating: I’m not a dispensationalist. Could you please explain this for me?

    Thanks and God bless! My wife and I are very grateful for your ministry.


  • Aaron Shannon
    Posted at 02:06h, 28 November

    Greetings Joel,

    Great video and discussion, but I would like to offer two corrections. I cannot speak for all Amillennials, but I can speak for myself.

    First, Amillennials do not deny the unconditional promises made to Israel, but only that they will be fulfilled by the New Israel, which is the Church consisting of Jews and Gentiles. The video did not touch on this specifically, but I think Amillennials are often accused of replacement theology. We do not believe the church replaced Israel, but only that the Gentiles were grafted into Israel and the unbelieving Jews are cut off from Israel (Romans 11). The promised Land of Canaan was a shadow of the true promised land of the new heavens and new earth. Abraham was promised to become the heir of the world (Romans 4:13), not just the little pocket of land in the Middle East. To summarize my point, Amillennials do not deny the unconditional promises made to Israel, but we have a different framework for how those promises are fulfilled.

    Second, although we as Amillennials believe Satan is bound, we do not believe he is unable to roam the earth, seeking whom he can devour. We believe Satan does roam the earth. The binding of Satan simply means he is unable to deceive the nations (Revelation 20:3). Before the cross, Satan was deceiving the nations. This is why very few Gentiles came to worship Yahweh and Him alone. After the Cross, Satan became bound so that he is unable to deceive the nations any longer until this millennial age is complete. This is why millions upon millions of Gentiles have been coming to Christ during the Millennial age. At the end of this age, Satan will be unbound so that he is free to once again deceive the nations (Revelation 20:8). He will gather Gog and Magog from the four corners of the earth. In other words, the Ottoman Empire will be revived and will establish the Islamic Caliphate. Islam will dominate the world. The Mahdi and Muslim Jesus will be here. They will persecute Christians around the world (ISIS is a shadow of what this time will be like, except this persecution and violence will spread to the whole earth). These nations (the Islamic empire) will attack the Church (including Jews) and will attack the nation of Israel if it still exist in those days, but Jesus Christ will return and destroy them all. The Church will not be raptured beforehand but will go through this great tribulation. Jesus will gather the sheep and the goats. The sheep will enter eternal life, inheriting the whole earth, after the Judgement Seat of Christ. The goats will be sent to the Lake of Fire after the Great White Throne Judgment.

    I realize Amillennialism has its own challenges as all of the other views do, but I believe Amillennialism is the most consistent framework for understanding biblical eschatology. I specifically call my position “Amillennialism with an Islamic Antichrist.”

    I enjoy your book “The Islamic Antichrist” very much. Excellent book! This is one of my favorite eschatology books. My other favorite is by an Amillennial and is titled “A Case for Amillennialism” by Kim Riddlebarger.

    Grace and peace,


  • Joel
    Posted at 12:52h, 28 November


    I would largely identify with historic premillennialism. To make a very, perhaps overly simplified statement, the problem with Dispensationalism is most easily distinguished by its relationship with the pre-trib rapture. If we are “outta here soon anyway,” then the “why polish the breaks on a sinking ship?” mentality is often the result. Though I appreciate some of the things expressed by progressive dispensationalists such as Blomberg, Saucy or Bock, I would simply consider myself an “apostolic premillennialist.” I adhere to the premillennialism as I read it in the Bible. I’m not sure what you’ve read or heard that would lead you to believe that I would not identify with historic premillennialism. I do, though if you read When a Jew Rules the World, you will find a more thorough explanation of the details.

    I hope this helps.


  • Joel
    Posted at 13:12h, 28 November


    I generally do not allow posts that will lead to any kind of extensive discussion here, as this blog is not a forum. I simply do not have the time to monitor such.

    But very briefly, amillennialism is a profound deviance from the word of God on multiple matters. Amillennialism denies future grace to the corporate remnant of Israel, it denies the promises of God to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David. It denies that God simply says what He means. It denies the literal future restoration of the kingdom of Israel that the disciples clearly expected (after having just spend 40 days under the direct teaching of the glorified resurrected Christ). Amillennialism is far from offering us a “consistent framework for understanding biblical eschatology”. Rather it is a profound deviance from biblical eschatology. I highly encourage you to read When a Jew Rules the World.

    You said:

    Amillennials do not deny the unconditional promises made to Israel, but only that they will be fulfilled by the New Israel, which is the Church consisting of Jews and Gentiles.

    By changing the very definition of Israel, as it is used by the Lord Himself throughout Scripture, you have indeed denied His unconditional promises. This has profoundly negative consequences for all involved. It has profoundly negative consequences for you particularly, who is denying God’s faithfulness to the ongoing calling unto corporate future grace for those to whom the promises were made. You cannot redefine Israel in a new and different way that eliminates this calling unto future grace for the corporate remnant of Israel at the return of Jesus, (as Paul so carefully discusses in Romans 11) then you are espousing replacement theology. One can dance and skirt the issue in numerous ways. But no matter how subtly and nuanced it is worded, it is still the same old form of the same old vile theology.

    Yes, we have gentiles have been welcomed in. Praise God! But this does not constitute something new which does away with the original promises of God as He stated them over and over and over. I pray you will carefully consider my book as I suggested and reconsider your position on this point.

    Blessings to you!

  • Debbie Wallace
    Posted at 14:31h, 28 November

    so enjoyed this one, I share it with my friends, thank you so much for sharing the truth

  • Alan E. Kurschner
    Posted at 14:56h, 28 November

    Aaron, I would have liked to see you respond to my argument. There is no basis to bifurcate the text at Rev 20:1. There is a cause and effect action: Jesus’ eschatological victory at his second coming causes three enemies of God to be restrained. It is a unified narrative that is arbitrary disrupted by an unfortunate chapter break and reinforced by an amillennial presupposition.

  • Alan E. Kurschner
    Posted at 15:07h, 28 November

    There are various forms of replacement theology and when one form does not agree with another form invariably the objection is “I am not a replacement theologian.” In one form or another, they all deny the promises to future national Israel.

    I am editing a major academic volume with about twenty scholars contributing essays. In the Introduction I am explaining and defining that there are varieties of supersessionism (e.g. N.T. Wright’s supersessionism is not the same as Greg Beale’s). This anticipates the objection of “I am not a supersessionist).

    There are punitive, economic and structural supersessionisms, as explained in Kendall Soulen’s fine volume _The God of Israel and Christian Theology._ Also the first chapter of Matthew Tapie’s _Aquinas on Israel and the Church_ explains the different types of supersessionism.

    My point is that supersessionists can redefine Israel and prophecies all they want in all sorts of ways, but at the end of the day they have replaced the promises given to national Israel with the some other entity (e.g. the “church,” “Jesus,” etc).

  • Aaron Shannon
    Posted at 16:53h, 28 November

    Greetings Alan,

    To be in accordance with Joel’s purpose for this blog, I will be as brief as can be. My purpose was only to offer my two corrections, not to get into any major discussion as my time is also limited. I could refute everything Joel said, but that is beyond the scope of this blog.

    I will just say in regard to Revelation 19 and 20 that I understand the two “chapters” cannot be understood separately. Premillennials look at Revelation through a chronological lense, and I look at it from a recapitulation lense. I used to be premillennial myself, though of the dispensational persuasion, so I am able to look at eschatology from both lenses. From a chronological lense, I can see the “cause and effect action,” but then I run into too many problems with the rest of Scripture. Recapitulation seems to overcome those problems, although I admit there are different problems to face, but of lesser degree.

    Well thank you Joel and Alan for your precious time.

    Grace to you,


  • Aaron Shannon
    Posted at 17:00h, 28 November

    [I accidentally spelled “lens” wrong. If you are able to fix that, great. If not, that’s okay]

  • Joel
    Posted at 17:59h, 28 November

    I could refute everything Joel said

    Well, at least we are humble…

  • Alan E. Kurschner
    Posted at 18:30h, 28 November

    Hi Aaron,

    “Premillennials look at Revelation through a chronological lense, and I look at it from a recapitulation lense”

    i. Are you then claiming that Satan wins over Christ? That is what you are saying when you reject a chronological reading. Revelation teaches chronologically that Satan will (first) persecute God’s people, then (second) Jesus will have victory of Satan.

    ii. Invoking “recapituation” is not answer to my question.

    First, the text does recapitulate back to what happens at the sixth bowl. But that is a separate issue to the cause and effect issue.

    Second, you still have not given any basis to why you should bifurcate the cause and effect action in that narrative discourse at Rev. 20:1. The victory of Jesus occurring at the eschatological battle causes the binding of Satan; therefore, amills are wrong to lift up the binding and retroject that event back at the first coming of Christ.

    Incidentally, there are no amill theologians who are willing to debate me on this point. Their MO, invariably, is to go _outside_ the text. Amills cannot walk through this narrative without disrupting its unified discourse. They cannot do that because of their presupposition. And that is indicative of a tradition at work.


  • Lynn
    Posted at 04:07h, 29 November

    Hi Joel,
    Another great episode of The Underground.
    It is so good to hear the premillennialism teaching discussed so clearly.
    I live in SAfrica and wish that your material was freely available here.
    However, I forward your teachings on to others here.
    Many blessings to you and your family.
    May the LORD constantly be Glorified in all that you endeavour to do for Him.

  • Josh
    Posted at 07:06h, 29 November

    Thanks for taking the time to explain your position, Joel, to a far less than amateur theologian.

    I think I need to research the historical position more for myself. I assumed it to be more figurative in it’s application of Daniel and Revelation and not as literal as your interpretations of Biblical prophecy. If I’m feeling a need to study more, that’s definitely a good thing for me.

    Again we are very grateful for your work. During the long, dark, isolated months of winter in bush Alaska, it’s a tremendous blessing to be reminded of God’s promises and to be informed of how He is moving right now to fulfill them across the Earth! We look forward to more from Joel’s trumpet. Thanks again!


  • Joel
    Posted at 13:11h, 29 November


    My book, When a Jew Rules the World was just released in Afrikaans. Check for it on Amazon.

    Bless you!

  • Olivia
    Posted at 15:56h, 29 November

    Hi Joel ! Well, the day we got back from Israel, PAris got attacked. Who would have believed it ? I have nice pictures of our trip and have really appreciated beeing with all those americans ! Switzerland seems to remain the only country with no threat. I’ve signed up to give refugees french conversation classes a good way to reaach them with the gospel.
    Read somewhere : “The only chance of peace was born in the middle east” or something close. Joli, non ?

    Hope to see you again ! Olivia

  • Joel
    Posted at 21:54h, 29 November

    Hi Olivia,

    It was great to spend time with you in Israel. We had such great time. We didn’t expect the Swiss lady to be so feisty! Thanks for the chocolates and the shirt for Sarah.

    Yes, it was something to land and hear all of the terrible news. Not to mention the ongoing attacks in Jerusalem.

    Will post another video momentarily on the refugee crisis. Even since recording the video, we are getting reports of several new believers among the refugees daily.

    Bless you Olivia.

  • Olivia
    Posted at 08:14h, 30 November

    JOel ! I’ve just looked at the video of your friend in the Balkans. It’s heartbreaking, all these people with nothing left… This is why I’m looking foward to teach french to them, because there is so much more we can give them ! This is our first mission, isn’t it ?
    Joel, can you send me you adress here or on my e-mail ? I have somenthing on my heart for you and your kids….



  • David Roberts
    Posted at 01:33h, 23 December

    If Satan is bound now, how does he give his power to the Antichrist to work counterfeit signs and wonders? If Satan is bound now, how do demon spirits come out of the mouth of the dragon?

  • David Roberts
    Posted at 09:25h, 23 December

    In case anyone didn’t understand Alan Kurschner when he said bifurcate. 🙂


Post A Comment