16 Responses

1. Thank you for posting about this!

2. Hi Kurt,

   By definition a Historic or Classic Premillennialist would be one who holds to the views of the early Church without the trappings of modern Dispensationalism. So of course, this would be best represented by Irenaeus and Hippolytus, the two most prolific premillennilaist / eschatological writers of the early Church. I e-mailed Prof. Blomberg and asked him the following question:

   As a Historic Premillennialist, do you still hold that Daniel’s final 70th week is future? I am aware that this was the view of Hippolytus and assumedly of Ireneaus as well, (though he does not state so outright). Thanks in advance.

   His response:

   On balance, most likely.

   To which I shot back:

   So you would lean toward the notion that the AC will literally abominate a literal future Temple etc.?

   His response:

   Not necessarily a literal temple, no, given the way “temple” is used throughout the NT–could be a body of Christian believers or church

   So while giving a “most likely” for a future literal 7 year period, he gave a “not necessarily” regarding the literal Temple. So it appears we would both find an ally, or opponent for our respective positions in Blomberg. : )

   I can also check to see if there is anything on the subject in the book he co-edited on the subject “The Case for Historic Premillennialism”. Great read, by the way.

   As an aside, I generally love Blomberg. I sought a review from him when I wrote Mideast Beast, but he was less than enthusiastic about the very notion. Though disappointed, I understood his reaction however, as on the surface, it probably appears to be just more sensationalism and prognostication etc.

   Blessings

3. Hi Joel,

   Thanks for the links.

   Just a quick response to Blomberg’s statement:

   “Not necessarily a literal temple, no, given the way “temple” is used throughout the NT–could be a body of Christian believers or church.”

   i. It is a common objection for those who deny a literal future temple, especially from historicists.

   ii. It is a fallacious means of interpretation. We do not “count noses”, if you will, on how a word is used elsewhere (especially in completely unrelated contexts) and then read that meaning into another text, for example, Paul’s statement of the temple in 2 Thess 2:3. T

   It is irrelevant how words, or in this example, concepts, are used “throughout” the NT. The exegete should be concerned about the immediate context.

   iii. Even for the sake of the argument, “temple” often is used in a literal sense throughout the NT. But again, that analysis skews the target text.

   iv. On pages 209–210 of my book _Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord_ I provide extensive argumentation showing that “temple” in 2 Thess 2:3 refers to a literal temple.

   As a futurist premillennialist I do have some commonalities with historical premillennialists; but I believe their historicist tendencies make their position inconsistent, which reflects, in this instance, on the literal-future issue.

   Okay, that’s all.

   Thanks Joel!

   Alan Kurschner

4. Hi Alan,

   Fully agree concerning your thoughts on context.

   Simply because “temple” is uses several times in the NT in a metaphorical sense, in no way does this give us any basis to retroactively reinterpret literal passages, such as in Daniel in a metaphorical sense. Daniel’s immediate audience obviously would have understood the four references to the AC desecrating the Temple as very literal in every way. Nor does it give us any basis to understand a passage such as 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as being metaphorical. There is no indication in the text that it should be read spiritually, and therefore any effort to interpret it as such would be as absurd as interpreting for example a passage from the gospels that say “Jesus went into the Temple” as being non-literal. The hermeneutic that argues for a spiritual interpretation of “temple” in 2 Thessalonians or Daniel or Revelation 11 is identical to the hermeneutic of suprecessionism employed by replacement theologians. While there are some passages in the NT that indicate for example that a Jew is not a Jew unless they’re a believer, or that all who are of faith are children of Abraham, in no way shape or form does this mean that we can thus go back and reinterpret passages throughout the OT that speak of Jews or Israel as referring to the Church. Likewise, there is no basis for reinterpreting literal passages about the Temple in a spiritual sense. I was disappointed by Blomberg’s response.

   As a futurist premillennialist I do have some commonalities with historical premillennialists; but I believe their historicist tendencies make their position inconsistent, which reflects, in this instance, on the literal-future issue.

   For clarity, by calling myself a “Historical Premillennialist,” indeed I am a futurist Premillennialist in every sense and not a “historicist” in any way.

   Good comments Alan.

   Blessings,
   Joel

5. Joel,

   Thanks for the correction; I meant 2 Thess 2:4, not v. 3.

   Exactly –> “The hermeneutic that argues for a spiritual interpretation of “temple” in 2 Thessalonians or Daniel or Revelation 11 is identical to the hermeneutic of suprecessionism employed by replacement theologians.”

   Just a couple comments on the label “Historic Premillennialist.” It is a bit flexible. I have always understood it to denote a (1) denial of a future 70th week of Daniel as well as (2) a future _reconstituted nation_ of Israel (contra Dispensationalism).

   And calling myself a Dispensationalist Premiller has pretrib associations. So I usually just say “premillennialist” or “futurist premillennialist,” to stress the futurist in my eschatology.

   In any event, I hope the interviews will be a benefit for readers. I want to respond to Svigel’s answers in the near future. I found it interesting, but not surprising, that he focused most of his argument on Revelation 12:5, which tells me that his pretribulationism does not have much explicit support in Scripture.

   Thanks,

   Alan

6. Alan: First of all thank you for joining us in these comment sections. I love your exegesis.

   All: Can the rapture be both post-trib and pre-wrath? I think it can if the tribulation ends prior to God’s wrath being poured out. In fact, I believe this is what scripture teaches. The last half of Daniels final “7” is 42 months, time, times and half a time or 1260 days. All of these lengths of time being the same. Yet Daniel 12:11-12 states: “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.” So obviously after the great tribulation there are additional time periods of 30 days and 45 days ordained. If the rapture occurs during this 30 day period after the Great Tribulation it fulfills Matthew 24:29 “After the tribulation of those days” (the 1260 days). Thus it is post-trib. If the Wrath of God is poured out later in that 30 day period it is also Pre-Wrath. This fits perfectly with a rapture on Rosh Hashanah, Wrath being poured out throughout the Days of Awe and Armageddon on The Day of Atonement. If this is the 1290th day, the 45 day period then would land on Hanukkah.

   Jim

7. That is my understanding, a post-trib rapture, after the full 3 1/2 years of antiChrist’s rule, and God’s wrath follows; and we are protected from that wrath.

   I refer to myself as a historic (or classic) premillennialist, in the understanding of futurist premillennial, post-trib, and in agreement with the earlier historic premillennialism of the 19th century premillennialists.

   Blomberg apparently is of the newer, George Ladd style historic premillennial: not necessarily futurist; spiritualizing OT scriptures as about the church age instead of Israel’s future restoration; a “one text premillennialism” based on Rev. 20 while ignoring all the other scriptures that teach the fact of a future intermediate kingdom age.

8. Brothers and sisters I am not in any way an historic Premillenialist. Alan your comment “It is irrelevant how words, or in this example, concepts, are used “throughout” the NT. The exegete should be concerned about the immediate context.” How words are used is important and we can learn by how it is used in other places in the new Testament and sometimes with qualifications of how it is used in the Old Testament. Proper hermeneutics does include how they are used elsewhere, however the greatest weight and consideration is the immediate context which is not just word exegesis, but the whole sentence and paragraph has to fit and also the chapter. Looking at the book is a wider context as well as the rest of the NT.

   Joel, I fully believe in a future for the Jews and Israel as an entity and the temple. Joel, your good example regarding the Jews in the NT can also be used where regarding the use of the elect of God or just elect, which many Pre-tribbers teach are only Jews in Matthew, Mark or Luke (Olivet discourse)because the church is deleted. When we look at elect in the New Testament there is no place that it refers to the Jews only as a race. But we find that it always is God’s people in the New Testament, which is of course church and His disciples.

   Alan, Your comment about “I found it interesting, but not surprising, that he focused most of his argument on Revelation 12:5, which tells me that his pretribulationism does not have much explicit support in Scripture.” I personally commend Michael on breaking ranks from pretribber and all of us futuristic guys regarding daring to say that the Man-child was anything other than Jesus. It may not be quite as bad as going against the doctrine of imminency but it isn’t far behind it. He i am sure feels that this is a truth that God is or has revealed to him. It is most certainly new to most all Pre-millenialists that it needs to be looked at in the context of Rev. 4:1, that God is going to show future things from John’s writing at 90-95 A.D. Hence it cannot be talking of Jesus birth or resurrection in chapter 12. The pretrib scriptures and positions have been gone over so much in the past, with certain aspects not having great credibilty that it is certainly very interesting and I think is very commendable and shows that Michel Svigel is open to new truth coming in segments, however it being still couched in the pre-trib viewpoint. There are many questions or comments that can be made regarding Michel’s comments which would not fit in well with the total pre-trib perspective as I noted to you Alan in another email. We deal with the man-child on pages 135-139 in my book “Worthy to Escape”, why all believers will not be raptured before the tribulation!! To me he is adding something new to the mix, similar to the truths being brought forth on a large scale by the Pre-wrath people, thank you Alan and certainly Marvin Rosenthal needs to be commended for breaking from the Pre-trib camp of people back in the late 80’s for his beliefs, it takes men of courage to get us all to the point of Dan. 12:4, 9, 10. That the vision and the endtimes truth would be sealed up and would end up being progressively revealed back to the church especially in the last 300 years. Daniel says many will be purged, purified and refined, but the wise will understand. This has been the plan of god since the futuristic view was replaced by amillenialism in the 400’s and didn’t comeback on the scene until late 1600’s and Joseph Mede, and Premillenialism and post-tribulationism was reborn. Then Pretrib came in by James Darby along with some others who were actually partial rapturists. A few became mid-trib, and most partial rapturists died out. Pre-wrath came forth and has become acceptable especially from Marvin Rosenthal. Many others are picking up the baton as is Alan Kurchner and I am thankful to have met and conversed with you. Our collective hearts are for getting the body of Christ woken up and to be more ready and prepared to meet Jesus our Messiah. I hope I can help give us a larger perspective on what is happening regarding our beloved subject on the end-times and to the timing of the rapture or raptures (as in 2) as I would put it. I see a truth in all three positions, that there is something that will happen at the three times, before the trib, pre-wrath sometime after the middle, but a while before the end when Christ comes on a white horse at the Armageddon for battle and to the Mount of Olives at the end of the trib. so hence 3 aspects to Christ’s return. Blessings Marlon

9. I’m not sure what the two have to do with one another. It is quite possible to believe that Daniel’s 70th Week has already been fulfilled in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and still believe it’s possible that a future Third Temple may be constructed. The two ideas are not at all mutually exclusive. In other words, there is nothing about the NT references to a future temple which require a future 70th week.

10. Pastor Don,

    The text itself makes it impossible for the 70 weeks to have been fulfilled in 70 AD.

    “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.

    This verse defines the subject of the 70 weeks. It is for Daniel’s people; the Jews, and the city of Jerusalem. The six elements of the prophecy have not been fulfilled for the Jews, namely (1) to make an end of sin, (2) to make atonement for iniquity, (3) to bring in everlasting righteousness, (4) to seal up vision and prophecy and (5) to anoint the most holy place. And these things most certainly were not fulfilled in 70 AD for the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem, in fact it was literally the opposite. These things will be fulfill when Christ returns, and all Israel is saved per Paul’s very strong and clear words in Romans 11 and according to the words of the prophet Zechariah, chapter 12.

    You said, “there is nothing about the NT references to a future temple which require a future 70th week.”

    Jesus Olivet Discourse makes this quite clear that the Abomination of Desolations spoken of by Daniel, in this chapter, and then spoken of again in Daniel 8, 11, 12 is in the last days, yet future to both Jesus and us. It has not yet taken place.

    I hope this has been helpful.
    Blessings,
    Joel

11. Joel wrote: The text itself make it impossible for the 70 weeks to have been fulfilled in 70 AD.

    “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.

    This verse defines the subject of the 70 weeks. It is for Daniel’s people; the Jews, and the city of Jerusalem. The six elements of the prophecy have not been fulfilled for the Jews, namely (1) to make an end of sin, (2) to make atonement for iniquity, (3) to bring in everlasting righteousness, (4) to seal up vision and prophecy and (5) to anoint the most holy place. And these things most certainly were not fulfilled in 70 AD for the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem, in fact it was literally the opposite.

    My reply: But Joel. Not only does “the text itself” NOT “make it impossible”…the text actually proves the polar opposite. It’s amazing to me that we can both read the same text and see totally different things. That is exactly what DID happen through Christ’s atoning death. When Christ uttered the words “It is finished” and the veil separating us literally and figuratively from The Most Holy Place was torn from top to bottom, at that moment every single one of those things you listed went from being ‘unfulfilled’ to ‘fulfilled’. From that moment forward, Jesus followers were commissioned to go out preaching The Gospel of the Kingdom to all…to the Jew first and also to the Gentile. And they did. They preached Christ and Him crucified. And they went throughout Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria proclaiming this message.

    In fact, The Book of Hebrews (written to Jews, both believers and unbelievers) exhausts the fact that when Jesus died on the cross, the Levitical system of sacrifice was finished forever…over and done with. The shadow has passed…the reality of what Christ has accomplished on the cross has done away with it.

    Furthermore, the dispensationalist’s strained reading of The Olivet Discourse only further clouds the issue. One need only read it from Luke 21 to have all confusion cleared away. “And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” There you have it, from the plain meaning of Jesus’ own words. When the Temple was desecrated and Jerusalem was destroyed, the Jewish people were scattered. The Diaspora of first century was the obvious fulfillment of these texts. We no longer need to look for a future fulfillment.

    However, that does NOT mean that Israel’s regathering is not prophetically significant OR that a future temple will not be built. In fact, I contend that one WILL be built. Only the religion that will build it might well NOT be the religion that dispensationalists have always insisted it will be. Joel, you of all people should get this. What exactly will a Muslim Antichrist do.

    1. He will unite all of Islam as one brotherhood, speaking with one voice and acting in one accord.

    2. He will turn on the Jews with a vengeance.

    3. He will persecute the Christian church with a vengeance.

    4. He will proclaim himself to be Islam’s final end times prophet…the very mouthpiece through which Allah speaks.

    This man could very well build the mosque to end all mosques on the site of Qubbat As-Sakhrah and then seat himself in that place as Islam’s Last Imam. Would that not fulfill Scripture right to the very letter? I believe that it would.

12. Pastor Don,

    First, I am not a dispensationalist.

    Second, and simply stated, what the cross provided for, has not yet been realized. When Christ said that “it is finished” we did not immediately received our resurrected bodies. The provision had been fully provided for, but its realization is most certainly yet to come. This is biblical faith 101.

    Third, those things listed in Daniel 9:24 also have been provided for at the cross, but in no way shape of form can it be said that they have already taken place. Certainly not for Israel and Jerusalem. The only way one could make such a claim would be to reinterpret Israel and Jerusalem in a supercessionist fashion and insert the Church into those passages. Needless to say, one need not look too far back into history to observe the unintended bloody consequences of such theological arrogance (Romans 11:20).

    Concerning Luke 21, it is plainly speaking of the last days and has nothing to do with 70 A.D.

13. Joel wrote: First, I am not a dispensationalist.

    My reply: I never said that you were. You contend that Daniel’s Seventy Weeks are yet to be fulfilled in the future. That is a central tenet of dispensationalism. I interacted with it as such. I’m sorry if that created any confusion.

    Joel wrote: Second, and simply stated, what the cross provided for, has not yet been realized. When Christ said that “it is finished” we did not immediately received our resurrected bodies. The provision had been fully provided for, but its realization is most certainly yet to come. This is biblical faith 101.

    My reply: Again, I never said that all that the cross has provided for has been “realized” or anything of the sort. That sounds a bit like you are trying to categorize me with those who embrace ‘realized eschatology’ or ‘full preterism’…neither of which I believe. I am a premillennial futurist – just like you. What I said was that all of the things listed in Daniel 9:24 have already been fulfilled. Because they have. Just because the full benefits of the atonement are not yet MINE does not mean that full atonement for sin has not been MADE…there is a HUGE difference. As the song says: “Jesus paid it all”. Christ’s death on the cross was a finished work. We are not waiting for “an end of sin” or “atonement for iniquity” or “everlasting righteousness” to happen. Through Christ’s eternal merit, those things have already been graciously purchased. We are redeemed. That is indeed Biblical Faith 101.

    Joel wrote: Third, those things listed in Daniel 9:24 also have been provided for at the cross, but in no way shape of form can it be said that they have already taken place. Certainly not for Israel and Jerusalem. The only way one could make such a claim would be to reinterpret Israel and Jerusalem in a supercessionist fashion and insert the Church into those passages. Needless to say, one need not look too far back into history to observe the unintended bloody consequences of such theological arrogance.

    My reply: And once again, you are categorizing me theologically with ideas I do NOT agree with. Look Joel, you can set up and knock down straw men all day long. But it won’t make your reasoning any less fallacious. There is NOTHING about what I believe which would make me hate Jews or wish to do them any harm. To imply that my views necessarily lead to anti-semitism is inflammatory and the theological equivalent of ‘playing the race card’. I am not an anti-semite. I am not a supercessionist. I simply believe that Christ died once for all – whether Jew or Gentile – and that his death makes atonement for all sinners and all sin. I’m not sure what that has to do with “leaving out” Israel and Jerusalem. Christ died for their sins too and offers them the same opportunity to avail themselves of His grace. In fact, The Gospel went “first to the Jews” as I have already stated above. I’m not sure what part of that sounds anti-semitic.

    Joel wrote: Concerning Luke 21, it is plainly speaking of the last days and has nothing to do with 70 A.D.

    My reply: No Joel. It is not “plainly speaking”. If it were, then we would not be having this discussion. Nor would theologians down through the ages have debated these issues. What IS plain is that Jesus is speaking to his disciples of the future destruction of Jerusalem, the scattering of the Jewish people and Gentile control of Jerusalem for an undefined period of time. Since all of these things have already occurred in history, the burden of proof lies with those who insist that this passage refers to some yet future fulfillment.

14. It’s worth noting as well that the one who causes the abomination will be destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming. So there is no way that this could have taken place in 70 AD.

    “And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming…” (2 Thess. 2:8)

15. Don,

    First, I’m giving you fair warning. If you continue to allow your comments to denigrate further into an argumentative and accusatory tone, this will be your last post.

    You said:

    I’m sorry if that created any confusion.

    No need to apologize. I simply stated this for clarity.

    To the point, on one hand, you have inserted yourself into a passage the stated context of which specifically is concerning the Jewish people and Jerusalem, while on the other hand, you are denying that you are espousing an interpretation that is supercessionist in its approach. No straw man here, I’m just mirroring your own statements back to you. You cannot have it both ways.

    Again, the six items specified in v. 24 have not been fulfilled. So long as Israel is largely in unbelief and Jerusalem is not a praise in the earth, this is yet to be fulfilled. Saying that it has been provided for and saying that it has been fulfilled are two very different things. You are clearly confusing categories.

    You also deny adhering to realized eschatology but also claim that you are already fully and really redeemed:

    We are not waiting for “an end of sin” or “atonement for iniquity” or “everlasting righteousness” to happen. Through Christ’s eternal merit, those things have already been graciously purchased. We are redeemed. That is indeed Biblical Faith 101.

    Your redemption has indeed been purchased, but not realized. The present tense language used throughout the NT is simply the prophetic present tense used within oracles throughout the Scriptures. Another way of saying it is that it is “future certainty expressed through present tense language.” But only those who adhere to realized eschatology actually believe that is has been truly realized already. Your future redemption has been fully provided for, yes, the Holy Spirit is God’s pledge of its future realization, but you’re redemption has not actually been realized yet. So long as you have a dying, sinful body, you are not redeemed. Saying that you are redeemed is true only in the sense that He has guaranteed its future certainty. (If we remain faithful, that is).

    Future redemption:

    “Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory.
    Tools specific to Luk 21:28 But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

    Future redemption:

    And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

    Future redemption:

    who is given as a pledge of our (future) inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

    Future redemption:

    Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

    As for Luke 21:20-22, let me ask you this question: Does Jesus’ warning of J’lem being surrounded by armies speak of this event as if it occurs with suddenness or not?

    Blessings

16. Nick wrote: It’s worth noting as well that the one who causes the abomination will be destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming. So there is no way that this could have taken place in 70 AD. “And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming…” 2 Thessalonians 2:8

    My reply: It’s also worth noting that there is no mention of the A of D in conjunction with the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2. In fact, the A of D is never mentioned anywhere in conjunction with Antichrist.