Historic Pre-Mil Resources

[Gorgon]

Hello all,

I'm considering the end times and an wondering if there are any Historic Pre-Mil folks (or anyone, really) here who could point me to some resources in support of that position?

Thanks!

 

[RamistThomist]

The most common one is A Case for Historic Premillennialism. Even when I was historic premil, though, I didn't think it was that good. Only about half of the essays were any good. There is an audio where Blomberg outlines his position and he does a good job. Russell Moore has some fine material on historic premil.

 

[DMcFadden]

Jacob is correct that the standard text these days is the one edited by Blomberg and Chung. When I was historic premil, I used my old profs, Ladd and Gundry.

George Eldon Ladd
The Blessed Hope . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. ISBN 0-8028-1111-6
The Gospel of the Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959. ISBN 0-8028-1280-5
A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. ISBN 0-8028-1684-3
The Last Things (An Eschatology For Laymen). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
A Theology of the New Testament. 2d ed. Edited by Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. ISBN 0-8028-0680-5
The Presence of the Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. ISBN 0-8028-1531-6

Robert H. Gundry
The Church and the Tribulation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.
First the Antichrist: Why Christ Won’t Come Before the Antichrist Does. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. ISBN 0-8010-5764-7

in my opinion, the commentary on Revelation is one of Ladd's weakest books. Still, Ladd is the major historic premillennialist in the 20th century. Gundry uses modified dispensational hermeneutical presuppositions to get to a posttrib view. He is still worth reading, despite his "midrash" view of Matthew which Geisler used in his campaign to drum him out of the ETS in the early '80s. Gundry is a logical and incisive thinker. [Bias alert: I took nearly 30 units from Gundry in college and he officiated at my wedding 39 years ago]

You can download MP3 lectures on the subject at http://www.denverseminary.edu/resources/international-conference-on-historic-premillennialism/. It features some of the same authors as the Blomberg and Chung book.

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob is correct that the standard text these days is the one edited by Blomberg and Chung. When I was historic premil, I used my old profs, Ladd and Gundry.

George Eldon Ladd
The Blessed Hope . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. ISBN 0-8028-1111-6
The Gospel of the Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959. ISBN 0-8028-1280-5
A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. ISBN 0-8028-1684-3
The Last Things (An Eschatology For Laymen). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
A Theology of the New Testament. 2d ed. Edited by Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. ISBN 0-8028-0680-5
The Presence of the Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. ISBN 0-8028-1531-6

Robert H. Gundry
The Church and the Tribulation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.
First the Antichrist: Why Christ Won’t Come Before the Antichrist Does. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. ISBN 0-8010-5764-7

in my opinion, the commentary on Revelation is one of Ladd's weakest books. Still, Ladd is the major historic premillennialist in the 20th century. Gundry uses modified dispensational hermeneutical presuppositions to get to a posttrib view. He is still worth reading, despite his "midrash" view of Matthew which Geisler used in his campaign to drum him out of the ETS in the early '80s. Gundry is a logical and incisive thinker. [Bias alert: I took nearly 30 units from Gundry in college and he officiated at my wedding 39 years ago]

You can download MP3 lectures on the subject at Denver Seminary > International Conference on Historic Premillennialism. It features some of the same authors as the Blomberg and Chung book.

That was the audio I was looking for, but I couldn't remember which one. Blomberg's speech is the best. The rest are moderate to weak.

 

[Gorgon]

You can download MP3 lectures on the subject at http://www.denverseminary.edu/resour...millennialism/. It features some of the same authors as the Blomberg and Chung book.

Thanks, listening to it now.

I also read this little list by Sam Storms and I find it convincing, although that might just be because I haven't studied this all that much. I found what I feel are errors in Storms' work and was wondering how Pre-Mils respond to these?

If you are a Premillennialist (whether Dispensationalist or not), there are several things you must necessarily believe:

You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s second coming.

You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ’s second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the fall of man.

You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.

You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

Amillennialists don't see these beliefs being taught in Scripture.

Thanks for your help!

 

[Pilgrim]

I know this is an oversimpification, but to me modern post-Ladd "historic premil" too often boils down to "We don't see how Rev. 20 doesn't teach a millennial reign but we don't know what the purpose of this reign is because we don't think OT prophecy has any connection to it." This is perhaps especially the case with preachers who are "historic premil" because they aren't amil and aren't dispensational and were turned off by "Left Behind" and similar things and so are burned out on the topic.

Perhaps the biggest problem with "historic" premillennialism is that for 100 years, give or take, it has tended to define itself by what it is not. I'm not sure if the Blomberg volume is much help in that regard although I understand it does have some useful articles.

I think Ladd's biggest influence has probably been his teaching on the Kingdom of God and his Already/Not Yet emphasis that seems to permeate places like SBTS, whether the teacher is premil or amil. Schreiner has been both. Speaking of him, he gave a message at Clifton Baptist Church (KY) in which he goes into his reasons for switching to premil from amil. It's from about 3-4 years ago and may still be on their website. There was a chat on eschatology among SBTS faculty members a few years ago too that may still be online and also a discussion there from about 7-10 years ago that went into greater detail and was on a more scholoarly level, including scholars from other instituttions.

With regard to resources, I've linked a few. Most of these sites contain older articles by historic premils, interspersed with some others:

Providence Baptist Ministries Eschatology Page
Rediscovering the Bible
Theology Articles and essays
Charles H. Spurgeon and Eschatology
Charles H. Spurgeon and the Nation of Israel
Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony

Some good books to delve into include:

J.C. Ryle's Are You Ready for the End of Time? (Originally entitled "Coming Events and Present Duties" and available online). See also Ryle's comments on the Olivet Discourse in his "Expository Thoughts on the Gospels." I think he goes into more detail in Luke than in Matt. or Mark.

Horatius Bonar, "Prophetic Landmarks"

The Spurgeon sermons cited by Swanson in the above linked articles.

Norman F. Douty The Abrahamic Covenant In an earlier book, "The Great Tribulation Debate" Douty mounted an attack on Scofieldism. (That particular book, which was published around the same time as Ladd's "Blessed Hope" and other post-trib books, is probably most valuable for its annotated bibliography.) In "The Abrahamic Covenant" he trains his guns on amillennialism. in my opinion this is a helpful book that is basically a restatement of 19th and early 20th Century Historic/Covenantal Premillennialism. As with many of the above, this shows that the older historic premils had much more of a place for Israel in the millennium than do latter day nondispensational premils. This includes many quotes from older writers, including Anglicans, Presbyterians (Free Church of Scotland and others), Baptists, Lutheran outliers (George N.H. Peters) etc. I posted some excerpts from Douty's chapter on hermeneutics here. Lest one think that comes across as overly "dispensationalistic" or "Zionist," one can find similar rhetoric and argumentation in works by Ryle, Bonar, Spurgeon, Alexander Keith and other Calvinistic historic premils.

Three Views on the Rapture is an intramural debate among professors affiliated with Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and the Evangelical Free Church. (All profs and ministers in that denomination are supposed to be premil.) It contains a helpful introduction by Richard Reiter that traces the development of premillennialism, the rise and development of dispensationalism, the split in the premil community that erupted over the timing of the rapture around the turn of the 20th century and subsequent developments. I think Dr. Moo's essay defending post-tribulationism is available on his personal website. (I have a PDF copy somewhere and I think that's where I got it.) And this book, along with many recent ones, is probably partially available online as a preview on Google Books and/or Amazon.

Dr. Walter Kaiser is also a noted premillennialist of the nondispensational variety.

 

[RamistThomist]

Storms raises some good points, but even when i was hard core premil, I could have easily responded, "Those aren't arguments against the system. He is taking what he thinks are absurdities and forcing the premillennialist to swallow them. Few premils will balk at any of the above reductios."

You can download MP3 lectures on the subject at http://www.denverseminary.edu/resour...millennialism/. It features some of the same authors as the Blomberg and Chung book.

Thanks, listening to it now.

I also read this little list by Sam Storms and I find it convincing, although that might just be because I haven't studied this all that much. I found what I feel are errors in Storms' work and was wondering how Pre-Mils respond to these?

If you are a Premillennialist (whether Dispensationalist or not), there are several things you must necessarily believe:

You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s second coming.

You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ’s second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the fall of man.

You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.

You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

Amillennialists don't see these beliefs being taught in Scripture.

Thanks for your help!

 

[Pilgrim]

You can download MP3 lectures on the subject at http://www.denverseminary.edu/resour...millennialism/. It features some of the same authors as the Blomberg and Chung book.

Thanks, listening to it now.

I also read this little list by Sam Storms and I find it convincing, although that might just be because I haven't studied this all that much. I found what I feel are errors in Storms' work and was wondering how Pre-Mils respond to these?

If you are a Premillennialist (whether Dispensationalist or not), there are several things you must necessarily believe:

You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s second coming.

You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ’s second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the fall of man.

You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.

You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

Amillennialists don't see these beliefs being taught in Scripture.

Thanks for your help!

All of these have been "asked and answered" many years ago, although not to the satisfaction of amils of course. It may be that these considerations led Storms to abandon his previously held dispensational and premillennial beliefs. He may be thinking that many who were raised or first taught premil (and probably of the Dispensational variety) have not grappled with these and may be easily swayed. There's little doubt about that. There can be a tendency to jump ship or reject a certain teaching because we don't like the implications of it or what we see as the implications of it. Premils can turn around and say that the amil interpretation of Rev is impossible, that amils can discard 1/3 of the OT and be none the worse for it and so on.

Storms has recently published a weighty tome defending Amillennialism. Some are already calling it definitive.

Storms, like G. Beale, had previously had some connection to Believers Chapel in Dallas, which is perhaps most notable due to its association with the late Dr. S. Lewis Johnson. SLJ had to leave Dallas Seminary in the late 70's over his embrace of particular redemption. His messages on that site are a great resource. While not covenantal, toward the end of his ministry he basically abandoned dispensationalism. One could perhaps say he sort of became progressive dispensational, but he evidently abandoned pre-tribulationalism as well. Robert Duncan Culver seems to have made a similar shift decades prior to that as evidenced by his "Daniel and the Latter Days" which is available on on the "Rediscovering the Bible" site that I linked to earlier. (I'm not sure about the legality of that PDF copy, however as it is surely still under copyright despite being out of print. But the site owner may have been a former student and may have somehow gotten permission. Regardless the book is readily available on the used market, and Culver's Systematic is also in print.)

I'm not a "Pan-Mil" by any stretch of the imagination. But the group in the NT who thought they had eschatology all figured out aren't portrayed as the good guys. I think many would agree that every view has its weak points and texts that may seem to be problematic.

 

[RamistThomist]

You can download MP3 lectures on the subject at http://www.denverseminary.edu/resour...millennialism/. It features some of the same authors as the Blomberg and Chung book.

Thanks, listening to it now.

I also read this little list by Sam Storms and I find it convincing, although that might just be because I haven't studied this all that much. I found what I feel are errors in Storms' work and was wondering how Pre-Mils respond to these?

If you are a Premillennialist (whether Dispensationalist or not), there are several things you must necessarily believe:

You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s second coming.

You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ’s second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the fall of man.

You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.

You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

Amillennialists don't see these beliefs being taught in Scripture.

Thanks for your help!

All of these have been "asked and answered" many years ago, although not to the satisfaction of amils of course. It may be that these considerations led Storms to abandon his previously held dispensational and premillennial beliefs. He may be thinking that many who were raised or first taught premil (and probably of the Dispensational variety) have not grappled with these and may be easily swayed. There's little doubt about that. There can be a tendency to jump ship or reject a certain teaching because we don't like the implications of it or what we see as the implications of it. Premils can turn around and say that the amil interpretation of Rev is impossible, that amils can discard 1/3 of the OT and be none the worse for it and so on.

Storms has recently published a weighty tome defending Amillennialism. Some are already calling it definitive.

Storms, like G. Beale, had previously had some connection to Believers Chapel in Dallas, which is perhaps most notable due to its association with the late Dr. S. Lewis Johnson. SLJ had to leave Dallas Seminary in the late 70's over his embrace of particular redemption. His messages on that site are a great resource. While not covenantal, toward the end of his ministry he basically abandoned dispensationalism. One could perhaps say he sort of became progressive dispensational, but he evidently abandoned pre-tribulationalism as well. Robert Duncan Culver seems to have made a similar shift decades prior to that as evidenced by his "Daniel and the Latter Days" which is available on one of the sites I linked to earlier. (I'm not sure about the legality of that PDF copy, however as it is surely still under copyright despite being out of print. But the site owner may have been a former student and may have somehow gotten permission. Regardless the book is readily available on the used market, and Culver's Systematic is also in print.)

I'm not a "Pan-Mil" by any stretch of the imagination. But the group in the NT who thought they had eschatology all figured out aren't portrayed as the good guys. I think many would agree that every view has its weak points and texts that may seem to be problematic.

That's essentially what I was trying to say.

 

[Pilgrim]

Presbyterian Premillennialism

Premil used to be a popularly held view among conservative Presbyterians too, although generally not among more strictly confessional ones. Some were dispensational, like Scofield, Chafer and Barnhouse (and the early James Montgomery Boice.) By the middle of the 20th Century, those often ended up in independency, (especially if they were connected to Dallas Seminary) often starting independent "Bible" churches.

But others were non-dispensational, at least with regard to their overall theology. Notables include J. Oliver Buswell, Francis Schaeffer, J. Barton Payne, Gordon H. Clark and the later James Montgomery Boice. Covenant seminary in St. Louis was founded by men who had split from the Bible Presbyterian Church, which had previously split from what became the OPC over eschatology. It appears that most if not all of their early faculty was premillennial.

Representative works from this school include:

Buswell's Systematic Theology. I think he ends up taking a mid-trib view but I haven't read that part yet.

Schaeffer's lengthy lecture series on Revelation and on Prophecy (You'll have to search for these or else click through the pages to get to them.) Many will be surprised to learn that he teaches pre-trib here. While these messages are from the 1960's, he apparently never abandoned those views although he also evidently gave them less weight over time. But his futurism is clear in a sermon contained in "No Little People" that was published in the mid 1970's.) But he also upheld the unity of the covenant of grace. Perhaps it could be said that he had a "dispensational" eschatology and a "covenantal" ecclesiology (he clearly affirms the latter elsewhere.) Apparently this was not so uncommon among Bible Presbyterians, which was the denomination in which he was initially a minister. After all, they split with the OPC in part because many of them thought it was OK to use the Scofield Bible despite certain disagreements they had with it.

J. Barton Payne Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy
J. Barton Payne The Imminent Appearing of Christ

Gordon H. Clark's "What Presbyterians Believe" has a somewhat brief defense of premillennialism.

James Montgomery Boice reportedly sets forth his premil views in his commentary on the Minor Prophets. Other places to look would include Rom 9-11 and his comments on the Olivet Discourse. Unfortunately I have been unable to consult these, largely because the publisher charges way too much for those paperbacks, In my humble opinion.

 

[Gorgon]

All of these have been "asked and answered" many years ago, although not to the satisfaction of amils of course. It may be that these considerations led Storms to abandon his previously held dispensational and premillennial beliefs. He may be thinking that many who were raised or first taught premil (and probably of the Dispensational variety) have not grappled with these and may be easily swayed. There's little doubt about that. There can be a tendency to jump ship or reject a certain teaching because we don't like the implications of it or what we see as the implications of it. Premils can turn around and say that the amil interpretation of Rev is impossible, that amils can discard 1/3 of the OT and be none the worse for it and so on.

Storms has recently published a weighty tome defending Amillennialism. Some are already calling it definitive.

Thanks. I actually just finished Storms' volume (Kingdom Come) and found it quite authoritative in many respects but lacking in others. He sees Daniel as climaxing under the reign of Antiochus, although he doesn't think it was written late. He also doesn't mention lots of OT passages that are used to defend the Millennial Reign. I don't want to embrace amil without at least trying my hardest to understand Premil. Hence this thread.

Do you know how Premils respond to the NT objections specifically? The major objections that Storms brings up are NT epistles that talk of a single resurrection and a return of Christ that brings an end to death and suffering in the world. The Premil position, because it demands two Gog-Magog type wars, must have the reign of Christ end quite violently with (at least) the army of Satan being burned and the world experiencing a battle bigger than Armageddon.

 

[Pilgrim]

All of these have been "asked and answered" many years ago, although not to the satisfaction of amils of course. It may be that these considerations led Storms to abandon his previously held dispensational and premillennial beliefs. He may be thinking that many who were raised or first taught premil (and probably of the Dispensational variety) have not grappled with these and may be easily swayed. There's little doubt about that. There can be a tendency to jump ship or reject a certain teaching because we don't like the implications of it or what we see as the implications of it. Premils can turn around and say that the amil interpretation of Rev is impossible, that amils can discard 1/3 of the OT and be none the worse for it and so on.

Storms has recently published a weighty tome defending Amillennialism. Some are already calling it definitive.

Thanks. I actually just finished Storms' volume (Kingdom Come) and found it quite authoritative in many respects but lacking in others. He sees Daniel as climaxing under the reign of Antiochus, although he doesn't think it was written late. He also doesn't mention lots of OT passages that are used to defend the Millennial Reign. I don't want to embrace amil without at least trying my hardest to understand Premil. Hence this thread.

Do you know how Premils respond to the NT objections specifically? The major objections that Storms brings up are NT epistles that talk of a single resurrection and a return of Christ that brings an end to death and suffering in the world. The Premil position, because it demands two Gog-Magog type wars, must have the reign of Christ end quite violently with (at least) the army of Satan being burned and the world experiencing a battle bigger than Armageddon.

You're wise to want to avoid making hasty switches of your position. I've done that a number of times, too often failing to carefully and thoroughly weigh the options.

I'm not surprised to learn that Storms doesn't address all of your questions, although in a book of that size I would have thought that he would have tried to cover all the bases. That's not to impugn him but is simply to point out a general tendency to make what one thinks is an airtight case that renders objections moot. If they are addressed, often it's in a cursory fashion. (This is where the "You must believe" statements come in.) You'll see this with premils too, and will see it in debates on all kinds of topics. The tendency is to focus on the strengths or "strong" passages that can be used to defend one's position. To be very general, Amils (and many postmils) will generally say that either Israel forfeited those conditional (in their mind) OT prophecies and/or they are typological or symbolic and fulfilled in the church. Also, as I'm sure Storms points out, they emphasize that "apocalyptic" literature has to be interpreted by different principles. Premils will tend to say that "plain sense" interpretation is the way to go unless proven otherwise and don't think that the amils have made their case.

Unfortunately I'm not going to have a lot of time to go into detail on this issue and should probably just avoid the PB altogether for a while with everything I have going on! But I think all of those objections from the NT have been answered by various premils. (Horatius Bonar gives an answer to some of them here although he probably doesn't address specific texts to the degree that you'd like.) The answers of course are to some people's satisfaction and not others. I think Culver's books probably get into most if not all of them. As I noted above, in my experience "historic" premils since the 50's haven't done a lot of "apologetic" or polemical work against amils. Part of that is because many of them agree with amils on many issues, especially the interpretation of OT prophecy. For answers to some of these questions one will too often either have to consult the better dispensational literature, eating the meat and spitting out the many bones (which would include their teaching on the timing of the rapture as well as their ecclesiology) or else reading the older historic premils, who also tend to be more covenantal than latter day "historic" premils. There are many older historic premil books available on Google Books and other sites. Some of that if not all of it is addressed in the Douty volume on the Abrahamic Covenant that I mentioned above. He doesn't go into great detail on some of them but he cites many authors of the past that would be helpful to those willing to dig into old out of print works. Ryle's book that I had mentioned yesterday may get into some of that as well. Yesterday I came across a book by Andrew Bonar that I was previously unaware of. I haven't had a chance to really look at it yet so I'm not sure to what extent it addresses the specific questions you're asking, however.

Also, it's quite possible that there are some more recent books that would be helpful that I'm unaware of. It's possible that Ladd addresses some or all of those objections, but I'm not that familiar with his work other than "The Blessed Hope" which mainly deals with pretribulationism. Wayne Grudem is historic premil but I can't remember how much he gets into what you're looking for in his Systematic Theology. Ditto for Russell Moore in "A Theology for the Church."

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Leo (first, welcome to PB!),

I’m still working through Storm’s Kingdom Come, so I won’t comment on it. I don’t have any problem with those six “musts” he posted on his website before the book came out, and would be interested to see how premils would answer to them.

I was premil before becoming amil. My final position in the former school was agreeing with Marvin Rosenthal’s, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church. H.A. Baker also wrote Through Tribulation, which influenced me during the late sixties or early seventies.

When I lived in Woodstock (’78-’97) I used to gather with a couple of Jewish pastors to explore our being Jews and the impact of that on our Christian lives. Once I heard them talking of the renewed sacrifices that would take place in the rebuilt temple while Jesus was reigning in Jerusalem, and I said to them, “Haven’t you guys ever read the epistle to the Hebrews?” It was at that point I began to leave premil (granted, I did not know of historic premil at that time). One of the pastors was a scholarly type and had a number of amil books in his library, so I borrowed them and saw they made a lot of sense. I pondered that view many years.

It took many years before I threw off all the premil interpretations. The last two were the two witnesses in Rev 11 and the battle in Zech 14:1-4. It was not easy, so ingrained / fortified were they in my mind. I wasn’t much into the entire Dispensational hermeneutic, more on the end times. It had been the default view among the churches I attended the first decades of my Christian life.

I also remained a Zionist for many years, even after holding to amil. It was when the wife of a pastor over dinner simply mentioned as a question, Did the Jews have a right to the land (Eretz Yisrael)? For some reason that struck home, and later I asked a missionary friend did he have any books on the subject, and I got a couple – Elias Chacour’s, Blood Brothers, and Colin Chapman’s, Whose Promised Land? (an earlier edition of it) – and I was profoundly impacted by them both.

I had been against the Israeli rabbinate (or world Jewry’s rabbinate) for their suppression of the knowledge of Messiah Yeshua and effecting the spiritual genocide of my people – and I wrote on the topic – but now I was also against the government, including their claim they were the rightful inheritor of the name Israel, and the heritage of Moses and the prophets, and their seeking to establish hegemony throughout the region – persecuting Palestinian Christians along with Muslim terrorists indiscriminately.

I was living in Cyprus at the time. After a few years there I began pastoring an Evangelical Arabic congregation, and a year or two later planted an English-speaking Reformed congregation (there was, at that time, only one other Reformed church in the nation, and none in my city) with the help of an OPC missionary pastor in the country.

I think in 2009 I purposed to preach through the book of Revelation, and acquired a number of good commentaries to help me – all amil (Beale, Dennis Johnson, Hendriksen I already had, Poythress, Kistemaker, Hoeksema; Riddlebarger, Sam Waldron, Hoekema I already had, Stuart Olyott on Daniel, Beale on 1-2 Thess; to which I have added many more now being back in the U.S.) – and it was a great experience, for both me and the church . . . an electrifying book, Revelation! Sixty plus sermons later, and a few years, and I’m still deep in the study of it; presently preparing to teach a class on it at my church come September (I’m not a pastor now, back in the states).

Anyway, I defend the amil – the eclectic or modified idealist position within that camp – against the other views (and seek to answer objections), for it is the only understanding of the visions given in the Scripture with regard to the end times (the very end times) that will guide our people safely and wisely; the postmil won’t and the premil won’t (though the posttrib will at least not lull the saints with a false sense of security, and some postmil’ers see trouble coming at least in the short run).

I think premil folks do have a sense of the imminent rise of a final persecution, which I also share – it perhaps at first coming in small increments and increasing weekly or monthly; but as significant as this, I believe our nation is ripe for physical judgments from a Sovereign to whom the stench of wickedness arising from us will elicit heavy strokes of wrath, and final warnings.

Also awaking the saints from their drowsiness – the stupor of the wine of harlot Babylon – to forsake the idolatries and entertainments of our culture and draw near to our God, whose presence alone will sustain us in whatever storms He sends on what I perceive is the headquarters nation of worldwide Babylonian culture set in opposition to God and His kingdom. I do not think the West – especially the U.S. – will be sitting pretty much longer.

It's not an academic thing, but vital to our lives.