The American Vision

Episode 97: The Hour of Testing About to Come

Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:09:25 -0400

Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope-Episode 97

Gary discusses common misconceptions about Revelation 3:10 and its context, emphasizing the importance of understanding biblical prophecy within its historical setting.

Many commentators from the early and medieval periods held that the hour of testing in Rev. 3:10 was, or could be interpreted as, a first-century persecution. These included Ecumenius of Tricca, Andrew of Caesarea, Ralph of Laon, Hugh of St Cher, Alexander of Bremen, Vital du Four, Nicholas of Lyra, and Nicholas of Gorran. This corresponds with contemporary partial preterist interpretation of the passage. For example, Larry T. Smith writes that if Rev. 3:10 is interpreted in its proper context, “it becomes evident that this is referring to a temptation that they would soon face and not to a time of tribulation thousands of years away.”

Some of these biblical exegetes, for example Hugh of Saint Cher and Nicholas of Gorran, believed that the hour of testing specifically referred to a period “immediately after the death of Nero” (statim post mortem Neronis). Geoffrey of Auxerre commented that the preservation promised perhaps referred to “the faithful of that time,” meaning the time near when John wrote the book of Revelation. Some early Protestant commentators saw the hour of testing in Rev. 3:10 as the persecution of Christians under Trajan in the first decades of the second century. These preterist interpretations of this passage are certainly no modern innovation created by the Jesuit Alcasar or by liberals. They have a long history within Christian exegesis.

Revelation and the First Century

This book answers these questions by providing selections from ancient and medieval commentaries on the book of Revelation, writings composed long before the seventeenth century. Many of these selections are translated into English here for the first time. All of the selections reflect the fact that some Christians in ancient and medieval times interpreted visions in the book of Revelation in a preterist fashion.

Buy Now

Gary discusses common misconceptions about Revelation 3:10 and its context, emphasizing the importance of understanding biblical prophecy within its historical setting. He clarifies that many interpretations of end-time events are misapplied and highlights the early church’s view on Revelation’s fulfillment.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here for all episodes of Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope

The 1950 Film that Promoted the Family and Ridiculed Planned Parenthood

Thu, 18 Jun 2026 07:41:45 -0400

My wife and I were watching Season 3, Episode 4 “A Little Drop of Poison” from the British version of Professor T when the Professor mentioned Lillian Gilbreth and her book The Psychology of Management (1914) regarding “time and motion studies.” The study triggered something for the Professor that was a clue to help him solve a crime. The current condition of our mismanaged government might be able to glean some pointers from Gilbreth studies given the subtitle: The Function of the Mind in Determining, Teaching, and Installing Methods of Least Waste.

For me, the Professor’s comment reminded me of the 1950 film Cheaper by the Dozen. The setting for the movie, based on a 1946 novel of the same name written by Frank Gilbreth, Jr. and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey,[1] two of the dozen children the Gilbreths had, is New Jersey. The movie and novel tell the story of time and motion study and efficiency experts Frank and Lillian Gilbreth and their twelve children. It’s unfortunate that this family-friendly movie has been eclipsed by the crude remake starring Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt. There is no comparison with the original. Avoid the remake and its sequel.

Using Classic Films to Teach the Christian Worldview

In this talk, Gary DeMar makes the point that classic movies are excellent teaching tools for a Christian worldview—for children and adults. Classic movies are often heavily dialogue-based, which provides a necessary counterpoint to the visually stimulating and soundbite-driven modern method of moviemaking. Real life is about real conversations, and classic movies provide a great virtual training ground for thinking and living in the real world of ideas and consequences. Also includes illustrated PDF ebook that helps to reinforce and explain the concepts discussed in the lecture, as well as Gary's 89-page movie recommendation list.

Buy Now

Frank Gilbreth (1868-1924) started his work career as a bricklayer and then advanced to contractor. It’s the contractor’s job to get efficient work out of his laborers while retaining quality. He noticed that his bricklayers were inefficient. From his observations, he developed a more efficient way to lay bricks. His recommendations were initially opposed by the unions because it meant fewer workers were needed for a job. Along with his wife Lillian (1878-1972), the Gilbreths made a career and science of studying the way people work. The invention of the motion picture camera assisted them in breaking down movements into fractions of time to observe the smallest motions in workers.

They originated micro-motion study, a breakdown of work into fundamental elements now called therbligs (derived from Gilbreth spelled backwards [with the t and h transposed]). These elements were studied by means of a motion-picture camera and a timing device which indicated the time intervals on the film as it was exposed.[2]

Repeated movements done the wrong way would result in fatigue and injury. They emphasized that there was only the “one best way” to perform a task.

The Gilbreth’s were more than theorists. They put their observations into action in the real world. Frank Gilbreth was the first to propose that a surgical nurse serve as an assistant or “caddy” to a surgeon. A well-trained surgical nurse now hands surgical instruments to the surgeon as he calls for them. Armies teach recruits how to disassemble and reassemble their weapons while blindfolded based on studies and recommendations made by the Gilbreths. This ability undoubtedly has saved countless lives as soldiers learned how to clean and repair their machine guns day or night.

Frank Gilbreth used every opportunity to study motion and improve the way people work. When his children came down with tonsillitis, he insisted that the operations be done in his own home so he could film the procedure.

There’s one delightful scene in the film that shows the change in social and moral attitudes from the 1930s. Mildred Natwick’s [3] character visits the Gilbreth household representing a Planned Parenthood-like organization. Mrs. Gilbreth is amused by the visit and calls her husband. Showing indignation, as only Clifton Webb can, he signals for the children to assemble in the living room. They come running from every corner of the house. The woman is shocked and bolts for the door muttering as she goes that someone was pulling her leg for recommending that she ask if Mrs. Gilbreth would like to join the anti-child and pro-abortion organization.

A second book, Belles on Their Toes, published in 1952, continues the family’s adventures after the unexpected death of Mr. Gilbreth in 1924. Belles on Their Toes was also made into a film, starring Jeanne Crain and Myrna Loy (1952) and focused on the lives of Mrs. Gilbreth and her children. Lillian Gilbreth took over her husband’s work and advanced his recommendations and became a well-respected advocate for the scientific study of motion in her own right. She graduated from the University of California with a B.A. and M.A. and went on to earn a Ph.D. from Brown University. Like her husband, she lectured at Purdue University.

This is a wonderful film that shows how loving parents juggle raising children, education, and work without losing the focus on any of them.

Trivia

On the shelf in the living room is a picture of the real-life Frank Gilbreth in uniform as an Army Major during WWI. This is visible outside the makeshift operating room during the mass tonsillectomies.

Frank Gilbreth helped to train a fast typist to help the Remington Company win a world-wide typing competition. He trained the typist to focus on the copy he was typing, not the keys.

Among other things, Lillian Gilbreth patented an electric food mixer and a trash can with a step-on lid opener.

Frank Gilbreth, Jr. (1911-2001) wrote under the pen name Ashley Cooper for the Post and Courier in Charleston, South Carolina and compiled the Dictionary of Charlestonese, a pamphlet that poked fun at the Charleston accent.

For the creationist crowd:

Man on the street: “Hey Noah, what are you doing with that Ark?”
Frank Gilbreth: “Collecting animals like the good Lord told me brother. All we need now is a jackass. Hop in!”

Points to Ponder

Question: In what ways has the world changed for the average household when compared to the way life is portrayed in Cheaper by the Dozen?

Answer: There are obvious observational changes like hair styles, dress, and social attitudes. Consider what it would take to take care of a family of 14 in terms of washing clothes, shopping for food, and transportation. There were no large grocery stores for one-stop shopping. Fruits and vegetables were often sold by farmers who brought their produce to the city. Butcher shops were common. Most women baked their own bread and made their own pasta and pies. Hot water heaters were often a luxury. Water was heated on top of the stove, and many stoves were wood burning. Clothes were often handmade and passed down. Washing machines were a luxury, and even these were primitive. Clothes were placed in a tub of water and soap, rinsed, and then hand-cranked through a ringer to squeeze out the water. They were then hung outside on lines to get them dry.

Most women were up at dawn to begin their day of work and still working after their children were in bed. There were no dishwashers, electric appliances, garbage disposals, microwave ovens, or air conditioning.

The mass production of the antibiotic Penicillin was not readily available until the early 1940s. There was no television and no conception of the internet or email. There was almost no “Public Assistance,” that is, government welfare programs.

MPAA Rating: Not rated
Running Time: 85 minutes

Cast

Clifton Webb: Frank Bunker Gilbreth
Myrna Loy: Lillian Gilbreth
Jeanne Crain: Ann Gilbreth
Edgar Buchanan: Dr. Burton
Barbara Bates: Ernestine Gilbreth
Mildred Natwick: Mrs. Mebane

[1] There is an extended bibliography on the Gilbreths at http://gilbrethnetwork.tripod.com/gbooks.html

[2] http://gilbrethnetwork.tripod.com/bio.html

[3] Natwick is remembered for small but memorable roles in several John Ford film classics, including 3 Godfathers (1948), She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949), and The Quiet Man (1952). She played Miss Ivy Gravely, in Alfred Hitchcock’s The Trouble with Harry (1955), and a sorceress in The Court Jester (1956). She received an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress for her performance as Edith Banks in the 1967 film Barefoot in the Park.

The State of American Disunion (Part Two)

Wed, 17 Jun 2026 08:06:12 -0400

Gary concludes his interview with Rod Martin about several recent elections and what he thinks might be coming in the near future.

The claim of neutrality by Christians is judged harshly in the Bible: “I know your deeds, that you are neither hot nor cold; I would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth” (Rev. 3:15–16). Standing in the middle of a moral position is not neutrality. David Chilton writes:

The Laodicean church brings neither a cure for illness nor a drink to soothe dry lips and parched throats. The sort of Christianity represented by Laodicea is worthless. The church provided neither refreshment for the spiritually weary, nor healing for the spiritually sick. It was totally ineffective, and thus distasteful to its Lord. Thus, says [Robert] Mounce, “the church is not being called to task for its spiritual temperature but for the barrenness of its works.”

This explains Christ’s statement: I would that you were cold or hot. He is not saying outright apostasy is preferable to middle-of-the-roadism; rather, He is wishing that the Laodicean Christians would have an influence upon their society.8

The modern church that refuses to take a stand against the evils of the day is good for nothing. In the gospels, Jesus explains it this way: “You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing any more, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men” (Matt. 5:13). Supposed neutrality is a lamp that’s put “under the peck-measure” that leaves the house in perpetual darkness (5:15) and a city’s light that’s hidden so it does not serve as a beacon to weary travellers (5:14).

Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths

Like the Bereans of Paul’s day (Acts 17:11), Christians should check the veracity of all opinions against the only reliable standard of authority that God has placed in our hands: the Bible. This may mean a change in belief systems for some. Myths, Lies and Half-Truths adopts Jesus’ methodology of taking a closer look at God’s Word and applies it to erroneous misinterpretations that have resulted in a virtual shut-down of the church’s full-orbed mission in the world (Acts 20:27). These traditional but mistaken interpretations and applications of popular Bible texts to contemporary issues have resulted in the Christian faith being “thrown out and trampled under foot by men” (Matt. 5:13).

Buy Now

Gary concludes his interview with Rod Martin about several recent elections and what he thinks might be coming in the near future. Rod believes that we are on the cusp of a “golden age” thanks to theological and worldview changes among many young men, exciting new technologies that will change life for many around the world, and many other encouraging signs for what’s ahead.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here for Part One of this interview

When Train Travel Was a Fulfillment of Bible Prophecy

Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:10:05 -0400

Trying to link current events to prophetic texts to predict when the “rapture” might occur or when the Second Coming might happen is like linking scientific discoveries to the Bible. When the latest scientific discovery is later nullified by a new discovery, the biblical link is made null and void. Let me offer a typical example. With the rise in technology, speedier microchips, eBooks, gargantuan storage drives, and accelerating AI centers, information on almost any subject is only a few keystrokes and a click away. Modern-day prophecy writers believe Daniel 12 describes the modern-day information age because of the phrase “knowledge will increase.” Here’s an example from long-time prophecy writer Hal Lindsey:

The angel told Daniel his vision would be unintelligible to generations other than the one to whom it was addressed, a generation whose hallmark would be that of ever-increasing knowledge.

Thanks to Bell Labs’ 1948 invention [of the transistor], Moore’s Law of Computer says that today’s computers get twice as smart every 18 months to two years. That means we get twice as smart.[1]

The angel also identified the generation of the time of the end as one in which “many would go to and fro” — the generation that witnessed the birth of rapid mass transportation.

* * * *

Many run “to and fro,” knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate, and more books have been written about the prophet Daniel in this generation than in the last 2,500 years combined.

Ten Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed and Answered

Since the reestablishment of Israel in 1948, “end-time” prophetic speculation has been on the rise. While there is a long history of date setting, the past century has seen an exponential increase in the number of books proclaiming that the end is near. It’s time that the “Boy who cried wolf” syndrome be dealt with in a biblical way.

Buy Now

Henry Morris follows a similar approach, as did other prophecy writers before him. How do we know, following Morris’ logic below, that in the distant future, people won’t be traveling even faster than they are today, and information won’t increase even more than it has in the past century?

[W]e are being told that, near the time of the end, people in large numbers would be “running” — not merely “traveling,” but (literally) “racing” — from one location to another and back again. At any rate, it is profoundly true that travel and speed have increased in our times to a degree that could never have been predicted at all except by supernatural inspiration. In Isaac Newton’s day — no less than in Daniel’s day — about the fastest a man could travel would be on a swift horse. But Newton, who was probably the greatest scientist of all time, as well as a diligent student and believer of Daniel’s prophecies, claimed on the basis of this verse that men would someday be able to travel as fast as 50 miles per hour, even from country to country. A century later, Voltaire, the French anti-Christian Deist, ridiculed this statement, suggesting that Newton’s Christianity had affected his reason.

The fact is that the scientific era which Newton, as much as any one man, introduced, has seen — just in the past century or little more — invention of the steam locomotive, then the automobile, then the airplane, now the space-ship hurtling through space at incredible speeds. This prophecy could hardly have been fulfilled more explicitly than it is now being fulfilled in this “time of the end.”

The other half of the prophecy — “knowledge shall be increased” — could well be translated “science shall be increased,” for the two words are synonymous in meaning and derivation. The scientific and technological advances in just the past generation are legion — radio, television, electrical appliances to do almost everything, super-highways, nuclear power, computers, automation, radar, plastics, microchips, robots, and on and on. Less than two centuries ago, all the scientists in the world probably could have convened in one large auditorium; now there are millions of them, working in hundreds of scientific disciplines….[2]

Many prophetic speculators are guided more by newspaper headlines than by the Bible. John Cumming (1807-1881) practiced a similar form of “newspaper exegesis” or “headline reading” in the 19th century. Robert H. Ellison, in an insightful study of Cumming’s views on Bible prophecy, makes the following observation: “[Cumming] asserts that it is ‘neither hasty nor irrelevant’ to compare ‘ancient prophecy’ with daily press reports and states that ‘This use of the modern newspaper is all the originality I claim.’”[3] Here are some examples of Cumming’s “newspaper exegesis” as detailed by Ellison:

Cumming’s use of current events to interpret ancient Scripture gets rather ingenious at times. He claims, for example, that Daniel’s phrase ‘And knowledge shall be increased’ [Dan. 12:4] can also be translated ‘And knowledge shall be flashed along’, a rendering which anticipates the telegraph, the ‘mysterious whispering wire’[4] that can transmit a message to ‘the most distant capital of Europe’ in less than an hour’s time. Even more inventive is his interpretation of the prophecy he sees in Isaiah 18:1-2—‘Woe to the land . . . beyond the rivers of Ethiopia: That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters’. He asserts that the phrase ‘vessels of bulrushes’ is literally ‘vessels of that which drinks water’, a phrase which many have perplexed the translators working in 1611 [when the King James version of the Bible was published] but which can now be seen as a reference to the steamship, a ‘vessel whose . . . motive force from beginning to end, is water’.[5]

Cumming also saw “railway traveling”[6] to be a reference to “many shall run to and fro” (Dan. 12:4) even though trains don’t “run” and neither did the people who took the trains.

Current prophecy writers like Lindsey are just as ingenious when they see modern transportation systems and computer technology as a fulfillment of Daniel 12:4.[7] This is such a discredited interpretation that it’s embarrassing to read that anyone actually still believes and teaches it. Even many die-hard dispensationalists reject the idea that the “increase in knowledge” refers to “the recent explosion in knowledge.”[8]

So what does “knowledge will increase” mean? James B. Jordan, in his commentary on Daniel, The Handwriting on the Wall, offers a helpful explanation.

Those who take verse 4 as referring to events at the end of history believe that Daniel’s prophecy is “sealed up” until that time. Only as the second coming of Christ draws near will we be able to understand prophetic truth. Hal Lindsey, of course, believes that the end is near and that he, unlike previous generations of Christian thinkers, understands the previously hidden prophetic truth. The sealing of the book, however, does not mean that it cannot be understood, but rather that the angel has told Daniel all that he is going to say at this point in history. The book is unsealed in Revelation 5-6, and in Revelation 22:10 the completed book is left unsealed because there is no more to be said.

Prophetic speculators take note of the fact that with the coming of railroads, automobiles, and airplanes, people “go to and fro” much more than ever before in history. Scientific knowledge has also boomed in recent years. We can say, of course, that a thousand years from now people may be going to and fro even more than they do now, and there will be even more knowledge around, so how can anyone know that our own generation is the time verse 4 is pointing to?

The real point, of course, is that this kind of “interpretation” of verse 4 is possible only by wrenching the text completely out of its context and then dreaming up possible meanings. . . . [T]here is plenty of going to and fro in Daniel 11 and that is pretty clearly what verse 4 refers to. . . .[9] [T]he increase of knowledge is pretty obvious: As time goes along and the predictions in Daniel 11 are fulfilled decade by decade, the prophecy will be better and better understood.[10]

The Handwriting on the Wall

The Handwriting on the Wall takes a Covenant Historical Approach to interpreting the imagery of God's prophecies revealed to Daniel. The prophecies of Daniel deal with the events in the Covenantal Era that were dawning in Daniel's lifetime: the Restoration Era after the exile and the return of God's people back to the land, city, and temple. There are no "historical parentheses" or "gaps", no leaps of thousands of years into the future. Nor is the book of Daniel concerned about predicting the course of European church history after the apostolic age and into our time.

Buy Now

The Hebrew word for “knowledge” in Daniel 12:4 is not a reference to a mass collection of information or a stagnant library of data.[11] Knowledge is used as revelational information about God and His works. The Hebrew word has the meaning of “understanding, wisdom, i.e., a knowledge with focus on moral qualities and its application (Ge 2:9; Pr 2:5).”[12]

It’s most likely that the knowledge being described in Daniel 12:4 is related to the new covenant and the coming of the promised Redeemer. Since the Bible focuses on Jesus (Luke 24:25-27), we should expect that this is what God had in mind when the angel told Daniel that “the knowledge” would increase. What redemptive significance does a fatter set of encyclopedias have to do with God’s redemptive plan for His people? Zacharias and Elizabeth (1:5-25), Joseph and Mary (1:26-56), Simeon (Luke 2:25-32), and Anna (2:36-38) experienced an increase in knowledge as the realities of the old covenant unfolded in their day. The Scriptures “testify” about Jesus (John 5:39). Jesus uses Daniel 7:13 as the defining event in His ministry (Matt. 24:30), something His accusers should have understood (26:64). This is the “increase in knowledge” that the angel was describing. Prophecy writer Thomas Ice recognizes that the interpretation followed by Lindsey, Morris, and so many other pop-prophecy analysts found on the Internet have misread and misapplied Daniel 12:4.[13]

It could be argued that the New Testament itself is the increase of knowledge: “For God, who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness,’ is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). Then there is the negative side to the promise of an increase in revelational knowledge: “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering” (Luke 11:52).

[1] This is a non sequiter. Just because computer chips can calculate at fast speeds does not make them “smart,” and it certainly doesn’t mean we get any smarter. A case could be made that as computers process more information at ever-faster speeds, we actually lose the need to retain information because we become reliant on electronic devices to store and recall information. See, for example, Mark Bauerlein, The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (New York: Tarcher/Penguin, 2008).

[2] Henry Morris, Creation and the Second Coming (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1991), 20–22.

[3] Robert H. Ellison, “John Cumming and His Critics: Some Victorian Perspectives on the End Times,” Leeds, Centre Working Papers in Victorian Studies: Platform Pulpit Rhetoric, ed. Martin Hewitt, vol. 3 (Horsforth, Leeds: Leeds Centre for Victorian Studies, 2000), 83, note 20.

[4] John Cumming, Behold, The Bridegroom Cometh: The Last Warning Cry with Reasons for the Hope That is in Me (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1865), 357-358. Also see pages 189–190.

[5] Ellison, “John Cumming and His Critics,” 77.

[6] Quoted in Ellison, “John Cumming and His Critics,” 79.

[7] Ed Hindson and Lee Fredrickson, Future Wave: End Times Prophecy, and the Technology Explosion (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2001); Peter Lalonde and Paul Lalonde, Racing Toward . . . The Mark of the Beast: Your Money, Computers, and the End of the World (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1994).

[8] Mark Hitchcock, The Complete Book of Bible Prophecy (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1999), 176–177.

[9] “run to and fro—not referring to the modern rapidity of locomotion, as some think, nor to Christian missionaries going about to preach the Gospel to the world at large [Albert Barnes], which the context scarcely admits; but, whereas now but few care for this prophecy of God, ‘at the time of the end,’ that is, near its fulfillment, ‘many shall run to and fro,’ that is, scrutinize it, running through every page. Compare Hab 2:2 [John Calvin]: it is thereby that ‘the knowledge (namely, of God’s purposes as revealed in prophecy) shall be increased.’” (Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, et al., A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments [Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997], Dan. 12:4).

[10] James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, [2007] 2010), 622–623.

[11] “An increase in travel toward the end of the age is not the idea of the phrase ‘will go here and there.’ In a number of Old Testament passages (e.g., 2 Chr 16:9; Jer 5:1; Amos 8:12; Zech 4:10), [the] Hebrew . . . denotes ‘to go here and there’ in search of a person or thing, and that is the meaning here. An ‘intense’ searching seems indicated by the verb form. The purpose of this search will be ‘to increase knowledge.’ Yet Gabriel was not predicting a mere surge in scientific ‘knowledge,’ and so forth, in the last days. The article appears with ‘knowledge’ (lit., ‘the knowledge’), showing that a particular kind of ‘knowledge’ was intended, that is, when and how Daniel’s message is to be fulfilled. As the time of fulfillment draws nearer, the “wise” will seek to comprehend these prophecies more precisely, and God will grant understanding (‘knowledge’) to them.” (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel [Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001], 18:321).

[12] James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), DBLH 1981, #6.

[13] Thomas Ice, “Running To and Fro.” Ice gets a lot right in this article but applies its fulfillment to a post-rapture Great Tribulation.

The State of American Disunion (Part One)

Mon, 15 Jun 2026 07:23:08 -0400

Gary interviews his friend Rod Martin about the current state of politics in this country and all the fighting (and infighting) happening between the two major political parties.

Restoration of the Republic begins with the individual. Only the conversion of many can result in long-term societal restoration. I assume that you already are a Christian; that you have repented of your sins and have turned to Jesus Christ as your only hope for salvation, and are in no way depending on your own so-called “good works” to make you acceptable with God. You must recognize God as a God of love and justice—two inseparable attributes. Because God loves His people He sent Jesus, His only Son, to die for their sins. Justice necessitated the death of Jesus. Divine justice had to be satisfied. Peace with God (not the devil) had to be made (Romans 5:1). This message must be preached world-wide. No nation can experience the restoration process without repentance of sin and unconditional surrender to God through Jesus Christ.

Regeneration is only the first step, however. Born again, we, in fact, are spiritual infants, babes in Christ: “Like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord” (1 Peter 2:2-3). Peter tells us there is a growth process. We must not remain “babes.” Many Christians never leave infancy, however, but resemble the Christians described in the epistle to the Hebrews: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil” (Hebrews 5:12-14).

The restoration process begins with the individual and must be total. Restoration affects body and soul (1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 6:12-14; 12:1; 1 Corinthians 6:15, 20); the understanding (Proverbs 2:2; John 6:45; Romans 12:2; Colossians 3:1-2; 1 Peter 1:13); the will (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Matthew 7:21; Mark 3:35; Colossians 1:9-12, 21); the passions (Galatians 5:24; Colossians 3:5-17); and the conscience (Titus 1:15; Hebrews 9:14).

God and Government

With a fresh new look, more images, an extensive subject and scripture index, and an updated bibliography, God and Government is ready to prepare a whole new generation to take on the political and religious battles confronting Christians today. May it be used in a new awakening of Christians in America—not just to inform minds, but to stimulate action and secure a better tomorrow for our posterity.

Buy Now

Gary interviews his friend Rod Martin about the current state of politics in this country and all the fighting (and infighting) happening between the two major political parties. Rod has been active and studying the political landscape for years and has a unique take on what’s happening among Americans—politically and religiously.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

Episode 96: Knowledge Shall Be Increased

Fri, 12 Jun 2026 07:20:33 -0400

Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope-Episode 96

Gary discusses a verse from the book of Daniel (12:4) that has been widely cited lately in relation to Bible prophecy and artificial intelligence technologies.

Those who take [Daniel 12] verse 4 as referring to events at the end of history believe that Daniel’s prophecy is “sealed up” until that time. Only as the second coming of Christ draws near will we be able to understand prophetic truth. Hal Lindsey, of course, believes that the end is near and that he, unlike previous generations of Christian thinkers, understands the previously hidden prophetic truth. The sealing of the book, however, does not mean that it cannot be understood, but rather that the angel has told Daniel all that he is going to say at this point in history. The book is unsealed in Revelation 5–6 and in Revelation 22:10 the completed book is left unsealed because there is no more to be said.

Prophetic speculators take note of the fact that with the coming of railroads, automobiles, and airplanes, people “go to and fro” much more than ever before in history. Scientific knowledge has also boomed in recent years. We can say, of course, that a thousand years from now people may be going to and fro even more than they do now, and there will be even more knowledge around, so how can anyone know that our own generation is the time verse 4 is pointing to?

The real point, of course, is that this kind of “interpretation” of verse 4 is possible only by wrenching the text completely out of its context and then dreaming up possible meanings. As we pointed out above, there is plenty of going to and fro in Daniel 11 and that is pretty clearly what verse 4 refers to. And, again as pointed out above, the increase of knowledge is pretty obvious: As time wentalong and the predictions in Daniel 11 were fulfilled decade by decade, the prophecy was better and better understood.

The Handwriting on the Wall

Unlike “liberal” commentaries, The Handwriting on the Wall takes seriously the claim that Daniel and his contemporaries put this book together. In this respect, this commentary stands within the mainstream of all Jewish and Christian commentaries. But unlike most “conservative” commentaries, the author, James B. Jordan, refuses to jump the prophecies off until the end of time, but takes seriously what they meant for those who heard them. Like any scholarly commentary, however, The Handwriting on the Wall is based on careful treatment of the grammar of the Hebrew and Aramaic text, and reflects a thoroughgoing familiarity with scholarly treatments of Daniel, “liberal” and “conservative,” up to the present day.

Buy Now

Gary discusses a verse from the book of Daniel (12:4) that has been widely cited lately in relation to Bible prophecy and artificial intelligence technologies. When Daniel says that “knowledge will be increased,” he isn’t referring to a general increase in the quantity of knowledge, as most modern prophecy writers want it to mean. It has nothing to do with computers, the internet, or AI.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here for all episodes of Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope

There’s More to the Gospel than 'Just Preach the Gospel'

Thu, 11 Jun 2026 08:15:50 -0400

“Just preach the gospel.” How many times have you heard pastors and critics of social and political action scold Christians concerned about the moral direction the world is headed? The gospel is more than a life insurance program or a “Get Out of Hell Free” card. It is to transform everything we think about and act on. There is no neutrality, nor are any areas off-limits to the application of God’s Word.

The gospel renews a life for service in God’s kingdom — an ever-present reality — via a changed heart and changed mind (Rom. 12:1-2). What are we to do with these two renewals? Wait to be taken to heaven in something called a “rapture,” live in the world God created and called “good” (Gen. 1:31; 1 Tim. 4:1-4) and allow the enemies of God to exercise dominion over it, claim that since Jesus didn’t get involved in politics that Christians should follow His example, or learn how the Bible applies to every area of life and make it our life’s work to transform every part of it?

The Reduction of Christianity

In this more than 400-page response to the cultural surrender theology of Dave Hunt (and Dispensationalism in general), Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart present an excellent overview of what true biblical Christianity looks like. Hunt teaches that Christ's earthly power can only be manifested when He returns physically to set up a top-down bureaucratic kingdom in which Christians will be responsible for following the direct orders of Christ, issued to meet specific historical circumstances. DeMar and Leithart (and the Bible) strongly disagree.

Buy Now

The late Christian apologist Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984) wrote the following in the Preface to his 1974 book The Great Evangelical Disaster:

Throughout all of my work there is a common unifying theme, which I would define as “the Lordship of Christ in the totality of life.” If Christ is indeed Lord, he must be Lord of all life—in spiritual matters, of course, but just as much across the whole spectrum of life, including intellectual matters and the areas of culture, law, and government. I would want to emphasize from beginning to end throughout my work the importance of evangelism (helping men and women come to know Jesus Christ as Savior), the need to walk daily with the Lord, to study God’s Word, to live a life of prayer, and to show forth the love, compassion, and holiness of our Lord. But we must emphasize equally had at the same time the need to live this out in every area of culture and society.[1]

Schaeffer saw the problem decades ago in what he described as “a shift in worldview—that is, through a fundamental change in the overall way people think and view the world and life as a whole … to a world view based upon the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its present form by personal chance.”[2]

We have been told that the government can’t save us, and by government, they mean civil government, the State. Whoever said it could or should save us? The civil sphere of government was ordained by God and is said to be a “minister of God to you for good” (Rom. 13:4). How can civil government be “good” if good people are not involved and turn over civil governing authority to people who despise God’s moral standards (see Psalm 1)?

Without good self-government under God, the three governments (family, church, and civil) will fail, no matter how well conceived. Let us not forget that God is the Supreme Governor of all things and is the creator of family, church, and civil governments. These are God’s governments. He has not determined that they remain in the hands of those who hate His law, so they can be redesigned in the name of another god.

Evangelicalism has had a mixed history in applying the Bible to all of life. For years, I have heard that the Bible applies to every area of life, but I have rarely seen or heard evangelical leaders explain how it applies in the details. Many Christians have been taught, “We’re under grace, not law.” But when asked if this means that it is now OK for Christians to steal, murder, commit adultery, lie, and covet, these same Christians dismiss such an objection. They might say, “If a law is repeated in the New Testament, it still applies.” There is no such directive in the New Testament that says you should not curse the deaf or trip the blind (Lev. 19:14) or have sex with animals (18:23).

It is true that the law does not save anyone, nor does keeping a list of commandments make us holy, but this does not mean that God’s law is irrelevant. Paul writes the following to Timothy:

But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted (1 Tim. 1:8-11).

Note how the law and the gospel are not mutually exclusive because the proper use of the law is determined by the law and is “according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which [Paul] had been entrusted.”

Like God’s creation, the Law is good. God’s commandments are good. Jesus said to His disciples, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). John writes, “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). R. J. Rushdoony writes:

Lawless Christianity is a contradiction in terms: it is anti-Christian. The purpose of grace is not to set aside the law but to fulfill the law and to enable man to keep the law. If the law was so serious in the sight of God that it would require the death of Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, to make atonement for man’s sin, it seems strange for God then to proceed to abandon the law! The goal of the law is not lawlessness, nor the purpose of grace a lawless contempt of grace.[3]

Without an appreciation of God’s law, there is no way to combat lawlessness and the redefinition of everything from abortion to same-sex sexuality. Many of today’s churches have accepted homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle choice and twist the Scriptures to justify their position. And why not? Christians have been taught that God’s law (just some of it) is either (1) just for the church or (2) grace supplants biblical law. It’s a double whammy, making the Christian message irrelevant this side of heaven.

Theonomy: An Informed Response

Christendom is a civilization—the kingdom of God in history—that is governed in every area, every nook and cranny, by God: a society whose lawfully anointed rulers govern in terms of God’s revealed law. In this view, God is not in retirement or on vacation; He is a King who has delegated to His officers the authority to exercise command. There are three covenantal institutions: family, church, and state. To deny that God’s covenant law applies to civil government in New Testament times is necessarily to abandon the ideal of Christendom.

Buy Now

Another popular belief that disengages Christians from applying God’s Word to every area of life and from pursuing long-term change is that we are at the point in history where the end is near. The world is in such bad shape that their only hope is the “rapture of the church” or some other series of end-times events. The world is a mess, but it’s not the end of the world as we know it.[4] You would never know this because of books like David Jeremiah’s foray into misapplying almost everything Jesus said about Bible prophecy—The World of the End: How Jesus’ Prophecy Shapes our Priorities—a study of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24.

William Edgar, a professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary, recounts the time in the 1960s he spent studying in L’Abri, Switzerland, under the tutelage of Francis Schaeffer:[5]

I can remember coming down the mountain from L’Abri and expecting the stock market to cave in, a priestly elite to take over American government, and enemies to poison the drinking water. I was almost disappointed when these things did not happen.[6]

Edgar speculates, with good reason, that it was Schaeffer’s eschatology that negatively affected the way he saw and interpreted world events. Schaeffer was good at diagnosing the disease, but he found it difficult to prescribe a cure because the patient was never going to get well. One of Schaeffer’s last books, A Christian Manifesto, did not call for cultural transformation but civil disobedience as a stopgap measure to postpone an inevitable societal decline.

The fact remains that Dr. Schaeffer’s manifesto offers no prescriptions for a Christian society…. The same comment applies to all of Dr. Schaeffer’s writings: he does not spell out the Christian alternative. He knows that you “can’t fight something with nothing,” but as a premillennialist, he does not expect to win the fight prior to the visible, bodily return of Jesus Christ to earth to establish His millennial kingdom.[7]

This view has been true for millions of Christians. There is no doubt that many Christians are otherworldly and have no interest in culture or the dirty business of politics. Many more Christians are eschatologically schizophrenic. They believe that we are living in the last days, but still engage society at some level as a form of theological schizophrenia.

Economic, political, moral, and religious conditions seemed to have set the world on the brink of destruction numerous times in history. Economic circumstances were so bad in Israel thousands of years ago that some people resorted to cannibalism (Deut. 28:53-57; 2 Kings 6:28-29; Jer. 19:9). Josephus relates an account of a woman who killed, cooked, and ate her own child during the siege of Jerusalem that ended in AD 70.

There have been other economic crises in the not-too-distant past, and we have weathered them: The Great Depression and Dust Bowl in the United States, and the hyperinflation in Germany, where the United States dollar was worth 4 trillion German marks. We can include two world wars, prime indicators used by the prophetic speculators, that the end was near.

As a result, dispensationalists argued, “The church is largely parenthetic, thus unimportant. The teachings of Scripture have largely to do with the Jews alone. The Sermon on the Mount is largely for the Jews. The Lord’s prayer is for the Millennium rather than for the Church.”[8] As a result, Christians check the hourglass of time running out and wait in vain for a rapture that is always promised but never comes. Dr. Gary North pointed out the problem:

To escape this inherent despair, fundamentalists have turned to their own version of the humanists’ escape hatch: an upper-story universe. This upper story is the world of faith, expectation, and hope: the heavenly realm. It is a hope in heaven — a world above and beyond this world of Christian powerlessness and defeat.

*****

Fundamentalism’s lower story is the world of work, economics, professional training, art, institutions, authority, and power, i.e., the “secular” realm. This realm is governed, not in terms of the Bible, but in terms of supposedly universal “neutral reason” and natural law.[9]

And that’s the problem. It didn’t used to be this way. Every area of life was seen as a place to apply God’s Word, even among those who did not embrace Jesus as Lord and Savior. The world worked the way it did because God made it that way. As a result, Western Civilization flourished. In time, however, many people came to believe that the impersonal cosmos was good enough to develop a moral worldview. Of course, natural law advocates used their understanding of Special Revelation to read Nature, otherwise “Nature, red in tooth and claw,” would have been the outcome.

Darwinism killed any lasting vestige of a link between nature and God. God was not needed in an unwound clockwork universe. Apparently, a blind watchmaker was in charge. That would be like having Stevie Wonder or Ray Charles drive a taxi. The Christian response was to reformulate theologically. A sacred-secular divide was developed, coupled with an eschatology that made this time and world irrelevant, anticipating a rapture at any moment to relieve them of the task and responsibility of cultural change.

House Divided: The Break-Up of Dispensational Theology

House Divided is a postmillennial book. It does not seek to fight something (dispensationalism) with nothing (amillennialism). You are not being asked to abandon hope in dispensationalism's escape hatch in the future (the pre-tribulation Rapture) only to take up residence in amillennialism's Fort Contraction, with a tribe of howling Darwinian Indians circling it, all armed with repeating rifles. You are being asked instead to join a victorious army led by Jesus Christ, who sits at God's right hand, and who will remain seated there until He subdues all His enemies under His feet. ''Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet" (1 Cor. 15:24-25).

Buy Now

[1] Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1984), 12.

[2] Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 36.

[3] Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), 4.

[4] J.D. King, Why You’ve Been Duped Into Believing that Word is Getting Worse (Lees Summit, MO: Christos Publishing, 2019).

[5] Colin Duriez, Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 42.

[6] William Edgar, “Francis Schaeffer and the Public Square” in J. Budziszewski, Evangelicals in the Public Square: Four Formative Voices on Political Thought and Action (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 174.

[7] Gary North and David Chilton, “Apologetics and Strategy,” in Tactics of Christian Resistance: A Symposium, ed. Gary North (Tyler Texas: Geneva Divinity School, 1983), 127-128. Emphasis in original.

[8] Peter E. Prosser, Dispensational Eschatology and Its Influence on American and British Religious Movements (Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1999), 148.

[9] Gary North, Publisher’s Foreword, in Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, House Divided: The Break-Up of Dispensational Theology (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, [1989] 2022), xiii-xiv.

Hope and the Glorious Inheritance

Wed, 10 Jun 2026 06:58:09 -0400

Gary welcomes Kim Burgess back for one final episode of the series on 1 Corinthians 15.

Now, as we said previously, we are going to tell you up-front what we are going to be telling tell you in this series. As it were, regarding the ruling covenantal hermeneutic in Scripture, we are going to start with the bottom line first. What is coming now is really the most important lesson of all because of what I am about to say about what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman to illustrate what this ruling covenantal hermeneutic is. Whether you can understand it yet or not; whether you wind up being like a deer in the headlights on the same hermeneutical road as this woman was, this is still the bottom line about how we are to approach the subject. Let’s look at [John 4] verses 23 and 24.

“But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

We hear this quoted all the time regarding worshiping God “in spirit and in truth.” What does it mean? I was part of a church plant where, in the liturgy each week, we were using this statement, “Yes, we will worship in spirit and in truth.” What is the context for the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman? Was Jesus only saying to her (and to us today), “Just make sure you worship God sincerely and from the heart.” Is this what Jesus was saying?

What Jesus was really doing was saying, “Here is the ruling covenantal hermeneutic that is about to be established.” But let me cut to the chase to make and underscore the profound redemptive-historical point that Jesus was making here. First, it is not “in spirit and in truth,” but “in Spirit and truth.” The “in Spirit” is in direct reference to the fact, as Jesus stated, that “God is Spirit.” The point being made is not, though it is most certainly true elsewhere in Scripture if not here, that true worship is from the heart, that it is spiritual worship. It is “in Spirit,” with a capital S—“In Spirit.” Then, in addition, the word “truth” (aletheia in the Greek) is the profound kicker. We are Westerners. We hear the word “truth,” and we think automatically in terms of true or false. But that is not what the word “truth” means here. It is a word rich in meaning in the Greek. Yes, the Greek word carries the idea of true versus false, but again, like in the mindset of the epistle to the Hebrews, the best alternative English word you could use for “truth” as Jesus was using it here is “reality.” Worship in truth—in reality.

The Hope of Israel and the Nations

The reader and student of the Bible must first understand the content of the New Testament writings in terms of how those in the first century would have understood it. The New Testament is written against the background of the Old Testament. The shadows of the Old were fulfilled in the reality of the New. All the rituals and ceremonies were fulfilled in Jesus. The same is true of the temple, land, blood sacrifices, the nature of redemption, the resurrection of the dead, the breaking down of the dividing wall dividing Jews and Gentiles, and so much more. The New Testament's emphasis is on the finished work of Jesus and its application, not only to that Apostolic generation but to the world today.

Buy Now

Gary welcomes Kim Burgess back for one final episode of the series on 1 Corinthians 15. In this last installment, Kim focuses on three words often used in the NT—hope, glory, and inheritance—and puts them into biblical context for the time in which they were written, namely the first century.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

Is There Historical Support for the Pre-Trib Rapture before Darby?

Tue, 09 Jun 2026 07:50:28 -0400

A great deal of time and energy goes into supporting a pre-tribulational “rapture.” In a recent interview, John Bevere, author of The King is Coming, claims that Irenaeus of Lyons (c. AD 130-202) taught that the “rapture of the church” took place before the final week of Daniel’s 70 weeks-of-years prophecy. Irenaeus is claimed as a key support witness for the rapturists because he identifies Papias (c. 60-130) as “a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time.” Irenaeus knew of Papias through oral tradition and written fragments of Papias’s work, Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord, rather than through direct personal acquaintance. Irenaeus cited Papias as a reliable witness to apostolic traditions, particularly regarding the origins of the Gospels, but he also relied on the accounts of elders such as Polycarp to bridge the generational gap.

So, what does any of this have to do with eschatology, particularly the pre-tribulational rapture? It is often claimed that the earliest church fathers are trustworthy sources of doctrine because of their proximity to the Apostle John. This sounds reasonable, except that John’s definition of “antichrist” does not match how Irenaeus and other Ante-Nicene writers use it. Irenaeus argued that the Antichrist would be a literal, future individual, an apostate Jew who would arise after the Roman Empire partitions into ten kingdoms. The Antichrist would rebuild the Jewish temple in Jerusalem and sit within it, demanding to be worshiped as God. Irenaeus identified this act as the fulfillment of the “abomination of desolation” prophesied by Daniel and Jesus (Matt. 24:15). Irenaeus wrote the following.

But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that “many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”[1]

This is not John’s definition of the “many antichrists” that were alive in his day (1 John 2:18). If Irenaeus was in the line of truth from John to Papias to Polycarp, then to himself, why didn’t he stay with John’s definition (1 John 2:22; John 2:7) of the “many antichrists” (1 John 2:18) who were alive in his day? Why didn’t John use the word “antichrist” in Revelation?

Like modern-day premillennialists, Irenaeus constructs a composite antichrist from various books of the Bible, including Jeremiah, Daniel, 2 Thessalonians 2 (the man of lawlessness), the beasts in Revelation 13, and other unrelated passages. “Irenaeus taught that only one event prevented the start of the kingdom, the defeat of the Antichrist.”[2] That’s a huge problem, since his understanding of the antichrist doesn’t match the Bible’s. This failure should disqualify all end-time speculators when it comes to the antichrist, the “many antichrists” who were alive in John’s day.

When we evaluate biblical doctrines, the Bible is the ultimate authority. Since the Bible does not teach any of the five rapture positions (pre-, mid-, partial-, post-, and pre-wrath), rapture advocates seek to support their positions by appealing to historical sources. See my book with Frank Gumerlock, The Rapture and the Fig Tree Generation, for a biblical appraisal of the “rapture.”

The Rapture and the Fig Tree Generation

Since the national reestablishment of Israel in 1948, countless books and pamphlets have been written defending the doctrine assuring readers that it could happen at any moment. Some prophecy writers claimed the “rapture” would take place before 1988. We are far removed from that date. Where are we in God’s prophetic timetable?

Buy Now

But what should we make of this passage from Irenaeus? “And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be. Matthew 24:21 For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with incorruption.”

It seems that the church goes through the tribulation in Irenaeus’ view; otherwise, why write, “when they overcome”? Overcome what? The tribulation. How can there be a “contest of the righteous” if the “righteous” are no longer on earth?

Fra Dolcino (c. 1250-1307)

Thomas Ice confronted me after our debate at BIOLA University (February 2002) about Francis Gumerlock’s statement in The Day and the Hour (2000), a book published by American Vision, that “The Dolcinites held to a pre-tribulation rapture theory similar to that of modern dispensationalism” (Day and the Hour, 80). If Ice wants to claim the Dolcinites as proto-dispensationalists, he can have them. Gumerlock quotes the Historia Fratris Dolcini Haeresiarchae in an end note (the English translation is Gumerlock’s):

Again, [he believed, preached, and taught] that within the said three years Dolcino himself and his followers will preach the coming of the Antichrist; and that the Antichrist himself would come into this world at the end of the said three and a half years; and after he had come, Dolcino himself, and his followers would be transferred into Paradise, where Enoch and Elijah are, and they will be preserved unharmed from the persecution of Antichrist; and then Enoch and Elijah themselves would descend to earth to confront the Antichrist, then they would be killed by him; or by his servants, and thus Antichrist would reign again for many days. Once Antichrist is truly dead, Dolcino himself, who would then be the holy Pope, and his preserved followers will descend to earth, and they will preach the correct faith of Christ to all, and they will convert those, who will be alive then, to the true faith of Jesus Christ (91-92).

It seems that only Dolcino and his followers would be taken to heaven, not the church at large. In addition, the account was written by an anonymous source in 1316, nine years after Dolcino’s death. His original letters do not exist. Critics argue the Apostolic Brethren were a violent cult that fled to the mountains to arm themselves against papal forces, which contradicts the passive “escape” narrative of modern pre-tribulationism.

The Day and the Hour

In The Day and The Hour, Gumerlock spans two thousand years of conjecture on the last days, disclosing the dreams and delusions of those who believed that their sect was the 144,000 of Revelation 7; that the 1290 days of Daniel 12 had expired in their generation; that the "Man of Sin" of II Thessalonians 2 was reigning in their time; that a Rapture of the saints, a Great Tribulation, a Battle of Armageddon were just around the corner; or that a Millennial Kingdom was about to dawn.

Buy Now

Like Irenaeus, Dolcino does not follow the New Testament’s definition of the “many antichrists” that were alive in John’s day. For more information on Dolcino, see this link.

Pseudo-Ephraem

Tim LaHaye mentions Pseudo-Ephraem (probably a seventh-century composition) for historical support. While the sermon On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World claims to be authored by Ephraem of Nisibis, no one really knows who wrote it or when. Even so, pre-tribulationists believe it contains two early pre-trib rapture statements.[3] For a refutation, see Robert Gundry, “‘Pseudo-Ephraem’ on Pretrib Preparation for a Posttrib Meeting with the Lord” in First The Antichrist: Why Christ Won’t Come Before the Antichrist Does.[4]

Pseudo-Ephraem seems to be a mid-trib rapturist: “I say, somewhat more—, because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s appearing in the air (I Thes. iv. 17); and this will be about three and a half years before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No.” Scholars note that the Syriac version emphasizes escape through death rather than translation, and that the attribution to Ephraem is historically invalid, as its style and content reflect events that occurred centuries after his death. These works, primarily the Latin Sermon on the Last Times and the Syriac Apocalypse, were likely composed between the late 6th and 7th centuries, reflecting the geopolitical turmoil of the Islamic conquests.

Shepherd of Hermas

While scholars date the final composition of The Shepherd of Hermas to the mid-2nd century (c. AD 140-155), the text does not contain teachings about a pre-tribulation rapture or being “caught up” before a time of testing. Tim LaHaye writes, “The Shepherd of Hermas in 140 AD wrote about the catching up before the times of testing. In the discourse, he talks about an open vision that he had. In it, he asked the Lord to rescue him from the beast.” The reply was, “Be not of doubtful mind, Hermas.” It’s another “vision,” not the Bible: “The fourth vision which I saw, brethren, twenty days after the former vision which came unto me, for a type of the impending tribulation.”

I’m not sure how this is a pre-tribulational rapture position. In his “vision” (not the Bible), he is told not to be doubtful. Doubtful about what? We’re not told. Neither are we told what this “beast” is.

We find this later: “Go therefore and declare to the elect of YHVH His mighty works and tell them that this beast is a type of the great tribulation which is to come.” Whatever this “beast” is, it precedes the great tribulation. Pre-tribulationalists teach that the “beast” does not appear until after the rapture.

As with so much of speculative Bible prophecy, events of the day are used as a form of “newspaper exegesis,” a practice that has been going on for nearly 2000 years. Current events shape a speculator’s interpretation, while ignoring the first-century context regarding timing and audience application.

[1] “Against Heresies,” Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Book V, Chapter 30.

[2] Jeffrey L. Edwards, “Irenaeus: Is the Second Century Testimony to Dispensational, Pretribulational Premillennialism?, Submitted to Dr. David Mappes in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE: TH-2 at Baptist Bible Seminary, 74.

[3] Timothy J. Demy, “Pseudo-Ephraem,” Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, gen. ed. Mal Couch [Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1996], 329. Also see Demy and Thomas D. Ice, “The Rapture and an Early Medieval Citation,” Bibliotheca Sacra [July/September 1995], 306-317 and Grant R. Jeffrey, “A Pretrib Rapture Statement in the Early Medieval Church,” gen. eds. Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, When the Trumpet Sounds [Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995], 105-125).

[4] (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), 161-188.

American History with Bill Federer

Mon, 08 Jun 2026 07:34:34 -0400

Gary interviews author and speaker Bill Federer on today’s episode.

The story of Christianity in America is one of the most astonishing chapters in the annals of the world. The events of Providence in reserving and preparing the country of these United States to be the theater of its development and triumph, constitute one of the most remarkable passages of modern history.

This is a Christian nation, first in name, and secondly because of the many and mighty elements of a pure Christianity which have given it character and shaped its destiny from the beginning. It is pre-eminently the land of the Bible, of the Christian Church, and of the Christian Sabbath. It is the land of great and extensive and oft-repeated revivals of a spiritual religion—the land of a free conscience and of free speech—the land of noble charities and of manifold and earnest efforts for the elevation and welfare of the human race. The chief security and glory of the United States of America has been, is now, and will be forever, the prevalence and domination of the Christian Faith.

The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States

Organizations like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have done their best to ignore the content of the massive compilation of original source material found in this book. If Americans ever become aware of the facts assembled by the author in this historic encyclopedia of knowledge, arguments for a secular founding of America will turn to dust.

Buy Now

Gary interviews author and speaker Bill Federer on today’s episode. Bill has written nearly two dozen books on America’s Christian history and has documented all of it with original source material. He travels all around the country giving talks and is booked nearly every week. More information can be found on Bill’s website here.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

Episode 95: Looking for Biblical Connections

Fri, 05 Jun 2026 06:37:34 -0400

Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope-Episode 95

Gary responds to a video by John Bevere that makes several claims about the pretribulational rapture and what the early church believed about Bible prophecy.

History is important, but it is not authoritative. In terms of sola Scriptura, it does not matter what men of the past believed; the Bible is the standard. The argument is often made that some Church Fathers knew the apostle John or they knew someone who knew John, therefore the writings of these men carry a great deal of historical weight. Peter knew Jesus, and Peter needed a vision from heaven to inform him that his narrow understanding of the gospel’s application was wrong (Acts 10:9-23). Paul writes, “But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” because he would not eat with Gentiles (Gal. 2:11-21).

The writers of the New Testament continually corrected error in the Church (Rom. 16:17; Gal. 3:1; Eph. 2:16-19; 2 Thess. 2:2; 1 Tim. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; etc.). John warns his readers not to “believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1). Paul warns that “even though we, or an angel from heaven should preach” a gospel contrary to what had been preached, that angel was to be “accursed” (Gal. 1:8). What makes us think that those a hundred years removed could not also be in error on a complicated topic like Bible prophecy? The history of prophetic speculation has been a persistent embarrassment to the Church. From the first century to the present, writers of theology have been wrong in their interpretation and application of prophetic texts.

Proximity to an event does not assure future generations that past events have been reported or remembered accurately. Many people still believe that religious leaders in the fifteenth century taught that the earth was flat and Columbus wanted to prove it was round even though there is no evidence to substantiate this commonly held myth.

New Testament Eschatology: What the Early Church Believed About Bible Prophecy

It has been maintained by some modern writers that the early church was predominately premillennial and exclusively futuristic on Bible prophecy. While these claims have been made with certainty, there has always been a lack of clear historical documentation to support them. But since the futurist perspective has been promoted as an early church reality by so many for so long, few question it. New Testament Eschatology challenges this prevailing futurist view with a careful study of the historical record. The evidence shows that many early church writers understood the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 to be the end of the Old Covenant world.

Buy Now

Gary responds to a video by John Bevere that makes several claims about the pretribulational rapture and what the early church believed about Bible prophecy. Gary goes back to the text of the New Testament, specifically Matthew 24, to see what Jesus actually said about these things that were to come upon that first century generation.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here for all episodes of Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope

How Would First Century Christians Have Interpreted the Time Texts?

Thu, 04 Jun 2026 07:40:14 -0400

Since John is told the events revealed to him were to take place “soon” (1:1) “for the time is near” (1:3), Revelation is about events that were to happen soon for those living in John’s day, in particular, in events leading up to and including the end of the Old Covenant represented outwardly by the temple and Israel’s capital city, Jerusalem. The Old Covenant was replaced with a better covenant in the person and work of Jesus Christ, who embodies all that the Old Covenant could only represent in temporal (stones) and fallen elements (human priests). Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29), the temple built without hands (John 2:13-22; see Mark 14:58; 15:29; Acts 6:14),[1] the fulfillment of the Davidic kingship (Acts 2:22-36), and “a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man” (Heb. 8:1-2). The Old Covenant was always planned obsolescence. With the coming of the true tabernacle in the Person and work of Jesus (John 1:14), the Jews should have used it as a museum or torn it down and used its stones for other habitable structures (see Num. 21:8-9; 2 Kings 18:1-7; John 3:14).

There is another component to consider in the interpretive process: audience relevance. How would John’s audience have understood the prophecy? Even today, prophecy preachers turn to the time indicators in Revelation and argue that Jesus is coming soon. But if “soon” means near to the time when we hear a prophecy enthusiast say that Jesus’ coming is “soon,” then why didn’t “soon” mean “soon” to Revelation’s first readers?

Revelation and the First Century

This book provides selections from ancient and medieval commentaries on the book of Revelation, writings composed long before the seventeenth century. Many of these selections are translated into English here for the first time. All of the selections reflect the fact that some Christians in ancient and medieval times interpreted visions in the book of Revelation in a preterist fashion.

Buy Now

Dave Hunt’s book How Close Are We? includes the following subtitle: “Compelling Evidence for the Soon Return of Christ?” What did Mr. Hunt want his readers to understand by the word “soon”? He certainly didn’t have nearly 2000 years in the future in mind when he wrote his book in 1993.

On the Brink is the title of a prophetic work written by Daymond R. Duck. In the introduction, Duck states that his book contains “300 Points of Light on the Soon Return of Jesus.”[2] Duck wants his readers to believe that Jesus’ coming will take place soon, and by “soon” he means “near,” and by “near” he means this generation, and by “this generation” he means this one here and now. Why didn’t “soon” and “near” mean “soon” and “near” to those who read these time words in the first century?

Put yourself in the first century, reading or hearing these passages about the soon or near coming of Jesus. Would they have believed that this coming was far off, or would they have thought it was near? They would have thought it was near. How do we know this? Because people today believe Jesus’ coming is near, they read about “near,” “soon,” and “quickly” in the last chapter of Revelation and believe it applies to them!

In 1926, Oswald J. Smith wrote Is the Antichrist at Hand? The following copy appears on the cover:

The fact that this book has run swiftly into a number of large editions bears convincing testimony to its intrinsic worth. There are here portrayed startling indications of the approaching end of the present age from the spheres of demonology, politics and religion. No one can read this book without being impressed with the importance of the momentous days in which we are living.”

Smith identified the antichrist as Benito Mussolini. John Warwick Montgomery writes that after Mussolini’s death in 1945, “Smith himself tried to buy up all the remaining copies of the book to destroy them.”[3]

Chuck Smith published The Soon to be Revealed Antichrist in 1976. Note the date. What did Chuck Smith mean by “soon”? While he said we can’t know who the antichrist is, he did say, “God is giving us many signs that we are nearing the last days — the stage is being set.” Smith also stated that “we are living in the last generation, which began with the rebirth of Israel in 1948 (see Matt. 24:32-34).”[4] We can infer from these comments what Smith meant by “near.”

What did these authors intend for their audience to understand with words like “at hand,” “soon,” and “close”? Does anybody think these books would have sold well if they carried a title like “We Don’t Know When the Antichrist Will be Revealed”? The authors deliberately chose temporal adverbs to keep readers on the edge of their seats, knowing that “soon,” “close,” and “at hand” or “near” mean “soon,” “close,” and “at hand” and “near.”

I wrote Is Jesus Coming Soon? The answer is, Jesus came soon after He told His disciples that He would return within a generation of His earthly ministry based on what He told them in Matthew 24: “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (v. 34), and that included His judgment coming (v. 27) and His ascension where He took His seat at His Father’s right hand (v. 30). Chuck Smith appealed to these same passages to persuade his 1976 reading audience that they were “nearing the last days” and “this generation” is their generation. So why didn’t Jesus’ audience interpret these same words and phrases in the same way and apply them to their time? They did, and that’s the point.

Is Jesus Coming Soon?

The date-setting frenzy persists. The prophecy pundits continue to be wrong again and again. How many of these prophecies have failed in your lifetime? Daily on Christian radio and television and the endless stream of prophecy books, we get pumped up with even more "evidence" that Jesus is now "at the door." World events are matched with prophecies as definitive proof that the end is "near." Again, we wait and hope. It's a familiar cycle: time nullifies each prediction, our hopes are deflated, and our trust level smashed. No more! The truth is out!

Buy Now

While Dave Hunt offered what he believed was “compelling evidence for the soon return of Christ,” he claimed that “the early church believed that Christ could come at any moment.” In a chapter describing what he believed is the New Testament doctrine of “imminency,” Chuck Smith wrote,

From even a cursory reading of the New Testament there can be no doubt that it was considered normal in the early church to expect Christ at any moment. Paul greeted the Christians at Corinth as those who were “waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:7) — again language that requires imminency. He urged Timothy to “keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 6:14).[5]

What we find missing regarding the issue of timing related to the coming of Jesus is a discussion of verses that deal with the timing of Jesus’ return. The Bible does not state that Jesus can come “at any moment” over several millennia. The New Testament makes it clear that Jesus’ coming was “near,” close at hand, for those living in the first century. Here are some examples:

• “Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains. You too be patient; strengthen your hearts,for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Do not complain, brethren, against one another, that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door” (James 5:7-9).

• “The end of all things is at hand; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer” (1 Peter 4:7).

• “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond‑servants, the things which must shortly take place” (Rev. 1:1).

• “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near” (Rev. 1:3).

• “And he said to me, ‘These words are faithful and true’; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to his bond‑servants the things which must shortly take place” (Rev. 22:6).

• “And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book” (Rev. 22:7).

• “And he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near’” (Rev. 22:10).

• “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done” (Rev. 22:12; cf. Matt. 16:27).

• “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22:20).

These verses, and others like them, clearly state that Jesus’ return was “near,” that He was coming “quickly.” Dispensationalists like to claim that Jesus could come at “any moment” to “rapture” His church. There is no such doctrine in Scripture. “That James does not expect the period to be long is clear when he says the parousia of the Lord (cf. 5:7) is near.”[6]

In the closing chapter of Revelation John was told, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near” (Rev. 22:10). The first readers of Revelation would have read words like “soon,” “near,” “quickly,” and “at hand” and most likely would have assumed that the time was near for them. This contrasts with what was told to Daniel hundreds of years before: “But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the time of the end; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase” (Dan. 12:4; also 8:26, 10:14). A. Berkeley Michelson writes:

Everyone who interprets a passage of the Bible stands in a present time while he examines a document that comes from a past time. He must discover what each statement meant to the original speaker or writer, and to the original hearers or readers, in their own present time.[7]

This is easier said than done, since there is always the temptation to interpret Scripture through our own reference point. We are comfortable with the familiar and not so competent with the way other people write and think.

[1] Notice that the Jews were thinking in literal terms.

[2] Daymond R. Duck, On the Brink: Easy-to-Understand End-Time Bible Prophecy (Lancaster, PA: Starburst Publishers, 1995), 9.

[3] John Warwick Montgomery, “Prophecy, Eschatology, and Apologetics,” Looking into the Future: Evangelical Studies in Eschatology, ed. David W. Baker (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 366.

[4] Chuck Smith, The Soon to be Revealed Antichrist (Costa Mesa, CA: Maranatha House Publishers, 1976), 3.

[5] Dave Hunt, How Close Are We?: Compelling Evidence for the Soon Return of Christ (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1993), 248.

[6] Peter Davids, Commentary on James (NIGTC) (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 184.

[7] A. Berkeley Michelsen, Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 55.

Anti-Historical Bias in America's Christian History

Wed, 03 Jun 2026 08:16:51 -0400

Gary responds to an article published by Baptist News written by Mara Richards Bim about the recent report released by President Trump’s Justice Department.

A 1982 article in Newsweek magazine stated the following: “[F]or centuries [the Bible] has exerted an unrivaled influence on American culture, politics and social life. Now historians are discovering that the Bible perhaps even more than the Constitution, is our founding document.” Time magazine said something similar in 1987: “Ours is the only country deliberately founded on a good idea. That good idea combines a commitment to man’s inalienable rights with the Calvinist belief in an ultimate moral right and sinful man’s obligation to do good. These articles of faith, embodied in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution, literally govern our lives today.” Our nation’s values were rooted in the Bible. Of course, this does not mean that all Christian Americans followed the biblical precepts they claimed to believe or that nonbelievers rejected them.

Even those who would dismiss the Bible as a standard of moral righteousness cannot help themselves from appealing to the Bible when it suits their purpose. An editorial in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette quoted the words of Jesus to “love your enemies” as a moral prescription against torture. Good for them. I wonder if the same editors are ready to adopt Jesus’ definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman (Matt. 19:4-6)? The governor of the state of Alabama wanted to raise taxes based on the article “An Argument for Tax Reform Based on Judeo-Christian Ethics” that appeared in the Alabama Law Review. There were very few if any atheists in early America, although there were a number of religious skeptics. But even these could not develop a moral worldview on reason alone. They continually pointed to the Bible, even if they rejected its revelational claims. Thomas Jefferson is a good example.

The Case for America's Christian Heritage

It’s not enough, however, to relive history. There’s much work before us to reset the foundation stones of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. We need to heed the words of Benjamin Franklin who quoted Psalm 127:1 during the drafting process of the Constitution: “except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it,” and “that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel.” The principles that were true and necessary centuries ago for building nations are equally true and necessary today.

Buy Now

Gary responds to an article published by Baptist News written by Mara Richards Bim about the recent report released by President Trump’s Justice Department. Bim is very selective in her reporting, and what she will accept as “historical evidence” (it must come from a PhD “expert”). She also discounts many Christian writers for their lack of doctorates, yet never deals with their actual claims. Gary points out her own historical ignorance.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

Read the Baptist News article here

James Talarico’s ‘Biblical’ Defense of Weird Stuff

Tue, 02 Jun 2026 06:51:46 -0400

James Talarico, the Democrat nominee for the 2026 U.S. Senate election in Texas, will face Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in November. Paxton trounced incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in the primary by nearly 30 points. Good riddance. Talarico claims to be a Christian. As a Presbyterian seminarian, he argues that issues like abortion and LGBTQ+ rights are not biblically settled, famously stating that God is nonbinary and that the Annunciation demonstrates divine support for reproductive consent. In April 2021, as a Texas State Representative, Talarico stated during a legislative hearing on an anti-trans sports bill that “modern science obviously recognizes that there are six really common biological sexes.”

Recently, he said, “Most Christians would acknowledge that God is beyond gender. In fact, the apostle Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, said that ‘In Christ there is neither male nor female.’” While God is “beyond gender,” He (note the pronoun) created the first man and woman. Paul’s point about “neither male nor female,” note the binary sex designation, concerns that salvation in Christ is not restricted to either men or women. The full context includes, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free” (Gal. 3:28). Everyone is welcome to embrace Jesus as Savior and Lord. Paul was not in any way declaring that there are numerous ‘genders.’

Like how some argue that “Jesus never talked about homosexuality,” Talarico states that “Jesus never talks about abortion.” In fact, he goes on to say, “The Bible is silent on abortion.” When Jesus defines marriage as between a man and a woman, based on what we find in Genesis 2:24 and elsewhere (Eph. 5:31), what Jesus quotes in Matthew 19:3-6, all other relationships are excluded. This includes transgenderism.

Myths. Lies, and Half-Truths

Like the Bereans of Paul’s day (Acts 17:11), Christians should check the veracity of all opinions against the only reliable standard of authority that God has placed in our hands: the Bible. This may mean a change in belief systems for some. There is no novelty in this. God confronted Peter directly about the inclusion of Gentiles into the household of faith (10:9–16). Paul confronted Peter “to his face” on a similar matter (Gal. 2:11–14). There are times when we all need to be knocked off our horse of mistaken opinions (Acts 9:4). “Testing” is a biblical mandate (2 Cor. 13:5; 1 John 4:1).

Buy Now

Now on to Talarico’s claim about abortion. He’s not the first person to make the claim that the Bible does not mention abortion. For example, Jacob Shelton, writing for the website Weird History, claimed that the translation of Exodus 21:22-25 was altered to support Republicans and the Christian Right:

In the 1975 version of the New American Standard Bible, the verse read: “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.”

In 1995, the verse was changed to read: “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury…”

*****

The words were changed in the 1995 version in order to make it so the fetus doesn’t die in the verse, thus supporting the Christian Right’s pro-life message that killing a fetus is the same as killing a human, and the Bible says so.

Shelton may be “a know-it-all when it comes to horror movies, serial killers, government conspiracies, comic books, and movies about comic books,” as he describes himself, but he does not know much about the Bible and Bible translations.

Let’s put Mr. Shelton’s claim to the test that the NASB editors changed their translation of Exodus 21:22 for political reasons. First, Exodus 21:22-25 deals with a judicial case where two men struggle (fight) with each other. We are not told why they are fighting. A pregnant woman is standing close enough to them to be affected by the altercation. She goes into premature labor. This case law covers all the “cases,” everything from no harm to the mother and her prematurely born children (plural) to harm resulting in death to the mother and one or more of her unborn children.

Second, the woman is not deciding to have an abortion. At one level, it’s an accident that she goes into labor. There is no premeditation on her part to abort. At another level, however, the men should not have been fighting, so there is some liability on their part. The woman could be the wife of one of the men who is trying to break up the fight.

Even if there is a distinction in terms of harm to the mother and/or the unborn children in what is ostensibly an accidental act, this is a far cry from permitting women intentionally to kill their unborn children up until the endpoint of a normal pregnancy. Dave Mill comments in his article “Abortion and Exodus 21.”

Notice that this Mosaic regulation had to do with injury inflicted indirectly and accidentally: “The phrasing of the case suggests that we are dealing with an instance of unintentional battery involving culpability” (Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 92). Abortion, on the other hand, is a deliberate, purposeful, intentional termination of a child’s life. If God dealt severely with the accidental death of a pre-born infant, how do you suppose He feels about the deliberate murder of the unborn by an abortion doctor in collusion with the mother? The Bible states explicitly how He feels: “[D]o not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked” (Exodus 23:7). As a matter of fact, one of the things that God hates is “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17; cf. 2 Kings 8:12; 15:16; Hosea 13:16; Amos 1:13). Abortion is a serious matter with God. We absolutely must base our views on God’s will—not the will of men. The very heart and soul of this great nation is being ripped out by unethical actions like abortion. We must return to the Bible as our standard of behavior—before it is everlastingly too late.[1]

Third, the text is clear; she is pregnant with at least one child: “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child…” (Ex. 21:22). The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon defines the Hebrew word hareh as a pregnant woman with child. It’s clear that she is not carrying around a mass of undefined tissue that becomes a human being when “it” exits the sanctuary of the womb.

Fourth, the Bible attributes self-consciousness to unborn babies, something that modern medicine has studied and acknowledges. Jacob and Esau “struggled together within” their mother’s womb (Gen. 25:22). The New Testament offers a similar glimpse into prenatal consciousness: “And it came about that when Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41). “Struggling” and “leaping” are the result of consciousness. John leaps in reaction to Mary’s pregnancy.

Fifth, some commentators claim that in Exodus 21:22, the death of a “fetus,” either accidentally or on purpose, is a property crime. The Bible teaches otherwise. The original Hebrew reads: “And if men struggle with each other and strike a pregnant woman so that her children [yeled] come out….” The Hebrew word for “children” in this verse is used in other contexts to designate a child who has already been born. For example, in Exodus 2:6 we read: “When Pharaoh’s daughter opened [the basket], she saw the child [yeled], and behold, the boy was crying. And she had pity on him and said, ‘This is one of the Hebrews’ children [yeled].’” Exodus regards a yeled as a person, not like an appendix or a kidney.

Sixth, if there is no injury to these individuals—the mother and her prematurely delivered child or children—then there is no penalty. If there is injury, the judges must decide on an appropriate penalty based on the extent of the injury to the mother and/or her child, because both are persons under biblical law.

Seventh, As Shelton points out, the 1977 edition of the New American Standard Bible of those working on the passage translated the Hebrews as “so that she has a miscarriage.” The 1995 translation is better (“she gives birth prematurely”), but it still does not capture the literal rendering of the Hebrew. In a marginal note, the NASB translators recognize that the literal meaning of the text is “her children come out.”

Thinking Straight in a Crooked World

The nursery rhyme "There Was a Crooked Man" is an appropriate description of how sin affects us and our world. We live in a crooked world of ideas evaluated by crooked people. Left to our crooked nature, we can never fully understand what God has planned for us and His world. God has not left us without a corrective solution. He has given us a reliable reference point in the Bible so we can identify the crookedness and straighten it.

Buy Now

It’s frustrating to read translations that include marginal notes telling us what it literally says. It’s better to translate a passage literally and then add a margin note to explain if needed. Other translations are more word-for-word. Here’s one example from the Holman Christian Standard Bible:

When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born [prematurely] but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment.

Notice that it’s “so that her children are born.” Here’s another from Young’s Literal Translation (1898):

And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges.”

Note the date (1898), Young’s translation is long before there was a Christian Right.

Eighth, there are two Hebrew words that fit the circumstances of a miscarriage or premature birth. Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951) was a Jewish rabbi and biblical scholar born in Florence, Italy. In his commentary on Exodus, long before Roe v Wade or the rise of the Christian Right, he presents an accurate translation of the passage based on the Hebrew:

When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens—that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurts her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the children, then you shall give life for life.[2]

Ninth, the King James Version uses a different translation approach, but it is consistent with the text in showing that “children” are “coming out.” The KJV reads, “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine” (Ex. 21:22). The use of the word “fruit” is a descriptive euphemism for a child in the Old Testament (Gen. 30:2) and the New Testament (Luke 1:42). Elizabeth responded to Mary this way when she learned of Mary’s pregnancy:

And she spake out with a loud voice, and said,
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Mr. Shelton and Mr. Talarico are biblically ignorant. Mr. Talarico needs to pick a different seminary.

[1] Dave Mill, “Abortion and Exodus 21,” Apologetics Press: https://bit.ly/33ix90y

[2] Umberto Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1967), 275.

Answering Anti-Preterist Heresies (Part Two)

Mon, 01 Jun 2026 08:00:32 -0400

In this conclusion of a conference talk Gary gave recently, he discusses the apologetics of preterism.

Before any worthwhile discussion can take place about the Bible, the first question I always ask is, “What does the text say?” The tempter approached Eve with a question about the text: “Indeed has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?’” (Gen. 3:1).

The serpent intentionally misconstrues the command of God by formulating the question designed to get the woman to express the command in her own words.[1]

The devil does a similar thing in the wilderness temptation of Jesus (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). Paul makes a necessary distinction between “seed” and “seeds” (Gal. 3:16). The particulars of the text matter. An interpreter can’t move on to what a text means until he nails down what the text says.

It matters that Jesus said “this generation” rather than “that generation,” just like it matters that He mostly uses the second person plural “you” and not the third person plural “they” (Matt. 24:30, 33) throughout the Olivet Discourse.

Matthew 24:33 tells us what audience Jesus said would see “these things”: “so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.” It is obvious, and without any need for debate, that the first “you” refers to those who asked the questions that led to Jesus’ extended remarks (Matt. 24:2-4). Jesus identifies those who will “see all these things” by again using “you.” If Jesus had a future generation in mind, He could have eliminated all confusion by saying, “when they see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, that generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”

Prophecy Wars: The Biblical Battle Over the End Times

If you’re willing to take the Bible at its word, the study of prophecy can strengthen your faith, but if your trust is in man’s speculations, you will be disappointed every time. And that is why Bible prophecy is such a crucial area for apologetics. Skeptics of all stripes have condemned the Bible as inaccurate merely because various well-meaning Christians have been in error about the End Times.

Buy Now

In this conclusion of a conference talk Gary gave recently, he discusses the apologetics of preterism. Many futurists are vehemently opposed to any argument put forth by any preterist, to the point that they call it heresy, even though they must reword and redefine simple words in the New Testament. Gary gives some advice about how to approach such people.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

[1] John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 204.

Episode 94: Put Yourself into the First Century

Fri, 29 May 2026 06:53:50 -0400

Please help us meet a $15K matching challenge here

Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope-Episode 94

Gary discusses the hermeneutical concept of “audience relevance.”

In Matthew 24, Jesus continually uses the second-person plural (“you”) to identify His present audience: “when you see these things” (24:33). Follow the use of “you” throughout the chapter and notice that it refers to Jesus’ present audience (24:2, 4, 6, 9, 15, 33, etc.). If this audience reference is reliable, then Jesus could not have had a future generation in mind or He would have used the third-person plural (“they”): “when they see these things.”

Some prophecy writers object to this argument by claiming that “the pronoun does not always require that the listening audience is in view.”[1] For example, Randall Price uses Deuteronomy 30 in an attempt to make the case that Jesus’ use of “you” “may refer to the future ‘this generation.’”[2] It’s obvious that the use of “you” by Moses refers to the nation since the entire nation was being addressed.[3] While it’s appropriate to refer to the Old Testament when a passage is quoted in the New Testament, why go back to Deuteronomy 30 for how “you” is used when there are hundreds of examples of the use of “you” in Matthew’s gospel? An interpreter would be hard pressed to find “you” being used by Jesus in Matthew in any way other than as a reference to the audience that He was addressing:

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust. When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them” (Matt. 21:43-45).

The Pharisees understood “you” to refer to them, and Jesus did not correct them, because He meant them.

Wars and Rumors of Wars

A first-century interpretation of the Olivet Discourse was once common in commentaries and narrative-style books that describe the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. There is also a history of skeptics who turn to Bible prophecy and claim Jesus was wrong about the timing of His coming at “the end of the age” and the signs associated with it. A mountain of scholarship shows that the prophecy given by Jesus was fulfilled in exacting detail when He said it would: before the generation of those to whom He was speaking passed away.

Buy Now

Gary discusses the hermeneutical concept of “audience relevance.” Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation and we do it every day by reading other people’s body language and tone of voice, among many other visual cues. Written words in the Bible don’t have these cues, but we still need to read them as if we were the original recipients of the NT messages and letters in the first century.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here for all episodes of Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope

[1] Paul N. Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody Publishes, 2007), 163.

[2] Randall Price, “Historical Problems with a First Century Fulfillment,” The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack, eds. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2003), 380.

[3] Price claims that Moses’ “words speak about a future generation that will live thousands of years later and into the eschatological period.” There is nothing in the context that leads necessarily to this unproven assumption.

American Vision’s International Impact

Thu, 28 May 2026 08:14:23 -0400

Please help us meet a $15K matching challenge here

American Vision had always wanted the name World Vision, but it had been taken by the time AV began operating in 1979. We started off as a Christian history organization with our first product, The American Vision: 360 Years Later, which traced the history of America from the signing of the Mayflower Compact to 1980. It won the prestigious Angel Award.

The three-volume God and Government followed. It set forth the principles of government, beginning with God’s government over all things and applying His governing authority to the individual in self-government and to the governing of the Family, Church, and State (the civil sphere).

In time, we found our work taking on an international flavor with many of AV’s books being translated into Spanish, French, Russian, and Portuguese. My work has taken me to China, Mexico, England, and South America. In Guatemala, William Ochoa is developing a biblical worldview ministry based on American Vision’s work, in particular, God and Government. William will be visiting AV’s offices again in July. See his organization’s flyer below.

I’ve done several interviews on eschatology with a Christian TV station in Canada, as well as interviews in Great Britain and France. Then I just received the following about AV’s podcast reach.

“I have some cool information that might interest you. I received the following from Carlos.

The Gary DeMar Podcast has a good performance in Apple Podcasts rankings (last 30 days):

Position 12 in the category Christianity (Lebanon)

Position 33 in the category Christianity (Netherlands)

Position 52 in the category Religion & Spirituality (Lebanon)

Position 54 in the category Christianity (Guatemala)

Position 58 in the category Christianity (Belgium)

Position 85 in the category Religion & Spirituality (Netherlands)

Position 88 in the category Religion & Spirituality (Guatemala)

Position 94 in the category Christianity (Croatia)

Position 117 in the category Christianity (Sweden)

Position 145 in the category Christianity (Zimbabwe)

It’s a start. This type of exposure was not possible just five years ago. AV is working on several new projects. The podcasts we did with Kim Burgess on 1 Corinthians 15 and related passages have been transcribed. We are getting them ready for publication. The book I did on Zechariah 14 with Robert Cruickshank was recently published.

Making Prophetic Sense of Zechariah 14

Zechariah 14 has been interpreted in various ways throughout history. The chapter describes a future “Day of the Lord.” How far in the future is that time, and what events does the final chapter of Zechariah describe? Making Prophetic Sense of Zechariah 14 covers a lot of ground, including the history of interpretation going back centuries. As this volume points out, interpretations vary, and some are radically different, even when they agree on the time of fulfillment. There is no consensus, given the fact that it’s one of the most difficult prophetic sections found in Scripture, as many well-known and respected commentators have admitted.

Buy Now

I’m putting the final touches on Israel in Bible Prophecy that I’ve written with Brian Godawa. Several other projects are in the works.

All this is to say that we have a $15,000 matching-grant donation in effect. We are nearly there. Anything you can do to put us over the top would be appreciated. You can donate online or with a check.

Any amount will be appreciated and put to good use.

Answering Anti-Preterist Heresies (Part One)

Wed, 27 May 2026 06:59:25 -0400

Please help us meet a $15K matching challenge here

In another conference talk Gary gave recently, he discusses the apologetics of preterism.

During the Symposium, James Hamilton said if the destruction of Jerusalem was the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, then why didn’t the biblical writers comment about the subject after the event? The answer is quite simple: The New Testament books were written before AD 70. John A. T. Robinson, in his book Redating the New Testament, developed the thesis that every New Testament book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, including the book of Revelation. There are many events recorded in the Bible that are not found in non-biblical historical works. Consider everything from the announcement to Zechariah that his wife Elizabeth would give birth to John the Baptist and the ascension of Jesus into heaven and much of what is in between.

There aren’t many historical works from the first century that touch on the period, so to find a source as complete as the works of Josephus of that period of history is a providential find of the first order.

Through a process of discovery, I found that a preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse was a common feature in commentaries and in various narrative-style books that describe the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 as it is outlined in the Olivet Discourse of the synoptic gospels.

• Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies (1754). Newton, like James Hamilton, was a premillennialist, but unlike Hamilton, Newton is a preterist when it comes to much of the Olivet Discourse.

• Nehemiah Nisbett, The Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem (1787).

• George Halford, The Destruction of Jerusalem: An Absolute and Irresistible Proof of the Divine Origin of Christianity, etc (1805).

• William Patton, The Judgment of Jerusalem Predicted in Scripture, Fulfilled in History (1876).

• Alfred J. Church, The Story of the Last Days of Jerusalem (1902).

There are also numerous editions of Alexander Keith’s (1791-1880) Evidence of the Truth of the Christian Religion Derived from the Literal Fulfillment of Prophecy, etc., first published in 1832, in which he includes a chapter on “The Destruction of Jerusalem.” It went through numerous editions and many printings.

Keith’s apologetic work on prophecy was designed to counter liberal claims that the Bible is merely the work of men. Bible prophecy, Keith maintained, demonstrated that this was an impossible claim that could not be defended in terms of many examples of fulfilled prophecy. Edward Giddings, in his book American Christian Rulers, “relates how Keith’s book was instrumental in persuading Supreme Court chief justice John Marshall of the messianic claims of Jesus Christ in the days before his death on July 6, 1835.”[1] The following is from Giddings:

[Marshall] believed in the truth of the Christian revelation, but not in the divinity of Christ; therefore he could not commune in the Episcopal Church. But, during the last months of his life, he read Keith on Prophecy, where our Saviour’s divinity is incidentally treated, and was convinced by his work, and the fuller investigation to which it led, of the supreme divinity of the Saviour.[2]

Keith used a number of extra-biblical sources, as do almost every Bible expositor, ancient and modern, to offer support for the biblical record regarding fulfilled prophecy. It was no different when he came to the Olivet Discourse.

Prophecy Wars: The Biblical Battle Over the End Times

Buy Now

In another conference talk Gary gave recently, he discusses the apologetics of preterism. Many futurists are vehemently opposed to any argument put forth by any preterist, to the point that they call it heresy, even though they must reword and redefine simple words in the New Testament. Gary gives some advice about how to approach such people.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

[1] Eric Rauch, Publisher’s Foreword, Alexander Keith, Evidence of the Truth of the Christian Religion: Derived from the Literal Fulfillment of Prophecy (White Hall, WV: Tolle Lege Press, [1834] 2011), v.

[2] Edward Giddings, American Christian Rulers, or Religion and Men of Government (New York: Bromfield and Company, 1889), 332. American Christian Rulers was reprinted by American Vision Press, Powder Springs, Georgia, in 2011. The corresponding page number in the new edition is 348.

All Governments are Theocratic

Tue, 26 May 2026 07:52:16 -0400

Please help us meet a $15K matching challenge here

For decades, secularists have told us that what certain countries need is democracy. What if a country votes to make Sharia law the law of the land? Once power is secured through the democratic process, the door is often shut to exclude those who might challenge the status quo. American politicians have used the democratic process, through promises to special interest groups, to gain power, shut off dissent, and establish their own secular theocracy.

“A professor found that a vast majority of his university students were unable to tell the U.S. Constitution from the Russian constitution…. Many students respond, confessing how they have never read the U.S. Constitution and how they appreciate the foresight of the founding fathers to implement minimum wage and paternity leave,”[1] of which the Constitution is silent.

Constitution 101: The Biblical Foundations

Constitution 101 is a complete education. In this course, you will learn from top legal and historical minds about this amazing document and what it really means to be a constitutional republic. Complete with audio, video, and text, Constitution 101 is filled with dozens of hours of learning. After watching, listening, and reading all of the material in this course, you will be ready to take on any skeptic making claims about our country and its founding document being "secular."

Buy Now

Let’s begin with “theocracy.” The word “theocracy” consists of two Greek words: theos (God) and kratos (power or rule). In its simplest definition, theocracy means the “rule of God,” not the rule of the church. That would be an ‘ecclesiocracy.’ The word ‘theocracy’ is not found in the Bible, although the concept is present. Most do not know the definition of theocracy. Here’s an example of someone who confuses ‘theocracy’ with ‘ecclesiocracy.’

Unfortunately, there are some Christian groups … who are espousing an unhealthy Christian nationalism that merges Christian identity with national identity and wraps the Gospel in the American flag. And the most extreme among them would even welcome a theocratic kingdom on earth where religious leaders dictate how the society is governed.

This is not the proper definition of theocracy, though it is popular. The word ‘theocracy’ was coined by Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian for the Romans, whose Wars of the Jews parallels Jesus’ prediction of the Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70 (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21).[2] The word appears in Against Apion (2.164-165): “placing all sovereignty and authority in the hands of God.”[3]

Gabriel Sivan, a Jewish writer who has contributed articles to the Encyclopedia Judaica, offers the following as a helpful clarification of the term:

To the modern ear the word ‘theocracy’ has distinctly pejorative overtones, suggesting the rule of some oppressive priestly caste, “government by state by immediate Divine guidance or by officials regarded as divinely guided,” to quote a standard definition. Yet, unlike certain other systems known in antiquity, “the ‘Theocracy’ of Moses was not a government of priests, as opposed to kings; it was a government by God Himself, as opposed to the government by priests or kings” (Dean Arthur Stanley, A History of the Jewish Church, 1862). The U.S. jurist and statesman Oscar Straus, a close associate of President Theodore Roosevelt, also stressed this point in his study of American culture’s indebtedness to the Hebraic concept: “The very fact that … with the single exception of Eli, no priest was ever elected to the magistracy during the entire period of the Commonwealth, decidedly [negates] any such interpretation” (The Origin of the Republican form of Government in the United States of America, 1887).[4]

I explain these principles in my books God and Government (with Student Workbook), Restoring the Foundation of Civilization, and Liberty at Risk.

God and Government

Buy Now

God is the Sovereign Theocrat/Governor. He has instituted limited human governments for our world: family, church, and civil governments. The church and civil spheres are jurisdictionally separate but bound to follow God’s law as they apply to each sphere. Every law is based on someone’s view of morality. Rushdoony makes this point.

It must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society…. If law has its source in man’s reason, then reason is the god of that society. If the source is an oligarchy, or in a court, senate, or ruler, then that source is the god of that system…. [I]n any society, any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion.[5]

Every political system is theocratic if either the individual (Libertinism, Moral Anarchy, King, Monarch) or the group (Democracy, Oligarchy) is the basis of what’s morally right or wrong. Atheistic regimes are theocratic since they place the source of law in the independent and unbound ruler (“every person doing what is right in his own eyes”: Judges 17:6), a power-entrenched group, or the civil sphere, in which elected or appointed officials became a “law unto themselves.” Communism and many modern civil governments come to mind.

The rejection of the true God leads inescapably to the choice of another god. Democracy can become theocratic if absolute power is given to the voice of the people. You may have heard the Latin phrase, Vox populi, vox dei. Those who promote a particular worldview and seek to implement it socially, educationally, politically, and judicially have elevated humans to the status of gods. Their intentions are theocratic. Only their choice of god or gods has changed.

The word “Messianic” is used in a similar way. While it’s generally attributed to religious figures, it can also apply to education (“The Messianic Character of American Education”) and politics (“The Messianic State”).

Theocracy is no different. Once there is no need for a transcendent God, there is no longer an operating system of fixed laws. Man becomes the new god collectivized in the State. To use Hegel’s phrase, “the State is god walking on earth.”

Conde Pallen’s utopian novel, Crucible Island, describes what happens when the God of the Bible is rejected, and the State becomes God. Man looks for a substitute provider so that “the individual should have no thought, desire, or object other than the public welfare, of which the State is the creator and the inviolable guardian. As soon as the child is capable of learning, he is taught the Socialist catechism, whose first questions run as follows:”

Q. By whom were you begotten?
A. By the sovereign State.

Q. Why were you begotten?
A. That I might know, love, and serve the Sovereign State always.

Q. What is the sovereign State?
A. The sovereign State is humanity in composite and perfect being.

Q. Why is the State supreme?
A. The State is supreme because it is my Creator and Conserver in which I am and move and have my being and without which I am nothing.

Q. What is the individual?
A. The individual is only a part of the whole, and made for the whole, and finds his complete and perfect expression in the sovereign State. Individuals are made for cooperation only, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth.[6]

A biblical worldview creates boundaries for all governing authorities. Each sphere has its jurisdictional limits, authority, and enforcing powers.

[1] Sarah Rumpf, “Professor finds most students can’t differentiate between US and Russian Constitutions,” Fox News (September 20, 2022).

[2] See “APPENDIX B: Josephus on the Fall of Jerusalem” in David Chilton’s Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion.

[3] “Some peoples have entrusted the supreme political power to monarchies, others to oligarchies, yet others to the masses. Our lawgiver [Moses], however … gave to his constitution the form of what—if a forced expression be permitted—may be termed a ‘theocracy,’ placing all sovereignty and authority in the hands of God.”

[4] Gabriel Sivan, The Bible and Civilization (New York: Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Co., 1973), 145.

[5] Rousas J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1973), 4-5.

[6] Conde Pallen, Crucible Island: A Romance, an Adventure and an Experiment (New York: The Manhattanville Press, 1919), 109-110.

In a Little, Little While

Mon, 25 May 2026 07:55:33 -0400

Please help us meet a $15K matching challenge here

Gary answers a listener question about a Greek word used in Matthew 25:5, Hebrews 10:37, and in the Septuagint in Habakkuk 2:3.

In Revelation 1:1, John was shown “the things which must shortly take place.” Why must they “shortly take place? Because the reader is told “the time is near” (Rev. 1:3). Jesus defines “near” to mean “at the door” (Matt. 24:33). James writes that “the coming of the Lord is at hand,” and he defines “at hand” to mean “right at the door” (5:8-9).

If the purpose of Revelation was to demonstrate that the events of the book were a prophetic certainty that could occur at any time, John could have been told to write, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His bond-servants the things which must take place.” This wording would have had the effect of expressing necessity without committing to any time parameters, the very thing dispensationalists claim the Bible teaches. Revelation uses this construction in several places (4:1; 10:11; 17:10; 20:3). But by adding “shortly,” Jesus is telling Revelation’s first readers that not only are these coming events a certainty, they will happen quickly because “the time is near.”

Let’s allow Milton Terry, author of Biblical Hermeneutics, to put the debate over time words into perspective:

When a writer says that an event will shortly and speedily come to pass, or is about to take place, it is contrary to all propriety to declare that his statements allow us to believe the event is in the far future. It is a reprehensible abuse of language to say that the words immediately, or near at hand, mean ages hence, or after a long time. Such a treatment of the language of Scripture is even worse than the theory of a double sense.

Terry is a good judge in this matter since he is respected by futurists and those who believe that the majority of events described in Revelation have already been fulfilled. He is to the point—near means near all the time!

Prophecy Wars: The Biblical Battle Over the End Times

Buy Now

Gary answers a listener question about a Greek word used in Matthew 25:5, Hebrews 10:37, and in the Septuagint in Habakkuk 2:3. The NT often uses OT language to show that similar events are soon to pass in the first century. Israel’s history often feels like a series of cyclical events and Paul even mentions that these events happened as “examples” to his generation, “on whom the end of the ages has come” (1 Corinthians 10:11).

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

Episode 93: Will Jesus Return in "Just the Same Way"?

Fri, 22 May 2026 09:00:10 -0400

Please help us meet a $15K matching challenge here

Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope-Episode 93

Gary takes a closer look at Acts 1:11, which is often pointed to as proof that Jesus will return exactly as He left during the Ascension.

At His trial, Jesus told Caiaphas the high priest and the Sanhedrin that they would see “the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64). When would this take place? “The phrase… ‘from now on’ means exactly what it says…, and refers not to some distant event but to the imminent vindication of Jesus which will shortly be obvious to those who have sat in judgement over him.”[1] What did they “see”? Certainly not an event that was thousands of years in the future. N. T. Wright comments:

Jesus is not, then, suggesting that Caiaphas will witness the end of the space-time order. Nor will he look out of the window one day and observe a human figure flying downwards on a cloud. It is absurd to imagine either Jesus, or Mark, or anyone in between, supposing the words to mean that. Caiaphas will witness the strange events which follow Jesus’ crucifixion: the rise of a group of disciples claiming that he has been raised from the dead, and the events which accelerate towards the final clash with Rome, in which, judged according to the time-honoured test, Jesus will be vindicated as a true prophet. In and through it all, Caiaphas will witness events which show that Jesus was not, after all, mistaken in his claim, hitherto implicit, now at last explicit: he is the Messiah, the anointed one, the true representative of the people of Israel, the one in and through whom the covenant God is acting to set up his kingdom.[2]

At His ascension, Jesus had come up to the Ancient of Days “with the clouds of heaven” to receive the kingdom from His Father (Mark 16:19; Acts 1:9). Jesus’ reception of the kingdom gave Him possession so that He could do with it as He pleased. He had earlier stated that the kingdom would be “taken away from” those who rejected Him and would “be given to a nation producing the fruit of it” (Matt. 21:43). The church—made up initially of believing Jews and later of believing Gentiles—is described by Peter as a “holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9). It is this “nation” that is in possession of the kingdom by right of transfer. This covenant transfer is confirmed for us at the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:54-56). Stephen’s murderers objected to being called “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears” (7:51). His words of condemnation had put them outside the covenant community because they, too, persecuted and killed the prophets by publicly denouncing the gospel message (7:52).

So Stephen saw Him, before his death by stoning (Acts 7:56), and thus prophesied judgment on his murderers, at the very moment when he prayed for their forgiveness. The priesthood stood on trial that day, although the execution of their sentence was yet to come, on that awful day in AD 70 when the priests were cut down at the altar as they steadily continued their sacrifices.[3]

The church was persecuted by Jewish opposition for forty years after Jesus’ death, once again confirming what Jesus had prophesied. With the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the truth was comprehended by the tribes of Israel (Rev. 1:7). The generation that Jesus said would not pass away until all these things came to pass finally came to understand the implications of their rebellion: Jesus is the one who was given “[D]ominion, Glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve Him” (Dan. 7:14). They were not to look for another (Matt. 24:26).

Last Days Madness

In this authoritative book, Gary DeMar clears the haze of "end-times" fever, shedding light on the most difficult and studied prophetic passages in the Bible, including Daniel 7:13-14; 9:24-27; Matt. 16:27-28; 24-25; Thess. 2; 2 Peter 3:3-13, and clearly explaining a host of other controversial topics.

Buy Now

Gary takes a closer look at Acts 1:11, which is often pointed to as proof that Jesus will return exactly as He left during the Ascension. Most futurists use this verse to show that Jesus will return in His physical body because that would be necessary in order to fulfill “just in the same way” He went away. The problem is that this Greek phrase is translated differently in other parts of the NT.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here for all episodes of Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope

[1] R.T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, [1989] 1998), 315.

[2] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 525.

[3] R.A. Cole, The Gospel According to Mark: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1961), 229.