Are the End Times Here? Explaining Each Event

Are we currently living in the end

times? A lot of Christians are wondering

about this, panic watching the news each

day, wondering what is happening to the

world. We need hope. And this area of

theology is designed to give it to us,

to put hope in our hearts every day if

we get it right. But there's a lot of

errors and misunderstandings and also

neglect in this area. So, this video is

my effort to serve the body of Christ,

offering what I hope is a one-stop shop

overview of esquetology. Esquetology is

the branch of theology concerned with

the final events in history, especially

those things leading up to the second

coming of Christ. In one sense, we've

been in the last days or the end times

ever since Pentecost. But, as you know,

there's a specific chain of events that

many Christians are are thoughtful about

right now. uh what is the nature of the

antichrist, the great tribulation, the

final resurrection? All of these things

we want to think through together in

this video. You'll be disappointed if

you're expecting me to nail everything

down. The goal is actually more to

triage these different issues with a

view to just dayto-day faithfulness to

Christ, but I'll do my best. And where I

don't address things, I'll highlight

other videos where I either have or

will. And if you're expecting a specific

answer in terms of the timeline, I can

disappoint you upfront and say I have no

idea how far away the second coming of

Christ is. I just think we should be

ready at any time. But there are some

things we can say about that, and I'll

return to that at the end. We'll go in

three chapters in this video. Chapter

one warns against four dangers that are

present when we're studying the end

times. Majoring on the minors, hype,

speculation, and historical ignorance.

Chapter 2 will explain four essential

doctrines that all Christians should

agree on concerning the end times. The

second coming, final resurrection, final

judgment, and the final state. And then

chapter 3 will explain four

disagreements that Christians have about

the end times that even though they

matter, they don't make you a faithful

Christian or not if you get them right

or wrong. They're important, but they're

not the difference between orthodoxy and

heresy. That's the millennium, the

rapture, the antichrist, and the great

tribulation. Those final three topics

there, I'll treat briefly, but I at

least want to kind of sketch out, you

know, here's what this is and where you

can find more information. And I'm going

to argue those are third rank issues,

which I'll explain more. That just means

we don't need to divide from other

Christians based on disagreements with

them. That's a huge uh part of my heart

on this topic. So, we've got four

dangers, four doctrines, four

disagreements. Let's dive right in. This

will be a longer video, but even as long

as it is, I've condensed it down, boiled

it down, trying to be helpful to you so

that my videos aren't wasting your time.

Before diving in though, one quick

question. Why does this matter? And the

answer to that in one sentence is that

it's imperative for Christians to have

an accurate view of our future hope

because that affects how we follow Jesus

in the present. Put it like this, future

hope fuels present faithfulness. Here's

a metaphor. Suppose you're sailing

toward the shoreline and it's a a dark

night and a stormy night and there's a

lighthouse that's there that is

specifically designed to guide you

safely to the shore, but someone goes up

to the lighthouse and turns it down by

50%. Now you're struggling to see it and

then they turn it down to 95% or they

turn it down by 95% so you can't see it

at all. H this is going to cause

problems and you might crash into the

rocks. You need the lighthouse to be

bright so that you know where to sail.

And in the same way, when we can clearly

see what the Bible teaches about our

future hope, it helps us follow Jesus

faithfully in the present. And we

desperately need that hope. We've just

launched into 2026. If there's ever a

time where it feels like people are

aching for hope, uh certainly in my

lifetime, it's never felt quite like

this. the global instability, political

turmoil, the rise of AI, so much else

leaves people like they're sailing in

the dark and they don't have a

lighthouse to guide them. The gospel

speaks to that. Part of the gospel is

these future events. It gives us the

best possible hope. Uh the gospel is

that lighthouse. And so we want to turn

the light up and get biblical clarity so

that if you're not a Christian watching

this, you might think by the end of this

video, I wish that were true. And if you

do know Jesus, your heart would be

filled with peace and joy and abounding

in hope as Paul says in Romans 15:13. So

may that be in your heart as we go.

Chapter one, four dangers in studying

the end times. And let's start with

majoring on the minors. I've kind of

already mentioned this already. This is

a huge temptation to put the primary

focus both emotionally and or

intellectually

on the secondary and tertiary aspects of

the end times, especially the chronology

of events leading up to the second

coming of Christ where there's areas of

disagreement among godly Christians.

We're going to cover these things in

chapter 3. Now, these doctrines are

still important. We're not minimizing

them, but they are not the main object

of Christian hope that is meant to

sustain us day by day. We should study

them. We should debate them. But there's

a real danger of becoming more

emotionally preoccupied by what you see

on the right side of the screen than

what you can see on the left side of the

screen. What the New Testament

emphasizes as our central hope is that

Jesus will come again. The dead will be

raised. There will be final judgment day

and then we will enter into the final

state which includes what are sometimes

called heaven and hell. And we'll

explore those termin that terminology a

little bit when we get there. Those four

events I suggest to you form the

skeletal backbone of Christian

esquetology.

Sometimes Christians just assume that

and then we put all the focus on these

other little details, the things on the

on the right side of the screen. Uh and

this to me is like when my kids focus

all on eating snacks uh rather than

eating meals, which is not healthy, but

sometimes we could be tempted to do

that. And the results that I see from

this danger is two things. First,

unnecessary division. Many Christians

separate over and require agreement on

these tertiary doctrines, placing them,

for example, in a a local church's

statement of faith or a Christian

institutions statement of fa faith. So

you have to be you have to affirm this

to be a member there. I'm going to argue

in chapter 3 that we can just allow for

Christians to have to follow their

conscience on those kinds of issues that

I'll cover there. The second danger

though, the second consequence when we

major on the minors is we have a reduced

hope. We turn down the brightness of the

lighthouse because the primary object of

our hope is Jesus himself will return.

And this is what is so emphasized so

pervasively all throughout the New

Testament. I'll just put up one passage

as an example of this from Hebrews 9:28.

And we don't just want to affirm what

the Bible affirms. We want to emphasize

what the Bible emphasizes. And that

means we got to be so clear on the

primary issues so we don't turn down the

lighthouse. A second danger is hype.

Sometimes what generates excitement in

the end times is not the grounded hope

of scripture, but hype and

sensationalism. And there's kind of a

wow factor involved in the thrill of

decoding headlines and the sense of

insider knowledge and a feeling of

urgency. You know, each day the

newspaper has new stories and it feels

exciting to try to put it all together.

And I guess I don't want to push against

that desire in your heart too much. That

desire for your life to matter within a

larger meaningful context is good, but

the hype that comes gives you an

adrenaline rush rather than a really

healthy sustaining faith. It creates

nerves. Uh it excites you, but it

doesn't really anchor your soul. And so

whatever is legitimate about that

longing in our hearts for a sense of the

unfolding drama of history should be

fulfilled by the true hope of the

gospel. The gospel speaks to that. The

gospel is exciting. Resurrection is

exciting. The renewal of all things is

exciting. So we want to locate our

excitement in Jesus and major on the

majors. And a good test for whether

we're being drawn into an unhealthy hype

here can be, is our view of the end

times leading to godliness? Is it

causing me to be faithful? Is it causing

me to put sin to death? Is it causing me

to persevere in suffering and to abound

in the fruits of the spirit and so

forth? It should. Just think about it.

You know, one day Jesus will return and

all glory will go to the one to whom it

should go. Now, that's the most painful

thing about the world right now. It's

not that uh we still suffer, though that

is terrible and that would be great to

be over with that. that glory isn't

given to Jesus as it ought to be. And so

this should mobilize the feeling in our

heart of I want to be faithful to him

now because he is coming then. I think a

good prayer can come from 1 John 3:3 to

simply say Lord purify my heart now

because I'm going to see you. Here's a

third danger and that's speculation.

Throughout church history, I'm sure

you're aware of this. Hopefully you are

aware of this. There have been these

unfortunate episodes where Christians

make predictions about the second

coming. And this has been very

unfortunate with very disillusioning

consequences. Uh here's a famous

example. In the 1840s, William Miller

predicted that the second coming of

Christ was imminent. And so you can see

him on the screen here along with a

prophetic chart of 1843.

The initial predicted date was between

March 21st, 1843 and March 21st, 1844.

Then it was adjusted to October 22nd,

1844. And when it didn't happen, it it

damaged a lot of people. In the New

Testament, Jesus explicitly warns

against overconfidence in identifying

the timing of the second coming. Matthew

24, he even says, "Nobody knows, not

even the angels, nor the Son." Just

think about that. Even the angels don't

know exactly when it's going to be. I

never never thought about that for some

reason about the angels. You know,

they're they're they're waiting too. Um

in Acts 1:7, Jesus says, "It's not for

you to know the times or seasons that

the father has fixed by his own

authority." So, this is there's a

tension here because on the one hand, we

should be ready at all times. On the

other hand, we want to be discerning

about the times. But the simple fact is

we are not given a countdown clock. And

the focus of the Bible is not on

satisfying our curiosities but on

shaping our character. Jesus is more

interested in our faithfulness than in

our charts. We should have the heart cry

of come soon and I'm ready at any time.

But we don't know need to know the exact

timing. And so the excitement in our

hearts shouldn't be rooted in the

details or timing but in its certainty

and in what it is. What should thrill us

is what's going to happen, not knowing

when. Now, if someone is tempted toward

speculation here, I don't want to put

too much shame on that. I would just

invite us to turn our prayers from

Jesus, when are you coming to Jesus, let

me be ready at any moment. And and I

also think the prayer right with that

one can be, "Lord Jesus, come soon."

What a wonderful prayer. I mean, you

should pray that prayer every day. Let

that be just part of your regular prayer

life. If you struggle with prayer, this

is a great thing to come back to again

and again. Come soon. A fourth danger is

historical ignorance. Let me say this

one with all the love of my heart. As

one who aspires to be a servant of

evangelicalism, and I defend

evangelicalism from criticisms, but it's

time for some straight talk here on this

one. What often happens in Christian

circles today, especially evangelical

ones, is not just that we teach views of

the end times that were unpopular in

church history, but that we require

views of the end times that did not

exist anywhere for the majority of

church history. Let me say that again.

We're we're not just affirming what is

unpopular. We're requiring what was

non-existent.

Uh, for example, some surveys estimate

that a majority of American evangelicals

hold to dispensational premillennialism.

I will say more about that view later.

For now, I'm establishing just the

principle. So, don't worry about those

big words. But this view did not exist

as a developed system before the 1830s.

I'll explain that more in chapter 3. So,

you know, here's the thing. It's one

thing if you say we need to make a

change and uh as the church we we we

need to make a course correction.

Sometimes that is necessary especially

when the reform or change you are

calling for has precedent in prior

church history. It's another thing to

make the change without even realizing

that that's what you're doing and when

there is zero precedent for it. If

you're walking through the woods and you

decide to stray off the path a little

bit for a principled reason, that's one

thing. But if you stray off the path and

you don't even realize you've strayed

off the path, that's another. And so as

one who aspires to literally spend my

life serving evangelical Christianity, I

need to say that a huge weakness of

modern evangelicalism is our

underdeveloped awareness of church

history. I feel this personally by the

way as an academic who works in

historical theology and loves reading

like Anselm and so forth and then I live

and pastor in evangelical contexts. I

often feel the effects of this tension.

People will for example accuse me of

liberalism on certain views like

creation or the flood or even my

political posture and but my views on

those things are informed by historic

Christian orthodoxy. And when people

call these things liberal, I'm afraid

they're often simply unaware that these

views are widely represented among

faithful Christians of the past,

including fundamentalists of previous

centuries. If your if if where you set

the bandwidth entails that Jay Gresian

man and BB Warfield and Charles Spurgeon

and countless others are all liberals,

you at least need to give an argument

for that view. Otherwise, it's coming

across as a judgment of ignorance. And I

don't say that to jab at anyone or out

of defensiveness. Truly, I think I I say

that because I think it needs to be said

because I want to one of the things I

want to do is serve evangelicalism by

doing a lot of retrieval work and that

leads to the triage work. I just think

we have a huge issue here and uh some of

you who watch my channels are very

sympathetic to this already. There's

whole swaths of evangelicalism that I

think are still here where we need more

awareness and I think we need that on

our views of the end times. So, as we

dive into this now, I'm going to

encourage us to consider the insights of

church history, not because it is

infallible, but because it is so

tremendously useful and necessary and

helpful, particularly as we interpret

the scripture, which is our chief

authority. So, I [snorts] hope you hear

that from my heart and where I'm coming

from on that. We've got some

eccentricities in this area. Let's work

through them. Chapter two, essential

doctrines. And let's start here with the

second coming which is the central

organizing climactic end times event.

And I want to say four things about it.

First, the second coming is personal.

Jesus himself will return. This will not

be an angel on Jesus's behalf. Uh nor is

the second coming a metaphor for the

kingdom of Jesus being established in

some way. Rather, scripture emphasizes a

continuity of identity between the first

and second coming. And think about like

this. When Jesus ascended into heaven in

Acts chapter 1, the angels say, "This

Jesus who was taken up will come in the

same way." And so the pas, this is a

simple point, but it actually is is

vital pastorally, and it can help ward

away. I'm trying to be I'm I'm thinking

very pastorally throughout this video.

We want to have lots of prayers

interlaced with everything. Um, some

Christians I've discovered are scared of

the end times. They are scared of the

second coming. Um, and if you experience

that, one way to help that, push against

that, is to think of the absolute center

of esquetology is not a series of

events, but a person. This is Jesus, the

one who died for us, the one who loves

us, the one to whom we can fully yield

our souls and be vulnerable and worship

and love. He's coming. Second, the

second coming is bodily. Jesus returns

in his glorified resurrected human body.

He will not return in an invisible

manner. It will not be in a disembodied

spirit. Therefore, this event will be

visible. And here again, we can go back

to Acts 1:11. This simple verse helps us

a lot. And in particular, I've

emboldened the words this time, in the

same way. Now, this is tricky. This does

not mean that the ascension of Christ in

Acts one and the second coming are

identical in every respect as though you

know it's the same thing but in one he's

going up and the other he's coming down.

The ascension was a local event. So

people in Brazil did not witness the

ascension. And I have a video on the

ascension for what a kind of a unique

event that is and how instructive it is

to think about that. The second coming

is a cosmic universal event. You know, I

actually thought about this more clearly

today in preparing this video for you

all. The second coming is associated

with this broader transformation of all

creation. So second Peter 3:10 says the

heavens are going to pass away. Heavenly

bodies will be dissolved at the second

coming. However you interpret that, it's

clear that the scope of the second

coming is different from the ascension.

And the words in the same way in Acts

1:11 are talking about its mode. Both

events are bodily. Okay? So the all and

there's probably more we could say about

that too, but what I'm just trying to

emphasize right now is the second coming

is not a spiritual event. Sometimes we

say, you know, Jesus came into my life

in 1994 or whenever or Jesus showed up

at church today. And we're just talking

about where he's at work, not where he's

bodily present. There are [snorts] even

in the New Testament judgment comeings

of Christ threatened to several of the

churches in Revelation 2 and 3. These

are distinct from the second coming. For

example, to the church in Pergamum,

Christ says, "I will come to you and

wage war with the sword of my mouth if

you don't repent." So that's a

particular coming. We sometimes speak of

these as judgment comeings. We sometimes

say these are typological anticipations

of the second coming, but the second

coming is going to be a visible bodily

event. unlike these more local

activities of Christ that can be spoken

of as a coming and that anticipate the

second coming but they're not the second

coming. So what we were trying to I'm

I'm actually think it's important to

belabor this point pastorally because we

want to push against any sort of gnostic

idea. Um we are not a we are not

awaiting being whisked away from

physical material creation. Rather when

Jesus returns in his resurrected flesh

he will renew all of creation. And I say

more in this video about that. It's a

video about heaven that I worked pretty

hard on back in the day a couple years

ago. Third, the second coming will be

sudden. Okay, here we can go back to

second Peter 3 and the language I've

emboldened like a thief. This phrase

like a thief is used throughout the New

Testament for Christ's second coming.

And it conveys that the second coming

will be a sudden and unpredictable

event. Just like a thief breaking into

your house, it's not broadcast in

advance such that you can prepare for

it. So therefore, you have to be ready

at any time. The second coming of Christ

is not a gradual unfolding process. It

is a sudden event rupturing history

unveiling Jesus suddenly in his true

glory. However, these three

characteristics are not enough to really

capture the full meaning of the second

coming. Because Jesus can conceivably

appear personally, bodily, and suddenly

in ways that aren't the second coming.

Perhaps this is what happens with the

Apostle Paul on the Damascus road where

he says, "I I saw Jesus." And Jesus is

omnipotent. He can show up anytime he

wants in a bodily way. So, but that

wouldn't be the second coming. Fourth,

the second coming is consummating. This

is the end of human history. This is the

climactic undeniable

summation of all God's prior work. And

this is really the key point because

this is why it is our hope. And to

develop this, we can just appreciate how

different the first and second

comingings of Christ are. The first

coming of Christ was in humility to

bring salvation. The second coming of

Christ will not be in humility. It will

be in power and glory and it will bring

that work of salvation to its

consummation. And therefore it is

fittingly described as for the purpose

of judgment. For example, in the

apostles creed we say that he will come

to judge come to judge the living and

the dead. And in the nyine creed I

underlined this phrase come again in

glory to judge the living and the dead.

That little phrase in glory

distinguishes the second advent from the

first. Uh the first advent in the nyine

creed is spoken of as a descent. He came

down from heaven. But the second is not.

The second is spoken of as in glory. So

we've got two different comeings. The

first is humble in nature and saving in

purpose. The second is glorious in

nature and judging in purpose. These are

not at cross purposes or in competition.

Both advents of Christ serve the same

ends but they play different roles and

they are different in their nature. So

we want to say the second coming is the

consummation of all of God's purposes

and that is why it is our hope. Paul can

even refer to this event as simply our

blessed hope. I hope that feeling of

hope settles in your heart as we're

talking about this. Um some Christians

feel anxious about these things. I hope

that the second coming of Christ would

instead make you feel steady and happy.

Uh think of uh the way you feel when the

sun is starting to rise after a long

cold night and it's this feeling of

relief like at last the morning is here.

The New Testament's emotional register

for the second coming is not alarm but

it's relief for the people of God. I'm

thinking right now for faithful

Christians waiting for it. It's

vindication, homecoming, total joy.

Think about this. You will finally feel

seen. You will finally feel normal. you

will finally feel at home. Think of a

child who is waiting for a parent who's

been delayed, okay? And they're anxious.

I remember one time, I'll see if I can

find this picture and put it up on the

screen. I was coming back to Ohigh where

we lived for many years, beautiful spot

in California. Loved our time there. And

I had been gone for a long time, and I

got home. My kids were waiting for me on

the front porch, and they ran down to

the car, and we just hugged in the

street for like 30 seconds. I just could

not believe, you know, think of the joy

of that moment. You're waiting for dad

to get home and there he is. Those are

the emotions that we should have in our

hearts for the second coming. If you're

walking with Jesus now, that is what you

will feel when he shows up. Now, if you

are not a Christian, you've not

surrendered your life to Christ, that

will not be what the second coming is

like. That is why it is so important to

surrender our lives to Christ now before

that time. Now the second coming of qu

Christ is intertwined with several other

events that it initiates.

Let me more briefly describe these

resurrection, judgment, final state.

First, the final resurrection. This is

the second of these four essential

doctrines. We're just trying to give a

brief overview just for people to have a

sense of okay, this is basically what

Christian esquetology is. And this is

actually so important. And actually, do

Christians miss out on this all the time

and and assume this, neglect this, fail

to appreciate this? I think we do.

Sometimes we think of uh our our hope in

escapist terms. That is not our hope.

The resurrection of the body entails so

much for how we anticipate our future

hope of being with Jesus. There's way

too much gnosticism in Christian thought

today. Just as the second coming of

Christ will be bodily, so our experience

of the last things that follow it will

also be a bodily one. In the New

Testament, this event seems to be

portrayed as occasioned by the second

coming of Christ. For as in Adam all

die, so also in Christ shall all be made

alive, but each in his own order, Christ

the first fruits. then at his coming

those who belong to Christ. That's a

pivotal text. This in in my mind this

fits better with a millennial and

postmillennial views which I will define

in chapter 3 because they don't split up

the second coming and the final

resurrection. And I know there are

responses that premillennialists can

give. But at least this puts the burden

of proof to explain something like this.

How do you get a huge gap between these

two events?

That's not settling that. I'm flagging

that. Okay. Pop quiz. Are only

Christians resurrected or is everyone

resurrected? And the answer is final

resurrection is for absolutely every

human being without exception. When Paul

is on trial in the book of Acts, he

speaks of the resurrection of both the

just and the unjust. And Jesus himself

said that some will come out of their

tombs for life and others will come out

of their tombs for judgment. So this

closely links here final resurrection

and final judgment. The final

resurrection is unto the final judgment

or what we sometimes call judgment day.

This is where God publicly and

decisively sets the world right. Think

of the the disharmony of a fallen world

finally snapping back into harmony,

equilibrium restored. Every person will

stand before Christ and full justice

will be done. Evils will be exposed that

were gotten away with. Wrongs will be

addressed. Um justice will be meated

out. Truth will be revealed. Goodness

will be recompensed. Every score will be

settled. This is a good thing. Sometimes

we think of judgment day only in somber

terms as though something we're fearful

of. Now we should have a sense of the

fear of the Lord. But for those of us in

Christ, we can also face that day with

confidence, a fear and trembling kind of

confidence, but a confidence knowing our

our righteousness before God is not

based upon anything inside of me. It's

based on the perfect external alien

righteousness of Christ. And therefore,

I I don't need to fear damnation.

Nonetheless, uh we should take this into

our hearts that this is this is a a

serious moment. And but I just I'm what

I'm also emphasizing right now though is

belief in judgment day is incredibly

stabilizing. It it helps you practice

turning the other cheek because you know

God is going to deal with everything and

and judgment day will be totally fair.

God is the most just person and the the

perfect judge.

Now as we say for those in Christ, you

don't need to live in fear of

condemnation of this event because you

are wrapped in his righteous robes as

you trust in him. However, and this is a

point we often overlook, we will still

be examined on judgment day on the basis

of our lives. Paul is speaking to

Christians as a Christian when he writes

in 2 Corinthians 5:10, we will all

appear before the judgment seat of

Christ. And in Romans 14:12, each of us

will give an account of himself to God.

Think about this verse. You're going to

stand just, you know, again, this is why

the whole thing we're saying of we don't

want to assume these essentials. Future

hope fuels present faithfulness. Just

think about this. We sometimes forget.

You're going to stand before Christ and

you're going to say to him, "Here's how

I spent 2026.

Here's what my social media was feed.

I'm giving you an account of the life

that you gave me as my perfect judge and

I'm explaining it to you. Here's how I

treated my family. Here's how I endured

that slander." And so on and so forth.

Think about the reward of pleasing

Christ. You see how this will stabilize

you and help you? Do you see the the

tragedy of turning down the lighthouse?

We want this every day to be aiming

toward that good and well done, good and

faithful servant. Put it like this. If

you've trusted in Jesus, your sins are

totally forgiven through the cross. That

that happened at the first advent. So

now we want to live to please the one

who did that. So we will receive the

crown of righteousness on that day. So

we will be able to give an account of a

fruitful life.

Fourthly, then consequent upon final

resurrection and final judgment will be

the final state. This is that

everlasting outcome of God's redemptive

work, eternal life with God for the

redeemed and eternal separation from God

from those who reject him and judgment.

Sometimes we call eternal life heaven,

but sometimes we use that term heaven

more specifically for the intermediate

state. This is where deceased believers

uh now currently reign with Christ

awaiting their resurrection body.

Sometimes I like to call the final state

for the righteous the new heavens and

the new earth following the language of

Revelation 21 which is obviously echoing

Genesis 1. H because scripture presents

this not as floating in the clouds. And

I say this so much because I think

Christians we have a skewed

understanding here.

Heaven will be this world renewed,

resurrected, and organized around the

glory of God. And there is so much more

to say about that. See my video on

heaven for that for all the pastoral

implications of that. Now, regarding the

nature of hell, I'm not going to say a

lot about that here because I just did a

great discussion on that. Uh Kirk

Cameron hosted four of us, two eternal

conscious torment proponents, myself and

Paul Copan, and then Dan Patterson and

Chris Day defending annihilationism. So,

I'm just going to direct you to that

video. I thought it went really well.

Um, thanks for those of you who prayed

for me. I thought it was a really

productive discussion. It was very

loving, but we also kind of worked

through differences and so forth. And I

do want to clarify that I think

Christians have to believe in hell. But

I think that disagreement, important as

it is, is not a first rank doctrine.

There are faithful Christians on both

sides of that debate. So, when I'm

canvasing these first rank issues, then

the exact nature of something like that,

how do you understand what it means to

be everlastingly punished? And these

kinds of questions which are more

complicated than some people realize,

those are not necessarily first rank.

And I'll just encourage you to watch

that video when it comes out if you're

curious more on that topic of the nature

of hell. Okay. Now, these four points

are the core of Christian future hope.

This is what you have to have. There are

people who reject some or all of these

points. For example, full predtoists

believe that all escatological events

were fulfilled in the first century uh

or some other time in the past. And they

think we're now living in the new

heavens and the new earth. Jesus's

second coming was not a bodily and

visible return at the end of history.

It's some kind of spiritual return. And

basically um the final resurrection has

already happened. It was a spiritual

resurrection. And I have a full video

arguing against this view. Let me just

recap why summing up why full predtoism

has been viewed by Christians throughout

church history as heretical and that is

uh the way Paul classifies the teaching

of Himaeus and Felitus in 2 Timothy 2

saying they swerve from the truth

upsetting the faith of some by denying

by saying the resurrection already

happened. And then you have in 1

Corinthians 15, Paul teaches that

denying the bodily resurrection means

your faith is futile and you're still in

your sins. Uh this is a first rank

issue. It's not unkind to identify first

rank issues and use the word heresy when

it's appropriate. This is why

theological triage is so valuable. It

protects the seriousness of that term by

not diluting it by using it for too many

things. Some things are heresy because

there's boundaries to Christianity and

it's not unloving to recognize those.

Christianity is not a shape-shifting

religion. There are edges and you have

to be able to tell where those edges

are. If you say these four events have

already happened, you can't even

experience the same feelings of hope and

joy when you read the last battle by CS

Lewis, the final of the Chronicles of

Narnia. You can't even affirm the

Apostles Creed. And as we say, it goes

against the New Testament. So we want to

coalesce around and emphasize and orient

our hearts toward these four cardinal

Christian doctrines of the end times.

That is our primary hope. Let's

emphasize that. Chapter 3. Let's also

talk about some of the disagreements and

just canvas these in what follows. My

goal is not an exhaustive treatment by

any stretch. a brief overview and

basically just to provide an outline of

how you might think about these things.

Uh I'm a partial predtoist and I have a

video explaining that. So that full

disclosure lets you know a little bit

about how I approach some of these

topics. And I'm going to follow up if if

you're interested in that, if you really

want a case for one view versus another

on these topics. I'm going to have a

video, Lord willing, coming out one week

from the day this video is released

called the book of Revelation explaining

every chapter. That's an ambitious video

title, right? I'll do my best to lay it

out. Uh uh again even that won't be

exhaustive but just giving a a sense of

what these different things are like the

mark of the beast in revelation 13

fascinating everyone's curious about

this some people it almost feels like

it's like they've seen so much over

speculation they don't even want to talk

about those things and I don't want to

do that either I think that's wrong this

is in God's word we want to be able to

talk about these things um so that is

the video where I'll drill down and give

you my own perspective if you want my

argument see that here I want to lay out

the options and then I want to give an

argument that Christians can disagree

about these four topics without

questioning each other's integrity,

commitment to scripture, without

separating at the level of church

membership, and so forth. Let's work

through this and I'll make my case.

First, let's talk about the millennium.

The millennium refers to the

thousand-year golden era prophesied by

John in Revelation 21-6 during which

Satan is bound. Now, how we interpret

that and in particular how we situate it

in relation to the second coming and

other esqueological events has been a

hugely divisive issue especially in

recent church history and especially

among evangelicals. We can I'm going to

try to break things down really simply.

I love to try to popularize and make

things clear. So, the basic issue can be

said very simply. Postmillennialists

in yellow on the screen believe that

Christ returns after the millennium,

hence postmillennialist.

And they see the there's differences

from one kind of postmillennialist to

another. But they often see they're

often very optimistic about human

history. And there's they're

anticipating this kind of golden age

where the world is heavily Christianized

towards the end of church history.

[snorts] Premillennialists,

hence the name, believe Christ comes

before the millennium. And you've got

lots of different species of this view,

often distinguished by uh their by

differences on the timing of the great

tribulation and the rapture. You can see

two options here in in blue and red on

the screen. And the big divide here is

between historic premillennialism and

dispensational premillennialism. More on

those to come. And then amillennialists

in green do not think of the millennium

as a literal thousand years. That's true

sometimes for the post mills too, but

rather amalillennialists view it as

Christ's reign in heaven with his saints

during the time between the two comeings

as the gospel is advancing on earth. And

the binding of Satan, they say, but they

they say, "Look, thrones are always

heavenly." In Revelation, the binding of

Satan is for the specific purpose of not

deceiving the nations. And that's what's

happening in this time period. The

gospel is going out throughout all the

world. Now, I I'm a nonmillennialist.

I'm not going to argue for that here.

I'll do that in another context. I've

done that in my previous video on

esquetology too. But here's what is to

observe is how divisive this has been.

Uh so much so much more so uh in recent

times than in previous times in church

history.

What has happened is during the

emergence of evangelicalism, you have

especially in the 20th century, so like

the neoeangelical movement coming out of

fundamentalism, you have

premillennialism

coming alongside biblical inherency as

an identity issue to kind of distinguish

the faithful Christians from the

liberals. And though there's debates

about the millennium earlier in church

history, it doesn't play out like that

earlier in church history for the most

part. And I remember I you see this I

mean we forget the 20th century already.

We it's like ancient history for us. But

if you go back I remember reading the

autobiography of Carl Henry for example

a famous evangelical leader. He talks

about how many occasions this was a

point of division uh among the early

evangelicals and among between the

evangelicals and fundamentalists. In

George Marsden's book, Reforming

Fundamentalism, fascinating book about

the early years of Fuller Theological

Seminary, he talks about how that

institution was thoroughly premill. It's

in their statement of faith. And then

it's the faculty is is divided over a

pre-tribulational versus a

post-tribulational view of the rapture,

which I'm explaining next. And Marston

talks about this as, you know, a point

of contention. Um, when George Lad

published a book called The Blessed Hope

in 1956, arguing for historic premill,

it was hugely controversial. So, you can

imagine how controversial a mill or

postmail would have been. Here's a funny

anecdote that David Roach notes that

gives you a flavor of how things were

playing out in the mid- 20th century, at

least in the United States and a few

other places. Quote, "In the mid- 20th

century, Memphis pastor R.G. Lee quipped

that he wouldn't even say ah at the

dentist, a reference to the strong

aversion he and other theological

conservatives in the Southern Baptist

Convention felt toward a millennialism.

Now, if you read this book or others

like it, you find similar things like

this. They finished the full book going

through four different views. These are

great books to read to learn the

different arguments for each side. And

the editor's closing comment is that

this issue is one of the most divisive

elements in recent Christian history.

So, I think that the role that the

millennium has played in dividing

evangelicals is unfortunate. I think

it's historically eccentric. I think

it's one of those ways we're departing

from the path without really fully

realizing it. And so, I hope you'll

consider this case. Three reasons why I

think we should not divide over the

millennium in any context. A biblical

argument, a practical argument, and a

historical argument. Again, these are

not arguments for my view, which is a

mill. These are arguments why we

shouldn't divide over this. And if

you're not a millil I hope you'll still

be able to watch my YouTube channel and

benefit and we can just keep hanging

together as the body of Christ serving

the same larger end. We're on the same

team here. This this issue doesn't need

to tear us apart. First, a biblical

argument. The millennium is only

explicitly taught in one passage of the

New Testament. A notoriously difficult

passage coming in perhaps the most

difficult book in the New Testament. Now

there's other passages that are

involved. Okay? Uh you know

premillennialists for example will

appeal to other texts as well. But the

only passage that actually mentions a

millennium is Revelation 20 1-6.

Now on the one hand one text should be

enough to require our ascent if we're

clearly convinced of a particular

understanding of it. But as we've said

this is a very difficult passage.

Revelation is filled with apocalyptic

imagery and symbolism is notoriously

challenging to interpret and so want to

be careful about dividing from other

Christians on the basis of a text that

is highly disputed where you've got

godly Christians like Augustine changing

their mind on it throughout their

career. More on Augustine and church

history in a second. A second argument

is that practically the doctrine of the

millennium makes much less difference to

the Christian life and to the health of

the church moment by moment. I'm not

saying it makes no difference, but it's

very different from the first rank

issues we've surveyed or even the things

I tend to put in the second rank

category like aspects of ecclesiology or

the doctrine of the church like the

sacraments for example. Those are

practical issues you just have to do

something about and they're affecting

your church life every Sunday. But your

view of the millennium isn't going to

come up that regularly on Sunday morning

worship services when you're sharing the

gospel. It'll flavor things here and

there, but it's not right in the center.

It's not this fork in the road where you

just have to come together in one way or

the other. And the most com most

Christians can recognize that the the

biggest way people will dispute that is

they'll say uh a lot of times our

premillennialist friends will say that

the aale and postmale views spiritualize

the Bible and therefore it affects the

church profoundly because it punctures

our doctrine of scripture. Here's how

one person puts it. Quote, "The

modernist who spiritualizes the

resurrection of Christ does so by almost

the same techniques as are used by BB

Warfield, who finds heaven described in

Revelation 21-10."

And I would just respectfully push back

by saying that those of us who are

persuaded against a premale view are not

spiritualizing the passage. We are

simply trying to read it according to

its literary genre. And even if we're

wrong, that's a crucial difference

between the liberal who denies the

resurrection because that person

typically says, "Yeah, the initial

disciples believed in a bodily

resurrection." And then they reject that

on other grounds. But an amill or

postmill reader of Revelation 20 is

coming to their view precisely because

they think that's what the text means.

That's not puncturing our doctrine of

scripture. This is just a disagreement

about how to interpret it. And so this

is where my concern about the awareness

of church history is so critical and

it's my third argument here. The idea

that a mill or postmill spiritualizes

revelation 20 just like a liberal

spiritualizes the resurrection

requires us to say that most Christians

throughout church history spiritualized

this passage because that's the majority

view. Throughout church history, you do

find the notion of a literal 1,000-year

reign on earth after Christ's coming. U

it usually goes by other names like

killism and millinarianism and things

like this. And you can find a rough

version of this view. There's

differences uh among some early church

fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.

Sometimes it crops up among more

separatist groups with more of an

apocalyptic kind of vibe to it. Um and

but it is not the only view in the early

church in those first several centuries.

Uh and if you want a case to that de

demonstrates that you can see this book

by Charles Hill that is quite good. Uh

moreover, from the time of Augustine,

when Augustine sort of changes his mind

on this question in favor of

amillennialism in the city of God, early

fifth century up until the 17th century,

all premillennial schemas were broadly

eclipsed and they really weren't in the

mix. uh the prevailing predominating

view during this huge span of time,

these 12 centuries or so is well

expressed by Thomas Aquinas when he says

the thousand-year period of Revelation

20 is the whole time of the church in

which the martyrs as well as other

saints reign with Christ both in the

present church which is called the

kingdom of God and also as far as souls

are concerned in the heavenly country

for the thousand years. The thousand

means perfection. That is the broad view

of the majority of church history.

That's what the reformers broadly held

to. I'm allowing for some variation

here. And so here's the point that I'm

trying to make is that doesn't mean it's

automatically right, but it does rub

against the idea that this view doesn't

take scripture seriously. It's really

hard to sustain that critique when it

entails you're saying everybody from

Augustine to John Calvin to BB Warfield

all had an sort of aberant doctrine of

scripture. Just one final point and then

I'll move on and that's Jay Gres from

man who wrote the book Christianity and

liberalism. This is a leading statement

against theological liberalism from

about a hundred years ago. Uh and this

book is a great model of triage actually

and he states his disagreement with the

premillennial view but then he says I'm

unwilling to divide from them. Quote yet

how great is our agreement with those

who hold the premillennial view. They

share to the full our reverence for the

authority of the Bible and differ from

us only in the interpretation of the

Bible. Certainly then from our point of

view their error, serious though it may

be, is not deadly error. And Christian

fellowship with loyalty not only to the

Bible but to the great creeds of the

church can still unite us to them.

[snorts] End quote. Manchan of course

was the great leader of the conservative

Presbyterian split in the early 20th

century. You can't accuse him of being

weak on sound doctrine or unsympathetic

to the cause of pmics. So I think we

should hear his his appeal there that

Christian fellowship is not at stake on

this issue important as it is. Okay,

let's talk about the rapture next. I'm

going to go quickly on these next three

because a lot of what I've just argued

about the millennium will have some

crossover applications as you will be

able to discern as we go here. I'm just

going to canvas these topics and then

make the case that we don't need to

divide over these things. And some of

these things I'll then drill down to

into more in my video next week on the

book of Revelation. The rapture, the

word rapture comes from the Latin

translation of 1 Thessalonians 4:7 where

Paul says that we'll be caught up to

meet the Lord when he comes. And all

Christians believe in this text, but

there's disagreement about the nature of

the rapture. So for example, is it a

secret rapture? And then about its

chronology. So you'll find discussions

about a pre-tribulational rapture where

as the term implies, the t the uh Christ

will will secretly rapture believers

before the great tribulation. A there's

a midtribulational rapture where it

happens halfway through. So you've got

some persecution that Christians are

preserved from. Sometimes they'll link

that with the seventh trumpet in

Revelation. And then you've got the

posttribulational rapture view where the

rapture occurs at the same time as

Christ's second coming and visible

return after the tribulation. We're

caught up to meet the Lord. The fourth

option here would be many Christians

especially in the a mill and postmail

camps don't see the rapture as a

distinct event to be correlated to the

great tribulation at all.

uh this would be my perspective and we

would just say this is just what happens

at the second coming. Uh we're caught up

to meet him as he comes and the language

here in 1 Thessalonians 4 is drawing

from the ancient practice of greeting a

a dignitary or important person who

arrives and then escorting him into the

city. It's kind of using this language

and uh the the focus here is that the

rapture is not an evacuation of this

world. It is a participation in Christ's

decisive arrival to renew it. And so,

uh, in so far as in the New Testament,

uh, you find people swept away, it's

swept away for judgment. And that seems

clear from the context of Matthew

24:40-41

where it's the one who's taken away, who

is in judgment, and the one who is left,

who is saved. Not to argue for that

here, but those are some of the options

you you get there. And as you can see,

this disagreement is then a subd

disagreement within the larger issue of

the millennium. And so a lot of the same

reasons for why we shouldn't divide over

the millennium. I want to argue we don't

need to divide here. Uh biblically it is

again less clear. Practically it is less

consequential and historically it is

more diverse. Though I need to say the

idea of a secret pre-tribulational

rapture does not appear anywhere in

church history prior to the 19th century

so far as I can tell. Maybe I'm missing

something, but I cannot see any

historical precedent for this view

whatsoever. Most Christians from the

early church through the reformers

expected Christ's return and the

resurrection of the dead, but didn't

separate out any kind of secret event

from that schema. And so I would be

strongly encouraging this is not an area

again when evangelicals assume this kind

of view. We're straying off the path

without realizing it. With all respect,

please I hope you will consider that.

Here's a third area where I'm arguing we

don't need to separate over

disagreements and that is the nature and

timing of the antichrist. Now the term

here is itself kind of the part of the

challenge. Um, the term antichrist is

not always a technical term. First John

uses this term to refer to antichrists

in the plural who have already come in 1

John 2:18. But many Christians have

thought that the New Testament also

envisions one particular figure or

entity of some kind that we can call the

antichrist. And sometimes this person or

this entity is considered to be the same

as the beast of revelation and the man

of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2.

Very broadly speaking, there are three

main views about the the antichrist

throughout church history or the beast

or the man of lawlessness. Pick your

terms.

Some, especially in the early church,

thought this referred to Nero or some

other Roman emperor and the imperial

power that they represent and and wield

against Christians. You find that view a

lot. You see it in Lactius. You see it

in John Crosstum. The first commentary

on the book of Revelation by

Victorianists in the 3rd century argues

for something like that. A second common

view is that the antichrist is the

papacy. Very common among the reformers.

I think that's a difficult view to

sustain exoggetically. And then a third

common view mo this is this is very

common. This is the dominant one among

evangelicals today is the antichrist is

some kind of future world politician. So

you can see a big difference here is

going to be whether we're looking to the

past or the future. Futurist views

versus predtoist views. My next video on

revelation will make an argument in

favor of option one particularly nero

that'll come out next week. I am not

100% sure about that, but I think that's

a good candidate. Uh I think that's a

reasonable interpretation.

It probably explains the texts better

than any other interpretation. Even if

we can just be recognize this is

difficult and and not be so dogmatic

about these things. That's just a simple

point about theology and and life in

general. You don't need 100% certainty

about everything, right? But I'll make

the argument there and try to triage

that as best as I can as well. But my

triaging of this issue would be the same

as these past two. Biblically, this is

less clear. Practically, this is less

consequential. And historically, there's

much more diversity. When I preached

through 2 Thessalonians 2 a few years

back, and I'm wrestling with uh this I

was trying I remember praying for that

sermon and think what what do I say

about the man of lawlessness or as he's

called here as you see on screen, the

son of destruction. And my preaching

strategy was to emphasize application of

the principles more than speculation

about the details, which I think is a a

legitimate way to make the emphasis in a

sermon. But it was also quite relieving

to be able to quote Augustine as saying,

I frankly confess I do not know what he

means. And uh that's it's kind of

endearing to see these this these great

theologians struggling with these

passages. This is a difficult topic. Um,

I think the man of lawlessness here can

plausibly refer to Nero because Nero is

a ruler who exalts himself as divine in

some sense. He demands worship. He

unleashes horrific persecution against

believers unfathomable. And he embodies

lawlessness and rebellion. And he just

seems to fit the profile generally, but

there's little wrinkles in these texts

that I don't know how to explain either.

So that's why I'm saying this is my best

effort. Stay tuned for that video if you

want to see me work that through here.

I'm just saying let's not divide in the

body of Christ over this issue, but

let's keep studying it and talking about

it. And I think the same way for the

great tribulation here. Again, the great

divide, one of them will be whether this

is a past or future event. So typically

in the great tribulation, we're drawing

not just from the book of revelation and

certain texts there. But the events that

are spoken of in Mark 13 and then the

parallels in the other synoptic gospels,

Matthew 24, Luke 21, the so-called

Olivet discourse.

And uh some people see this as future

events. Others see this as actually

talking about the past. Uh referring to

the Roman siege of Jerusalem toward the

end. Well, not not right at the end in

the in the context of the first Roman

Jewish war culminating in the

destruction of the temple in 70 AD. A

colossal event that sometimes we forget

how how worlds shattering it was. And

the argument here is this fits the

context. The entire discourse is

occasioned by the disciples talking

about these buildings in Jerusalem and

Jesus saying they're all going to get

knocked down, which is of course exactly

what happens. And then you have just

what seemed like explicit references to

the siege of Jerusalem in these passages

like Luke 21:24. It's right there in the

text. Jerusalem will be trampled

underfoot by the Gentiles. And the the

the tricky thing about the nature of

biblical prophecy is the telescoping and

all these different ways that prophecy

works. Which is why I'm going to argue

in my video next week that if we are

consistent with how we read books like

Isaiah and Hosea and Zechariah and

Ezekiel, with how we read Revelation and

the Olivet discourse, we can make some

sense out of this. And I'll argue for a

partial predtoist view, but this is

another area where Christians can

disagree and we don't need to divide

from one another. And uh I have really

the same kind of appeal here. By the

way, there's some other views on this

too. It's not just futurism and and uh

predtoism. Uh historicism is a view that

thinks the events of revelation and find

fulfillment throughout the course of

church history. And then you have

idealism which holds that the book of

revelation is not so much describing

singular specific historical episodes as

much as kind of the timeless struggle

that will go on and is probably

instantiated in many different events uh

prior to the return of Christ. So I'll

cover I I'll say more about those in my

next video. Here I I'm making the

argument that it's third rank for the

same reasons. It's less clear in the

Bible. It's less practical on the ground

and historically it's more diverse. As

important as these issues are, they are

not the center of our hope. More on that

in my next video. So, what's the upshot

of all this? I would say I simply don't

think we can know exactly where we are

in the in the schema of events leading

up to the second coming of Christ. And I

think simple uncertainty is good in the

sense that it requires us to say, "Let

me be ready at any moment." But what we

can know and should emphasize is the

certainty of Jesus's coming. The fact

that there will be suffering. You know,

here's the thing. Even if you think the

great tribulation, so-called described

in the Olivet discourse is referring to

a specific historical event as I do,

that doesn't mean there's not going to

be other tribulations. And it doesn't

mean that some of them aren't going to

be great. So just like there's not going

to doesn't mean there won't be other

things that are antirist.

And so we're not saying there won't be

other forms of suffering. In fact, I

think we have many reasons to think

there will be persecution and suffering

that we should expect prior to the

return of Christ. And the emphasis and

the urgency and the priority is now

evangelism, global missions, and living

fully as the people of God. That's why

I'm on YouTube. I'm trying to be an

evangelist. And in the context of that,

I'm trying to serve the church. And

that's where triage comes in. And it's

why I wrote a book, by the way, called

Why Christianity Makes Sense, releasing

November 2026. I'm really excited. I'll

share more about that in other videos.

Let's keep studying all these tertiary

doctrines. They're important. Uh but

let's focus on the main things. The the

final thought is let's go back to the

lighthouse metaphor, right?

Can you see the light of the lighthouse?

Are you living with that as your daily

hope? Let me give you this final passage

from the last battle which captures the

emotions of our hope and let this be the

thing that we sort of land the plane out

of like this is what all Christians can

come together around. I love this scene

as speaking and he tells them they've

died and therefore the term is over. The

holidays have begun. The dream is ended.

This is the morning. And then it says,

"As he spoke, he no longer looked to

them like a lion, but the things that

began to happen after that were so great

and beautiful that I cannot write them."

And for us, this is the end of all the

stories. And we can most truly say that

they all lived happily ever after. But

for them, it was only the beginning of

the real story. All their life in this

world and all their adventures in Narnia

had only been the cover and the title

page. Now at last they were beginning

chapter 1 of the great story which no

one on earth has read which goes on

forever in which every chapter is better

than the one before.