---

58 Comments

1. In 1 Corinthians 15:23, it says “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.”

   And also in Revelation 20:4-6, the New Testament describes those of the first resurrection as having been “beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”

   So then, with this in mind, how exactly is it that there would be two raptures, a silent one and one with a trumpet and signs?

   Lastly in Hebrews 11:40, we are told, “God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” The context here is that “they” refers to Old Testament saints.

   So another question arises: If there is a separate post-trib rapture distinct from the pre-trib one, then wouldn’t that imply that not everyone will be made perfect at the same time? Wouldn’t there actually be then two (or more) resurrections, and not one as Scripture states, before the millenial reign? This is a serious question.

   • This isn’t saying there are two raptures. It’s saying there is one second coming preceded seven years by a rapture. There are no signs for the rapture and there are many, many signs for the second coming.

     • So basically, Dr. Brandenburg, you are agreeing that there is only one rapture and the above Scriptures are all consistent with it.

       In that case, then how do we see the Antichrist making war with the “saints” if there is only one rapture and it happens before this begins?

       Equivalently asked another way, would not this one rapture (1 Corinthians 15:23, Hebrews 11:40) have to take place after that time if we see said saints present at the first resurrection? If we have more than one resurrection event, (even if you don’t want to call it a rapture) then how exactly would Hebrews 11:40 remain true? Hopefully this line of reasoning makes sense.

       • Hi,

         I don’t understand what you’re asking, so I don’t want to try to answer it.

         • Hi Dr. Brandenburg,

           Hopefully that gives you something to consider from now on from a Scriptural groundwork.

           PS. For some reason your algorithm keeps blocking my attempts to post. It keeps saying “post blocked as suspected bot.” This might be affecting other people’s ability to post as well. I had to change my browser just to make the last few posts.

         • Hello Anonymous, maybe you could add your identity.

           I changed one setting on comments. Maybe it will help.

2. Hello All,

   I have always wondered if the events of Ezekiel 38-39 might occur prior to the Rapture, or perhaps right after it. Any thoughts?

   Jim

   • Hi Jim,

     There are several views of the timing of the Battle of Gog and Magog, but I have preached it is the end of the Tribulation Period. Decades before that I thought it was the final battle of with Satan in the Millennial Kingdom, something like that. I don’t think it will be before the tribulation though. It would take a lot to write about it right here. Thanks though.

3. Pastor Kent,

   I believe disease will be a factor that the antichrist will use for global alliance, maybe more specifically medication to bring it about. Revelation 18:23 seems to refer to this, “for by thy sorceries [“pharmakeia”] were all nations deceived.” The deception occurs through pharmaceuticals, medications such as vaccines. I don’t believe thats a stretch, we see that occurring at this very moment.

   I am interested in what passages you use to solidify the teaching of “imminency, which means Christ could return any moment”?

   • Hello Anonymous,

     Why not identify yourself? You won’t get in trouble.

     The Greek word pharmakeia doesn’t mean “drugs.” Yes, the English word derived from that Greek word, but that doesn’t mean that the Greek word means “drugs.” It doesn’t. It is magic arts and that is how it is used in almost every case. To understand a word, it’s better to look at it’s usage. It would be closer to a fake sign or wonder, impersonating an act of God. I do believe that something mind-altering, like what drugs do, could relate to it, but I have a hard time thinking that people will be fooled by vaccinations for diseases. The easier route to take is that people are so concerned about their physical health so that they give up their autonomy to a central power.

   • Related to imminency, it would require a whole post. I wrote on it here in 2007.

4. Pastor Kent,

   I had a look over at your article. The passages you use to support imminency, 2 Timothy 4:8; Titus 2:13; Romans 8:18-23; James 5:7-9; 1 Peter 4:7; Hebrews 10:24, 25, 37, do not specifically speak of imminency as you define it, the at-any-moment return of Christ. Watching (1 Peter 4:7), “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing…” (Titus 2:3), “the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God…waiting for the adoption” (Romans 8), patient waiting (James 5:7-9) and loving His appearing (2 Timothy 4:8), “as ye see the day approaching,” and “For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come,” (Hebrews 10) do not imply imminency but expectancy. Waiting, watching, looking do not infer imminency. Some of these passages even refer to signs prior to His return and others, its going to be “a little while.” Expecting preliminary events doesn’t undermine the necessity to look or watch or expect, something noted in Mark 13:35-36, “Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.” We see here that even knowing the very day necessitates watching and waiting, for He could come in the evening, in the morning or at midnight. The ten virgins in Matt 25 are watching and waiting and looking, literally, expecting the trumpet sound at any moment. That fits into what Mark 13 is saying. Would Christ have returned prior to Acts 10, the Gentiles receiving the gospel and being lights in the world, as prophesied, thus leaving major prophecy unfulfilled? Would Christ have returned prior to the many things that He and Paul spoke of that required fulfilment? Or Peter’s death as foretold by Jesus in John 21?

   Do you have any passages that specifically state that Christ will return imminently?

   • Anonymous,

     Imminence means you don’t know when it’s going to be and yet you are still looking for it, because it could take place at any moment. That’s how the NT reads about the rapture. It’s more than expectancy, but I know the pre-wrath and post-trib deny imminence. The passages, and there are also many more of them, don’t read like you’re describing, as if there are signs that give the timing of the rapture.

     • If Jesus is rapturing His saints at the end of the tribulation, with His coming in “clouds” (1 Th 4:17; Mk. Mt 24:30; Ac 1:9; Rev 1:7), there is still a surprise element of not knowing when it’ll occur, as noted in Mark 13:35-36 and Matthew 24:36-53. Verse 36 of Matthew 24 declares this: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” No one knows “that day and hour.” What “day and hour”? The day and hour that had just been described by Jesus, the preceding context, the day of His return to earth (verse 30) and the gathering “together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (verse 31). That also fits Mark 13:35-36 and the parables of the wheat and tares, and the good fish and bad fish (Matthew 13) and other passages. That day will be like the days of Noah (Matt 24:37). Did God remove just Noah from the earth before His wrath was poured upon mankind? How about just Lot? The last days will also be like the days of Lot (Luke 17). They remained but God protected them. As we continue reading Matthew 24 and into 25 (with the ten virgins), Christ’s return at the end of the Tribulation is imminent. It’s actively being waited upon without knowing the exact time.

       You still haven’t presented any passages that actually clearly infer imminency.

       • Anonymous,

         You are anonymous. I didn’t write on imminence. You just want to argue about it. I’m just not arguing. I’m just saying that imminence is obvious. You’re saying it isn’t. I don’t believe you. Could I prove it? Yes, but it would take time, and I don’t stop everything I’m doing to argue with anyone, especially an anonymous person. You can’t even tell me your name. It takes a long time to argue all your arguments. I’ve written giving a basis for pretrib rapture in all the writings I have here. I’ve heard all your arguments and more. I will deal with one thing. If no many knows the day nor the hour when Jesus said what He said, that means that there has to be a mystery to the timing of those things, which there is. There won’t be though once the Antichrist reveals Himself. We don’t know when those seven years are going to start. They’re imminent. My usage in my article was solely about the motivation of imminence. Not believing in it takes away from motivation for a Christian, that’s a practical ramification.

         • By the way, don’t take what I’m writing harshly. Take it in the best spirit possible, because that’s how I mean it.

       • You can potentially have imminence and post-trib. I have argued this. The only text people have ever tried to use against it that I have seen is Revelation 6:7-8. But there it doesn’t say the fourth part of men died (which is significant, because see what it says over at Revelation 9:15), it just says the fourth part “of the earth.” In the context of conquest, it could mean a quarter of the landmass of earth. Something like the Soviet Union perhaps. And it means they would be under the power of death, so that for instance all the people who inhabited this region would be a step away from being killed by this power at any time. We cannot throw out this possibility.

         Thus it is possible to have both imminence and post-trib. We cannot throw it out. We may simply be like the disciples of Jesus and not recognize the signs until realizing what they were later. The revealing of the Antichrist is right at the midst of events, at the close of the 3 1/2 year tribulation period, before Jesus appears with great signs in the sky (vis Matthew 24:30-31, 1 Cor. 15:23, 1 Thess. 4:16-17, Hebrews 11:40). Then, the (Great) tribulation ends and the wrath of God begins in the second half (the remaining 3.5 years).

         Nowhere does the Bible specify that a seven year period specifically called the tribulation exists. Only that there is a seven-year period. Of which part can be called the great tribulation.

         But your point from Luke 17 is recognized as a problem for pre-trib. “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.”

         The same day that Noah entered into the ark, the flood came and destroyed them all. The same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. “Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.” (Luke 17:30) Only makes sense in post-trib. “The great day of his wrath is come” only occurs after the sixth seal is opened, which is where the rapture – the one and only rapture – is placed. We are not appointed unto wrath (1 Thess. 5:9).

         If you place Luke 17:30 at the end of the 7 years, it doesn’t make sense either because Christ refers to Noah and Lot being removed right before it happens, so if you place Luke 17:30 at the end, it would imply there are still saved people not having been removed by God yet until the very end of the 7 years. That doesn’t make sense, because God’s wrath is poured out during the latter half of that time, contradicting 1 Thessalonians 5:9.

         • I could write a whole article on imminence, which is not all that buttresses a pretrib rapture position. But I know that there is this journal article by the late Robert Thomas, who also wrote a very good two volume commentary on the book of Revelation, which I own.

           https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj13g.pdf

           There is also this journal article by Wayne Brindle in BibSac.

           https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/58821853.pdf

           And then there’s this one by Robert Gromacki.

           https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/grace-journal/06-3_11.pdf

           And this one by Earl Radmacher:

           https://faithconnector.s3.amazonaws.com/chafer/files/v4n3_radm.pdf

         • Hi again Kent,

           I am not here to argue every point raised in every one of those papers. I would point out that the primary thing seen to be contradictory in some of the things being conveyed by you through some of these authors, is the extrabiblical definitions being provided of things being separate, that really are not so in Scripture.

           I am not here to endlessly strive. But I would like to know if you agree with your first author who wrote that the translation of 2 Thessalonians 2:2b was incorrect in the KJV? He wrote, “English versions have, for the most part, consistently mistranslated this verb. Those with erroneous renderings include the KJV, the RSV, the NASB, the NASBU, the ESV, the NIV, the ASV, the ICB, and the NKJV. Only three versions consulted render the verb correctly. Darby renders, ‘the day of the Lord is present,’ Weymouth has, ‘the day of the Lord is now here,’ and the NRSV gives, ‘the day ofthe Lord is already here.’ ”

           He also wrote as a followup to his alteration of the above verse, “Assigning these criteria to 2 Thess 2:3 frees Paul from the accusation of contradicting himself. In 1 Thess 5:2 he wrote that the day of the Lord will come as a thief.”

           However, this fails to take into account the fact that 1 Thessalonians 5:2 is specifically referring to those who are in darkness. Hence, 1 Thessalonians 5:4 says, “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.”

           This is pretty simple stuff. I wanted to know if you were in agreement with this kind of authorship from the paper that you cited or not.

           The third author in his overview actually brings up something that is true, but it seems to be a passing reference, as not much that I can see is done elsewhere to address it. In essence, it states that: as past figures were identified with the Antichrist and past persecutions were identified with the potential to be the Great Tribulation, “so we may do the same today. They believed that Christ could come at any time to deliver them from their persecutions; so should we today, says Payne.”

           In regards to the prophecy of Peter’s death in John 21, this serves as a good example of this principle. The paper says this: “After Pentecost, Peter faced immediate persecution and possible loss of life (Acts 4,5,8,12). His death was imminent; therefore Christ’s coming was just as imminent.”

           The third paper you cite also gives us a warning not take imminency too far with regard to motivating us to live ‘in all holy conversation and godliness.’ He writes:
           “The believer should also look for and desire the day of the Lord which will involve the fiery destruction of this world and the introduction of the new heavens and the new earth (2 Peter 3:8-14). These events are non-imminent, and yet, they should stimulate the believer to a holy and godly life (2 Peter 3: 11,14).”

           The fourth author you cite also provides a warning, that: “One must be careful, therefore, how much one reads into a word. With respect to the word engus [near, or at hand], when it is used in Matthew 26:45–46, for example, the thing spoken of as being ‘at hand’ took place while the speaker was yet speaking. When the same word is used in 1 Peter 4:7, however, we see quite a different situation in which ‘the end of all things’ is declared to be at hand.”

           Unusually though, Radmacher seems to go against his own advice when he suggests a new translation of James 5:8— (he suggests to translate the word “engiken” to say ‘has drawn near’ instead of ‘draweth nigh’ as is it in the KJV, despite the tense of this word – i.e. perfect indicative – in James 5:8, being the same as it is in 1 Peter 4:7, a verse which he himself, strangely enough, had already earlier mentioned – as quoted above).

           All in all, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 seems to be an issue for these writers. The other problems raised are solved pretty summarily by simply pointing out that the allies of the Beast will be experiencing peace, while the saints of that time will be under a great Tribulation by the persecution of antichrist. As Christ comes, the day will come as a thief to those not watching who are “asleep” and in peace; then sudden destruction from God, while the saints during this great tribulation will continually see the day approaching ever closer (Hebrews 10:25), but not foreknowing the day nor hour of the glorious appearing of our Savior. “Increasing knowledge,” like you point out in your article. “Then,” as it says, “shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory,” And, “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him”. This is the time when the corruptible will put on incorruption, and it what is referred to as “the first resurrection.” At that point, the allies of the Beast who were in peace, because of their friendship with the world and enmity with God, just as Sodom was until the day Lot was taken out, as it says, will subsequently have God’s wrath be poured out on them. Those who were persecuted by the Beast for the testimony of Jesus Christ, meanwhile, are going to be with the Lord as part of the first resurrection, as it says in Revelation 20:4-6.

           Hopefully those that are in darkness to these things can take the advice of Paul in 1 Thess 5 and not sleep, but “be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love”. As after all, Daniel also says, “none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.” So we are instructed to obey this command: “when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21)

         • Andrew, you’re asking me when you already know the answers to those questions about the textual variants in 2 Thess 2. You know what I believe already, so why are you asking me? I don’t take arguments from the critical text, you know that. That is striving, because you already know what my position is. I put links to articles, because I don’t want to take time to write on what is an obvious subject when we read the Bible, imminence. It’s not a stand alone argument for a pretrib rapture, but it is a good one. I wouldn’t fellowship with these men. Thanks for dropping by.

         • Hi Dr. Brandenburg,

           I apologize if I said something that was inappropriate here; Please accept my apologies. I will try not to cause this again if you believe I had been asking something disingenuously. I had been replying to the other anonymous poster before, but your response to my post was and is still held valuable by me. This is why I felt it would be right to respond earnestly. And now that I was able to clearly express Biblical evidence given this chance to do so, it is like a great burden lifted. You will notice that I also agreed with your article, the part of it that I understood at least in my limited knowledge. So, if anything I said was contentious then please disregard it with my apologies.

         • You’re forgiven, Andrew. I wasn’t offended. I don’t think linking to an article like that is an endorsement of everything in it. Maybe some people think that. No though. Thanks for coming by.

     • My last sentence, I meant, passages that clearly infer Imminency that specifically apply to a pre tribulational rapture.

5. Hi,

   If it will mean I no longer have to get filtered by the algorithm, I will gladly write an identity. Also it looks like your “reply” functionality in the comments got removed by whatever update you made. The algorithm is still blocking me from using default browser #1 for some reason – says “post blocked as suspected bot.” But anyway, Nice site you’ve got here.

   Now, another question I had. How do you think that Israel did not exist, but then in 1948 something happened to make it exist? Is this related to the Zionist movement of the 19th and 20th centuries, and the state that calls itself Israel in the middle east now?

   • Yes, Israel.

     • Hi Pastor Brandenburg,
       So I take it then you do link the 1948 state to the 1st-century Herodian monarchy.

       Now taking this back to my earlier point, you denied that you were teaching that there are two raptures. That’s good. But how do you explain the fact that the saints in Revelation 20:4-6 include those that were persecuted by the Antichrist (c.f. the Beast, and his mark). It seems like your explanation fails to explain this. Should we side with Scripture on this in your view?

       Now one other thing I am wondering is if you think the year 1948 (or 1947) fulfills Acts 1:6-7, where the apostles asked whether our Lord Jesus Christ was going to restore the kingdom to Israel. Do you believe this fulfills that? is it instead more like the kingdom of Jerusalem established by the Catholics some centuries ago, who also claimed to be Israel and restoring the kingdom at that time.

       Since you posted an article, I thought you might be able to explain your underlying reasoning a bit more. I didn’t want to distract from that discussion by bringing up other issues.

       Also if this post goes through, it looks like the algorithm isn’t blocking my default browser anymore. Thanks for looking into that for me.

       • Andrew,

         Israel continued to be a nation up until 70, and wasn’t until 1948. We know that there will be a nation Israel in the end (Zech 14, Revelation 12, Isaiah 45, Romans 11:26-27) and there wasn’t until 1948. That’s what I mean. I’m not saying that the kingdom and Israel are the same thing, vis a vis Acts 1:6-7. The people persecuted by the Antichrist are those saved during that period of tribulation after the Antichrist reveals himself, 2 Thess 2, Rev 17:1-11, 6:9-11, the 144,000. It’s okay Andrew. Thanks.

         • You wrote: “and there wasn’t until 1948.”
           This is what I do not understand out of your original article.

           So when you wrote: “I’m not saying that the kingdom and Israel are the same thing, vis a vis Acts 1:6-7.”

           Then it looks like we are still waiting for the restoration then. I’m glad for you to point that out for us. Praise the Lord.
           We see in the Olivet discourse that there is still a period of time when Jerusalem shall be “trodden down of the Gentiles.” It is possible this may occur by the group that today calls itself Judaism; There is no denying that possibility. We see reflections of this in the New Testament, where the synagogue of Satan as it is called by our Savior in the word of God, will tread down the holy city for a number of months. And this has to happen before any of this fulfillment, with respect to the kingdom being restored (Acts 1:6-7) (Luke 22:29-30).

           Psalm 37:34: “Wait on the LORD, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it.”

           So we see that it is only a matter of time before we, as the people of God, are exalted to inherit the land. And that is what the joint-heirship with Christ entails. The promises of God are truly marvelous, if we will wait on the Lord until then. All of Scripture, the whole Scripture agrees with that, including everything that has been posted here. Hopefully now everything is settled properly.

         • Andrew,

           The point of my article was about these events and occurrences and circumstances and situations that transpire before the rapture of the saints. They are not signs. However, they are prophetically important, precursors perhaps, and in line with the idea that knowledge shall increase (Dan 12). This is important because many believers today either treat them as signs, which they aren’t, or they don’t treat them as anything, when they are.

         • Ok. Thank you for the article Pastor Brandenburg.

           Galatians 4:30
           “Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.”

           1 Corinthians 15:52
           “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.”

           Ephesians 2:18-20
           “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
           Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”

           Romans 9:7-8
           “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

           Romans 9:24-25
           “Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
           As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.”

           Hosea 1:10
           “Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.”

           Galatians 3:16
           “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”

         • It doesn’t say the people persecuted by the Antichrist and martyred in Rev 6:9-11 were saved in the Tribulation. You are reading this into Scripture. These were slain early in the great tribulation, the fifth seal, so where do they all come from if all the saints are gone according to the pre-trib teaching?

           These are likely included in the “great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues” of Rev 7:9-17 who stand “before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands.” There is a question and answer period at this point in the Revelation that clearly indicates that these are saints that were martyred for their faith (noted in Rev 6:2-11) during the great tribulation: “And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” (Rev 7:13-14). Again, this is occurring sometime at the beginning of the Great Tribulation, between seal 1 and 6. Hmmm, I wonder who all these saints are that “came out of great tribulation” if there are practically no saints on earth (besides the 144,000), since this occurs at the beginning of the tribulation and the entire world is apostate (remember, a great falling away occurs prior to the Tribulation beginning, and obviously continues into the Tribulation). Is there a great revival that occurs in the beginning of the Tribulation to which the Bible is silent?

         • Anonymous,

           There is a lot of scriptural evidence for early conversions in the Tribulation period and then they will keep coming through the entire seven years, so this argument doesn’t work. It could only be speculation on your part. How many people were saved and how quickly were they saved in the book of Acts? 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost. 5,000 men in Acts 3, according to the beginning of Acts 4. This was within weeks. We can say there is a clear parallel with Acts 2 and the beginning of the tribulation, because that is when the Holy Spirit is outpoured as prophesied in Joel 2, that Peter, I believe, is saying Acts 2 is a prefulfillment, a dress rehearsal of sorts. There will be 144,000 Jews and then the two witnesses, who will be evangelizing. A great multitude will be saved, still a smaller number compared to the world’s population, but a lot of people. Just like there was immediate persecution in Acts, there will be immediate persecution in the tribulation. The Antichrist is obviously a part of that immediately.

           In Matthew 24, Jesus is talking about this time. Who are the Jews who will be delivered to be afflicted and killed (v. 9)? They are those who are saved during that period, who receive Jesus Christ. Isaiah 52-53 prophesies of a future time when the Jews will receive Jesus Christ, and this is the testimony. When does it occur? It occurs at the beginning of the tribulation. The 144,000 saved will be witnesses. The two witnesses will be unique witnesses. This will be a time of a great revival. Persecution will be just as and even more severe, but the blood of the martyrs will result in more conversion, not less.

         • Anonymous, that is accurate – Nowhere does the Holy Bible imply that all of them were saved during the time period of the tribulation. I do not see where that would come from except from a tradition such as that from Darby.

           I have seen similar reasoning applied to the New Testament. For instance, it has been erroneously claimed on that same basis, since part of the New Testament is for one dispensation and another for another, that Jesus Christ simply “add(ed) a new pathway for relationship,” so that, according to them, “the righteous of Jews are certainly granted a clemency of matching accord.” It has also been claimed by people using the same erroneous reasoning that, “without Israel’s [the 1948 state] preservation, there is no good left within the world.” Of course, this goes directly against what we learn in Hebrews 11 that salvation is through Christ only. Not to mention other passages. John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 come to mind. This would be the dual-covenant Zionist view, saying there is a separate gospel for what it considers “the Jews,” but it is not found within the Bible.

           That view could not have existed prior to the emergence of the Talmudic system in the early middle ages, which continues to claim for itself (within its own system) a strange, “ethno-religious” heritage that is also accepted as factual by Zionists but not delineated or mentioned in the Bible. Indeed, it could not have been so, as the Talmud (similar to Islam, which claims this heritage as well) did not even exist in the first century. However what we do find in the Bible on this, however, is a purely spiritual (and not ethnic) successor from that of the Pharisees, in the synagogue of Satan mentioned by Jesus directly in Revelation 2 and 3.

           The only genealogy of consequence found in the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures is that of Christ, and we don’t need to strive about genealogies of today. This includes those claiming to have special genealogies.

           Titus 3:9 “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”

           Dr. Brandenburg,
           Earlier you wrote this: “This isn’t saying there are two raptures.”

           Exactly right. And as the 144,000 are sealed firstly as described in chapter 7 and then sent to earth by the mention of them in Revelation 9:4. It says that the locusts were commanded to only hurt those men who did not have the seal of God in their foreheads. This is during the time of God’s wrath being poured out. This is similar to the two witnesses, who are likewise sent to earth at a proximate time to this, in order to witness against it. (It bears a lot of similarities to the plagues of Exodus, by the way.)

           Therefore, the account of the two witnesses plus the 144,000 is clearly after the rapture, which is where we shall be changed and the corruptible shall be made incorruptible. Like Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, “Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.”

           Chapter 9 is after chapter 7 where they were sealed. Those that came out of great tribulation are also there. Therefore, seeing as these events of chapters 9 through 11 take place after the rapture, it is easy to see that the 144,000 are saints from the Old Testament timeframe who were given new glorified bodies. Like the two witnesses, they are sent back to earth to testify during the timeframe of the wrath of the Lord God, once we are all resurrected at the rapture. (You have to believe in the bodily resurrection for this to work.) And since they are from that period of the Old Testament, that is – clearly – how we know what tribes they were from.

6. Hi Pastor Brandenburg,
   Thanks as always for the well thought out articles and discussions.

   You wrote, “Signs will arise to confirm to the Jewish people that the Messianic age, His kingdom on earth, is soon to come.”

   What I’m wondering is how does this line up with what we read in Luke chapter 16, where the following assertion is made, ‘If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.’ Also where it says in the gospel of John, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”

   Notice what Christ says here. If anyone at all does not believe what Moses prophesied concerning Christ, how will they be persuaded by any special sign given to them aside from that which we have already been given?

   I bring this up because I have seen people argue, on the basis of their belief in a Zechariah 10-13 rise of a physical nation of Israel (which they link to people today and not to resurrected saints) that some of the people who they suppose comprise this nation are justified in not believing in Christ today before such signs as those in Zechariah take place, because of the non-fulfillment – in those people’s eyes – of such prophecies as Isaiah 2:4, “and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

   As background information: I have heard it argued by people who profess to be Christians and who cite the Bible that, certain people, because of their heritage, whatever it may be, are totally justified in their rejection of Christ simply because they have not received signs like Isaiah 2:4 fulfillment.

   I believe this is unjustified in light of the sound doctrine we have in the totality of the Gospels. I wanted to know if you agreed or disagreed and how you think your statement above meshes and lines up with those Scripture passages in the Gospels.
   Thank you.

   • Hi Andrew,

     Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Signs are not a basis for faith, but they confirm (see Heb 2:3-4). They fulfill scripture. Joel 2 though indicates signs during that period, which Peter refers to in Acts 2. Those astronomical signs fit what will occur in the tribulation for the Jews as seen in Rev 6-16 and what Jesus talks about in Matthew 24-25. I agree that they still must believe the Word. Maybe this agrees with what you’re saying, you think?

     • Yeah, what you said does agree. We all have in common the signs of the Bible, received by faith rather than sight. As it says, “for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?” Romans 8:24. And again, “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1. And in the Gospel, “blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” John 20:29
       This results in ‘waiting’ for the fulfillment of all things. “I will bear the indignation of the LORD, because I have sinned against him, until he plead my cause, and execute judgment for me: he will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold his righteousness.” Micah 7:9.
       And lastly, ” It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the LORD.” Lam. 3:26.

       And Joel 2 does indicate signs that Peter refers to in Acts. So that agrees. Like it says in Exod. 19:6, “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” And also 1 Peter 2:9, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:” Notice the parallel there. That’s of course referring to us – just as Joel refers to God’s people, according to what Peter preached in Acts. This is in addition to the signs to the day of the Lord mentioned right after it: “whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered.”
       So yes, I believe all of that agrees with what you’re saying.

       • Yes. Great!

         • Ok, Dr. Brandenburg. So far so good. Now in reference to what I mentioned earlier regarding the 144,000 Jews or Israelites, and with regard to Zechariah chapters 11-13. We should notice what it says in the beginning of this general set of passages: Zechariah 10:6-10.
           “And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them; for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I am the LORD their God, and will hear them.
           7 And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart shall rejoice in the LORD.
           8 I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased.
           9 And I will sow them among the people: and they shall remember me in far countries; and they shall live with their children, and turn again.”

           With regard to the above Zechariah passage, it is clear that verse 8-9 is a reference to the fact that when Christ returns, every saved soul will be resurrected (i.e. redeemed) and gathered together, and the beginning of their reign on the earth set to begin. From this we see that the fulfillment of the things that follow is with the literal, Old Testament tribes of Israel who will have resurrected bodies (and hence the significance of the statement “live with their children,” and “bring them again to place them.”) Now people who don’t believe in the physical resurrection will have a hard time with this one. They would only be able to envision distant descendants of Israel returning to the land, not the very same people who once lived there, who are currently sleeping.

           (Side note: And this is how the 144,000 of the book of Revelation are explained as well. Since the Old Testament saints will be alive again, these can be the people to fulfill this prophecy when they are sent to earth along with the two witnesses. This happens after the Rapture and Second Coming of Christ, which are described by the prophecies in Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 17 & 21, Acts 2, 1 Cor 15, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews 11, Jude, and some other passages that I may not be recalling right now. The point being all of these refer to the same event, not two separate events, because that does not make sense with regard to Hebrews 11:40 and where “The First resurrection” is referred to with a definite article in Revelation 20, meaning that there is only one, strictly according to the text of the New Testament. This is the framework of 1 Corinthians 15:23 as well, “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.” There is no mention of multiple resurrections or raptures, there is no mention of a secret first rapture without trumpets sounding, but just one group at one time.)

           What some assume that all this in Zechariah refers to is people who are very distant descendants of those tribes, who follow the talmud today. This is an innovation, because they do not regard the prophecy that Jerusalem first has to be tread down under-foot of the Gentiles. Right before talking of the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ, we see Jesus Christ make this statement in Luke 21. “and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” – Luke 21:24.

           So clearly, before the land can be restored to Israel, in due time, it will first be tread down under foot by those who are not of Israel. The Bible even says this again twice in the book of Revelation.
           “But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.” – Rev 11:2

           “And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.” – Rev 13:5

           We even see this promise to the righteous reflected in the Old Testament as well.
           “Wait on the LORD, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it.” – Psalm 37:34

           People who try to say that because some group has named themselves Israel, that means they are the Biblical restored nation of Israel, seem to fool themselves. There are many Judaizing groups who have claimed to be Israel. Christian Identity is a group for instance claims to be the lost ten tribes of Israel who ended up in Britain. The Roman Catholic church claimed to be the successor kingdom of Israel. They even had forces that conquered the land of Israel for some time. But none of these claims were true. This could very well be another phase like that, these people could have nothing to do with Israel except the name they give themselves – we do not know when the Lord will return. There have been plenty of Judaizing groups. You might say, possibly it is. Well, there is a possibility that the spiritual successor to the Pharisees (c.f. Phil. 3:2) is in the land right now and that this indeed could be the gentiles that say they are Jews and are not (c.f. Rev 3:9) who shall fulfill the treading down of Jerusalem prophecy.

           I recognize that possibility, so there may very well be prophetic significance to these events. It is at least possible. But I am trying to stay within the bounds of what sound doctrine from Scripture actually teaches, and not go outside of it. Hopefully what I have said here makes sense, in light of the explaining the above discussion.

         • Andrew,

           Please don’t take my inability to interact with long comments that go way much further than the scope of my post, as some kind of James 2, respect of persons. Don’t take it personally. I might return to this comment, but I don’t have the time to deal with it right now. Many column writers don’t interact at all with comments. Thanks for commenting though. It’s published and maybe someone else will want to interact and have time to do so.

         • Hi Dr. Brandenburg,

           Sorry about the earlier confusion. Whether or not you or someone else chooses to comment is fine, but like was said earlier your well thought out discussions are appreciated nonetheless. James 2:1 was posted simply because it was relevant to the first post and I had forgotten to post it there. It was my attempt to stir the discussion a bit further. Hopefully that makes sense.

7. Overall, good article Kent. Just want to raise a question on a few points that I think could be better fleshed out. When we talk about Israel, I think it is very much an undisputed fact that this applies to Jesus. For instance, Isaiah 42:1-4, Isaiah 44:1-2 and Isaiah 45:1-4. So when people inadvertently apply this name to some particular group of people – one that excludes Him – they seem to be taking some aspects of the glory that applies to the Lord and Savior Jesus and applying it to man, as if there were many “seeds” to whom the promises applied, and not to one “seed.”

   But we see that Paul explains against this idea in Galatians 3:16. There he says quite clearly, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”

   I have seen people read through this passage of scripture, and to them this particular verse of Galatians 3:16 almost seems to have an invisibility cloak around it. I have seen people act as if it was an invisible verse: when it comes to some point where the time has come to exposit this verse, I have seen it get completely skipped over. Some people are averse today toward even explaining the Scripture of this verse. And I do not think things should be like that. The present state of affairs are only like this because Galatians 3:16 so succinctly explains and rejects the false doctrine that many hold. They simply do not have any means to deal with it. Other than to minimize awareness of its existence by acting like there is nothing strange going on with it, but consciously talking about it as little as possible, in order to avoid this discussion.

   It is a similar case with other verses and other false doctrines that are out there in other assemblies which do not fully hold to Scripture. This is a clear example of that with Galatians 3:16. Paul even explains further by inspiration where the idea comes from in Romans 9:7. It comes from the word of God which states “in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Clearly, we move from Isaac to Jacob to Christ by the same measure. So the Samaritans and the physical Jews as well were cut off, except for the “remnant” like the apostle Paul, who are saved – This is by the one way of salvation according to Hebrews 11.

   This is what is divinely revealed from the New Testament. Until recently this was noncontroversial. Clearly, the prophecy of Exodus 19:6, “ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” was fulfilled when Peter wrote that, “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” in 1 Peter 2:9. The people have known this. There is plenty of evidence for this connection prophetically.

   The covenant foretold in Jeremiah 31:33, “the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel” is none other than that told us by the writer of Hebrews in the 8th chapter.

   We see that it is presently established, because it says of Christ, “now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.” See Hebrews 8:6. The reason why Hebrews 8:8 has it in future tense is simply because it is quoting Jeremiah directly. And in Jeremiah it was a future prophecy. But we see clearly by the text of God’s word that in Hebrews 8:6 that is a presently fulfilled prophecy. As it says, “I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.” That is clearly not under the Law of Moses, but through Christ. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

   For this reason, I would be very hesitant to apply the glory that rightly belongs to the seed of Abraham to other groups of people, such as claiming that the blessing of Genesis 12 cleaves not to Jesus Christ but rather to people who, by definition, curse him. This is clearly a case of spiritual blindness on the part of certain preachers and expositors of the past, who have gained a personal following of sorts. There are many such cases of this happening, in this as well as in many other false doctrines. But if following these men comes at the expense of sound doctrine from Scripture, it should be rejected. This is true even if we get a “feeling in our stomach” that said preachers are correct. The Mormons say the same thing. You should be able to prove what you believe from Scripture.

   The result of deviating from the truth has led to the promotion of homosexuality and abortion in this country. For who are many of the prime proponents of these ideas today? None other than those who, because they choose to reject Christianity and the word of Christ in its purest form, claim to be in orthodox Judaism. The history of these ideas taking hold in America is intertwined with this group rising to power here. From Spinoza, Moses Hess and Karl Marx down to Herbert Marcuse, Saul Alinsky or Frank Kameny. Not that I am saying this is enough to explain the entire story of corruption, of course. There are people from every background that have contributed to the present decline in every form of ethical conduct. Antonio Gramsci is another one, for example: there is no record of him claiming to be a follower of Judaism. Nevertheless, if you exalt a group of people as being “of God” when clearly, Jesus told us, they that are of God hear God’s words (see John 8:47), then you open the door to this kind of behavior being accepted. By misapplying doctrines of Christ to morally depraved men, American churches en masse open the door to the falling away from the truth that has taken place today, and it is by these men – ironically – that much of it directly has taken place. I hate to be the messenger of this, because it is very painful and I do not wish it were so, but the facts lead me to no other conclusion. That’s why I am trying to get people to turn around, and get right with God today, where I see them failing to hold firmly onto the truth of Christ’s word, which very clearly says something different than they say, if you will only read it, and study it in prayer for yourself. Good discussion as usual.

   • Andrew,

     I didn’t use the phraseology, “seed of Abraham,” in my piece. I was talking about the fact that Israel exists as a nation and that Israel will be saved and we see that in the Tribulation period. That is prophesied also in Isaiah 52-53 and Zechariah 14. Both Old and New Testaments say that Israel shall be saved. For Israel to be saved, Israel has to exist. It does. That was my point. I don’t think it is a sign that Israel exists, but for that prophesy to come to pass, Israel has to exist. I’m not making any point about who the “seed” is in Genesis 12. Can you point to where I’ve done that in my article? I have an optimistic view of Israel because the Bible has one. That doesn’t come from false teachers who led to communism. It’s in the Bible. Thanks Andrew.

     • Maybe I’m right, maybe I’m not right.

     • Hi. That’s a salient point. I hope you understand how the Bible talks about those that are cut off from Israel, such as what we see in Romans 11. I am sure that you are referring to this passage of scripture when you say that Israel shall be saved. Paul the apostle tells us about how many “branches” are cut off from the people. He talks about how many are grafted in. Anyone can see it by turning to Romans 11. That means that now the true and most meaningful and important nation, the one people of God – who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, as it said in John chapter 1, that nation exists. Furthermore, those who are asleep in Christ are still counted part of it.

       Just because some judaizing group or groups exist today has no bearing on that. Even if it calls itself Israel. We see that Catholicism and other groups have done the same in the past. And, we are not to regard genealogies. The Scripture says that as well – It says, “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies”. However, I do realize that this religion and subculture could be antichrist and the mystery of iniquity at work in the land of Israel today. It does seem to meet some of the attributes given for that, and I don’t see a problem with openly discussing this. The talmud and its followers, who choose to commit and promote sodomy and abortion, among other things, certainly is a worthy candidate for being that. But I’m not saying it is that for sure. And I am certainly not acceding that they are Biblical Israel. Quite to the contrary, that would be a mistake. That would be like saying Satan was Christ. And coming from a Biblical perspective, this alone makes sense. This aligns to what John tells us in 1 John 2:22-23 and 2 John v. 9-11, which I have quoted above and may be read by anyone at any time.

       It also aligns with the last sentence of Zechariah 14, which is another passage you mentioned. The “Canaanite” here obviously represents anything foreign. Like Christ once said, The kingdom of God shall be taken from them, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

       Hyperdispensationalism, then, is a doctrine of political convenience, that turns a blind eye to Scripture where it might signify having to do something difficult or make a truly difficult stand in this regard. And it has brought upon us the current falling away from the truth. As unfortunate as it may be, the only way to extricate ourselves from this error is to come to the acknowledgment of the truth now, and do it as quickly as possible. Realize that some people in this world are liars, that they claim a heritage that is not theirs, and that, what is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
       God bless and have a good rest of your week. Hopefully that has covered just about what there is to say on the subject.

       • Andrew,

         Are at least 144,000 ethnic Jews, born 12,000 of each tribe of Israel, going to be saved in the tribulation period?

         • This was discussed, I believe, on multiple occasions above. “Since the Old Testament saints will be alive again, these can be the people to fulfill this prophecy when they are sent to earth.” With this I also compared the specific evidence from Zechariah to back this idea. This has the upper hand because it explains how we know what tribe they are. Otherwise, it’s simply left unexplained. The above comment containing said explanation does a sufficient job of explaining all of this.

           Thanks again for asking.

         • Andrew, and I would appreciate it if you would keep signing your name, I’ve read what you’ve written, and I don’t see how it matches with scripture. I’ve never heard your view, I don’t think you’ve come close to proving it, and I would ask if there is something motivating it. The right view is going to explain every passage. Your explanation of Romans 11 is, just look it up, it’s right in there, doesn’t do it for me. I would ask you to look at Isaiah 52-53. In the future, unbelieving Jews will believe, and they haven’t yet. This is a prophecy of their future repentance. It’s obviously Israel repenting in alignment with Zechariah and Romans 11 and Revelation 7 and 14. How we know who the 144,000 are isn’t even a consideration. That’s an argument from silence.

         • Hi Dr. Brandenburg,

           You don’t have to read what I’ve written. All that anyone needs to do is read Scripture and be saved. They will see the truth. Just follow the pure and trustworthy word of God. He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. And as it says in Ephesians, “through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” And also later in the same book, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

           If you say you have never heard my view, can you articulate what you think my view is? If not, how can you be sure that you have never heard it before? For my part, am pretty sure I know what the modern Zionist view is and how it differs from it. Rather than there being two groups, those that are saved and those not saved, it teaches that there is a special group of unsaved people who are the people of God, rather than what Peter tells us directly in 1 Peter 2:9-10. However, that view gets very confused and incoherent about prophecies surrounding dispensations. So that I would say it does not represent a Biblical view of dispensations, but merely an extrabiblical view, brought about in the era of John Darby and Cyrus Scofield, which was propounded – during the cold war – in prominent seminaries, and later held together by manmade tradition and personal allegiance to preachers who were taught the mystical art of hyperdispensationalism, some of which is partially tamped down now due to the excesses of that school of thought, but still in essence maintaining a residual “flavor” for itself apart from the doctrines of Christ in some key issues. Again, how different this view is exactly, is muddled and unclear. Each person holding it has different ways of trying to reconcile it to Scripture. This is due to the incoherency that this fundamental error introduces. The error can be classified broadly as “Zionism,” but it tends to penetrate all the way to the fundamentals of the Gospel, with many of its most vocal proponents teaching a “dual covenant” theory of salvation, and dividing the Scripture up into sections that only apply to what they call the people of God, who are considered to be different from saved people rather than the same thing as saved people. They do this on some basis of tradition that is unbiblical. Paul warns us in Colossians 2, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” That summarizes my understanding of that view. Now I would like to know if you could do similarly for me and my view on Romans 11, since you say you have never heard my view on Romans 11 before.

           I believe we have discussed Isaiah 52-53 in a previous comment section, back on December 21, 2019. I brought specific focus to the application of “hyperdispensational partitioning of Scripture” in that article back then as well. I have also called into focus the dangers of “creeping talmudism” in churches as well. But in any case, we have the word of God. Those who believe in Christ will not be deceived. As the Lord says, “if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect,” and of course we know it is not possible for them to be deceived.

           Thanks, and if you also decide to drop the discussion there, I am at peace with any decision you make.

         • Andrew,

           You call your view the pure Word of God, but what I’m reading is something that reads into and spiritualizes scripture, like an amillennial view. I would suspect also, although I haven’t read his view, the view of Steven Anderson. Actually, you’ve been spoiled on this view. I don’t think it is brand new. I believe Roman Catholics and many Protestants take the view, which takes Old Testament passages regarding Israel and spiritualizes them. It then spiritualizes certain NT passages. In other words, it doesn’t take them literally which is what you are espousing. I do know that you’ve got limited time to present the view here, because I won’t allow an anti-semite, replacement theology view to keep being espoused here.

           The basis of the Romans 9-11 argument of Paul was in essence, why should Jews believe in the veracity of what he was preaching if God didn’t keep His promises in the Old Testament to Israel? God wanted to save Israel, and the reason individual Israelites wouldn’t be saved was because of their unbelief, their rejection of their Messiah, unwillingness to confess Jesus as Lord, not because they couldn’t be saved. In other Words, it wasn’t God, but it was them. However, the promises were true and God would save Israel like He said. You’ve got to mess up large portions of scripture to get your view.

           I vaguely remember discussing Isaiah 52-53 with someone on the terms your expressing. It’s not Talmudic teaching. That’s crazy. The Talmud doesn’t admit that they rejected Jesus as the Messiah but they would receive Him in the future.

           Scripture doesn’t teach that there is a unique unsaved group that God will bless. He does say that God will bless Israel and we know it’s because of the the promises of God — the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenant. You say believe the pure Word of God and then you mention “creeping Talmudism.” The Talmud doesn’t receive Jesus Christ as the Messiah, but Jews will. That’s clear in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, Zechariah, Matthew, and Revelation at least. I’m not going to take you through all of those to prove the point, unless I try to write a concise blog point.

           You also call this hyperdispensationalism. You obviously don’t know what hyperdispensationalism is. That’s obvious. Hyperdispensationalism take the gospels like they are still in the Old Testament, and that Paul is the final authority for biblical teaching. They reject water baptism, for instance. I’m saying Jews will receive Jesus Christ in great numbers. That’s not Zionism. Zionism says that Israel has a historical basis for the land. I think they make a decent political and historical argument.

           Dispensationalism itself is a systematizing of a literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of scripture. It’s obvious when you read the Bible that there is continuity and discontinuity. Are you still following the dietary restrictions of the Old Testament? Do you speak in tongues? If not, then you too divide scripture up. Don’t call it dispensationalism. Call it premillennialism and a literal approach to scripture? You can’t take scripture literally and not see both continuity and discontinuity.

           What church are you in, Andrew? Does your church accept these teachings? Are you hearing this in preaching? You by yourself are not the pillar and ground of the truth.

         • Also, hopefully I answered your question. I know my writing is not always the most clear. If I did not answer your questions in the above post, please let me know. Your post is pretty non-specific with regards to what Scripture you are referring to, so I don’t exactly know how to answer there until I know what you seem to find objectionable about what I said.

           The only time that “repenting” is mentioned in any of the passages you mentioned are where Paul says the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. The other passages you mentioned never mention anything with respect to what you said about repenting. So there seems to be a fundamental disconnect between what you said and the passages that were provided, unless I am missing something here. I am willing to admit I may simply be missing the reference you are trying to provide in your above post. If you could be kind and show me what specific Biblical passages you mean to refer to here with regard to Israel repenting, that would certainly help.

           Have a good day, as always. Hopefully this can serve to clarify some things.

         • The word “repent” isn’t in Isaiah 52-53, but it is a beautiful description of repentance. They will in the tribulation period mourn that they rejected their Messiah and receive Him in great numbers, and that is described in Isaiah 52-53. According to Zechariah 14, they will look on Him who they pierced and mourn over it.

         • Hi Dr. Brandenburg, I’m glad I could be of some help.

           “I believe Roman Catholics and many Protestants take the view, which takes Old Testament passages regarding Israel and spiritualizes them.”
           Now that’s the amillenial view. That’s not what I’m saying and it never has been, but I was prepared to be accused of it. I already said above that I believe the rapture takes place in the future, so that means the pre-millenialist view. I also take the standard view with regards to Biblical dispensations. I’m just not a hyper-dispensational Zionist, and I believe that is an error that has led directly to the pride, sodomy and abortion problem in our country. If you are part of that, you have yourselves to thank for bringing that abomination of sin here, because it’s what the Talmud teaches is okay, and we see people who believe in the Talmud in positions of influence today which the Zionist movement has said they have no problem with. But what does the Bible say? in 2 John, v. 9-11 the apostle John writes,

           “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
           If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
           For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”
           – 2 John 1:9-11

           So we see from this teaching that not only does a group that teaches things against God not have God, but that if you bid them godspeed (such as by saying, for example, that the blessings of Abraham abide on them, or that they are Israel, or that they have a pretty good claim to the Biblical land where the kingdom of Israel and Judah stood) then you are partaker in ALL of their evil deeds. That includes the replacement of God’s law in this country with the wicked view of the talmudists, who have spread their influence here since the hyperdispensational crowd (many of which also use falsified bible versions, which I know you are not a part of) has welcomed the people who teach those things in, rather than marked them and separated from them as we are told to do in Romans 16:17 and 1 Timothy 6:3-5.

           Not only that, but the Zionists have falsely accused people who bring up the truth from God’s word on this matter by calling them racist. I never espoused any racial views in any of my posts here, and I never have. That has nothing to do with the subject of being saved. This is what Scripture teaches. In fact, that has been my point all along. Paul writes in Galatians 3 that we are all one in Christ Jesus, and that if we are Christ’s, then are we Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. The promise is unto us, and to our children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. That’s from Acts chapter 2.

           This is not anything other than what Scripture itself tells us directly. You call things “spiritualizing” as if that were inherently bad. I don’t get that. Also, this is quoting truths directly from Scripture here. If the Lord is spiritualizing something, like for instance that you must be born again, that is not bad. And that ain’t amillenial. I believe in the imminent rapture, as discussed above.

           And if you were wondering whether we as the people of God (singular) are able to say whether or not we belong in the commonwealth of Israel today, I can absolutely say that we are, because what did Paul tell us in Ephesians 2? He said that we “were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” See that? That’s all that I’m talking about here. Simply acknowledge Scripture.

           Lastly, I disagree with the characterization you give to my view, but that’s good because it means I can explain how I differ from it and hopefully we can agree to be on the same page with the truth, Dr. Brandenburg.

           This is like what Paul says in 1 Corinthians, that we should be “joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”

           And as to Romans 9-11, it sounds like you already agree with what I’ve been saying here. If you take the trouble to go back and read, I didn’t say much at all about that passage yet. So that’s why I was wondering how on earth you knew you already disagreed with my view. Thanks for the explanation.

         • I forgot to say two things that are absolutely necessary to continue discussion. I am not an Andersonite. And I am a member of a Bible-believing New Testament church in Missouri, and I believe I told you about this in an email I sent asking you about these things. You gave a virtual presentation to us once and I thought I would write a thanks to you.

           God bless.

         • You know, I was just thinking about this in my church service today as we read the Declaration of Independence and then my Pastor preached on how all the nations that forget God shall be turned into hell out of Psalm 9, but also how a Nation could come to their right mind after being humbled, out of Daniel 4, and all those that walk in pride He is able to abase; and the thought that kept coming to my mind is, if we could just put zionism behind us, we could put all this pride stuff and all the wicked child molestation that they have brought into the open square through their parades. We could put all of that behind us if we would be willing to let go of that wickedness, and stop associating with Zionism entirely. You know, Tel Aviv was voted the world capital of that stuff not long ago – The pride LGBT stuff. You don’t just replace God’s law with nothing. It is them coming here, and replacing our values with “their” values. It’s been like that since the 1960s – twenty or thirty years before I was born. If we could just go back to the simplicity that is in Christ, the truth of the Bible, stop saying godspeed to those that curse God (see 2 Chronicles 19:2), then the Lord God could turn this whole situation around. Proverbs 24 says this:

           “He that saith unto the wicked, Thou are righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:
           But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.”

         • Andrew,

           Talk to your pastor about these beliefs. I don’t have time to deal with and unravel all of them. Does your church and church leadership take the same view? I wouldn’t think so. I know what church you’re in now.

           Look up the word Zionism. Zionism isn’t the belief in God fulfilling prophesies about Israel.

           Just because Israel itself today doesn’t believe, just like they didn’t at most points in their history, scripture prophesies that they will. That’s not supporting the present unbelief of Israel. At the same time, for Israel to believe in the future, Israel must exist. If Israel is to be saved in fulfillment of God’s promises, then Israel must exist. This is not a spiritualized version of it, but an actual Israel. As you move into the New Testament, you have a genealogy, and Jesus is part of that genealogy, which shows the ethnic importance of the fulfillment of prophecy. Those aren’t all believers in those prophesies. Tamar wasn’t a believer. Is God glorifying her behavior? Of course not.

         • Pastor Brandenburg, with all due respect,

           You wouldn’t know if we agreed on the basic Biblical truths laid out by me here from Scripture. I will have you know that, despite what you might suppose, that simply isn’t true. I have the right to an opinion based on these Biblical ideas as well, about the current world-system, and there’s nothing wrong with that. This opinion is that many other professing Christians and churches have grown too attached to this world to rebuke some of this stuff. They are afraid of it even while child molestation is taking place in pride parades in front of them.

           I think anyone reading this conversation can see what Biblical support there is for the conclusions we made here, whether one conclusion has more Biblical support to actually show for itself. Thanks to God for the clarity that He provides.

         • Andrew, I’m ending the comments on this post. Your argument that people, who believe that God’s promises to Israel will be fulfilled, are supporting child molestation, because descendants of Abraham have been child molesters, is an affront to God and His Word. It’s also an affront to basic logic. I’m reading the conversation and what you are writing about Israel not receiving promises of a sovereign God, based on God’s prophecy of their future conversion, isn’t convincing at all. I hope people don’t believe what you are espousing.

8. Andrew: “So we see from this teaching that not only does a group that teaches things against God not have God, but that if you bid them godspeed (such as by saying, for example, that the blessings of Abraham abide on them, or that they are Israel, or that they have a pretty good claim to the Biblical land where the kingdom of Israel and Judah stood) then you are partaker in ALL of their evil deeds. ”

   Sorry, but that’s not well-founded at all. To say that you believe God’s promises to Abraham will be fulfilled to his physical descendants does NOT mean you are bidding them godspeed or endorsing any of their actions, any more than it would have been saying that God’s promises to the nation Israel were still in effect during the times of the judges.

   The nation needed to repent to receive the blessings, but that does not mean the blessings promised to the nation were abrogated. Those individuals may not have ever received them but that doesn’t mean their descendants wouldn’t.

   Your position relies on the false assumption that the sons will die for the sins of their fathers (today’s unbelieving Jews) and that the wicked will not live if they repent. Ezekiel had some things to say about that. It relies on the false assumption that there will not be a time that Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh will repent, receive the blessings, and be grafted in. That assumption is impossible to reconcile with Romans 9-11.

   I don’t intend to engage beyond this, my life situation doesn’t permit an extended back and forth and I’m not seeing, in your extensive posting here, a teachable spirit nor even a willingness to admit that you might have overlooked something. So it’s not likely to accomplish anything. But I did think it worth pointing out the assumptions that underlie the teaching you have been actively seeking to propagate here.

   The only thing I’d add is that if you believe in separation, as I’d assume from some of your other posting you do, you need to be careful who and what arguments you associate yourself with. “Zionism” is a term used in horrific ways by anti-Jewish racists. If that’s not you, you shouldn’t use their term, and in my view, Kent has been remarkably patient with you.

Comments are closed.