For about 1900 years much of the Church has believed Jesus would visibly and literally return to the earth on a literal cloud, at the sound of a literal trumpet, in a literal / physical body of a literal Jewish male to literal Jerusalem, from there he would sit on a literal throne, in a literal, rebuilt Temple and literally govern the nations. Nevertheless, this is a gross misunderstanding of Jesus’ words, as I’ve been demonstrating in this series of studies, developed in the context of Jesus’ words in John 10:37-38. There he made the astonishing statement: “Don’t believe me if I don’t do the works the Father gave me to do, but believe only if I do those works.” Imagine that! If the works that Jesus claimed he would do aren’t done, don’t believe him. This is the Challenge of Christ! Read the rest of this entry »
The voice that John heard in Revelation 10:8 was the same voice he heard from heaven, telling him to seal up what the seven thunders said in reply to the mighty Angel, who swore there would be no delay (Revelation 10:4). It was probably the same voice that he heard in Revelation 4:1, when he was invited into the Throne Room of the Lamb, which, as we have seen, was the Most Holy Place of the Temple. Read the rest of this entry »
The doctrine of Satan as understand by Christians today was not so developed in ancient Israel. At least, we have no indication in the Bible that such a doctrine was developed that shows Satan to be a spiritual archenemy of God. From Genesis to Revelation, there simply is no spiritual archenemy of God. As far as Scripture is concerned, satan simply means adversary or enemy. Jesus called Peter his enemy or his satan (G4567 – satanas) in Matthew 16:23. In the Old Covenant the Lord raised up two satans or adversaries (H7854) against Solomon (1Kings 11:14, 23). In fact, the Angel of the Lord was Balaam’s satan or adversary (H7854) in Numbers 22:22. So, what is Jesus referring to when he mentions the synagogue of satan? Read the rest of this entry »
In my previous study about the church in Philadelphia, I demonstrated that spies had probably infiltrated the church throughout Asia, including this church that is often thought of as a perfect church, one of the two that had no faults for the Lord to mention. However, I believe this is a misconception. Jesus is addressing problems and praiseworthy matters that each of the churches have. Each one may accentuate one or the other, but, in reality all the churches have problems, and all have good works. Read the rest of this entry »
When we first read Luke 21:8, we have to wonder if the Apostles, who knew Jesus personally, could actually be deceived into believing another man was the Messiah. While I don’t believe the Apostles could have been deceived that another person was Jesus, I think, if they weren’t very cautious to consider Jesus’ words carefully, they could have been deceived into believing Jesus’ return to judge Jerusalem would be sooner than it was, and they could have left Judea prematurely without a witness. The text says that many would come in the name of Jesus and declare the time was at hand (Luke 21:8), i.e. the time of the end, or the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was at hand. Jesus told the Apostles not to believe such people. Read the rest of this entry »
Much has been said about the Olivet Discourse being a prophecy for our day. Claimants try to show by using this prophecy that Jesus foretold his Second Coming to the earth in our own modern age. Is this true? To be perfectly honest there are many reasons why such a perspective is false. This prophecy was for the first century AD, and this point of view is supported by simply reading the prophecy in context. Nevertheless, there are many who refuse to believe such a thing is so, and would rather see it as a prophecy for our day, because great worldly wealth can be gained by adhering to such a doctrine. Certainly, many have embarrassed the Church, through their false prophecies, and many people who believed the false prophets have been abused. So, it can be said that great injury has been brought to bear upon the name of Christ through their profiteering. Such is the fruit of twisting this scripture into a doctrine of men. Read the rest of this entry »
In a previous study on the Second Coming of the Lord, I showed that Matthew 16:27-28 contains the same constituent elements found in Revelation 11:15-18, so they are, therefore, parallel scriptures, saying the same things. In that study I made the claim that the book of Revelation was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. At that time I also pointed to a statement made by one of the church fathers, namely, Clement of Alexandria. He made the claim: Read the rest of this entry »
In recent studies on the Second Coming of Christ, I have been demonstrating that the presumed gap between Matthew 16:27 and 28 simply does not exist. I have demonstrated this by going into the Old Testament showing the prophecies that Jesus applied to the foretelling of his coming into his Kingdom. I demonstrated the same by arguing that the literary content excludes a break between the two verses, and I’ve also used Jesus’ words that fulfillment of the whole Law (i.e. the whole Old Testament) had to have occurred before the Old Covenant ended. So, if the Old Covenant is no longer in force, then Jesus must have returned, because the Old Covenant predicted his coming in his Kingdom. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments Off on The Second Coming and Revelation 11
If I have proved anything in this series it is that men bring a lot to the table when they present their eschatology. The Bible never speaks about the end of time, but some men’s eschatology has to do with the end of time. Some even speak of the end of the Gospel Age, but the Bible seems to indicate that the Gospel Age will never end! Some men’s eschatology deals with the end of the universe, but God tells us that he will not destroy his creation. Many Bible students like to place gap where gaps don’t exist (like between Matthew 16:27 and 28), and large gaps where small gaps might be indicated (like in the middle of Daniel’s 70th week of years). So, we have God’s word, but men seem to like to add their own words next to God’s, or perhaps they sincerely don’t know what they’ve done. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments Off on What Was ‘About to’ Occur in Paul’s Day
I have been involved in a study of Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:27-28 for awhile now, and have concluded that Jesus must have come in the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead according to their works, and, in doing so, he had established the Kingdom of God in great power and glory, giving it to his disciples (Matthew 16:27-28). Moreover, I also believe what Jesus said, that some of the people who heard him say those words would live to see them fulfilled. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments Off on Looking Back on Jesus’ Second Coming!
I have been commenting on the meaning of Peter’s words in 2Peter 3:7 for the past several studies, and I intend to continue to do so in this one. Peter uses two words in order to support the idea that ‘heaven and earth’ refer to the Jewish or the Old Covenant age. Notice that he says “…the heavens that now are, and the earth, by the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men” (emphasis mine). I want to consider the words stored up and reserved in order to understand more accurately what Peter is telling us. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments Off on Stored Up and Reserved for Judgment
One of the sad statements of our time is that folks who believe Christ will return in our modern day, take their cues from the newspaper, rather than believing God. We have become newspaper exegetes, believing and preaching the end is near, because of “all the evil” we see in the world around us. We simply cannot fathom the thought that Jesus would ever permit such evil to continue to occur without doing something about it. Well, he has done something about it. He left us the Gospel to preach, and this has already and will continue to change the world, but that’s another subject for another time. Read the rest of this entry »
For nearly the whole period of my own Christian experience, I had been interpreting the Old Testament prophecies, for the most part, literally. This is the way in which I was taught, and it is also the manner in which most of my commentaries etc. interpret Biblical prophecy. It is only lately (summer of 2017) that I began to question this method of interpretation (hermeneutic). Certainly, I knew Jesus wasn’t a literal lamb, when the text called him the Lamb of God, but for the most part it was through the literal interpretation of the word of God, that I perceived the scriptures, including the prophets. Read the rest of this entry »
The Lord tells us in Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11 that he will not give his glory to another. Yet, Jesus tells us in Matthew 16:27 that he will come in the glory of the Father. Paul says in Philippians 2:6 that, before he became man, Jesus was in the form of God and was equal with God. Late in his earthly ministry Jesus prayed to his Father, asking that he would glorify him with himself—i.e. with the person of the Father, which was the glory he enjoyed before creation (John 17:5). In other words before he became man, Jesus was God and with God (John 1:1). Therefore, for Jesus to say he would come in the glory of the Father (Matthew 16:27), he was saying he would come in the glory not of man but of God. He would come again (i.e. his Second Coming) as the Lord had come in the past—i.e. in the Old Testament. What would that look like in the context of the New Testament? Read the rest of this entry »
As Jesus was leaving Jerusalem and the Temple compound, he lamented over Jerusalem, wishing he could have protected her and her children, but the Jewish authorities, and because of them the nation, rejected him. Therefore, he declared that their House, i.e. their Temple would be left to them desolate (Matthew 23:37-38). That is, Jesus prophesied its destruction. Jesus’ disciples were astonished, and, while leaving with him, they pointed to the great stones comprising the Temple walls etc., no doubt wondering if they understood Jesus correctly. Did he really mean **these great stones** would be thrown down, leaving not two intact (Matthew 24:1)? Jesus merely repeated his statement in Matthew 24:2. Read the rest of this entry »
In recent studies on the Second Coming of Christ, I have been demonstrating that the presumed gap between Matthew 16:27 and 28 simply does not exist. I have demonstrated this by going into the Old Testament showing the prophecies that Jesus applied to the foretelling of his coming into his Kingdom. I demonstrated the same by arguing that the literary content excludes a break between the two verses, and I’ve also used Jesus’ words that fulfillment of the whole Law (i.e. the whole Old Testament) had to have occurred before the Old Covenant ended. So, if the Old Covenant is no longer in force, then Jesus must have returned, because the Old Covenant predicted his coming in his Kingdom. 
One of the sad statements of our time is that folks who believe Christ will return in our modern day, take their cues from the newspaper, rather than believing God. We have become newspaper exegetes, believing and preaching the end is near, because of “all the evil” we see in the world around us. We simply cannot fathom the thought that Jesus would ever permit such evil to continue to occur without doing something about it. Well, he has done something about it. He left us the Gospel to preach, and this has already and will continue to change the world, but that’s another subject for another time. 
As Jesus was leaving Jerusalem and the Temple compound, he lamented over Jerusalem, wishing he could have protected her and her children, but the Jewish authorities, and because of them the nation, rejected him. Therefore, he declared that their House, i.e. their Temple would be left to them desolate (Matthew 23:37-38). That is, Jesus prophesied its destruction. Jesus’ disciples were astonished, and, while leaving with him, they pointed to the great stones comprising the Temple walls etc., no doubt wondering if they understood Jesus correctly. Did he really mean **these great stones** would be thrown down, leaving not two intact (Matthew 24:1)? Jesus merely repeated his statement in Matthew 24:2. 
Smoodock's Blog 