Read. Reflect. Write.

Prefer listening instead of reading?  Click here  to listen to an AI-generated podcast discussion of this article.  I recently had a discussion on social media with a friend regarding the validity of the Levitical priesthood, specifically as it relates to offerings and sacrifices. He challenged the common Reformed and evangelical view that Christ, as the great high priest after the order of Melchizedek, fulfills and thereby renders obsolete the Aaronic priesthood. His argument is grounded in Jeremiah 33:17–18, where the Lord declares that David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel and that the Levitical priests will never lack a man before him to offer sacrifices. The argument is straightforward: if Christians rightly believe God has fulfilled the promise regarding the Davidic king in Christ, then how is God also fulfilling the promise concerning the Levitical priesthood? Since Christ is not a Levitical priest but comes from the tribe of Judah, the promis...

Click here to listen to an AI podcast of this article. There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the word theonomy . For many Christians, the term immediately evokes images of a theocracy, Mosaic civil legislation, or attempts to reconstruct ancient Israel within modern society. While some advocates of theonomy have argued for stronger continuity between Mosaic judicial law and modern civil government, that is not the issue I want to address here. By mere theonomy , I mean something much simpler: the recognition that God is the ultimate source of justice, righteousness, morality, and law. In that sense, some form of theonomy is unavoidable. Every society appeals to an ultimate standard by which it determines what is right and wrong, just and unjust. The real question is not whether a society has an ultimate authority, but what that authority is. Any nation that rejects God as the ultimate source of law does not become neutral. It simply substitutes another aut...

Michael A. Rogers’ Inmillennialism: Redefining the Last Days presents a redemptive-historical proposal that seeks to reconfigure standard eschatological categories through sustained attention to the New Testament’s temporal framework. Writing as a pastor with an engineering background, Rogers develops a structured and internally coherent model that prioritizes logical consistency and textual integration. His theological trajectory was significantly shaped by his interaction with The Parousia by James Stuart Russell , a work that initially destabilized his assumptions but ultimately led him toward a more comprehensive synthesis of New Testament eschatology.  The volume, approximately 330 pages in length, includes extensive appendices containing the Synoptic Olivet Discourses and other relevant texts, reinforcing Rogers’ commitment to grounding his argument directly in Scripture. The book is organized around six diagnostic questions used to evaluate major eschatological syste...

Click  here  to listen to an AI podcast discussion of this blog post.    I was recently listening to a debate between Steve Gregg and Joel Richardson on the question: will Jesus reestablish a Davidic kingdom of Israel when he returns? As I listened, one issue stood out almost immediately. A number of New Testament passages were being cited with futurist assumptions already built into them, and those assumptions were never actually challenged. The case was not simply argued; it was, at key points, presupposed. The central claim being advanced was straightforward. Christ is not yet reigning in any meaningful sense because the world is still filled with evil, disorder, and rebellion. Therefore, He must return in the future to establish His kingdom, understood as a visible, earthly Davidic reign in which such conditions no longer exist. That argument has an intuitive appeal. But it rests on a definition of “reign” that Scripture itself does not use. The pushbac...

Click here to listen to an AI podcast discussion of this blog post.    Matthew 16:27–28 is one of the most debated sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. Though the Transfiguration is often presented as the fulfillment of Matthew 16:27–28, the argument below shows that this reading does not cohere well with the passage’s grammar, context, or Danielic background. The view has a long pedigree and appears attractive due to narrative proximity. A careful examination of the immediate context and Matthew’s broader use of “Son of Man” language suggests a different conclusion. Matthew 16:27 reads: “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will repay each according to what he has done.” The language draws directly from Daniel 7:13–14, where the Son of Man comes before the Ancient of Days and receives dominion, glory, and a kingdom. The reference to angelic accompaniment and recompense places the saying within a judicial framework. ...

For the past 8 months, I’ve been working on an academic essay titled Reframing Romans 11:25–27: Gentile Fullness and the Salvation of Israel in Paul’s Generation . The core question driving the project is a familiar one: What does Paul mean by “the fullness of the Gentiles,” and how does that relate to the salvation of “all Israel”? A common interpretation—especially in futurist and dispensational readings—understands the “fullness of the Gentiles” as a massive, end-of-history ingathering of Gentile converts, followed by a large-scale conversion of ethnic Israel at some distant point in the future. The problem, however, is that this scenario remains perpetually deferred. Two thousand years later, the fulfillment is always still just ahead. My argument is that there is a more coherent way to read Romans 11:25–27—one that takes seriously the New Testament’s own redemptive-historical framework and the expectations shared by its authors. In th...

While reading Hebrews 12:22–29 the other day, the language and references began to generate a series of familiar associations. Zion led to angels, angels to judgment, and judgment—almost inevitably—back to Matthew’s Olivet Discourse. From there, Daniel and Paul quickly came into view. Rather than feeling scattered, these connections reinforced a pattern evident across the New Testament, namely, that Scripture clarifies Scripture and in doing so shapes the contours of its own eschatological claims.      Hebrews (12:22–29) speaks with striking confidence about where its readers already stand. They have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem. This is not presented as a destination awaiting fulfillment, but as a present covenantal reality. What follows reinforces that point: angels gathered in festal assembly, the assembly of the firstborn, God identified as Judge, and the spirits of the righteous made perfect. The emphasis throughout is ...

Click here to listen to an AI podcast discussion of this post. A few days ago, I shared a brief statement from Gary DeMar on Facebook: “The great tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:21 took place before that generation passed away. Verse 34 demands it.” I simply replied, “Yup.” Shortly afterward, a pastor who opposes preterism responded, claiming that “verse 34 does not demand it,” and posted a lengthy excerpt from an article to support his objection. What follows is a summary of the key ideas from his critique, and then my rebuttal. I do not address every minor detail of his post, because the central issue—his handling of “all these things” and the structure of the discourse—renders the rest of his points irrelevant. Before offering a response, it’s helpful to note the main thrust of the critique I’m addressing. The critic argues that “all these things” in Matthew 24:34 does not include the coming of the Son of Man in vv. 29–31, but refers only to preliminary ...