PRINTER FRIENDLY | EMAIL THIS PAGE TO A FRIEND!

Q & A

AMERICAN HISTORY

Q. Were America's founders wrong for fighting for their independence from England? ANSWER

Q. The other day, in a discussion about God's covenant promises and their application to the United States, a guy told me that 2 Chronicles 7:14 had no application. This didn't sound right to me and I was wondering what your thoughts were. ANSWER

Q. Is God mentioned in the US Constitution? ANSWER Part 1 | ANSWER Part 2

Did you find your question/answer here? If not, visit our extensive collection of articles on American History / Government.

APOLOGETICS / BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW ISSUES

Q. Does the Bible Condemn Homosexual Marriage? ANSWER

Q. Are the accounts of Jesus Birth in Matt. 2:13–15 and Luke 2:22–42 contradictory? ANSWER

Did you find your question/answer here? If not, visit our extensive collection of articles on Apologetics.

ESCHATOLOGY

Q: I often hear premillennialists, especially dispensationalists, talk about a new temple being built in Israel. Where do they find this in Scripture, and why would it be necessary? ANSWER

Q: Have you heard the theory that Prince William (of England) is the antichrist? And if you have, do you have a nice summary rebuttle to it? The theory has gotten a hold on one of the young people I counsel and I would like to gently lead him out of this belief. ANSWER

Q: Would the readers of the NT in the first century have been familiar with a numbering system that converted numbers into letters? For example, Revelation 13:18 says, "Calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six." Would they have understood how to do this? ANSWER

Q: After reading your book Last Days Madness, which is understandable for even a layman such as me, I have a couple of questions. First, the time indicators you reveal and clarify in your book point to an A.D. 70fulfillment of the “great tribulation.” However, I do not see how the preterist view of Armageddon where a third of the world’s population is destroyed is dealt with on this issue. Second, in Revelation it refers to 200 million mounted troops. What is your position on these issues? ANSWER

Did you find your question/answer here? If not, visit our extensive collection of articles on Eschatology & Bible prophecy.

APOLOGETICS / BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW ISSUES

Q: Does the Bible Condemn Homosexual Marriage?

A. State representative Alvin Holmes (D–Montgomery, Ala.) is putting his money where his worldview is. He is offering $5000 to anyone who can prove the Bible actually condemns homosexual marriage. Of course, it’s quite easy to prove the Bible does not support homosexual marriage, so why would a man make such a preposterous wager? No matter what evidence you put before him, he will explain it away, because he wants to support homosexual marriage. We’ve seen this same type of “reasoning” on the abortion issue. No matter how you go about showing that abortion kills a preborn child, there are those who still support abortion. There are some who even recognize that abortion kills a proborn baby, and they still support baby killing for “high social reasons.” The same is true on the homosexual issue. If homosexuality is explained away when it is self-evident in the Bible, then so much else can be explained away, including adultery and other sexual sins. The Bible becomes no more authoritative than Aesop’s Fables.

The nature of unbelieving thought is to interpret evidences in terms of a pre-constructed worldview. The resurrection of Jesus is denied because skeptics begin with the premise that resurrections can’t happen. When evidence is shown to the contrary, the evidence is explained away. The rich man appealed to Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers to warn them of the consequences of their lifestyle choices. They would certainly listen to a man risen from the dead. Abraham’s response is not what the rich man wanted to hear: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them. . . . If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:19-31). The Bible is plain enough on these issues. Rep. Holmes doesn’t want to listen.

The creation account sets the standard for proper sexual relationships, including marriage. Adam was incomplete until God created someone “suitable” (KJV: “meet” not “mate”) for him. God did not create a man and a woman, thereby giving Adam a choice. God created a woman, setting a standard. Even if the Bible never condemned homosexual behavior, the creation account alone would be enough to establish what God wants in marital and sexual relationships. Even the physical makeup of men and women is a rational defense of heterosexual relationships. The command to be “fruitful and multiply” can only apply to heterosexual relationships. The NT supports the one man, one woman standard: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh” (Mark 10:6–8). The Bible couldn’t be any more clear. In any normal world, Rep. Holmes would be $5000 poorer.

Then there are the direct prohibitions of homosexual behavior found in the OT and NT. If homosexual behavior is prohibited, then it follows that a marriage that is built on homosexual marriage has to be wrong as well. The story of Sodom should be enough to convince anyone that homosexuality is prohibited by the Bible (Gen. 18-19). But if this detailed and irrefutable story isn’t enough, there are the stated prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

• Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
• Leviticus 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act.”

Pro-homosexual advocates argue that these laws are found among “purity laws,” therefore, they no longer apply. The same purity laws found in Leviticus that prohibit homosexuality also prohibit rape, theft, putting obstacles in front of blind people, sex with animals, and murder. Why haven’t these laws been abrogated under the new covenant?

Paul describes homosexual behavior as “degrading,” “unnatural,” and “indecent” (Rom. 1:26–27). If homosexual behavior is described using these terms, it’s hard to see how marriage makes the behavior Paul condemns legitimate. If two murderers marry, does this mean that now they are married, murder somehow becomes legitimate? Rep. Holmes is living in a world of his own making. The Bible condemns him because he “gives hearty approval to those who practice” homosexuality (Rom. 1:32). The leadership of  Hutchinson Missionary Baptist Church should discipline him for his rejection of God’s Word, and the people of Montgomery, Alabama, should vote him out of office.

Return to Q & A

Q: I often hear premillennialists, especially dispensationalists, talk about a new temple being built in Israel. Where do they find this in Scripture, and why would it be necessary?

A: Dispensational premillennialists need a future "tribulation temple" so their idea of antichrist can take his seat (2 Thess. 2:4), place a statue for people to worship (Rev. 13:14–15), and proclaim himself to be god (2 Thess. 2:4). But what the dispensationalists really need is a verse that states that there will be another rebuilt temple since there’s already been one. Rebuilt-temple advocates Tommy Ice and Randall Price admit the following in their book Ready to Rebuild: "There are no Bible verses that say, ‘There is going to be a third temple’" (197–198). Having admitted this, they go on to claim "that there will be a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem at least by the midpoint of the seven-year tribulation period" (198). As we will see, the Bible says no such thing.

Does the Bible predict that a third temple will be built, one following Solomon’s temple and the post-exile temple that was still standing in Jesus’ day? Don Stewart and Chuck Missler write the following in their book The Coming Temple, "The crucial issue boils down to how we interpret prophecy. There are two basic ways to interpret Bible prophecy. Either you understand it literally or you do not. If a person rejects the literal interpretation then they [sic] are left to their own imagination as to what the Scripture means. . . . We believe it makes sense to understand the Scriptures as literally requiring the eventual construction and desecration of a Third Temple" (193). Notice that they do not say that the Scriptures say there will be another rebuilt temple but only that it is required. Another rebuilt temple is required only if you are a dispensationalist.

Stewart and Missler have made it very simple for us. If the Bible is interpreted literally, according to them, the need for a third temple should be explicitly stated. What biblical evidence do they offer to support their claim that "the Bible, in both testaments, speaks of a Temple that has yet to appear" (194)? From the OT they quote Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11 for support. Ice and Price find only one OT passage to establish their position (Dan. 9:27). The Book of Daniel was written after Solomon’s temple had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. (2 Kings 25:8–9; Dan. 1:1–2) and before the temple had been rebuilt by the returning exiles (Ezra 6:13–15). It was this post-exile rebuilt temple that was desecrated by the pig-sacrificing Antiochus Epiphanes around 170 B.C. After a period of misuse and disuse, the temple was in need of repair. Herod the Great restored and enlarged this rebuilt second temple, a project that started around 20 B.C. and was completed just a few years before it was destroyed in A.D. 70. It was this same temple that Zacharias served in (Luke 1:9), that Jesus was taken to as an infant (2:27), that had been under construction forty-six years (John 2:20), that Jesus cleansed of the money changers (Matt. 21:12), that He predicted would be left desolate (Matt. 23:38; 24:2), and that was finally destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70.

Is there any indiction in these passages from Daniel that they skip over the temple that would be rebuilt, refurbished, enlarged, and still standing in Jesus’ day and refer to a future post-rapture great tribulation? Would Jews living in the first century had made the historical leap over the temple that was standing before them and suppose Jesus was describing yet another rebuilt temple? As Ice and Price admit, the Bible doesn’t say anything about another rebuilt temple. The passages from Daniel cited by Stewart, Missler, Ice, and Price can easily find their fulfillment in the rebuilt temple that was standing during the reign of Antiochus in the second century B.C. (Dan. 11:31; 12:11) and the second temple’s destruction in A.D. 70 (9:27).

What’s amazing is that Price and Ice, in their book Ready to Rebuild, find the fulfillment of Daniel 9:26 in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the dismantling of the rebuilt temple (Luke 21:6): "Jesus, seeing Himself as the Messiah, therefore saw the Romans as the people . . . who will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Knowing that He would soon be cut off (crucified), He likewise knew that the Temple’s destruction would soon occur" (68). In the span of two verses, they find two temples separated by 2000 years. As a careful reader will note, the word "sanctuary" (temple) that appears in Daniel 9:26 does not appear in 9:27. This means that Daniel 9:27 is describing events related to the same sanctuary of 9:26. For Ice and Price to find another rebuilt temple, Daniel 9:27 would have to say something like this: "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering in the new rebuilt sanctuary; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction of the second rebuilt sanctuary, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

Stewart, Missler, Ice, and Price claim to have incontrovertible biblical evidence for a rebuilt temple in three NT passages: Matthew 24:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4, and Revelation 11:1–2. On Matthew 24:15, Stewart and Missler write: "Jesus spoke of this prophecy being still future to His time (Matthew 24:15)" (194). This is true. But the rebuilt temple was still standing when Jesus said that "the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet" would stand "in the holy place." Notice the audience context: "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet" (Matt. 24:15). When who sees it? When "you see it;" that is, when those in Jesus’ audience see it. Ice and Price never explain the audience reference "you." If Jesus had a distant future audience in view, He would have said "when they see the abomination of desolation." Here’s their interpretation of Matthew 24:15: "‘The holy place’ is a reference to the most sacred room within Israel’s Temple. What temple? The third Temple, since it is a future event" (199). There is no mention of a future rebuilt temple or even an implied reference. Jesus does not say, "When they see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet standing in the rebuilt holy place." The holy place, the sanctuary, was right before their eyes (Matt. 24:1–2).

Ice and Price argue that "the apostle Paul gives us perhaps the clearest passage relating to the third Temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4"(199). Since Paul wrote before the rebuilt temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, what is it in these verses that tells us that the temple in which the "man of lawlessness" takes his seat is "the third temple"? Paul does not describe "the temple" (lit. sanctuary) as a rebuilt temple. What would have led his audience to conclude that he was referring to, using Ice and Price’s words, "the future third Temple" (199) when the temple was still standing in Jerusalem? The "man of lawlessness" was being restrained "now," in their day (2:6, 7), and the Christians at Thessalonia knew the identity of the restrainer (2:6). For a verse-by-verse exposition of 2 Thessalonians 2, see Last Days Madness.

Third-temple advocates find support for their position in Revelation 11:1–2. They begin by assuming that Revelation was written nearly three decades after the temple was destroyed. From this unproven assumption, they conclude that John must be measuring a rebuilt temple. The passage says nothing about a rebuilt temple. The words "shortly" and "near" (Rev. 1:1, 3) are used to describe the time when the events outlined in Revelation were to take place. These words are meaningless if the events have not taken place. The fact that John is told to "rise and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and those who worship in it" (11:1), is prima facie evidence that the temple was still standing when John received the revelation. How could John have measured a temple that did not exist in his day? Price and Ice insist that the temple that John is told to measure is the literal temple, not a "spiritual temple" (200). "For example, in Matthew 24 Jesus is speaking about a literal Temple, since in the context of the passage he is standing and looking directly at the second Temple" (200). The same was true of John. He was told to measure the literal Temple that still had worshipers in it. If the temple was no longer standing, then John was measuring a "spiritual temple."

The burden of proof is on rebuilt-temple advocates to come up with just one verse that unequivocally states that there will be a rebuilt temple. Since they admit that "There are no Bible verses that say, ‘There is going to be a third temple,’" we must conclude that dispensationalism’s preoccupation with a rebuilt temple is misguided.

Return to Q & A

A: People have been trying to identify "the antichrist" for centuries. For a helpful study of this phenomenon see Francis X. Gumerlock's The Day and the Hour (www.americanvision.org). Then there's Christopher Hill's Antichrist in Seventeenth-Century England which shows the innovative way the biblical term antichrist has been misapplied. The prophetic prognosticators studied in both books have one thing in common--they've all been wrong. Given what many people believe about "the antichrist," an appeal to history is often meaningless. "Of course they were wrong," the modern antichrist hunter concludes, "because I've figured out who the real antichrist is. If I know the real one, then everybody else had to be wrong." So we are left with what the Bible says. The word "antichrist" is used four times in the Bible but not in Revelation:

* 1 John 2:18--"Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour."
* 1 John 2:22--"Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son."
* 1 John 4:3--"every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world."
* 2 John 7--"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."

1. An antichrist is anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus has come in the flesh (2 Jn. 1:7). The Jews rejected Jesus as "the Christ" (1 Jn. 2:22) and being God in human flesh (2 Jn. 7). The term is directed to Jews of the first-century who John later describes as a "synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 2:9; 3:9).
2. There is more than one antichrist: "even now many antichrists have arisen" (1 Jn. 2:18).
3. The appearance of antichrists in John's day was evidence "that it is the last hour" (1 Jn. 2:18). This means that a distant end-time political antichrist figure is not a part of John's definition.
4. Therefore, neither Prince William nor any contemporary figure can be John's antichrist.

For further study, see Gary DeMar's Last Days Madness (www.americanvision.org) (pages 231-311)

Return to Q & A

A: Hebrew and Greek followed the same numbering systems: letters for numbers. For example, the first and second letters of the Hebrew alphabet (aleph and beth) were also used as numbers 1 and 2 (see chart at right), and the first and second letters of the Greek alphabet (alpha and beta=alphabet) were also used as numbers one and two and so forth through the first nine letters. The tenth letter was used for ten, the nineteenth letter was used for 100, and so on. It would have been natural for any Jew or Greek, or Roman for that matter, in the first century to make the connection that letters were used for numbers since this is the system they used in everyday life. The Romans used letters for numbers, but they did not follow the sequence of the alphabet. Roman numerals are still used today.

To view a table of Hebrew and Greek alphabetic notation of numerals, see Kenneth L. Gentry's The Beast of Revelation (2002 rerv. ed.) page 39.

Return to Q & A