The American Vision

It's Just Not There

Mon, 21 Sep 2026 08:05:37 -0400

Gary begins a short lesson on the four views of the book of Revelation.

Political tyranny and religious apostasy are not necessarily signs of impending eschatological destruction. They, too, have been with us since the Fall. The light of the gospel was nearly extinguished as the church approached the sixteenth century. Few could ever have predicted what was about to happen, not only in terms of Christian revival but also in the explorer’s spirit to open passages to unknown worlds. Explorers fought the heaviness of pessimism and charted dreams for parts unknown. How different is our day?

At the end of the year 1492 most men in Western Europe felt exceedingly gloomy about the future. Christian civilization appeared to be shrinking in area and dividing into hostile units as its sphere contracted. For over a century there had been no important advance in natural science, and registration in the universities dwindled as the instruction they offered became increasingly jejune and lifeless. Institutions were decaying, and many intelligent men, for want of something better to do, were endeavoring to escape the present through studying the pagan past. [1]

There is little in this chronicle of the times that could not serve as an accurate description of our own era. A general societal pessimism fills speculation about our future. Christian influence seems to be shrinking due to infighting among rival Christian groups. A general malaise hovers over the educational establishment. Educational reform is demanded from each end of the political spectrum and from everyone in between because of a deficient curriculum that cannot compete with our European and Japanese economic rivals. Escape is in the air as many turn to paganism through New Age humanism, the occult, and goddess worship. As in Columbus’ day, Islam is “expanding at the expense of Christendom.” [2]

If, as the writer of Ecclesiastes writes, “there is nothing new under the sun” (1:9), then how do we evaluate historical tumults prophetically? Five hundred years ago many in Christendom believed that the end was near. As we now know, their speculations were misguided. How can we now discern when such “signs” are prophetic indicators since “a generation goes and a generation comes” (1:4) but the end does not?

Last Days Madness

In this authoritative book, Gary DeMar clears the haze of ‘end-times’ fever, shedding light on the most difficult and studied prophetic passages in the Bible, including Daniel 7:13-14; 9:24-27; Matt. 16:27-28; 24-25; Thess. 2; 2 Peter 3:3-13, and clearly explaining a host of other controversial topics.

Buy Now

Gary begins a short lesson on the four views of the book of Revelation. He begins with the most popular: futurism. The vast majority of futurists are premillennial and dispensational as well. A recurring problem with this view is that the dependent pieces of the system are simply not found in the Bible; they’re just not there.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

[1] Samuel Eliot Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1942), 3.

[2] Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea, 3.

Episode 109: The One Way to Interpret "This Generation"

Fri, 18 Sep 2026 06:31:33 -0400

Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope-Episode 109

Gary responds to a critic who challenges his interpretation of “this generation” in Matthew’s gospel.

In Matthew 24:33, the word “you” (plural) is used twice: “so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize [lit. know] that He is near, right at the door.” Who does Jesus say will see “all these things”? Certainly not a future audience. “So, you too, when you see all these things.” The first “you” is obviously Jesus’ present audience as is the second “you.” No one reading Matthew 24:33 could conceive that either use of “you” by Jesus refers to an audience different from the audience to whom Jesus was addressing.

There is a third use of the second-person plural in verse 33. The Greek word ginōskete is also a second-person plural and means “you know” or “you recognize.” If Jesus had a future generation in mind, He could have eliminated all confusion by saying, “even so they too, when they see all these things, they will recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, that generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”

We can follow the way Matthew uses the near demonstrative “this” throughout his gospel to see that he has his present audience in view and not one in the distant future: “this way” (6:9), “this day” (6:11), “this fellow” (9:3), “this news” (9:26), “this city” (10:23), “this place” (12:6), “this man” (13:56), “this people” (15:8); “this rock” (15:18), “this desolate place” (15:33), “this little child” (18:4), “this mountain” (21:21), “this stone” (21:44), “this image” (22:20), “this gospel” (24:14), “this generation” (24:34), “this woman” (26:13), “this night” (26:31). “This” refers to what’s near.

If Jesus had wanted to identify a future generation, He could have chosen the adjective that to distinguish the generation to whom He was speaking from a future generation (e.g., Matt. 7:22 [“that day” is in the future]; 8:12 [“that place” refers to the place of judgment distant from our place and time]; 10:19 [“that hour” refers to a future time]; 24:10 [“and at that time” refers to a future time but within the time parameters of “this generation”]; 24:36 [“that day and hour” refers to a future day and hour that was near the end of their generation (1 John 2:18; Heb. 10:25), not their present day and hour]; 26:29 [“that day” refers to a time when Jesus is in the kingdom, a future time]). The texts that govern the timing of the Olivet prophecy—Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:34—make it clear that Jesus was speaking of the events leading up to and including the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

If we abandon these clear time statements, then these signs can be applied to any generation. As history attests, this is exactly what’s happened. There have always been wars, false prophets, famines, tribulation, lawlessness, and persecution. If people fail to recognize the timing of these events set by Scripture and the historical context of Jesus’ words, they will always be led astray by those who keep insisting that it’s our generation that will experience the end times.

Wars and Rumors of Wars

A first-century interpretation of the Olivet Discourse was once common in commentaries and narrative-style books that describe the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. There is also a history of skeptics who turn to Bible prophecy and claim Jesus was wrong about the timing of His coming at “the end of the age” and the signs associated with it. A mountain of scholarship shows that the prophecy given by Jesus was fulfilled in exacting detail when He said it would: before the generation of those to whom He was speaking passed away.

Buy Now

Gary responds to a critic who challenges his interpretation of “this generation” in Matthew’s gospel. The critic claims Gary is assuming what he has to prove, but Gary shows the opposite. Words like “generation” can be somewhat arbitrary, but when this phrase is read in other parts of the NT, especially Acts 2, it becomes clear that it is not about many generations, but about a very particular one: those hearing Jesus’ words in the first century.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here for all episodes of Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope

Hiding the Truth is the First Step for Control

Thu, 17 Sep 2026 07:56:06 -0400

Propagandizing, media bias, and selective fact-finding to manipulate people have a long history. It’s much more sophisticated today. Keeping people in the dark about the issues of the day is a practice used by both sides of any debate. Socialism is all the rage, and yet rarely do we find today’s media outlets examining the actual impact of socialist policies. The same is true of communism, abortion, Islam, same-sex sexuality, and transgenderism. The Bible has something to say about this:

The first to plead his case seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him (Prov. 18:17).

But what if the neighbor is given a rigged book? What if specific facts have been hidden from him?

Charles Babbage (1791-1871), an English scientist and mathematician who conceptualized the idea of a programmable computer, understood that scientists often manipulated evidence to add credibility to a theory. Babbage described three types of misconduct: forging (the outright invention of data), trimming (the cosmetic ‘massaging’ of data to display them to the best advantage), and cooking (discreetly losing the data that were out of line or did not help the hypothesis).[1]

For years, many critics of the Bible have claimed that the Bible supports slavery as it was practiced in the United States and the Caribbean. If this is true, then why was a special “trimmed” Bible created for slaves to read?

According to NPR, Parts of the Holy Bible, Selected For the Use of the Negro Slaves, in the British West-India Islands, is on display at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., and is one of only three known copies of this abridged version of the King James Bible. Printed by the Missionary Society For the Conversion of Negro Slaves, the text of the Bible was used by missionaries from England to convert slaves to Christianity.

The edited version left out anything “that might lead slaves to turn on their masters. For instance, Moses doesn’t even exist until he is an old man in the ‘Slave Bible.’”

Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths

Like the Bereans of Paul’s day (Acts 17:11), Christians should check the veracity of all opinions against the only reliable standard of authority that God has placed in our hands: the Bible. This may mean a change in belief systems for some. There is no novelty in this. God confronted Peter directly about the inclusion of Gentiles into the household of faith (10:9–16). Paul confronted Peter “to his face” on a similar matter (Gal. 2:11–14). There are times when we all need to be knocked off our horse of mistaken opinions (Acts 9:4). “Testing” is a biblical mandate (2 Cor. 13:5; 1 John 4:1).

Buy Now

They cut everything from Genesis 45 to Exodus 19. Anthony Schmidt, the associate curator of Bible and Religion in America at the museum, explained, “What they’ve cut out is the story of the Israelites’ captivity in Egypt and their eventual liberation and journey to the promised land.”

The censored version removed 90 percent of the Old Testament and 50 percent of the New Testament, eliminating potentially seditious passages such as Exodus 21:16, which reads: “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”

Exodus 21:16 is a key anti-chattel slavery passage. Many of this nation’s earliest settlers paid for their passage as indentured servants. Indentured servitude is neither unbiblical nor unconstitutional. A thief who was unable to make restitution for a property crime could be sold into servitude for his theft (Ex. 22:3b). Even after the abolition of slavery, indentured servitude was retained by the Constitution as a legitimate form of punishment: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction” (Amendment XIII, Section 1). We should, therefore, distinguish between slave (man stealing) and bondservant (indentured servant). We should also keep in mind that the word “slave” appears only once in the King James Bible (Jer. 2:14a), as does the word “slaves” (Rev. 18:13). This may surprise you, but the word slavery does not appear anywhere in the King James Bible. [2]

Robert L. Dabney, the most articulate defender of Virginia and the South, commented:

It need hardly be said that we abhor the injustice, cruelty, and guilt of the African slave trade. It is justly condemned by the public law of Christendom…. It is condemned by the law of God. Moses placed this among the judicial statutes of the Jews: “And he that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”[3]

While Dabney makes a biblical case against man-stealing, he defended the legitimacy of owning slaves that were once procured through theft. He based his argument on property laws. Joel McDurmon had this to say about Dabney’s argument:

Dabney’s analogy to land titles reveals the deep flaw in what was an oft-repeated defense of slaveholding in light of its indefensible origins. With land disputes, we are discussing that which is already indisputably property and can be nothing else. With the slaves, the discussion is nothing of the sort. Instead, the discussion is of that which should never have been property to begin with. Justice in this case is not a discussion of property, but life and liberty. This is not a discussion of property disputes. It is a question of manstealing. Justice is not restored by monetary values or sums; it requires, according to God’s law, the death penalty and the release of the wrongfully enslaved person.[4]

Exodus 21:16 does not indicate that it applies only to Israelites, as some argue. If it does, then verse 12 would also only apply to Israelites since its language is identical to what we find in verse 16:

• “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death” (21:12).

• “And he who kidnaps a man whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death” (21:16).

James B. Jordan offers a good summary of the issues involved: “The Bible punishes all man-stealing with a mandatory death penalty. In Deuteronomy 24:7, the kidnapping of covenant members is particularly forbidden, but in Exodus 21:16, all man-stealing is prohibited. It might be maintained that if we read v. 16 in context of v. 2, it is only Hebrews who are protected and avenged by this law. The text simply says ‘man,’ however, and there is no indication in the immediate context (vv. 12, 14) that ‘man’ is restricted to covenant members.”[5]

The Law of the Covenant

If we take a man-centered approach to these laws, we might say that the purpose of this legislation is only to ensure human prosperity. Such an approach to the law of God misses the most basic point. These laws show us God's own genuine personal care for His world, and as such these laws cannot be altered by human whim. To be sure, the Bible is man-oriented, and thus obedience to these laws will improve human life; but the laws are God's, and cannot be changed by man. Thus, as we examine the laws in Exodus 21-23, our first concern must be the glory of God, not whether these laws seem right to us sinful men. If we start with God, we will soon see how these laws also improve human life.

Buy Now

We know that in the New Testament Paul condemns slave traders (kidnappers) in 1 Timothy 1:10:

But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.

The book of Revelation considers those who traffic in “slaves and human lives” to be immoral and destined for judgment (18:13). Nowhere does the New Testament support trafficking in slaves. Paul’s letter to Philemon does not support the notion that the New Testament tolerated chattel slavery. Onesimus was probably a bondservant who owed a debt to Philemon. Paul encourages the runaway Onesimus to return to Philemon and encourages Philemon to release Onesimus upon his arrival. Paul promises to pay Philemon if Onesimus “owes you anything” (Phil. 18). Paul’s mention of a debt seems to indicate that Onesimus was an indentured servant.[6]

Charles Colson applied the principles of Old Testament law regarding restitution and property crimes to today’s judicial system:

Recently I addressed the Texas legislature…. I told them that the only answer to the crime problem is to take nonviolent criminals out of our prisons and make them pay back their victims with restitution. This is how we can solve the prison crowding problem.

The amazing thing was that afterwards they [the legislators] came up to me one after another and said things like, “That’s a tremendous idea. Why hasn’t anyone thought of that?” I had the privilege of saying to them, “Read Exodus 22. It is only what God said to Moses on Mount Sinai thousands of years ago.”[7]

The history of the enslavement of African blacks has impeded the gospel. Gary North writes: “Slavery as a system came to North America in the early eighteenth century, and it was grounded in the racist prejudices that increased with every shipload of victimized blacks. Racism seems to have been the foundation of slavery rather than the reverse.”[8] With the coming of Christ, Christians are to preach the gospel to make disciples of the nations; making them “slaves to Christ,” not slaves to other men.

[1] Walter Gratzer, The Undergrowth of Science: Delusion, Self-Deception and Human Frailty (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000), vii.

[2] Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), 121.

[3] Robert L. Dabney, A Defence of Virginia, [And Through Her, of the South] (New York: Negro University Press, [1867] 1969), 288. Reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, Harrisonburg, Virginia, 1977.

[4] The Problem of Slavery in Christian America (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2017).

[5] James B. Jordan, The Law and the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21-23 (Powder Springs, GA American Vision, [1984] 2022), 104.

[6] See Brian J. Dodd, The Problem with Paul (Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy Press, 1996), 81-110.

[7] Charles Colson, “The Kingdom of God and Human Kingdoms,” James M. Boice, ed. Transforming Our World: A Call to Action (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1988), 154-55.

[8] North, Tools of Dominion, 180.

Audience Relevance and Time Indicators

Wed, 16 Sep 2026 07:21:17 -0400

Gary continues his lesson on hermeneutics by looking briefly at the context and time words that bookend the book of Revelation.

The past fulfillment of most of the prophecies in Revelation 4-19 is compellingly suggested by the various time indicators contained in its less symbolic, more didactic introduction and conclusion.

Revelation 1:1 opens the prophecies of Revelation and prepares the reader to understand them: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass.”

Does not John specifically say the things “must shortly come to pass”? And in case you miss it he repeats it, using different, though synonymous, terminology in Revelation 1:3c: “The time is at hand.” And in case the reader skipped the introduction, he repeats these ideas as he closes. Revelation 22:6: “These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.” Revelation 22:10: “And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.”

House Divided

The book that started a revolution. Bahnsen and Gentry stir the hornet's nest with this comprehensive refutation of Dispensationalism. The two pillars of law and eschatology are dealt with evenly, fairly—and most importantly—biblically.

Buy Now

Gary begins to discuss the book of Revelation and points out important details that most modern Christians dismiss. Although the Bible is written FOR us, it wasn’t written TO us. The vast majority of the New Testament is recording historical events and their significance. These past events still have great importance and meaning, especially for vindicating Jesus’ authoritative claims about His identity.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

Did John MacArthur Make His Case on the Olivet Discourse?

Tue, 15 Sep 2026 07:24:23 -0400

Jonathan Sedlak, author of Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus: Christian Tradition and First-Century Fulfillment within Matthew 24-25, told me in a recent phone call that it was John MacArthur’s book The Second Coming: Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age (2006) that led him to investigate preterism because it mentioned several preterists, including me (although my name is misspelled as Demar rather than DeMar).

In The Second Coming, MacArthur seems to go out of his way to avoid dealing with the inherent problems of his prophetic system. Here’s just one example:

[N]otice Christ’s only explicit remarks about the destruction of the temple are those recorded in verse 2 [of Matthew 24], as Jesus and the disciples were departing from the temple (v. 1). In the Olivet Discourse itself He makes no clear reference to the events of A.D. 70. His entire reply is an extended answer to the more important question about the signs of His coming and the end of the age. Virtually ignoring their initial question, He said nothing whatsoever about when the destruction of Jerusalem would occur. That is because those events were not really germane to the end of the end of the age. They were merely a foretaste of the greater judgment that would accompany His return, previews of what is to come ultimately. (SC, 80)

This is a remarkable statement, given that nothing in the context of the Olivet Discourse indicates that Jesus is “ignoring their initial question.” How does MacArthur know this? He doesn’t. This is not exegesis. He is reading his dispensational system into the text. He scrupulously avoids the heart of the debate over the time texts, especially regarding “this generation” (24:34).

Last Days Madness

In this authoritative book, Gary DeMar clears the haze of "end-times" fever, shedding light on the most difficult and studied prophetic passages in the Bible, including Daniel 7:13-14; 9:24-27; Matt. 16:27-28; 24-25; Thess. 2; 2 Peter 3:3-13, and clearly explaining a host of other controversial topics.

Buy Now

“Virtually ignoring their initial question, He said nothing whatsoever about when the destruction of Jerusalem would occur.” Nothing whatsoever? MacArthur (or whoever edited this book) had to say this because to admit that Jesus was describing what was going to happen to the temple that was standing there—“not one stone here shall be left upon another” (24:3)—would mean Jesus had a great deal to say “about when the destruction of Jerusalem would occur.” It would occur before that existing generation passed away (24:34).

I could say a lot about MacArthur’s comments on Matthew 24, but I’ve said them repeatedly elsewhere. I found this comment surprising.

Notice, moreover, that the great tribulation Christ described involves cataclysm and suffering on a global cosmic scale (vv. 29-30)—not a local holocaust in Jerusalem only. (SC, 78)

If Jesus isn’t describing “a local holocaust in Jerusalem only,” then how is it that it can be avoided by escaping to the mountains outside of Judea (24:16-20)?

The cosmic language of 24:29-30 is typical of cosmic language used to describe a judgment on Babylon (Isa. 13:1-11) and “Judah and against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (Zeph. 1:1-4). See R.C. Sproul’s comments in Matthew: An Expositional Commentary (2019). For example, “In Old Testament prophecy, there is a very clear use of cosmic phenomena in descriptions of judgment. In other words, when God promised to send judgment, He often spoke in highly figurative language” (653-654). Sproul then quotes Isaiah 13:9-10, 13, and 34:4. He notes that while “Jesus’ language was figurative, … He was describing a judgment event that literally happened within that generation.” (654) Sproul goes on to note that “Josephus writes that certain signs were observed between the years AD 60 and 70, one of which was a blazing comet.” (655). Josephus described a comet, a “star resembling a sword,” that passed over Jerusalem in AD 66, which many might have believed was a sign of an approaching calamity.

MacArthur’s The Second Coming reads as if it was written in a hurry or maybe edited in a hurry. For example, in one place MacArthur writes that preterists “ultimately depart from and nullify the strict literal sense of Matthew 24:34,” while on the previous page he chides preterists for insisting that Matthew 24:34 should be interpreted with “wooden literalness.” (SC, 81, 80) MacArthur should have studied how “this generation” is used elsewhere in the New Testament. “This generation” always refers—without exception—to the generation to whom Jesus is speaking.[1] Since the meaning of “this generation” is crucial for establishing the proper time setting for the Olivet Discourse, MacArthur should have spent considerable time justifying his interpretation. See my books Last Days Madness and Wars and Rumors of Wars, John Bray’s Matthew 24 Fulfilled, and James Jordan’s Matthew 23-25 for a thorough discussion of this topic.

MacArthur described the preterist interpretation of “this generation” a “misunderstanding” (SC, 219) without addressing the extensive arguments preterists use to defend their position. Preterists are not the only ones who have this “misunderstanding.” Here are three examples from commentators who would not describe themselves as preterists:

• [T]he obvious meaning of the words “this generation” is the people contemporary with Jesus. Nothing can be gained by trying to take the word in any sense other than its normal one: in Mark (elsewhere in 8:12, 9:19) the word always has this meaning.[2]

• [This generation] can only with the greatest difficulty be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke.[3]

• The significance of the temporal reference has been debated, but in Mark “this generation” clearly designates the contemporaries of Jesus (see on Chs. 8:12, 38; 9:19) and there is no consideration from the context which lends support to any other proposal. Jesus solemnly affirms that the generation contemporary with his disciples will witness the fulfillment of his prophetic word, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the dismantling of the Temple.[4]

I could quote many more examples. See the list in my book Wars and Rumors of Wars. Why didn’t MacArthur attempt to refute these non-preterist scholars? Do they misunderstand Scripture’s clear teaching?

Wars and Rumors of Wars

Buy Now

In addition to an incomplete study of how “this generation” is used in the gospels, MacArthur morphed “near” and “shortly” into “imminent” without ever making an exegetical case for it. If the Holy Spirit wanted to convey that Jesus could return at “any moment” over nearly 2000 years (so far), He would have directed the biblical writers to use Greek words meaning “any moment,” not “near” or “shortly.” He didn’t.

Consider James 5:8-9, a passage MacArthur uses to support his contention that Jesus could come “at any moment” but was near to those who first received and read his letter. (SC, 51) “You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand” (5:8). The “you” (plural) referred to them. “At hand,” or “near,” cannot be made to mean “any moment.” The next verse defines “at hand”: “Behold, the Judge is standing right at the doors” (5:9). “At hand” = “right at the doors.” How far from the door is Jesus in Revelation 3:20? Being “right at the door” means being close enough to knock. Compare James 5:9 with Matthew 24:33, “even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, at the doors.”

MacArthur’s short commentary on Revelation, Because the Time is Near: John MacArthur Explains the Book of Revelation, is a problem historically since nearly 2000 years have passed since the events were said to take place soon” (1:1; 22:6) “because the time is near” (1:3; 22:10) for those who first read the Apocalypse (1:1). MacArthur is either oblivious to the debate surrounding this issue or he tactically decided to steer his readers around the topic so as not to raise a very big red flag.

David Chilton, author of Paradise Restored, The Great Tribulation, and The Days of Vengeance, told me that he listened to a series of talks by MacArthur on hermeneutics and biblical interpretation. David was impressed by how helpful it was. Then he listened to some messages that MacArthur gave on Bible prophecy and could not understand why MacArthur was not following the interpretive principles he fleshed out in his short course on hermeneutics.

MacArthur states that interpreting “this generation” in a “wooden literalness” fashion would mean that “the rest of the Olivet Discourse must be spiritualized or otherwise interpreted figuratively in order to explain how Christ’s prophecies could all have been fulfilled by A.D. 70 without His returning bodily to earth.” (SC, 80) Do preterists spiritualize (a word not often defined) the events Jesus described in Matthew 24 and elsewhere in the gospels? Not at all! There were literal earthquakes (Matt. 27:54; 28:2; Acts 16:26) and literal famines (Acts 11:28; cf. Rom. 8:35), just as Jesus predicted (Matt. 24:7). The same is true of literal “false prophets” (1 John 4:1).

What do we make of Paul’s statement that the “gospel” had been preached “throughout the world [kosmos]” (Rom. 1:8), “to all the nations” (Rom. 16:25-26; 1 Tim. 3:16d), “in all creation under heaven” (Col. 1:23; also 1:6), just as Jesus predicted would take place (Matt. 24:14) before that generation passed away? Jesus used the Greek word oikoumenē in verse 14. When compared with how it’s used in Luke 2:1 and Acts 11:28, the gospel only had to be preached throughout the then-known world to be fulfilled, and it was. Then there are Jesus’ specific words that the literal temple the disciples asked about would be destroyed before the last apostle died (Matt. 16:27-28), before their generation passed away (24:34).

Last Days Madness and Wars and Rumors of Wars answer every argument MacArthur raises, and his books avoid addressing. Some might claim that MacArthur is unaware of the work done in this area. This debate has been around for centuries. Anyone writing on this topic should be aware of the current literature. He knew what was going on. He (or his editor) quotes an internet article of mine and references other preterist sources like Ken Gentry.

[1] See Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church and Wars and Rumors of Wars at AmericanVision.org

[2] Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook of the Gospel of Mark (New York: United Bible Societies, 1961), 419.

[3] D.A. Carson, “Matthew” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, gen. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985), 8:507.

[4] William L. Lane, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 480.

An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics

Mon, 14 Sep 2026 07:04:58 -0400

Gary begins a short course on hermeneutics—the art and practice of interpretation—on today’s podcast.

The Bible can be an intimidating book, but it doesn’t have to be. We must be like the Bereans who examined “the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

Too often, Christians rely on so-called Bible experts and complicated charts that include gaps in time, outrageous literal interpretations, and numerous claims that current events are prime indicators that the end is near. Many Christians are unaware that the same Bible passages have been used in nearly every generation as proof that the end or some aspect of the end would take place “soon.”

For nearly 2000 years Christians have attempted to read and interpret Scripture through the lens of current events without paying close attention to audience relevance, specific time indicators, the literal translation and comparison of specific words found in prophetic texts, and the transition between the Old and New Testaments.

A Beginner's Guide to Interpreting Bible Prophecy

With so much prophetic material in the Bible—somewhere around 25% of the total makeup of Scripture—it seems difﬁcult to argue that an expert is needed to understand such a large portion of God’s Word and so many ‘experts’ could be wrong generation after generation. A Beginner’s Guide to Interpreting Bible Prophecy has been designed to help Christians of all ages and levels of experience to study Bible prophecy with confidence.

Buy Now

Hermeneutics is the art and practice of interpretation. We use hermeneutics every day whether we realize it or not. We interpret not only the words people say, but how they say them and in what context. Understanding the Bible requires the same carefulness and deliberateness that we apply to the words and actions we encounter and interpret in our everyday lives.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

Episode 108: In Synch-Matthew 24, 1 Thess. 4, and 2 Thess. 2

Fri, 11 Sep 2026 05:30:28 -0400

Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope-Episode 108

Gary concludes his response to Ayo, who had questions about preterism and decided to return to dispensationalism.

God’s presence was a sign of blessing because of Israel’s special covenantal status (Isa. 55:3; Jer. 1:19) and His departure was a sign of judgment, neither of which were physical. For the nations, God’s presence was a sign of judgment because of their wickedness. Because of Israel’s abominations, God’s presence left the temple (Ezek. 5-11). Israel was then treated like the nations and would hide from and lament His presence in the future.

In similar fashion, because of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah and the persecution of His church, Christ’s bride, God would make His presence known to Israel in the form of judgment. God rejected His once-covenanted people and their temple of stone because of the nation’s rejection of the promised Son of Man (Matt. 23:38; 24:1). Like Ezekiel (Ezek. 8), Jesus inspected the temple, found it filled with abominations (Matt. 21:12-13), and left it desolate (23:38). He returned in A.D. 70 to inspect the temple for a final time and found it full of abominations. His presence now abides with a new people of God constructed as a “spiritual house,” the true temple of God (1 Peter 2:4-10; cf. 2 Cor. 6:14-18).

In effect, Christ’s parousia in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 is the fulfillment of the promise that the presence of Christ will reside with the true Israel forever (Rom. 2:28-29; 9:6; 10:12; Gal. 6:15-16; Phil. 3:3; Col. 3:11; Heb. 8:8, 10). Remember, during His earthly ministry Jesus “came out from the temple” (Matt. 24:1), foretold its destruction (24:15-34), and returned in A.D. 70 to destroy it (22:7). A new covenant nation arose from the ashes of the temple: “Therefore I say to you [speaking to the chief priests and the elders], the kingdom of God will be taken from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it. And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust” (21:43-44).

There is no doubt that Jesus’ “coming” in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 should be attributed to the first century since the time indicators (“has come,” “now,” “already”) leave no room in this passage for a coming in the distant future (e.g., Matt. 16:27-28; 24:29-31; 26:64; Heb. 10:37; James 5:7-8; Rev. 2:5, 16; 3:11). Jesus’ coming in A.D. 70 was a coming in judgment upon an apostate nation.

Last Days Madness

Buy Now

Gary concludes his response to Ayo, who had questions about preterism and decided to return to dispensationalism. Gary shows how various passages in the New Testament, both in the Gospels and the Epistles, refer to the same first-century events. Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, and John were all speaking about what was happening, or about to happen, to them and their countrymen, not people thousands of years in their future.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here for all episodes of Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope

The French Revolution is Being Revived in the USA

Thu, 10 Sep 2026 07:12:56 -0400

Our Declaration of Independence states in unequivocal terms that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights”; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The logic of the Declaration is clear: No God—no rights.

This premise is no longer foundational in the United States or in once-Christian Europe. We are following in the footsteps of the radical revolutionaries who gave us the French Revolution. Like those with the guillotine, we have a sizable number of the population who claim it’s OK to kill people for whatever supposed ‘just’ cause. The barbarism in comments about the murder of Charlie Kirk has been shocking, as is the support for Luigi Nicholas Mangione, who pleaded guilty to the 2024 killing of Brian Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare. Eleven jurors wept after the Lindsay Clancy murder case ended in a mistrial. She murdered her three children. A lone juror held out for a guilty verdict. (Source) The French Revolution has become our revolution.

Restoring the Foundation of Civilization

There are many Christians who will not participate in civilization-building efforts that include economics, journalism, politics, education, and science because they believe (or have been taught to believe) these areas of thought are outside the realm of what constitutes a Christian worldview. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Buy Now

The American Founders made no attempt to disestablish a biblical moral order by endorsing a moral revolution. The colonial governments, with their laws, many of which were founded on the Bible, and institutions, including churches and their courts, remained intact. Contrary to some historians, the United States Constitution did not disestablish Christianity. It recognized Sunday as the Christian Sabbath by designating it as a non-workday for conducting official government business (art. 1, sec. 7) and kept the Christian Calendar intact: “DONE in the Year of our Lord….”

None of the State constitutions, with their many references to religion in general and Christianity in particular, were nullified by the adoption of the Federal Constitution. The Constitution, like the Declaration, assumes an existing moral order that was generally held to be based on “revealed law or divine law” (1:42) and “the law of nature,” which William Blackstone taught was “coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself” (1:41). The Constitution did not attempt to set forth a new civil casuistry. This is why there is no legal code found in the Constitution.

The French Declaration of the Rights of Man did not recognize a theistic view of rights. Article 3 of the Declaration stated: “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.” Corrupting the logic of the Declaration of Independence: No nation—no rights.

The French revolutionaries were self-conscious about their efforts to turn France into a secular state. Throughout the nation, a “campaign to dechristianize France spread like wildfire.”[1] Dechristianizing the French Republic required a substitute religion. There is no neutrality. The leaders of the Paris Commune demanded that the former metropolitan church of Notre Dame be reconsecrated as a “Temple of Reason.”[2] Blackstone’s comments on reason are appropriate on this point: “And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor before the transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be pleasant and easy; we should need no other guide but this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error” (1:42).

On November 10, 1793, a civic festival was held in the new temple, its facade bearing the words “To Philosophy.” In Paris, the goddess Reason “was personified by an actress [who was] carried shoulder‑high into the cathedral by men dressed in Roman costumes.”[3]

The Commune ordered that all churches be closed and converted into poor houses and schools. “Church bells were melted down and used to cast cannons.”[4]

Blatant infidelity precipitated that storm of pitiless fury. The National Assembly passed a resolution deliberately declaring ‘There is no God;’ vacated the throne of Deity by simple resolution, abolished the Sabbath, unfrocked her ministers of religion, turned temples of spiritual worship into places of secular business, and enthroned a vile woman as the Goddess of Reason.”[5]

The French Revolution replaced the God of Revelation with the Goddess of Reason, with disastrous results. Day after day “enemies of the republic” met their death under the sharp blade of Madam Guillotine. “France, in its terrific revolution, saw the violent culmination of theoretical and practical infidelity.”[6]

The French calendar was also changed. “At the suggestion of the deputy Romme, the Convention voted on 5 October 1793 to abolish the Christian calendar and introduce a republican calendar.”[7]

The founding of the Republic on September 22, 1792, was the beginning of the new era. Although the year still had twelve months, each was made thirty days long. “Weeks were replaced with periods of ten days (decades) so that the Christian Sunday would disappear….”[8]

As part of their de-Christianization campaign, the French revolutionaries over 230 years ago rebuffed this divine commandment. Instead, they determined that anyone who managed to survive their historic bloodletting would have to rest on the final day of a 10-day cycle marked on a new calendar no longer commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ.

The New Republic went beyond this by changing place names that had “reference to a Christian past…. Children were named after republican heroes such as Brutus and Cato, and observance of the new Revolutionary calendar, which abolished Sunday and Christian Feast days, was enforced.”[9] The revisionist calendar was abandoned after twelve years, but not before blood literally ran in the streets.

God and Government

With a fresh new look, more images, an extensive subject and scripture index, and an updated bibliography, God and Government is ready to prepare a whole new generation to take on the political and religious battles confronting Christians today. May it be used in a new awakening of Christians in America—not just to inform minds, but to stimulate action and secure a better tomorrow for our posterity.

Buy Now

[1] Walter Grab, The French Revolution: The Beginning of Modern Democracy (London: Bracken Books, 1989), 165.

[2] Keith Feiling observed: “Human reason set up a cross on Calvary, human reason set up the cup of hemlock, human reason was canonized in Notre Dame.” Keith Feiling, Toryism: A Political Dialogue (London, 1913), 37-38. Quoted in Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, 5th ed. (Chicago: Regnery, 1972), 7-8

[3] Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (1976) in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, 5 vols. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1984), 5:122.

[4] Grab, The French Revolution, 166. Robespierre considered the anti-Christianization campaign to be a political miscalculation. “At the beginning of December [1793], at Robespierre’s suggestion, the Convention withdrew its anti-religious measures and restored the principle of religious freedom” (166-67). Robespierre later met up with Madame Guillotine.

[5] Charles B. Galloway, Christianity and the American Commonwealth; or, The Influence of Christianity in making This Nation (Nashville, TN: Publishing House Methodist Episcopal Church, 1898), 25.

[6] Jesse T. Peck, The History of the Great Republic, Considered from a Christian Stand-Point (New York: Broughton and Wyman, 1868), 321.

[7] Grab, The French Revolution, 165. Also see “Marking Time: Different Ways to Count the Changing Seasons,” Did You Know? New Insight into the World that is Full of Astonishing Stories and Astounding Facts (London: Reader’s Digest, 1990), 267.

[8] Grab, The French Revolution, 165.

[9] Richard Cobb, gen. ed., Voices of the French Revolution (Topsfield, MA: Salem House Publishers, 1988), 202. Also see Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989), 771-80.

The Sufficiency of Christ's Sacrifice

Wed, 09 Sep 2026 06:33:55 -0400

Gary concludes his interview with Pastor Greg Chacon by dealing with questions about prophetic systems that have to add to the finished work of Christ.

People who get caught up in the latest end-time speculative prophecy story either have short memories of past predictions or no knowledge at all. Without having all the facts or a worksheet of past failed prophetic claims, it’s not hard to convince the uninformed, who are easily persuaded by some silver-tongued orator who claims to have some clear eye into the future based on special knowledge, that something in the heavens is a clear sign from God that the end is near.

If you talk to many Christians about Bible prophecy, most likely you will hear them claim that all the signs for some impending prophetic event are unfolding right before our eyes. When popular prophecy writers bring up anything that might appear in the heavens, people pay attention. You don’t have to spend a lot of time watching the History Channel and a show like “7 Signs of the Apocalypse” to be sensitive to events like an asteroid strike, a pole shift like the one depicted in the film 2012, and the Yellowstone National Park super volcano that some scientists claim has the potential to erupt with a force 2,000 times greater than the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helens that occurred on May 18, 1980.

The Jewish feast days and festivals no longer have any relevance since Jesus has come and fulfilled them, as He did with all the Old Covenant types and shadows (Luke 21:22; 24:27, 44). This is carried over into the New Testament. James B. Jordan offers some helpful commentary on this type of language:

Anyone familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures would recognize immediately that what Jesus says about the sun, moon, and stars [in Matt. 24:29] is not to be taken to refer to the physical cosmos but to the political cosmos…. The prophets often see the “sun, moon, and stars” falling to the earth. One of the most frequently encountered mistakes in the interpretation of Biblical prophecy today is the notion that this always refers to the end of the world at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Actually, though, this expression always refers to the collapse of some particular nation.

When the sun, moon, and stars are high in the heavens giving off their light, God is pleased with the nations. When the sun and moon go dark and the stars fall, this is a sign of God’s displeasure and judgment. So-called blood moons are not in the picture in any of these predictive events. We see a similar motif in the New Testament. God describes Israel’s coming calamity in AD 70 when the Roman army razed the temple (Matt. 24:2) and destroyed the city using examples of national judgment borrowed from the Old Testament, which Jesus applied to first-century Israel.

Prophecy Wars: The Biblical Battle Over the End Times

If you’re willing to take the Bible at its word, the study of prophecy can strengthen your faith, but if your trust is in man’s speculations, you will be disappointed every time. And that is why Bible prophecy is such a crucial area for apologetics. Skeptics of all stripes have condemned the Bible as inaccurate merely because various well-meaning Christians have been in error about the End Times.

Buy Now

Gary concludes his interview with Pastor Greg Chacon by dealing with questions about prophetic systems that have to add to the finished work of Christ. Dispensationalism has given most Christians an unhealthy allegiance to Israel and the belief that they must support whatever it decides politically. Modern prophecy advocates are trying to rebuild the first century with a new “Roman empire” and a third temple in Jerusalem. Eschatology has consequences, and good intentions can be used to promote evil agendas.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

How Could the Atoms of Lindsay Clancy Be Put on Trial for Killing Other Atoms?

Tue, 08 Sep 2026 07:31:30 -0400

The judge in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial declared a mistrial. Why? Because one juror believed she was guilty of murder, while the other 11 jurors believed she should not be convicted of murder. A mother who drowned her 3 children in 1954 killed again after being shown leniency. An Illinois mother had become “very invested” in the high-profile Lindsay Clancy murder trial before prosecutors say she killed her 2-year-old son, according to witnesses cited in court documents. A Michigan man killed his wife and their 6 Kids, then set the house on fire in an apparent murder-suicide. Life is cheap because life is insignificant. Massachusetts became the 10th state to allow abortion up to birth. What about one second after birth?

The pagan world could never resolve the philosophical problem of the ultimate foundation of truth. This is why Pilate could seriously ask Jesus, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), given his culture’s operating assumptions about ultimate reality. No one knew, except maybe the Emperor, who was considered a god. The Greeks knew they needed an ultimate standard, a personal ultimate standard to make reality work. To cover their bases, they set up an altar “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD” (Acts 17:23).

Today is no different. Materialists and skeptics tell us that (1) they know truthful things and (2) they can’t verify that anything they claim is true in an ultimate sense. Their initial claim of truth rests on another claim of truth, which rests on another. What they can’t come up with is an ultimate authoritative claim. What they have is a series of leaky buckets.

The Impossibility of the Contrary

If religious skeptics have forsaken biblical presuppositions, why is it they can think rationally, apply the scientific method, and require some semblance of morality? The answer is simple. Unbelievers are philosophically schizophrenic. They don’t often live consistently with the governing principles of their materialistic worldview. For example, “The success of modern science has been due to its ‘borrowed capital,’ because modern science is like the prodigal son. He left his father’s house and is rich, but the substance he expends is his father’s wealth.”

Buy Now

I want to know which bucket is the last one that holds all the dripping water from the previous leaking buckets. This was the point that Greg Bahnsen made in his debate on apologetic methodology with R.C. Sproul at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi, in 1977, when I was a student there. “And as Antony Flew says, what good is it going to do [for] you to take one leaky bucket and add it to another leaky bucket? You’re just going to have a twofold leaky bucket now.” As Flew put it, “If one leaky bucket will not hold water, there is no reason to think that ten can.”[1] Flew was a committed atheist most of his life. In 2007, he wrote There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

This argument about finding an ultimate foundational starting point has a long history, as this story demonstrates.

An often told story has a modern philosopher lecturing on the solar system. An [elderly] lady in the audience [declares]: Earth rests upon a large turtle. “What does this turtle stand on?” the speaker [asks, thinking he’s got her cornered]. “A far larger turtle.” As the scholar persists, his challenger retorts: “You are very clever but it is no use, young man. It’s turtles all the way down.”[2]

There must be an ultimate reference point for everything: matter, humanness, morality, truth, meaning, etc. Consider the following from the 2019 film Replicas starring Keanu Reeves and Alice Eve.

Reeves: Something’s preventing the synthetic from achieving watershed consciousness.

Eve: Maybe there’s more that makes us human … like the soul.

Reeves: We’re the sum total of what has happened to us and how we processed it. That’s what makes us. It’s all neurochemistry.

Eve: Do you really believe that? That’s all I am? Your children? Just pathways of electrical signals and chemistry?

The pagan world tried in vain to find an ultimate place to stand but could not. Their pagan idols, while many (Acts 17:16-23), were mute (1 Cor. 12:2; Ps. 115:5; Isa. 46:7; Jer. 10:5; Hab. 2:18-20), so their philosophers spoke for them, but they were no better at finding what Francis Schaeffer called “true truth.”[3] All they could offer was probability and philosophical guessing. We don’t proclaim a god of probability. The only true starting point is with the God of the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). Heaven and earth are not the ultimate authority (matter), but the sovereign God.

Modern secular philosophers are worse than Pilate. At least he admitted he did not know what was true. Today’s materialists claim to know what’s true even though they admit that they are children of the atom, or I should say, of atoms. A conglomeration of cosmic dust has the audacity to speak wisdom and certitude. Consider the Roman poem De rerum natura (“On the Nature of Things”), a first-century BC work by the Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius, who hoped to explain Epicurean philosophy to a Roman audience, in which nothing is “fixed.”

When atoms move straight down through the void by their own weight, they deflect a bit in space at a quite uncertain time and in uncertain places, just enough that you could say that their motion has changed. But if they were not in the habit of swerving, they would all fall straight down through the depths of the void, like drops of rain, and no collision would occur, nor would any blow be produced among the atoms. In that case, nature would never have produced anything.[4]

Stephen Greenblatt writes the following in his 2011 book The Swerve: How the World Became Modern: “[Lucretius’] On the Nature of Things struck me as an astonishingly convincing account of the way things are.”[5] Greenblatt adopted the epistemological fundamentals of Lucretius’s worldview.

The stuff of the universe … is an infinite number of atoms moving randomly through space, like dust motes [particles] in a sunbeam, colliding, hooking together, forming complex structures, breaking apart again, in a ceaseless process of creation and destruction. There is no escape from this process. When you look up at the night sky and, feeling unaccountably moved, marvel at the numberless stars, you are not seeing the handiwork of the gods or a crystalline sphere detached from our transient world. You are seeing the same material world of which you are a part and from whose elements you are made. There is no master plan, no divine architect, no intelligent design. All things, including the species to which you belong, evolved over vast stretches of time.”[6]

There is no moral “should” or “ought” in Lucretius’ worldview. This is equally true for Greenblatt, although he would most likely argue otherwise.

How can atoms, no matter how complex, be put on trial for killing other atomic structures, given the physicalist presuppositions that “the world of the mind is increasingly reduced to the goings on of chemistry alone”?[7]

Why It Might Be OK to Eat Your Neighbor

The most damning assessment of a matter-only cosmos devoid of a Creator is that we got to this place in our evolutionary history by acts of violence whereby the strong conquered the weak with no one to support or condemn them. Why It Might Be OK to Eat Your Neighbor repeatedly raises the issue of accounting for the conscience, good and evil, and loving our neighbor. It’s shocking to read what atheists say about a cosmos devoid of meaning and morality.

Buy Now

[1] Antony G. N. Flew, God and Philosophy (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1966), 63.

[2] Charles W. Petit, “Life and Culture: Cosmology,” U.S. News & World Report (August 16/23, 1999), 74.

[3] Francis A. Schaeffer, A Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy: Three Essential Books in One Volume (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1990), 104, 143, 163, 174, 218, 311, 325.

[4] Lucretius, De rerum natura, 2.216–224.

[5] Greenblatt, The Swerve: How the World Became Modern (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 2011), 5.

[6] Greenblatt, The Swerve, 6-7.

[7]Joseph Minich, Bulwarks of Unbelief: Atheism and Divine Absence in a Secular Age (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2023), 12.

The Context of the New Testament

Mon, 07 Sep 2026 08:28:08 -0400

Gary continues his interview with Pastor Greg Chacon about biblical interpretation and application.

I would like to know why it’s “boasting against the branches” (Rom. 11:18), as my letter-writing critic maintained, to question the basic assumptions of dispensationalism. Such a specious argument is typical of some dispensationalists who find it difficult to represent non-dispensational views accurately and have trouble offering a coherent biblical defense of their own dispensational paradigm without numerous interpretive caveats (e.g., gaps between stated years, dismissing time indicators, adding and removing words to a verse, etc.) when challenged on basic claims (e.g., that dispensationalists are the only ones who interpret the Bible in a consistently “literal” way). Dispensationalists fail to note what else Paul writes just a few verses later in Romans 11: “And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again” (v. 23). Israelites will be grafted in when (and everyone else) give up their unbelief. I don’t know anyone who believes Jews are excluded from the gospel now that non-Jews are included. That would be “boasting against the branches.”

Paul is not dealing with a Church-Israel distinction in Romans 11. There is nothing in the entire book that indicates that there is a Church-Israel distinction. The word “church” doesn’t appear until chapter 16 where it refers in two places to local assemblies of believers (16:1, 5). Nothing is said about a “rapture” of the Church, Israel becoming a nation again, the need for a rebuilt temple, or the return of any Jews to their land as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. There is a single olive tree, and believing Jews and Gentiles become a part of the same tree in the same way: belief in Jesus as the Christ. “For there is no partiality with God…. For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God” (Rom. 2:11, 28-29).

In Galatians we read something similar: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:28-29). It’s not flesh and blood Israelites who are the heirs of the promises first made to Abraham. If a person belongs to Christ, then he or she is an heir of Abraham. The Bible couldn’t be any clearer on this point.

Ten Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed and Answered

Millions of books have been sold proclaiming countless false prophecies. Many Christians are beginning to take a second look at the biblical prophetic record. A seismic shift in biblical eschatology is taking place around the world because Christians, some for the first time, are willing to challenge what they have been taught based on what the Bible actually says. In this book, Gary DeMar has taken on the task of exposing some of the popular myths foisted upon the public by prophetic speculators.

Buy Now

Gary continues his interview with Pastor Greg Chacon about biblical interpretation and application. The Bible must be read in the context of what was happening historically at the time of the writings. This isn’t to say that the Bible isn’t about current events, because it is. The Bible is for every generation because it is God’s eternal truth, but it is not giving us “secret knowledge” about prophecy.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

Episode 107: Leaving Preterism for Dispensationalism (Part Two)

Fri, 04 Sep 2026 07:07:07 -0400

Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope-Episode 107

Gary concludes his initial response to Ayo, who claims to have left preterism for dispensationalism.

John was a “fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance in Jesus” (Rev. 1:9; see 2 Thess. 1:4). The church at Smyrna was experiencing a “tribulation” that Jesus knew about (Rev. 2:9). This tribulation period is in our past. The time words “near,” “shortly,” and “quickly” apply to that period of biblical history.

Does this mean that all tribulation is over for Christians? Not at all. Paul tells Timothy, “Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3:12). Jesus said something similar: “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master. If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you’” (John 15:20) and “In the world you have tribulation but take courage; I have overcome the world” (16:33). We also read something similar in Acts, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22; cp. 2 Cor. 4:9-12).

Second, Paul makes the point that Israel’s past behavior (1 Cor. 10:1–10) was a lesson for believers in his day: “Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (10:11). The events described by Paul were in the past for him and the Corinthian church, but they had application for them hundreds of years later and to us. Stephen, in his defense before the Council, recounted something similar. He recounted Israel’s history and applied its lessons to that generation (Acts 7). Peter refers to the suffering of Jesus (a past event) as “an example for” them and us “to follow in His steps” (1 Peter 2:21).

In a comparable way, the writer of Hebrews briefly describes the “earthly sanctuary” (Heb. 9:1) and shows that “when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (9:11).

What was past (preterist) is “a symbol for the present time” (9:9) and applies to Christians throughout history. Jesus “does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself” (7:27). What Jesus did “once for all” has eternal significance even though that sacrifice is in the distant past.

Third, there are hundreds of prophecies about the first coming of Jesus that were fulfilled two millennia ago, and yet they have great relevance for us today. Everything has relevance no matter when it happened. The judgment that took place in AD 70 against Israel is past. The tribulation that took place in the years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem is in the past. The warnings to the seven churches in Revelation are in the past. The crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus are in the past. There are hundreds of biblical events that are in the past that remain applicable for the church throughout history.

Debunking a Debunker of Preterism

Gary's response is an excellent introduction to the biblical theology of eschatology. Bible prophecy cannot be divorced from the rest of Scripture--it is a package deal. Localized and impending judgment language is all over the Bible--in both the Old and New Testaments--and an eschatology that seeks to interpret the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation in a different way is being dishonest with the biblical text.

Buy Now

Gary concludes his initial response to Ayo, who claims to have left preterism for dispensationalism. Gary discusses the biblical use of the term “antichrist” and defines what it actually means in the New Testament. Like Ayo, most people today assume it refers to a single person—the Antichrist—but in reality, antichrists were legion in the first century.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here for all episodes of Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope

The Spreading Cancer of Moral Relativism

Thu, 03 Sep 2026 07:42:31 -0400

Three years ago, I discovered a bulge in my left calf. I checked online to determine what it might be. Not much help. I went to the local Doc-in-the Box. From there, I made an appointment with an Orthopedic doctor. After several tries, he was stumped. He could have speculated, but he did not want to scare me. He got me an appointment with an Orthopedic Oncologist. A lot of “could be this or that.” At first, he thought it might be a hematoma after taking a biopsy. Within a few days, the results came back: a high-grade soft tissue sarcoma. Mine was an Undifferentiated Pleomorphic Sarcoma. The cells appear highly abnormal under a microscope, grow rapidly, and have a high risk of spreading (metastasizing) to distant sites, such as the lungs.

I had it removed. The next year, a CT scan revealed a cancerous nodule on my lung. I had it removed in a lung resection. I get an MRI of my left calf and a CT scan of my lungs every six months.

Who knows how long the Sarcoma grew in my calf? One day it wasn’t there, and the next day it was. But that’s not what happened. A few cancerous cells doubled: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, etc. What wasn’t initially visible became visible because the cancer cells had replicated using my healthy muscle tissue as a base of operations for the takeover of my body. Survival outcomes vary significantly by stage: the five-year relative survival rate is approximately 81% for localized disease, 56% for regional spread, and 15-16% for distant metastatic sarcoma. Thus, the 6-month scans.

What’s true of cancer is also true of the spread of ideas, both good and bad.

Peter Guillquist asked: “Can the world be changed? Are the people of God even to expect such a thing? Isn’t the world utterly and hopelessly lost?” He answered:

The world can be changed. The Church has changed the world before, and it can do it again. The impact of the ancient Church altered the character of the massive Roman Empire. It didn’t make it perfect, mind you. But it did make the world more bearable—a better place for both believer and unbeliever to live. Consider the issues of just treatment for slaves, care of unwanted children, the poor, widows, and the sick and lame, as a few examples of areas where the historic Church has made a visible and powerful difference.[1]

This can’t happen if: (1) Christians believe there is no solution to fix anything except us and our families, (2) God’s law as revealed in Scripture is of no obligation for Christians (we’re under grace, not law), (3) God will rescue His church via something called the ‘rapture,’ a supernatural rescue mission from this world, and (4) Christians are unable to argue their case presuppositionally, from first principles.

Pushing the Antithesis

Prior to his untimely death in 1995, Dr. Greg Bahnsen delivered a series of lectures on apologetics at American Vision's Life Preparation Conference. The week-long sessions, presented before high school and college students, set forth the basics of the Christian worldview and the biblical approach to defending the faith. These lessons have been distilled and turned into a one-of-a kind handbook on apologetics. Pushing the Antithesis consists of twelve chapters that include study questions, an answer key, a glossary of terms, and a comprehensive bibliography. If you want to be equipped to present the truth of the gospel in a compelling way, then Pushing the Antithesis is required reading.

Buy Now

How did we get here? Like the spread of cancer, it took time. Harvard University was founded in 1636 by Puritan colonists with the explicit Christian mission to train clergy and promote the Christian faith. The institution’s original 1646 “Rules and Precepts” mandated that students “lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning,” citing John 17:3 to declare that the main end of life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ. This theological foundation was further solidified in 1692, when Harvard adopted the motto Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae (Truth for Christ and the Church), which appeared on the university seal until the mid-19th century, when the institution secularized and shortened the motto to simply Veritas.

The process of secularization began in the late 18th century, when Unitarianism and Emersonian ideals began to influence the college, putting reason on an equal par with revelation and separating the school of Christian ministry from the ‘secular’ curriculum that emphasized reason and humanism. By the early 1800s, the Unitarians had gained control, institutionalizing a greater emphasis on intellectual freedom and reducing the proportion of graduates entering the ministry.

“As George M. Marsden writes in The Soul of the American University, “the shift was not occurring ‘in the name of an attack on Christianity but under the banner of its expansion.’” Harvard was still ‘Christian,’ but it became just one acceptable religion among many, and it redefined Christianity. For example, Peter J. Gomes (1942-2011) was the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard Divinity School and Pusey Minister at Harvard’s Memorial Church. Gomes was a homosexual. He devoted his life to “addressing the ‘religious case’ against gays.”

He maintained that “one can read into the Bible almost any interpretation of morality … for its passages had been used to defend slavery and the liberation of slaves, to support racism, anti-Semitism and patriotism, to enshrine a dominance of men over women, and to condemn homosexuality as immoral.” You see, “truth” is whatever suits you and how you determine what’s moral.

If moral relativism happened to Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, it could happen everywhere, and it has. A jury is struggling to decide whether a mother who strangled her three children should be found guilty of murder.

A father who strangled his FIVE children during ‘Schizophrenic Psychosis’ got the death penalty after a jury deliberated just TWO HOURS — Lindsay Clancy’s Massachusetts jury is deadlocked after days as feminists turn a child killer into a martyr.

German-Palestinian-American filmmaker Lexi Alexander pushed an X post appearing to cheer the death of Bank of America executive Erin Piacenti Tuesday, referencing accused UnitedHealthcare CEO assassin Luigi Mangione. (Source) Mangione, the suspect in the December 2024 shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, has garnered a significant online following, particularly among young women, who have romanticized him as a “hot assassin” or a “Robin Hood” figure.

Do you remember this phrase? “It will never happen here.” It is happening here.

Comedian Cristina Mariani told this joke about atheist Neil deGrasse Tyson: “He has a sign in his yard that says, ‘Black Lives are matter.’” He doesn’t really have a sign that says this, but his worldview leads to it. If we’re all matter, then why does anyone or anything matter? In fact, that’s true of everything and everyone if atheism is true. You will hear atheists say that they don’t need God to be moral or have purpose.

Why It Might be OK to Eat Your Neighbor

Love your neighbor, or Eat your neighbor? Atoms don’t have a conscience. They don’t love. They don’t regard anything as being their neighbor. The same is true of DNA. It’s been said that you can’t get blood out of a stone. Similarly, no matter how atheists try, they can’t account for moral standards that must be obeyed when there is no accounting for good or evil. Why It Might Be OK to Eat Your Neighbor repeatedly raises the issue of accounting for the conscience, good and evil, and loving our neighbor. It’s shocking to read what atheists say about a cosmos devoid of meaning and morality.

Buy Now

Atheists are worldview thieves. Greg Bahnsen pointed out the following in his debate with George Smith sometime in 1991 on the Los Angeles radio station KKLA:

And that’s where we get back to the whole question of the atheist worldview and the Christian worldview. In terms of the atheist worldview, I would challenge George that he cannot give an account of the reasoning that he’s doing. An example that a seminary professor once used stuck with me for many years. Dr. [Cornelius] Van Til once said, “There’s no question that atheists count. Sometimes they count better than Christians. They can do their math very well. They do count, but they cannot account for their counting!” That is, in terms of their outlook on the world, what they profess to be true about knowledge and about reality—you know, the universals and absolutes of mathematics—would not make any sense whatsoever. And so, I do agree that George does reason, but I would suggest that he cannot, in terms of his worldview, make sense of the reasoning that he engages in.

[1] Peter E. Guillquist, Why We Haven’t Changed the World (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1982), 21.

Reading the Bible Through the Bible

Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:01:17 -0400

Gary continues his discussion with Pastor Greg Chacon about biblical interpretation.

God’s promises to Israel are not in doubt, but to maintain that they have been postponed for nearly 2,000 years only to be realized when Israel encounters another holocaust when two-thirds of the Jews living in Israel will be slaughtered and only a remnant saved, is not an answer to the claim “that God is finished with the Jewish people as a nation.”

It’s obvious from the Bible that God is not going to restore every “physical seed of Abraham.” If God were going to do that, then why bother with the gospel? Paul does not mean by “in this way all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26) that every Jew without exception throughout history (the diachronic [through time] view) will one day be saved. Paul is writing about a “remnant” of his countrymen (11:5). Even so, Paul states unequivocally that God has not rejected His people (11:1). What evidence does He give?

For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or don’t you know what the Scripture says in the Elijah section—how he pleads with God against Israel? Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars. I am the only one left, and they are trying to take my life! But what was God’s reply to him? I have left 7,000 men for Myself who have not bowed down to Baal (11:1-4).

Paul’s own salvation is prima facie evidence that God had not rejected Israel even though not every Israelite was or will be saved. The way that God saved a remnant in Elijah’s day, God was saving a remnant in Paul’s day: “In the same way, then, there is also at the present time a remnant chosen by grace.”

Paul wasn’t projecting an event in the distant future. He was describing God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises “at the present time,” that is, in Paul’s own day. As we’ll see, God was demonstrating this fact beginning with Pentecost when “Jews from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5-11) embraced Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promises made to Abraham long ago. Jesus said to “the Jews” of His day, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad” (John 8:57).

Prophecy Wars: The Biblical Battle Over the End Times

There is a long history of skeptics turning to Bible prophecy to claim that Jesus was wrong about the timing of His coming at “the end of the age” (Matt. 24:3) and the signs associated with it. Noted atheist Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) is one of them and Bart Ehrman is a modern example. It’s obvious that neither Russell or Ehrman are aware of or are ignoring the mountain of scholarship that was available to them that showed that the prophecy given by Jesus was fulfilled in great detail just as He said it would be before the generation of His day passed away.

Buy Now

Gary continues his discussion with Pastor Greg Chacon about biblical interpretation. After showing how dispensationalism is flawed, Gary further explains how Bible translations sometimes hide important information by omitting certain words or translating the same word differently in different places.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

Holy Cow Hermeneutics!

Tue, 01 Sep 2026 06:46:45 -0400

Red heifer stories are in the news. “The delivery of five red heifers to Israel has sparked a worldwide debate about its significance in biblical prophecy, particularly among Christians who believe a third temple will be built during the End Times,”[1] of which the New Testament says nothing. You will search the New Testament with a fine-tooth comb, and you won’t find any mention of another temple being built or the necessity for animal sacrifices to be performed.

The red heifer claim isn’t new. Here’s a story from 2018:

Last week in Jerusalem a baby cow was born. Watch the adorable infant scamper around her mother in a short video released on YouTube by the Temple of Israel, below. Why is this worth your attention? Because—according to some Jewish and Christian scholars—this tiny red calf may be ushering in the end of the world.

The reddish-colored female calf was reportedly born in Israel on August 28 [2018] and is being raised in accordance with the Jewish laws of the Torah, according to the Temple Institute. (CBN)

This is more about Jewish mythology than biblical theology. Even CBN News, a network that is heavily invested in end-time speculation, ended its article on the topic with this comment: “Meanwhile, there’s a verse about that heifer and purification in the New Testament of the Bible, and it’s all about salvation.” The author then quotes Hebrews 9:13-14. The sacrifice of the red heifer is about Jesus, and Jesus is the endpoint of its fulfillment. Christian interest in the red heifer sacrifice is an affront to the finished redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

The Bible details the red heifer in Numbers 19. An “unblemished” red heifer, that is, a cow of a reddish color, with “no defect” that had never worn a yoke, was to be taken outside the camp and sacrificed. Water was added to the ashes and applied to anyone who had contact with a dead body. This sacrifice required a cow, a female, to highlight its life-giving element.

The Hope of Israel and the Nations

The reader and student of the Bible must first understand the content of the New Testament writings in terms of how those in the first century would have understood it. The New Testament is written against the background of the Old Testament. The shadows of the Old were fulfilled in the reality of the New. All the rituals and ceremonies were fulfilled in Jesus. The same is true of the temple, land, blood sacrifices, the nature of redemption, the resurrection of the dead, the breaking down of the dividing wall dividing Jews and Gentiles, and so much more. The New Testament's emphasis is on the finished work of Jesus and its application, not only to that Apostolic generation but to the world today.

Buy Now

These laws point to Jesus and His redemptive work and the end of the Old Covenant that was in full display when Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans in AD 70 and the temple system destroyed. Christian Zionists, mostly of the dispensational type, have teamed up with the Temple Institute in Jerusalem to breed red heifers.

The key American figure in all this is Byron Stinson, a small-scale rancher, trucking company owner and Christian Zionist from Glen Rose, Texas. Beginning in the 2000s, he developed a relationship with Temple Institute members during regular visits to Israel, and eagerly offered up his network of evangelical ranchers, who possessed mighty herds of red-haired Angus cattle that are unknown in the Middle East due to the climate. (Source)

There are other elements involved in the sacrifice, but nothing is said about the red heifer being a prophecy of the return of the Messiah. The sacrifice of the red heifer, like all the animal sacrifices, pointed to Jesus as their fulfillment. It’s not a prophecy; it’s a “type of Christ” with Jesus as the “antitype,” the fulfillment. As Jesus said during his crucifixion—hanging on a tree (Deut. 21:22-23; Acts 5:30; Gal. 3:13)—“It is finished” (John 19:28-30).

Here’s the important part of how the sacrifice of the red heifer points to Jesus: It is the only sacrifice that took place “outside the camp” (Num. 19:3, 9). Like the red heifer, Jesus was slain “outside the gate” (Heb. 13:12), that is, “outside the camp” (13:13).

They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha (John 19:17).

Consider how the book of Hebrews relates all animal sacrifices, including that of the red heifer, to the finished work of Jesus as the Messiah:

For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? For this reason, He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (Heb. 9:13-15).

The Bible couldn’t be clearer. Jesus is the fulfillment of the red heifer sacrifice. In fact, all the Old Covenant was in anticipation of Jesus as He Himself stated:

• Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, [Jesus] explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27).

• Now Jesus said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44; cp. 21:22).

Notice that all sacrificial animals were to be “unblemished” and “without defect.” This requirement is not unique to the red heifer sacrifice:

Whatever has a defect, you shall not offer, for it will not be accepted for you. When a man offers a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord to fulfill a special vow or for a freewill offering, of the herd or of the flock, it must be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in it (Lev. 22:20-21; also, Deut. 15:21; 17:1; Mal. 1:8, 14; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:19).

Like so much of rabbinic oral tradition (Mark 7:1-13), several additional requirements have been added to the red heifer biblical inspection:

• The heifer must be three years old and perfect in its redness. Even its hooves must be red.

• The presence of even two hairs of any other color will render it invalid.

These requirements are not found in Numbers 19. They have been passed down via oral tradition.

There’s a legend that only “nine red heifers had been slain between the time of Moses and the destruction of the Temple” in AD 70.[2] It’s a legend. What many people don’t know is that today’s red heifer breeding is artificial, “using imported frozen embryos of red Angus cows implanted into … domestic cows.” This artificial procedure negates the entire sacrificial history of Israel before the coming of Jesus as the Messiah. The red heifer sacrifice was common in Israel, as were other sacrifices that required the same level of scrutiny.

Given the fact that Jesus is the fulfillment of all the sacrifices required under the Old Covenant, there is no need for a red heifer sacrifice today. For any Christian to suggest that there is significance to a red heifer today is to deny the “it is finished” (John 19:30) sacrifice of Jesus and the purpose of the book of Hebrews. Jews who want to revive the red heifer ordinance are no different from Jews who rejected Jesus as the once-for-all sacrifice fulfillment of all the types under the Old Covenant.

What about the argument that the red heifer sacrifice is to be “a lasting ordinance both for the Israelites and for the aliens living among them” and “a perpetual statute”? (Num. 19:10, 21). It’s obvious that it hasn’t been for nearly 2000 years. That’s because the perpetuity of the red heifer sacrifice (like all the sacrifices) was fulfilled in Jesus, as the book of Hebrews states.

The Greatest and the Least

Without John the Baptist, there is no Jesus. Without the voice in the wilderness, there is no voice from heaven: “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased” (Matthew 3:17). John was the transitional figure providing a clear path and a smooth road from the covenant with Adam to the new covenant with the Second Adam. As the final and greatest prophet of the Old Testament, John embodied and fulfilled the very purpose of the Law: revealing Jesus as the Bringer of God’s Kingdom.

Buy Now

[1] Michael Foust, “Red Heifers Arrive in Israel: Is it a Signal of the 3rd Temple, End Times?,” Christian Headlines (September 19, 2022).

[2] Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.

Reading the Bible Through Scofield

Mon, 31 Aug 2026 07:10:26 -0400

Gary is interviewed by Pastor Greg Chacon about eschatology and how dispensationalism has influenced prophetic interpretations.

The Bible requires that Christians “always [be] ready to make a defense to everyone who asks [us] to give an account for the hope” that is in us, “yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15). We are to be “ready in season and out of season; [to] reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2).

Paul “reasoned with” the Jews from the Scriptures in their own synagogues, “explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead” (Acts 17:3). He followed a similar procedure with “some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers” in Athens (17:18). Jude called on us to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). We have an obligation, therefore, to ask whether the theological position advocated by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins in Left Behind “was once for all delivered to the saints.”

Some people might be critical of my attempts to scrutinize the theology of Left Behind with the rejoinder that Christians should not fight with one another. Let me say that Tim LaHaye understands the need and obligation to defend what he believes the Bible teaches. In his Rapture Under Attack (1998), LaHaye shows that he is not opposed to answering some of his critics against charges of “false teaching,” “cultish beliefs,” and even “heresy.” The very nature of the book’s title and its polemical style demonstrates that he does not object to scrutiny and debate between Christians of goodwill. Therefore, it is neither unbiblical nor unloving to address doctrinal disputes by appealing to the Bible.

When Paul believed that Peter was in error, the Bible says that Paul “opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” (Gal. 2:11). Those in Berea held Paul to the standard of biblical integrity by “examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether” the things he was saying “were so” (Acts 17:11). None of us should be held to any less of a standard.

Left Behind: Separating Fact from Fiction

With confidence based on years of biblical study, DeMar carefully examines eleven major components of the pre-tribulation rapture theology and offers clear, convincing alternatives to the interpretations of Bible prophecy presented in Left Behind. What difference does it make what we believe about the end times anyway? DeMar addresses that question as well, showing how our point-of-view regarding end-times prophecies affects the way we live each day. In addition, DeMar answers skeptics who use failed end-times predictions to disprove the Bible. Giving us a different perspective on the end times, this approach to the Bible could revolutionize the life of the church.

Buy Now

Gary is interviewed by Pastor Greg Chacon about eschatology and how dispensationalism has influenced prophetic interpretations. In this first part of a multi-part discussion, they discuss the dominant view of evangelicalism and how it shapes many Christians’ outlook on the future.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

Episode 106: Leaving Preterism for Dispensationalism (Part One)

Fri, 28 Aug 2026 08:24:41 -0400

Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope-Episode 106

Gary begins a response to an individual who says he left partial preterism for dispensationalism.

What did the church in Philadelphia think Jesus meant when He told them, “I am coming soon [ταχύς]; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown”? (Rev. 3:11) Who is Jesus addressing? A local church in Asia Minor. He told them to “hold fast.” It was their “crown” that was in jeopardy of being taken. A passage like this has meaning for every generation, but we don’t know how to apply it until we determine what it meant to the people to whom it was first written, something that would happen “soon” for them.

With these numerous proximate time indicators in the book of Revelation and the rest of the New Testament, how is it possible to believe they mean something different from their obvious meaning when compared to how they are used elsewhere in the New Testament? Brock Hollett’s answer is something he calls the “Prophetic Perspective” where two mountain ranges look to be near but in reality there’s a valley of great distance between them. There’s nothing in the text that intimates that this is the process by which these events are to be interpreted. Where does this type of speculation end?

The Great Tribulation mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24:21 happened before the generation to whom He spoke passed away. He was not speaking about a near and far fulfillment since the use of “this” in “this generation” (24:34) refers to what’s near. John said that he was a “fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom” (Rev. 1:9; also 2:22; 7:14), a kingdom that John the Baptist said was “near”: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15; also Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10; 1 Tim. 2:6; Titus 1:3). John the Baptist said the following to the Pharisees and Sadducees: “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? [μελλούσης/about to come]” (Matt. 3:7). This was not a wrath in the distant future. It was a wrath on their generational horizon (1 Thess. 1:10; 2:13–16), a wrath that could be avoided (1 Thess. 5:9).

Debunking a Debunker of Preterism

Former preterist Brock Hollett wrote a book titled Debunking Preterism. In it he claims that God spoke to his heart one night, and he repented of his preterism. He wrote Debunking Preterism to set forth what he claims is a "proper biblical eschatology." In his brief 50-page response to Dr. Hollett's book, Gary DeMar shows that nothing in Debunking Preterism is new, novel, or even proper eschatology. Dr. Hollett, like most futurists, looks for ways to ignore the time statements and impending-judgment language in what the Bible says will "soon" befall Jerusalem in the first century.

Buy Now

Gary begins a response to an individual who says he left partial preterism for dispensationalism. Gary rehearses his own path to preterism and how the Bible is what led him there. Reading the NT in the context of the OT, in addition to the historical context of first century Israel in subjection to Rome (not to mention the traditions of the Judaizers), has to be taken into account when reading the letters of the NT and the four Gospels.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here for all episodes of Bible Prophecy Under the Microscope

“Is Your Church Worth Invading?”

Thu, 27 Aug 2026 04:56:12 -0400

Albert Mohler asked this question in the July 2006 issue of TABLETALK, a monthly devotional published by Ligonier: “Is Your Church Worth Invading?” Good question. What will your church leadership do if the Federal Government and your state government and their courts tell your pastor to stop preaching against homosexuality and abortion or any other concocted political evil? Now is the time to discuss and plan for it.

In the book of Acts, the NT ekklēsia was a threat to the religious establishment and later to Rome. At one point, someone declared, “‘These men who have upset the world have come here also; and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.’ They stirred up the crowd and the city authorities who heard these things. And when they had received a pledge from Jason and the others, they released them” (Acts 17:6-9).

If Christians kept the peace (and paid the fine), Rome was not concerned with them. They were not revolutionaries. The Jewish zealots were, and they paid a heavy price when they decided to go to war against Rome. But when Christians declared that Jesus was Lord, including all existing lords, trouble ensued. Nazi Germany is a perfect example. Don’t ever say it can’t happen here when it happened in Germany, where the Reformation was born.

Once we adopt a quietist and radical separationist perspective on Christ and culture, the tyrannical shoe will drop. In time, churches in Nazi Germany were “confined as far as possible to the performance of narrowly religious functions, and even within this narrow sphere [they] were subjected to as many hindrances as the Nazis dared to impose.” This assessment is from a 1945 report published by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor to the CIA. The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches was prepared for the War Crimes Staff. It offered the following summary: “This study describes, with illustrative factual evidence, Nazi purposes, policies and methods of persecuting the Christian Churches in Germany and occupied Europe.”

Where did the strategic plan begin? “Implementation of this objective started with the curtailment of religious instruction in the primary and secondary schools with the squeezing of the religious periods into inconvenient hours, with Nazi propaganda among the teachers in order to induce them to refuse the teaching of religion, with vetoing of . . . religious textbooks, and finally with substituting [a] Nazi Weltanschauung [worldview] and ‘German faith’ for Christian religious denominational instruction…. At the time of the outbreak of the war … religious instruction had practically disappeared from Germany’s primary schools.” This describes what has happened to our nation’s education system. A materialistic worldview and “secular” faith replaced the once Christian worldview that served as the foundation of education in America. Public (government) education in the United States is anti-Christian and anti-reason.

The next step was to neutralize the impact churches might have on politics. “Under the pretext that the Churches themselves were interfering in political and state matters, [the Nazis] would deprive the Churches, step by step, of all opportunity to affect German public life.” How often do we hear that the “separation between church and state” means churches must remain silent on social and political issues and that pastors cannot use their pulpits (unless they’re liberal) to influence legislation? The sad thing is many Christian pastors are OK with this and believe it’s the biblical way. See my book Myths, Lies, and Half Truths.

Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths

Buy Now

When Martin Niemoeller used his pulpit to expose Adolf Hitler’s radical politics, “He knew Nazi spies and secret agents reported every word spoken.”[1] Leo Stein’s book I Was in Hell with Niemoeller describes how the Gestapo gathered evidence against Niemoeller:

Now, the charge against Niemoeller was based entirely on his sermons, which the Gestapo agents had taken down stenographically. But in none of his sermons did Pastor Niemoeller exhort his congregation to overthrow the Nazi regime. He merely raised his voice against some of the Nazi policies, particularly the policy directed against the Church. He had even refrained from criticizing the Nazi government itself or any of its personnel. Under the former government his sermons would have been construed only as an exercise of the right of free speech. Now, however, written laws, no matter how explicitly they were worded, were subjected to the interpretation of the judges.[2]

In a June 27, 1937, sermon, Niemoeller made it clear that those in attendance had a sacred duty to speak out on the evils of the Nazi regime no matter the consequences: “We have no more thought of using our own powers to escape the arm of the authorities than had the Apostles of old. No more are we ready to keep silent at man’s behest when God commands us to speak. For it is, and must remain, the case that we must obey God rather than man.”[3] He was arrested a few days later. His crime? “Abuse of the pulpit.”

The “Special Courts” set up by the Nazis made claims against pastors who spoke out against Hitler’s policies. Niemoeller was not the only one singled out by the Gestapo. “Some 807 other pastors and leading laymen of the ‘Confessional Church’ were arrested in 1937, and hundreds more in the next couple of years.”[4] A group of Confessional Churches in Germany, founded by Pastor Niemoeller and other Protestant ministers, drew up a proclamation to confront the political changes taking place in Germany that threatened the people “with a deadly danger. The danger lies in a new religion,” the proclamation declared. “The church has by order of its Master to see to it that in our people Christ is given the honor that is proper to the Judge of the world…. The First Commandment says ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’ The new religion is a rejection of the First Commandment.”[5] Five hundred pastors who read the proclamation from their pulpits were arrested. People protesting pro-abortion policies have been arrested in the United States while pregnancy centers have been attacked and some firebombed.

The Bible tells us that civil rulers are ministers of God. The Greek word translated as “ministers” is the same word used to describe church leaders and is often rendered as “deacon” or “servant.” Both serve as God’s servants toward the people within their jurisdictions, one civil (State) and the other ecclesiastical (Church). It is unbiblical to assume that civil rulers are autonomous and can legitimately rule independently of God’s designed limiting authority. It is a grave mistake to take Paul’s instructions in Romans 13 and claim that the citizenry cannot challenge the actions of civil rulers. James Willson makes the point in his book The Establishment and Limits of Civil Government, [6] “For surely none but an atheist can deliberately affirm that even the law of the land can set aside, weaken or nullify the authority of the law of God. To the best government, obedience can be yielded only in things lawful; for there is a ‘higher law’ to which rulers and subjects are alike amenable.”[7]

The Establishment and Limits of the Civil Government

As civil government continues to increase in authority, power, and scope, too many Christians are under the false impression that they are obligated to endure the legislative acts handed down by government officials no matter how evil they may be. This is a simplistic and dangerous reading of Paul's instructions in Romans 13. Elected officials are as equally bound to distinguish between good and evil in the area of civil government as are unelected citizens. Being a ruler offers no exemption. James Willson's exposition of Romans 13 is a much-needed antidote to both the advocacy of passivity and rebellion that some are inclined to take.

Buy Now

One of the reasons King James I wanted a new English translation of the Bible was that he did not like some of the notes found in the Geneva Bible. These notes condemned rulers who adopted a divine right perspective. For example, a marginal note for Exodus 1:19 stated that the Hebrew midwives were correct to disobey the Egyptian king’s order to kill the Hebrew babies. King James reasoned that if it was legitimate to oppose a ruler in one case, then it might be legitimate to oppose him in others.

Civil authorities are to rule in terms of “good and evil.” Those who rule are bound by the same laws as the rest of us. That’s why there is no divine right of kings in the Bible. The Hebrew midwives disobeyed an order from Pharaoh (Ex. 1:17). The prophet Nathan challenged King David to do right (2 Sam. 12). Daniel was not a revolutionary when he opposed the king’s law (Dan. 6). John the Baptist rebuked King Herod for his sexual sins (Matt. 14:3-5). Jesus called Herod a “fox” (Luke 13:32). Peter continued to preach, obeying God rather than those in authority, even though he was commanded to stop by those in charge (Acts 5:29). Paul used his Roman citizenship to challenge the Roman Empire (Acts 16:22-40; 22:25-30) and even appealed to Caesar (25:11; 28:19). Paul spent a great deal of time in prison because he was seen as a possible threat to the Empire, even being bound by a chain (Acts 28:20)

To obey Romans 13 is to call our civil officials to uphold their oath of office, an oath that nearly all of them took by affirming “So help me God!” Once a civil ruler takes political office, he has the “power of the sword,” that is, he has civil authority and the claim of governmental legitimacy to enforce the law using civil sanctions. By not limiting the power of civil government with our voices and votes, we give a free hand to officials to act independently of any human restraint to tax our income at any level, confiscate our property, send our children to war, and even execute us. And who gets to determine what constitutes a crime? Civil rulers alone unless they are held accountable for their actions by the electorate. But only an informed electorate is in the position to act as a brake on the unbridled power of the State.

According to a radio editorial some years ago, “a man’s religion and the strength of his conviction are his own personal matter” and therefore “religion should not interfere with politics.”[8] Of course, this too is an expression of humanist “neutrality” designed to silence Christians but allow for every other conceivable worldview to find expression in the public and political arenas.

Let’s apply the neutrality logic to Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. Should the churches have remained neutral because they were churches, and their denouncement of Hitler and his policies would have been fundamentally religious? In fact, this is exactly what many churches did do and for what they believed were sound theological reasons. “Religion was a private matter that concerned itself with the personal and moral development of the individual. The external order—nature, scientific knowledge, statecraft—operated on the basis of its own internal logic and discernible laws.”[9]

Christians were told they had to submit to this external order because the State was seen as the autonomous authority for public order. The church’s sole concern was man’s spiritual life. The church followed one set of religious rules, while the State took a religiously “neutral” position. “The Erlangen church historian Hermann Jorda declared in 1917 that the state, the natural order of God, followed its own autonomous laws while the kingdom of God was concerned with the soul and operated separately on the basis of the morality of the gospel.”[10] It was because of this disjunction—built on the myth of neutrality—that Hitler could carry out his devilish schemes unhindered by most religious people. The “Confessional Church,” however, took a different, non-neutral, position:

[It] opposed the Nazification of the Protestant churches, rejected the Nazi racial theories and denounced the anti-Christian doctrines of Rosenberg and other Nazi leaders. In between lay the majority of Protestants, who seemed too timid to join either of the two warring groups, who sat on the fence and eventually, for the most part, landed in the arms of Hitler, accepting his authority to intervene in church affairs and obeying his commands without open protest.[11]

Those “who sat on the fence,” having fallen for the neutrality myth, supported Hitler by default. While they did not openly join with the “German Christians,” a pro-Hitler alliance of ministers and churches, their inaction “landed them in the arms of Hitler” anyway. So much for neutrality and being at peace with the world.

[1] Basil Miller, Martin Niemoeller: Hero of the Concentration Camp, 5th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1942), 112.

[2] Leo Stein, I Was in Hell with Niemoeller (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1942), 175.

[3] Quoted in William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), 239.

[4] Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 239.

[5] Quoted in Eugene Davidson, The Trials of the Germans: An Account of the Twenty-Two Defendants before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, [1966] 1997), 275.

[6] James Willson’s The Establishment and Limits of Civil Government was originally published in 1853 as Civil Government: An Exposition of Romans XIII. 1–7.

[7] Willson, The Establishment and Limits of Civil Government, 22

[8] Heard on WGST, Atlanta, Georgia (September 12, 1986).

[9] Richard V. Pierard, “Why Did Protestants Welcome Hitler?,” Fides et Historia (North Newton, KS: The Conference on Faith and History), X:2 (Spring 1978), 13

[10] Pierard, “Why Did Protestants Welcome Hitler?,” 14.

[11] William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), 236. Emphasis added.

Fighting the War on Truth (Part Two)

Wed, 26 Aug 2026 07:05:37 -0400

Gary continues his comments on a recent interview with author and apologist Frank Turek. He talks about worldview, culture, history, and “Grape Juice Christianity.”

During my talk that morning, after describing how Christians might teach on Paul’s actions after he was beaten and imprisoned by the Roman government in Acts 16 as “Grape Juice Christianity” that grape juice does not burst old wineskins. Too many Christians believe that their lot in life is to be persecuted for Jesus. Persecution is good while triumphalism is bad. The sole goal is to lead people to Jesus, something that Paul did with a wonderful result (Acts 16:31–34).

The point I was making is that grape juice does not burst old wineskins. Putting new wine in old wineskins will burst the wineskins. The New Covenant is new wine designed to burst old wineskins. Is it coincidental that Jesus’ first miracle was making a whole lot of new wine (John 2:1–12)? The New Covenant was about to do some bursting!

“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins” (Mark 2:21–22).

The New Covenant bursts the old wineskins of the power structures of the day. Jesus was relentless in doing this. The book of Acts is a history of burst wineskins.

Many Christians today are afraid of new wine theology because it often bursts their traditional, and I dare say, unbiblical passive and pietist theology. They like the first part of what Paul did in Acts 16 but not what followed. That is way too controversial and confrontational.

God and Government

The battle today is over lordship. The issue of politics today is the issue of sovereignty. Who is the Lord of all of life to whom man must give his total allegiance, Christ or Caesar? The answer to this question is the difference between liberty and slavery, justice and tyranny. What is the relationship of Jesus Christ and His Word to our political and legal system in the United States? Who has jurisdiction over every aspect of American society, Jesus Christ or the State? Is this to be a nation founded on the precepts of the Bible or one founded on the shifting sands of humanism? The only faithful answer that a Bible believing Christian can give is this: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12).

Buy Now

Gary continues his comments on a recent interview with author and apologist Frank Turek. He talks about worldview, culture, history, and “Grape Juice Christianity.” If Christians aren’t getting answers to the issues of the day in church or from the pulpit, they will get those answers elsewhere.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

Legislating Morality is an Inescapable Concept

Tue, 25 Aug 2026 07:45:32 -0400

In an earlier article and two-part podcast, I responded to a Facebook post regarding the application of God’s law in the NT, including laws found in what is described as the “law of Moses.” The Mosaic Law is God’s Law that was revealed to Moses. Moses did not initiate it.

The FB poster went on to write: “[Gary DeMar] also believes [God’s laws] should be legislated in secular government.”

There is no neutrality. If God’s laws should not be legislated, whose laws should? Someone’s laws are going to be legislated. It appears that this person prefers any law to those found in the Bible, and that will include Islamic law if the Islamists gain control of the government of the United States. That is their intention. The Bible has prohibitions against murder, theft, unjust weights and measures, perjury, man stealing, and property rights, to name just some laws that come directly from the Bible and have been written into our nation’s laws.

In a list of those who do evil, the book of Job includes those who “remove the landmarks” and thereby “seize and devour flocks” (24:2). In 1 Kings 21, Elijah reproved Ahab and Jezebel for the murder of Naboth and the theft of his vineyard. These property laws protect every homeowner in the United States. The New Testament codifies the Eighth Commandment, “You shall not steal” (Rom. 13:9). This commandment applies not only to individuals but also to civil governments. If the civil magistrate is a “minister of God,” as Paul wrote, how does the magistrate determine what is “good” or “evil” (v. 4)?

Additionally, there has been legislation against polygamy (two Supreme Court cases in the 19th century), homosexuality (until Lawrence v. Texas in 2003), incest, and abortion (first approved in 1973, then disapproved in the Dobbs opinion of 2022). Now that our nation is officially atheistic, we have laws protecting every type of evil. Should Christians sit back and let the atheists legislate away? Dr. Gary North asks a fundamental question that applies to the claim that biblical law has no business being applied to civil law:

There is a school of Biblical interpretation that says that unless an Old Testament law is repeated in the New Testament as legally binding, it is no longer legally binding. Such a doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament; it is a generally unstated presupposition that commentators bring with them when they begin to study the Bible. They assume what they ought first to prove.[1] There is no mention in the New Testament of bestiality. This raises a significant problem of interpretation for those who argue that the Old Testament law system was annulled by Christ. On what basis is the civil government to prosecute bestiality? Natural law? But nature is hardly a guide in sexual matters…. Animals do all sorts of things sexually that the Old Testament regards as an abomination. The Marquis de Sade, from whom we get the term sadism, was a great defender of natural law theory that is based self-consciously on nature, for nature is filled with murder and destruction. But if natural law theory is an unreliable foundation, then the question remains: What is the civil government to do about bestiality (or any other crime)? On what moral or legal basis?[2]

That’s the question. All laws are the legislation of someone’s view of morality. I cover this topic in the chapter “You Cannot Legislate Morality” in my book Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths.

Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths

Buy Now

In addressing the Texas legislature, Chuck Colson told them that “the only answer to the crime problem is to take nonviolent criminals out of our prisons and make them pay back their victims with restitution. This is how we can solve the prison crowding problem.” Several legislators came up to Colson “one after another and said things like, ‘That’s a tremendous idea. Why hasn’t anyone thought of that?’ I had the privilege of saying to them, ‘Read Exodus 22. It is only what God said to Moses on Mount Sinai thousands of years ago.’”[3] These laws apply to wrongdoing. But how does the civil magistrate know?

The goal of Christian involvement is to restrain the authority and power of civil government so that it stays within its jurisdictional boundaries. Ignoring the civil sphere only empowers it and those who have used it in a Mafia-like manner for their own gain at the citizenry’s expense. “The Saturday Evening Post once ran a cartoon showing Moses on the mount, holding the tablet of the Ten Commandments in his hands. He looks up to heaven and says, ‘Maybe there’s only ten of them now, but just wait till the bureaucrats get to work.’”[4] In the absence of objective standards, the State manufactures laws and regulations, thereby empowering itself.

Most people who have only seen the 1956 film The Ten Commandments on television have likely not seen Cecil B. DeMille’s opening monologue. DeMille had something more in mind than just making a film about Moses. He considered his production to be so important that he came out on stage to deliver a short but powerful statement on the nature of freedom under the law of God:

The theme of this picture is whether men ought to be ruled by God’s laws or whether they are to be ruled by the whims of a dictator like Rameses. Are men the property of the State or are they free souls under God? This same battle continues throughout the world today.

You can watch it here.

The elaborate film Souvenir Book that was made available in theaters includes a preface with the title “The Law by Which Men Live”:

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS are not laws. They are THE LAW. Man has made 32,000,000 laws since they were handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai more than three thousand years ago, but he has never improved on God’s law.[5]

The FB poster goes on to comment:

I think he [Gary DeMar] needs to revisit the Sermon on the Mount, especially the part where Christ warned the Jews not to cast their pearls before swine. In the modern vernacular, we refer to “turn and tears to pieces” as “blowback” which I believe we are today experiencing from the Christian Fundamentalists’ practices in government in the 20th century.

There is always blowback when preaching and applying God’s Word. Consider the following from Mark’s Gospel:

[Jesus] entered a synagogue again; and a man was there whose hand was withered. And they were watching Him closely to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him. He said to the man with the withered hand, “Get up and come forward!” And He said to them, “Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath or to do harm, to save a life or to kill?” But they kept silent. After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might put Him to death.

“Blowback” for healing a man with a withered hand! There was “blowback” from nearly everything Jesus said or did. Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and fed the multitudes, and He was still hunted down, persecuted, defamed, prosecuted, and put to death. Maybe Jesus did it all wrong. Too much “blowback.” But we know better: “It is enough for the disciple that he becomes like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!” (Matt. 10:25).

The book of Acts is filled with examples of the disciples being attacked for preaching God’s Word. Paul and Silas were beaten and imprisoned (Acts 16:22-40). They were driven out of Thessalonica when “some wicked men from the marketplace formed a mob and set the city in an uproar,” looking for Paul and Silas. When the mob could not find them, their friend Jason was dragged out of his home and taken to the civil magistrate, where Paul and Silas were accused of an insurrection against Rome: “they all acted contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there that there is another king, Jesus” (17:1-8). Without God’s law, you get Caesar’s laws.

If the opposition is made up of “swine” who can “tear us to pieces,” then it seems that there needs to be some legal restraints on these destroyers. The FB poster added the following:

The law has not only failed to maintain civility among people, but it has also failed to produce anyone righteous. On the contrary, significant evils are often committed under the guise of the law, even the law of God, as demonstrated by the Pharisees.

The law was never designed to make people righteous. It was designed to identify when a person was being unrighteous (1 Tim. 1:9). God’s law serves as a restraint. The law curtails the manifestation of unrighteousness in external acts. This is why Paul states that the civil magistrate “does not bear the sword for nothing” (Rom. 13:4). We’re seeing the breakdown of “civility among people” because we live in a secularized society where many people believe they can do what is right in their own eyes (Judges 17:6). They do not believe in God’s law because they do not believe in God.

By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today

God's Law is Christianity's tool of dominion. This is where any discussion of God's law ultimately arrives: the issue of dominion. Ask yourself: Who is to rule on earth, Christ or Satan? Whose followers have the ethically acceptable tool of dominion, Christ's or Satan's? What is this tool of dominion, the Biblically revealed law of God, or the law of self-proclaimed autonomous man? Whose word is sovereign, God's or man's?

Buy Now

What does this FB poster think will happen if our nation continues down this path? What’s his solution? He’ll say it’s “God’s law written on our hearts and minds.” We’re back to law again. It can’t be escaped. Does he want the “swine” to legislate in terms of Animal Farm? “All men are equal, but some men are more equal than others.” What made the United States attractive to the world? Equality under the law. I suggest he read the chapter “Morality” in Vishal Mangalwadi’s book The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization. “In 1738, two centuries after the Reformation, Bishop [George] Berkeley declared that religion and morality in Britain had collapsed ‘to a degree that was never before known in any country.’”[6] Several factors contributed to the precipitous decline, but the Gospel, linked to fixed moral standards, catalyzed a new moral revolution. What’s particularly instructive is the impact that John Wesley and others had in transforming England, which led to William Wilberforce’s work to abolish the slave trade without sparking a bloody civil war. Also see the chapter “The Bible and the Law” in What if the Bible Had Never Been Written?

The FB poster ends with the following:

What involvement did Christ and the early Christians have with law and government? Weren’t they opposed for nearly 200-some-odd years until the compromise with Constantine?

These early Christians were under the boot of Rome. Paul was an exception, being a Roman citizen. The Bible, “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), laid the foundation for the transformation of law and government that had nothing to do with Constantine (c. 272-337).[7] Compromise did not start with Constantine. It can be found throughout the Bible. In the period of the Judges, the people worshipped “Baal-berith” (Judges 9:4), a god compromised by combining the covenant (berith) God made with Israel with Baalism.

If you can actually show me a true Christian human government in history that operated under the law, I will show you a government whose fruits are worldly and devilish.

Of course, governments have rotten elements just like individuals because civil governments are made up of people, but if Christians let the “swine” take over the farm, everything will be eaten. The goal is to restrain the swine. To claim that all nations are morally equal is a drastic misreading of history. Mangalwadi writes, “The [Global Corruption Perceptions Index] confirms what I saw in Holland—that the Bible is the only force known in history that has freed entire nations from corruptions while simultaneously giving them political freedom. The most secular nations—that is, ex-communist, atheistic nations, which teach that no man or machine is watching you, then no one is watching you—are among the most corrupt nations, not too different from Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim nations.”[8] While the Netherlands was a global pioneer for LGBTQ+ rights, including legalizing same-sex marriage in 2001, current data suggests a decline in social acceptance rather than moral progress. What is the foundation of that decline?

[1] Gary North, 75 Bible Questions Your Instructors Prays You Won’t Ask (Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press,[1984]1987), Part II.

[2] Editor’s Introduction to Ray Sutton’s book Second Chance: Biblical Blueprints for Divorce and Remarriage (Ft. Worth, TX” Dominion Press, 1988), ix.

[3] Charles Colson, “The Kingdom of God and Human Kingdoms,” Transforming Our World: A Call to Action, ed. James M. Boice (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1988), 154-155.

[4] D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, What If the Bible Had Never Been Written (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 43.

[5] The Ten Commandments Souvenir Book, Paramount Pictures Corporation (1956, 1957), was published by The Greenstone Company, New York, N.Y.

[6] Mangalwadi, The Book that Made Your World (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011), 259.

[7] See Peter J. Leithart, Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 2010).

[8] Mangalwadi, The Book that Made Your World, 255.

Fighting the War on Truth (Part One)

Mon, 24 Aug 2026 06:11:06 -0400

Gary discusses a recent interview in World magazine with author and apologist Frank Turek.

The assumption that all existence-claims are questions about matters of fact are all answered in the very same way is not merely oversimplified and misleading—it is simply mistaken. The existence, factuality, or reality of different kinds of things is not established or disconfirmed in the same way in every case.

We might ask, “Is there a box of crackers in the pantry?” and we know how we would go about answering that question. But that is a far, far cry from the way we go about answering questions or determining the reality of, say, barometric pressure, quasars, gravitational attraction, elasticity, radioactivity, natural laws, names, grammar, numbers, the university itself that you’re now at, past events, categories, future contingencies, laws of thought, political obligations, individual identity over time, causation, memories, dreams, or even love or beauty.

In such cases, one does not do anything like walking to the pantry and looking inside for the crackers. There are thousands of existence or factual questions and they are not at all answered in the same way in every case. Just think of the difference in argumentation and types of evidence used by biologists, grammarians, physicists, mathematicians, lawyers, logicians, mechanics, merchants, and artists.

It should be obvious that the types of evidence which one looks for in the existence of factual claims will be determined by the field of discussion, and especially by the metaphysical nature of the entity mentioned in the claim under question.

Dr. Stein’s remark that the existence of God is answered in the same way as any other factual question mistakenly reduces the theistic question to the same level as a box of crackers in the pantry, which we will hereafter call the “crackers in the pantry” fallacy.

The Great Debate: Does God Exist?

This book presents the full debate with included commentary, offering the reader a front-row seat to one of the most compelling philosophical showdowns in Christian history. It showcases not only the transcript of the debate but added explanations and insights throughout for an in-depth understanding of the presuppositional apologetic enterprise. The Great Debate: Does God Exist? will offer powerful and impactful explorations of faith, reason, and the foundations of your worldview in every area.

Buy Now

Gary discusses a recent interview in World magazine with author and apologist Frank Turek. Many of the answers Turek gives during the interview sound “presuppositional” which makes Gary reflect on the Great Debate between Drs. Gordon Stein and Greg Bahnsen in 1985.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast