Search This Blog

Monday, 29 April 2019


Jacob Prasch exposed (pt6) , David Nathan (Marco Quintana) Millennial reign - what really happened?

In the above video, Frank Rogers refers to a previous discussion between Jacob Prasch and David Nathan about the millennium back in October 2016 at Community Church Devore in Southern California in which they share their millennial views. At this meeting, Jacob Prasch, David Nathan and Marco Quintana are all in agreement, i.e. after the rapture of the church, the age of grace comes to an end:

Jacob Prasch: "Once the harpazo transpires, the Lord will refocus His primary intentions on the salvation of Israel, although not salvation in the sense that we understand it, not by grace, it will ?? revert back to the Old Testament way of dealing with man and the nations." 

David Nathan re-emphasises Prasch's point: "After the rapture, the age of dispensation of grace as we know it, the church age is over. From that moment until the end of the millennium, everything reverts back under law. There is no salvation in the sense of being adopted, being part of the family of God. The Jews and those in the millennium will become the people of God and not the family of God. Everything reverts back under old covenant. So when Jesus comes, that's it, salvation, as we understand it, by grace is over. That is why the parables of the marriage feast in Matthew 22 and  in 25 says that when the door is shut, no one else can come in. If you don't have a wedding garment on, in other words, garments made of white by the blood of the Lamb ?? any other garment, you are going to get kicked out. So when the Lord returns, He comes for his bride, there are not two weddings. There is one wedding for one bride at one time in history. You are either in it or you are not. After that, everything goes back under Law."

Jacob Prasch nods at various points and is in full agreement with everything David Nathan says.

Jacob Prasch: "The wedding is the same as the door being shut in Noah's ark." 

The statement that millennial Jews and Gentiles will not be saved under grace because the marriage feast is over is extremely problematic. Are not Israel regarded corporately as God's wife during the millennium? (Isaiah 54:5; 62:5; Hosea 2:16).

My understanding is that those Gentiles who are not raptured after the tribulation will not repent and be saved. In other words, the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled at the rapture i.e. the number of Gentile believers is complete at that particular point. (Luke 21:24; Romans 11:25 cf. Ezekiel 30:3). This leaves the Jewish people and also the survivors of the nations who came against Jerusalem in the millennium. (Zechariah 14:16).

The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts. (Revelation 9:20-21 cf. Revelation 16:9-11). 

In the case of Noah's ark, when "the door is shut", those outside perish utterly:

Then the LORD shut him in.. And every living thing on the face of the earth was destroyed—man and livestock, crawling creatures and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth, and only Noah remained, and those with him in the ark. (Genesis 7:16, 23). Similarly, In Luke 13, the door is shut to those "workers of evil", i.e. the false teachers are cast out. (Luke 13:24-28).

The same thing applies in Luke 13. Once the door is shut, those outside are utterly rejected and without hope:

Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!’ In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out." (Luke 13: 24-28). 

The concept of "the door being shut", as in Noah's ark and the wedding feast doesn't make any sense in the context of the millennium. The phrase "the door was shut" is qualified in that it refers to "the other virgins/the foolish virgins". (Matthew 25:2-11). My view is that Jacob Prasch, David Nathan and Marco Quintana took the illustrations of Noah's ark and the wedding feast completely out of sync.

Why does David Nathan separate "the people of God" from "the family of God" during the millennium? The nature of NT believers is described by the same predicates originally applied to those under the Law in the OT. (1 Peter 2:9; Exodus 19:5-6). According to David Nathan, somehow millennial believers' relationship with God is reduced because they come under Law, but I see no evidence of this in the scriptures. (Revelation 21:7). The phrase "the people of God" encompasses a number of different aspects of the unique relationship between God and his people.

For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name. (Isaiah 63:16 cf. Ephesians 1:2; Romans 1:7).

There are many verses that refer to both OT Israelites and NT Christians as "the people of God".

Old Testament: Exodus 3:7, 10; 6:7; Leviticus 26:12; Ruth 1:16; 2 Chronicles 6:5-6; Jeremiah 31:31-33
New Testament: Luke 22:19-20; see Hebrews 7:22; 8:6-13; 9:15-22; 10:10-31; 11:25; 12:24; 13:20-21; John 1:12-13; 10:7-9, 14-16; Acts 10-11, 15; Romans 9-11; Ephesians 2:11-22; 1 Peter 2:4-10; 1 John 5:11-13

There is a parallel between 2 Corinthians 6:16 and Exodus 37:27: I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 

Will millennial Jews need a wedding feast? The nation of Israel is unlikely to be the Lamb’s bride, because God the Father is already her husband. It appears that Israel will be re-established or restored to her position, not only as "God's people" but as his wife:

Return, O faithless children, declares the LORD; for I am your master (husband); I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. (Jeremiah 3:14). 

“If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man’s wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted? You have played the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me? declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 3:1).

She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore. (Jeremiah 3:8).

Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jeremiah 31:31-33). Plead with your mother, plead— for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband— that she put away her whoring from her face, and her adultery from between her breasts; (Hosea 2:2). She shall pursue her lovers but not overtake them, and she shall seek them but shall not find them. Then she shall say, ‘I will go and return to my first husband, for it was better for me then than now.’ (Hosea 2:7).

And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’ (Hosea 2:16).

And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the Lord. (Hosea 2:19-20).

"The LORD’s accomplished purpose in Israel’s chastening also will result in the reestablishment of her original husband-wife relationship to the LORD.2 The relationship between Israel and Jehovah is dramatically different than what the NT records concerning Christ and His bride. Perhaps the most significant difference is that the marriage of Jehovah to Israel occurred in time past, whereas the marriage of Christ with His bride has not yet taken place. This is the subject of the passage before us.

Israel in her land was the wife of Jehovah (Jer. Jer. 3:14-20; Isa. Isa. 54:1), but the wife was divorced because of her iniquity. Israel, however, is to be reinstated in Jehovah’s favour. But a divorced wife can never again be a virgin, and it is not a divorced wife but a virgin whom the Lord marries (Lev. Lev. 21:14)." {1}

1. https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/related-topics/israel-married-to-jehovah.html


  1. Great points Treena, I wanted to also state that Jacob believes that all humans will revert back to Adamaic pre sin garden of Eden state. Jacob and David do not beleive only gentiles will be in the millennium because all of the Ezekiel prophecies talk about gentiles even making sacrifice, gentiles clinging to the jews, gentiles being apart of the daily life with the jews. They believe this special time will be the fulfillment of the Jews ruling the world over all the nations as the prophecies foretold. Fruchtenbaum believes that only gentiles will die and not jews which is strange. Fruchtenbaum does not say that the sacrifices are ONLY memorials he bellies they do provide some form of ritual atonement but not unto salvation and in some way they atone but do not conflict with the Sacrifice of Christ. Things get complicated! This is why David Nathan believed what he did because he sees that

    !. ATONEMENT is made, which means to cover or to ransom.
    2. Hebrews tells us we should never need such atonement anymore
    3. Tells us we never need priests in the order of Aaron any more (hebrews 7) only Melchizedek
    4. Tells us that the LAW will proceed form Mount Zion,

    So David sees the contradiction between the LAW, the ATONEMENT, the SACRIFICES, the PRIESTLY LINE

    David concluded that this has to be a separate group of people because scripture is very clear that we will never go back to the the priests the atonement of animals and be ruled under the LAW, so his answer is that it is a separate group of people that inherits the earth.

    Jacob's solution is that "grace" ends but not really. The "law" comes back but not really. Sacrifices and priests return but not really. Jacob thinks its all somehow just literally carried out for memorial symbolic purposes which seems really contradictory.

    Fruchtenbaum has his own views which are more in the middle.

    Was David wrong to be dogmatic about such teaching? Certainly!. Did David deduce his understanding from a scripture and a difficult problem that is really hard to interpret? Yes he did. In some ways his view is more consistent that Jacob's although the big pill for anyone to swallow with David's view is that the blood of Jesus would not be the permanent solution for these separate groups of people. He believes they will be redeemed in more of a sense the way Adam and Eve would have been before they committed sin, they will not be perfected the way we are and that is why we will rule over them.

    David is probably wrong, but Jacob is probably wrong too. Something is not lining up in the millennial puzzle that they were both dogmatic about. What is the difference? David quickly repentened and asked to study it over until he can understand it more clearly. Jacob refuses to stop being dogmatic about his view, and he knows that he has some big contradictions in his view but refuses to admit it.

  2. The surviving nations do not appear to have a part in the sacrificial system Anonymous. The only requirement of them: "And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles." Zechariah 14:16.
    Thank you for your comment.
    God bless.

  3. Let's also be clear, David Nathan did not believe the blood of Jesus is not eternal. He only believed based on the contradictory perception of the millennial atonement system that clearly They could not be under the same covenant. This is why I know that David is not trying to teach "heresy" his heart is in the right place and he is trying to understand scripture the best he can. These topics are super complex and that is why Jacob keeps agreeing with David in the videos, he doesn't have a theological answer how he can hold fast to literal meaning of scripture and yet hold this strange millennium view.

    Isaiah 56:6-8 And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” The Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares, “I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered.”

    Isaiah 66:20-21 New International Version (NIV)

    20 And they will bring all your people, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the Lord—on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels,” says the Lord. “They will bring them, as the Israelites bring their grain offerings, to the temple of the Lord in ceremonially clean vessels. 21 And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites,” says the Lord.

    This is the verses that some millennialists believe points to gentiles being priests,

  4. I understand that David Nathan was trying to teach and understand the millennium as best he could, and that he has been taken out of context. I do not regard him as a heretic.

    I am not sure that the verses in Isaiah 56 are millennial?

    Isaiah 66 20-21 "And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD. And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD." KJV

    They (the Gentiles) shall bring the Jews of the dispersion to Christ from the remote parts of the earth. (Zephaniah 3:10). ..bring your brethren i.e. the Jews - back to the Holy Land (Isaiah 49:22).

    Thank you for your comment.
    God bless.

  5. You may be right, I will look at your interpretation of the verse, this is what Fructenbaum says in one of his Articles...


    In Isaiah 56:6-8, the prophet writes of Gentiles partaking in the blessings of the Millennial Kingdom:

    “And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” The Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares, “I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered.”

    Some Gentiles will work right alongside Jewish people in serving and loving the name of the LORD (v. 6). This is exactly the kind of equality we would expect among those in the New Covenant. However, it would have been an unthinkable partnership in Isaiah’s day. Gentiles will be brought to Jerusalem’s mountain, being made joyful in the temple as they offer sacrifices. These offerings are distinctly said to be acceptable on the LORD’s altar. In that day, the temple will be known as a house of prayer for every nation (v. 7). This level of participation in temple ordinances is quite astonishing. There is no other time in history in which Gentiles could make legitimate sacrifices in the temple. Sacrifices were not even acceptable from an Israelite who was not also a Levite (cf. Deut. 33:10). Recall that when Saul attempted a sacrifice, God removed his throne (1 Sam. 13:9-14). King Uzziah was struck with leprosy because he offered incense to the LORD (2 Ch. 26:18-21). Because Gentile sacrifices have not yet been accepted, it can only be that they will be so in the future. Previously, you were either born a Levite or you were not. During the Millennium, God will make new priests and Levites (Is. 66:21). He will not only ingather the dispersed of Israel but will add to them ingathered Gentiles (v. 8). Ezekiel places this final ingathering of the Jews and their inclusion in the New Covenant shortly before he considers the future sacrifices (Ezek. 36:24-27). Isaiah’s narrative on temple sacrifices complements Ezekiel’s remarkably well, assuring us that the prophets agree.

    - Arnold Fruchtenbaum

  6. I am not sure about the Gentiles in the millennium mainly due to Revelation 20:8-9. If there is only one wedding (the church), and one wife (Israel), then these nations are an anomaly. Perhaps I am being too logical.

    Arnold Fruchtenbaum is very knowledgeable, but I am wary - he is pre-trib and also part of Lausanne. Nevertheless I will give some thought to what he has written.

    God bless.

  7. Just to add one little point of clarification, I've heard David Nathan say in more than one video that it will be the saints ruling in the millennium. Not the Jews. I have no clue what Jacob Prasch believes.

  8. I think David Nathan is referring to Revelation 20.

    "..They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." (Revelation 20:4-6 cf. Revelation 5:10; 2 Timothy 2:12).

    It is difficult to be definitive, but here are a few thoughts..

    The resurrected saints will rule over the nations during the millennium.. "with a rod of iron." (Revelation 2:26-27)

    The millennial offerings are distinctly Jewish and will be administered by the Jews in Jerusalem. God will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel. Ezekiel 43:7 There will be penalties for the nations who do not go up to Jerusalem annually during this period.

    "And should any of the families of the earth not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of Hosts, the rain will not fall on them. And if the people of Egypt will not go up and enter in, then rain will not fall on them; this will be the plague the LORD inflicts on the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. This will be the punishment of Egypt and of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles." Zechariah 14:17–19

    Bible verses about the millennium: https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.verses/ID/1138/Millennium-verses.htm

    God bless

  9. You can get a full view of David's humble understanding here, as he makes it clear to Jacob he is very open to changing his view.


  10. Treena,
    Your first anonymous correspondent raised some interesting points. I had always hitherto believed that the millennial animal sacrifices would be PURELY memorial, but is this necessarily so?

    I have some thoughts;

    If we believe (and we do!) that the Old Testament sacrifices could NEVER atone for sins unto eternal salvation, but only for particular transgressions of the Mosaic/Jewish law, then why shouldn't the same apply in the coming millennial reign of Christ? Certainly the OT sacrifices pointed TOWARDS the future Atonement, as indeed the future sacrifices will point BACK to its fulfillment.

    It is ALWAYS safe not to go beyond "what is written" and to avoid dogmatism on things we cannot be dogmatic about. Yes, we CAN be dogmatic on the fact that there will be NO pre-tribulation rapture, and that there WILL be a millennial reign AFTER Christ returns, for God's Book confirms these veritable FACTS!

    I know that Randles is Dispensational pre-trib, as is Fruchtenbaum; I am not sure exactly what Nathan believes, but clearly he has been heavily influenced by Dispensationalism, evidenced by his warped views on the millennium (I now hope he can now see his errors?).

    Anonymous observes that "David sees the contradiction between the LAW, the ATONEMENT, the SACRIFICES, the PRIESTLY LINE.." Is not this "contradiction" entirely due to Nathan's (and a great many others) failure to understand that law and grace cannot be separated? You CANNOT have law without grace, for it was Grace (God) that gave the law! Dispensationalism from its incipience (circa 1830) has always separated law from grace*, teaching that the OT believers (the vast majority being Jews) were only ever saved by their faithful observance of the temple ordinances! We see very clearly from Luke 2:25-38 that old Simeon and the aged prophetess Anna that OT Israelite's DID indeed look for the coming Redeemer! And you can bet your "bottom dollar" that these two aged sinners would have observed the law throughout their long lives!

    The "millennial question" has long been a stumbling block to a great many Christians; forcing them into three very different camps; pre, post, and amillennialism. The Lord Jesus plainly stated that "in the resurrection...we shall be as the angels of God in heaven" Matt.22:30. What does this mean; exactly? We read that "some have entertained angels unawares." Heb.13:2. Plain reading of Scripture dictates that angels WERE mistaken as men; Gen. 19:5, so why should it be so difficult for a believer in our present age to believe that the glorified saints (risen at the first resurrection) cannot rule over mortal men and women in the soon coming millennial reign? (read Luke 19:17-19 for example).

    *This is why Dispensationalism wrongly avers that the church and Israel are two separate entities, when in fact they are one and the same! The church of Christ consists both of Jews and Gentiles.

    The so-called "church age" will not be "over" or complete until that time when "God may be all in all" 1 Cor.15:28.

    God bless.

  11. Fruchtenbaum is right about Isaiah 56 6-8 Anonymous - it is millennial.

    At the battle of Armageddon the beast and the false prophet are thrown into the Lake of Fire.."And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh." (Revelation 19:21)

    Those who are left "of all the nations which came against Jerusalem" (Zechariah 14:16) cannot have taken part in the battle or they would have been killed by Jesus sword. Will these people have taken the mark of the beast and are they capable of repentance?

    "Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name." (Revelation 13:16-17).

    Colin.. My view is that it is impossible for believers in Jesus Christ to see the Law of Moses in any way relevant to faith other than that of a "schoolmaster". (Galatians 3:25). Is this how it will be in the millennium?

    "So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." (Galatians 3:24-26).

    "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us." (Galatians 3:12).

    The whole subject of the millennium is extremely challenging!

    One thing is certain:

    ONLY the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:7).

    God bless.

  12. great talking about more than Prasch's hypocrisy thank you for opening up this topic Treena :)

    have to say, IF we take the Millennium to be fully literal. I am almost persuaded to take David Nathan's view since the puzzle is near impossible to put together otherwise. This is why I am almost inclined to become an Amillennialist because its too weird for me to believe there will be a separate group of people perpetually making sacrifices but here are some points I would like to make...(the sacrifices are certainly more than just memorials and NO WHERE in Ezekiel or any other supposed millennial passage does it say they are for memorial)

    1. this is from bile study tools... sacrifices are more than just memorials that is clear and that is what makes it so strange..
    The memorial view helps explain one of the purposes of millennial sacrifices which they share with OT sacrifices. Yet in itself, this explanation is lacking because the Scriptures indicate that millennial sacrifices are more than just memorial, they provide atonement (Eze. Eze. 16:63; Eze. 43:20, Eze. 43:26; Eze. 45:15, Eze. 45:17, Eze. 45:20). As we saw above, God’s presence will be on earth in a new way which differs from the Shekinah of the OT, the incarnation of the life of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit indwelling the Church as the spiritual Temple during the present age:
    Atonement cleansing was necessary in Leviticus because of the descent of the Shekinah in Exodus Ex. 40:1. A holy God had taken up residence in the midst of a sinful and unclean people. Similarly Ezekiel foresaw the return of God’s glory to the millennial temple. This will again create a tension between a holy God and an unclean people.6

    2. David says the reason they are not memorials is "FOR THE KING IS WITH THEM!" well that is clear so why on earth would these people need to kill animals to learn about christ for Jesus the risen king is with them!

    Remember that the only memorial we are meant to do is the last supper communion.. and CHRIST said to do UNTIL HE RETURNS!

    1 corinthians 11:
    23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you;a do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.


  13. (continued ....)

    So the memorials are not needed when Christ returns. There is no way that sacrifices would be needed as more serious memorials than communion when Christ told us we can stop even doing communion when he returns.

    There is no way to return to the Zadok priests under the LAW as hebrews says that we will not go back under levitical service.

    ALL these millennial survivors are the children of those who rejected the Messiah. So they are in a sense getting a SECOND CHANCE, that they do not deserve. They missed the coming of Christ or their parents did.

    Also to note is that Prasch believes that these believers will have the Holy Spirit he has said this in his writings. If that is true then these believers are UNDER LAW, They have the KING WITH THEM, AND THE Holy Spirit!!! they will have the most close relationship with God as they have both the king and the spirit present with them. How would they NEED SACRIFICES TO LEARN WHO CHRIST IS???? Thats preposterous!

    Lastly, who are the meek who inherit the earth? Did God want to have people who would live in pre sin, Adamic world as he had originally intended? Let us remember that Adam and Eve did not need sacrifices until they sinned so they did not necessarily need the redemption until they had fallen. So if this is true, and Jacob Prasch states that they will be living in pre sin Adamic era of fulfillment why would they need to be saved by ultimate redemption?? That would not make sense,

    I am inclined to believe Prasch's view is more convoluted and confusing than David.

    I am leaning to millennial unless Treena or someone can help me sort this all out.


  14. Some more thoughts.
    There is no "second chance", God's word is explicit, it leaves no room for debate, it is very clear and unequivocal on this. But, of "those left of all the nations... " Zech.14:6, many Christians to their own shame, if I may put it that way, try to 'reason' things out with their own fallacious understanding; read Proverbs 3:5, and also Rom.11:33 "God's ways are past finding out!" How much easier it is if we would only BELIEVE what is written?

    These people that are "left of all the nations..." WHO exactly are they? I believe that they MUST be the children of the people that "came against Jerusalem", but as to how old they are, who knows? certainly not old enough to understand the Gospel message, I would have thought!?

    "Who are the meek who will inherit the earth?" Surely, these are those names in God's book of life! Those raised in the "first resurrection" Rev.20:6, and of those saved DURING the coming 1000 year reign, they too, along with those raised in the first resurrection who went before them, will enter a "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." 2 Pet.3:13.

    Lets not forget that the Lord Jesus said to "show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded.." Matt.8:4, Mark 1:44, Luke 2:24,5:14. Obviously the temple was still standing, and the veil was only rent when He said "it is finished". We know subsequently the temple was raised to the ground in AD 70. The temple that the coming Antichrist will sit in (Matt.24:15, Dan.9:27, 2 Thess.2:4) will NOT be the one that the Lord Jesus will sit in! Antichrist's temple will be built by unbelieving Jews, the Lord's temple by God Himself; see Zech.6:12-13; "He shall build the temple of the LORD", if God's word says something once, we should take note, but it is said TWICE in these verses!

    Matt.5:17; "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." And so it will be! every word down to the last "one jot or one tittle" (Matt.5:18) shall minutely come to pass.

    God bless.

  15. The millennium is a relatively new subject for me. I had a general outline, but the detail is complex.

    I have been listening to Doug Hamp.. I do not agree with him in some respects. However, I think he is worth listening to on this subject.


    17:00: “The marriage supper of the Lamb presumably will last a thousand years.. God divorced Jerusalem many years ago in the book of Isaiah.. Hosea 2:2.. he has always planned to re-marry Jerusalem.. “I will betroth you to me forever… “.

    This is an interesting thought - the wedding supper will last a thousand years??

    God bless.

  16. I agree that the millennium is a "complex" subject, but to reject it as our anonymous friend almost seems wont to do, would necessitate spiritualizing away a great many Scriptures; saying God hath not meant what He said.
    There is much I don't agree with Mr Hamp on-though it is good that he saw through the pre-trib error!

    A wedding supper lasting a thousand years, why not? "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Pet.3:8 cf. Ps.90:4. The Lord has only been absent from this earth about two days!

    Remember, the glorified saints won't have the same conception of time as the mortals on earth, they too WILL be like the Lord!

    I can't quite reconcile reigning and feasting at the same time, but then was not Jesus and His disciples working when they were called to the wedding feast at Cana? (John 2).

    God bless.

  17. We must take the millennium literally Colin.. that much is clear.

    It appears that the view of a prolonged wedding feast is not that novel after all.

    "The marriage feast] cannot transpire on earth in a completed sense until after the Millennium when the rest of the faithful from the thousand-year period combine with the martyrs and other saints to complete the body of the redeemed (Charles). The language of Rev. Rev. 21:2+, Rev. 21:9+ is quite explicit regarding the bride in the new heaven and the new earth (Lee). The better part of wisdom is to include both the Millennium and the new heaven and the new earth as the prolonged wedding feast of the Lamb and His bride (cf. Rev. Rev. 19:9+). It will commence with Christ’s glorious appearance to initiate His kingdom on this present earth.5" https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/revelation-19/revelation-19-9.html

    God bless.

  18. The reason I have problems with this view is this...

    1. That would mean the jews miss the wedding ceremony theologically speaking, and only make it in for the honeymoon (consummation)
    2. Satan is allowed to crash the wedding and steal many of the guests or future bride members
    3. That still does not explain why the jews would be receiving atonement from sacrifice, practicing law, circumcision, and priestly levilitical ritual.

  19. 1. The ancient Jewish marriage had two distinct stages, the kiddushin and the nisuin. However Revelation 19 appears to be one complete future event, the Greek gámos makes no distinction between marriage, wedding and wedding-feast.

    2. Those born during the millennium will not automatically be part of the bride. They will have to choose Jesus (be saved) just as we do. At the end of the millennium, Satan will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth. (Revelation 20:7-10).

    3. I am still unclear about your third point.

    The view of the prolonged wedding feast makes the most sense to me. I think I am getting there slowly Anonymous.. hopefully.

    God bless.

  20. According to Jacob, in his interview with David N and Bill Randles he states there are three parts to the jewish wedding ending with consummation. I haven't considered your slightly different interpretation I will read those verses but according to Prasch, you have engagement, ceremony, consummation (which Prasch believes to be the most important as it reflects the ECHAD of the trinity.)

    That would mean that the jews would be missing the bridal ceremony. the wedding feast, and only be ushered in after Satan comes to destroy and and deceive, then those left will be allowed in for the consummation and added to the Bride post wedding.
    (it seems quite strange that God would allow the Jews, the root of the covenant to miss the entire holy wedding of which all creation and the angels are watching). That seems to be quite a shame. On top of that to allow Satan to then ruin the 1,000 wedding and jewish kingdom seems quite strange too.

    3. the Bible is clear these sacrifices are for atonement, and if the law is not kept then people will be punished. Gentiles must be circumcised, the Levitical priesthood must return, this is very contradictory to what the New Testament tells us about our covenant relationship with Christ. He are saved by grace, never to go back to levitical law, never to need sacrifices again, never to need circumcision, never to need animal atonement.

    At this current time I would not call myself an Amillennialst, I simply believe Christ will fulfill all of this in a way we do not currently understand just like his first coming. These seeming contradictions are quite strong (the law, the priests, the atonement, the circumcision, the punishments etc.). The millennium is a grand assumption that all the future prophecies must have to do with the millennial reign but there is no old testament verse to directly state they will be for the 1,000 years. Clearly the only time these prophecies can be fulfilled would be during the millennium but maybe Christ will fulfill it all in some unforeseen way that challenges all of our views?

  21. There is no mention of a marriage ceremony in either the OT or the NT. That leads me to think that the actual marriage is part of the marriage feast. “Gamos” is used of both the marriage feast and marriage as an institution. Therefore it appears? that the marriage feast and the marriage itself is one event.

    gamos - a marriage, wedding, wedding-ceremony; plur: a wedding-feast. https://biblehub.com/greek/1062.htm

    I don't think that it is essential that we understand it all perfectly at this time Anonymous. There are clearly some challenging verses about the Law as you say.

    God bless.

  22. Frank Rogers has made a further video:
    Jacob Prasch exposed (pt8) - David Nathan Millennial Saga - hidden things revealed

    Prasch's statement that the Jewish wedding has three stages is incorrect:

    "The Jewish wedding ceremony comprises two major sections: erusin (betrothal) and nissuin (marriage)." https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/erusin-the-first-of-the-two-ceremonies/
    "Maimonides tells us that a Jewish marriage consists of two stages. The first is betrothal, kiddushin. The second is the nuptials, chuppah."
    See also Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_wedding

    Fruchtenbaum confirms two stages - The Jewish Wedding System and the Bride of Christ:


  23. I can't figure out why Anonymous is quite so perplexed. Does not God's word plainly declare: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Gen.18:25. And God said this to the "father of faith" Rom.4:16 when Israel was still in his loins-to talk of "shame" etc is just beyond me!
    God hath said it, and that will do!

    I think many believers in our day (and for that matter, in every age, including Luther!) would rather that certain books, chapters and verses were not in the Bible for it would make their theology a whole lot easier to frame, is this not true?
    I perceive that Anonymous would rather that the last eight chapters of Ezekiel were not in the Bible? I don't pretend to understand everything-far from it! but one thing I DO know is that God has forever and faithfully preserved His word for His people: "For ever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven." Ps.119:89.

    Regarding Nathan, Prasch, and others who have been harmed by pre-trib Dispensationalism, it is my belief that if the law was "our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ" Gal.3:24 BEFORE the millennium, then WHY cannot it be the schoolmaster bringing the mortals to Christ in the millennial reign? Gal.3:25 says "But AFTER faith has come, WE are no longer under a schoolmaster." Note, I stress; NOTE-the past tense? WE, that is those who have partook (the elect of Jews and Gentiles) in the "first resurrection" Rev.20:6, are no longer under the schoolmaster, for the law "WAS our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ..." Paul was talking to those alive in our present age (that is before Christ's return). But, of the youngsters that enter into the millennium (Zech.14:16) and of those born to them, the law WILL be their schoolmaster to bring THEM unto Christ. Such is the "everlasting Gospel". Nevertheless, ONLY a remnant of these will be saved. A remnant, but this "remnant" is no small number. The Jewish wedding typology, is just that; a typology, it cannot be used to formulate doctrine which Dispensationalists have long done (since 1830ish!).

    Anonymous says "Gentiles must be circumcised" WHERE is this stated in the Bible? Circumcision of the flesh in the millennium will only be required for those who "enter My sanctuary" Ezek.43:9, the Levitical priests etc. The 'atonement' that Anonymous refers to in Ezekiel will only be for particular sins committed, not for salvation, that is ONLY through the blood of Christ. The blood of bulls and goats sanctify only to "the purifying of the flesh" Heb.9:13. Israel is God's "peculiar people" and circumcision of the flesh will only apply to them. All that will be required of the Gentile nations (so I think) is to send a very high ranking representative(s) to yearly keep the feast of tabernacles (Zech.14:6)

    It is interesting that Ezek.44:22 infers that Levitical priests may die in the millennium, and remember Isaiah speaks of lifespans in the millennium that will be the same as Adam, Noah, Methuselah etc. They enter the priesthood at 30, so perhaps they will be getting up to their old dodges as they did in OT times! This might seem marvelous/impossible given all the preceding revelation to the time we are talking about, but such is the inveterate heart of the unregenerate! Nothing new under the sun!

    We can see why many Christians are a-millennial and adopt replacement theology as such, for it saves a whole shed-load of studying and soul-searching!

    God bless.

  24. I am glad I have tacked this subject Colin... even though I have stumbled through it here and there. The "schoolmaster" theory does seem to fit better than the "memorial" theory. It is a difficult concept from our perspective, since Jesus Himself will be present during the millennium. Nevertheless, God MUST have a purpose in it. I am confident that the bride will be complete at the end of the millennium, and that it will comprise of both Jewish and Gentile believers saved by grace. Galatians 3:28.

    A couple of verses come to mind:

    "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:12.

    "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding." Proverbs 3:5.

    God bless.

  25. Colin, Sir I most certainly do not want to be lazy about the scriptures, I love to study deeply and seek the Lord for understanding. The issue is not laziness on my part. The issue is that eschatological debates can lead to extreme division as we have already seen.

    Jacob has exemplified this with his obsession of the rapture, the millennium, and the ANTIchrist. We are called to be aware of the times and seasons however when we live in the unforeseen future, we lose sight of what is right in front of us. We are called to love and exercise character refinement as we help the poor, preach the gospel, teach the milk and the basic meet, this is what the Lord will require of us. To DO justly, to LOVE mercy, to keep ourselves pure from the world and to help the widow and the orphan.

    The millennium is the most complex topic I have ever seen in the Bible, even far more complex then the debate of Calvinism vs the other freedom of will positions. I most certainly believe scripture does not teach Calvinism, I most certainly am not a pretribulationist but I would rather stay united with others on the gospel.

    Why do I believe the Millennium to be so complex? Scripture is not explicitly clear on the topic, no one can say otherwise or this issue with David and Jacob probably would not have occurred.

    The book of hebrews is most certainly clear, that we should NEVER need a priest nor animal sacrifices for our sins ever again. Yet this is what is proposed in the millennium view. Not only that, but NO WHERE IN SCRIPTURE does it tell us that millennial sacrifices are for memorial or even for a school master since it speaks of KAPHAR ATONEMENT. If you take scripture literally you can't deny that the literal word is telling us these sacrifices are to cover sin or some would even say to REDEEEM as the word KAPHAR is in some debate.

    Also, if Christ told us that we can stop taking the Lord's supper upon his return, and if the King will stand with his people on this earth, the KING OF KINGS will stand on his throne in Israel, the Holy Spirit will be present, and the CHURCH will be raptured with the LORD. It just does not seem to add up, that another group of people who are descendent from those whom rejected the Lord and missed his second coming would now be trained under the Law while he sits presently with them.

    I will certainly continue to study and read, and I do understand David Nathan's logic, and Jacob as well, I see the arguments fairly clearly.

    Blessings and I do appreciate your replies

  26. A further thought Anonymous.. Hebrews 9:13-14 makes a distinction between purification of the flesh and cleansing of the conscience:

    "..Atonement cleansing was necessary in Leviticus because of the descent of the Shekinah in Exodus 40. A holy God had taken up residence in the midst of a sinful and unclean people. Similarly Ezekiel foresaw the return of God’s glory to the millennial temple. This will again create a tension between a holy God and an unclean people.

    Animal sacrifices during the millennium will serve primarily to remove ceremonial uncleanness and prevent defilement from polluting the temple envisioned by Ezekiel. This will be necessary because the glorious presence of Yahweh will once again be dwelling on earth in the midst of a sinful and unclean people.."

    This article is very interesting..

  27. Treena but wouldn't this be to say that Jesus blood is not of completeness and fulness in its cleansing power? The very high priest and sacrifice whom paid the price for all sin to redeem all creation is now present with his people and we are to believe that somehow we need Jesus + outward atonement for the people and temple? That appears to still be contradictory.

    Clearly animal sacrifices never brought salvation to anyone only temporary covering. David N believes this as well. David believes that we are fully redeemed by Christ and these millennial believers will never receive the same eternal atonement nor be allowed int he eternal kingdom. This is quite a rock and a hard place.

    Do we believe that Millennials will need Jesus blood + animal sacrifices in order for God to dwell with them? Or do we believe that these survivors are under a separate covenant of which we will rule over them?

  28. Treena,
    Briefly! that verse (1 Cor.13:12) speaks volumes regarding the millennium, and as for Prov.3:5; yes-why can't we just rest on those gracious words? how much more at peace we would all be!
    The Shekinah glory is what put the "cat among the pigeons" as it were, the Shekinah glory was the peculiar distinction of the first temple. The Shekinah glory did NOT take residence in the second temple, which proves that Ezekiel the priest's prophecy was of a temple yet future to the time when the incarnate Deity tread His earth! How can a-millennialists deal with this? they can't! hence replacement theology. We are told HOW the first temple was constructed, this one, I believe will happen in an instant (God's creative power!). Eight long (and I believe some would say, most wearisome) chapters are devoted to this future temple, yet it is a most profitable study. I also believe the heavenly city will be visible from the earth in the millennium.
    Though the Shekinah was not resident in the temple, it is of note that the Lord Jesus told sinners to go the the priests (Matt.8:4) this was done as a "testimony" I believe that we can also apply Matt.3:15 to this.

    As to how Satan can deceive so many when he is loosed from the pit at the end of the millennium is also quite remarkable, but then, how was it that so many that witnessed the parting of the red sea perished? The witnessing of miracles couldn't make one believe! They saw the Shekinah glory!!

    I believe that you have asked some very pertinent questions on the "millennial question", it is so very good that you don't blindly follow the Prasch's, Nathan's, Randles, Frutchtenbaum's of this world as many are wont to do. I would far, far, rather spend my time on Bible study rather than attacking Prasch and company, make no mistake about that! But, as contenders for truth we should not shy back from asking these Gospel peddlers (for that is what they are) 'awkward' questions, for they make their living on God's word. The aforesaid names have been long called "discernment ministries", yet we see that their teachings "miss the mark" (sin). I have spent the last few mornings reading through the last eight chapters of Ezekiel, and will spend (God willing) much more time on the "millennial question".
    Ever remember that we can only please God through faith (Heb.11:6). Faith is a very peculiar thing, for we BELIEVE not through what we can see (Rom.8:24).

    God bless.

  29. I cannot agree with DN that millennial believers will never receive the same eternal atonement or be allowed into the eternal kingdom. I am convinced that Israel will be restored as God's wife. "I will betroth you to me forever… " Hosea 2:2

    The remaining believers from the nations will make the same choice as us in resisting Satan and choosing to follow Jesus Christ. I do have difficulty about anyone who has taken the mark of the beast during the tribulation going into the millennium. There will be some adults from the nations i.e. women and some men? Children and those born during the millennium I can understand will be given a chance.

    The millennium is a temporary period, just as the OT was before Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. People will still have their mortal bodies during this period and will be unable to cope with Jesus' glory?? Are the sacrifices a temporary measure during this period?

    Regarding the new heaven and the new earth: "The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son." Revelation 21:7. If millennial believers WILL BE God's sons then they will be on the same footing as us? At what point does their resurrection take place - at the end of the millennium?

    God bless.

  30. The word Shekinah does not appear in the bible. Nevertheless the concept does -

    Solomon's Temple and the glory of the Lord:

    As soon as Solomon finished his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the Lord filled the temple. And the priests could not enter the house of the Lord, because the glory of the Lord filled the Lord’s house.2 Chronicles 7:1-2

    God bless.

  31. Treena,
    Certainly, I agree with you regarding Nathan's dreadful error teaching "millennial believers will never receive the same eternal atonement..."

    Pre-trib Dispensational doctrine has poisoned the waters with respect to law and grace. The PLAIN FACT OF THE MATTER IS THIS-unbiblical pre-trib theology at its inception taught that OT believers were NOT saved by grace but only through their observance of the law!
    Darby, and his followers went on to teach that the church and Israel were two totally separate entities-that the NT church were "under grace" the OT Israelite's were under law! This wicked theology (for that is what it is) has utterly confused people to this very day. It teaches TWO distinct salvation's; one for the NT church (pre-trib rapture-the 'heavenly' people) and one for the OT Israelite's (the so-called 'earthly' people). Dispensationalism's treatment of the Olivet discourse (Matt.24-25) teaches that if the disciples asked the question of the time of the Lord's return in these chapters AS THE FOUNDERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH, then the pre-trib rapture theory becomes untenable. The disciples on the Dispensational scheme, must therefore not be identified with the Church, but with THE NATION OF ISRAEL. And yet they are IN THE CHURCH! Dispensationalism is ANOTHER gospel.

    Nathan says that in the millennium "everything reverts back under law" and Prasch is nodding away in agreement, though looking awfully confused at the same time. However, the truth is that the "age of grace" and the "church age" (OT & NT ecclesia) will end at the great white throne, ONE group of called out people in every age. Clearly it can be seen that these men are teaching two ways of salvation, yet what does Acts 4:12 & John 14:6 plainly declare?

    I realise that Prasch and Nathan don't teach a pre-trib rapture per se, but Dispensational theology has utterly corrupted their thinking, hence their shocking statements.

    God bless.

  32. I have been thinking about the Age of Grace Colin. Grace must continue during the millennium. How will believers enter the eternal state without it?

    The phrase "the door was shut" is qualified in that it refers to "the other virgins/the foolish virgins" prior to the return of Jesus Christ. (Matthew 25:2-11). It does not refer to the millennium at all.

    This subject needs a lot of thinking through.

    God bless.

  33. I happened upon your comments and would like to correct a misconception.
    I do not believe that those who are faithful in the Millennium will not enter into eternity when God recreates the heavens and earth. I have never taught this or suggested this at all. Perhaps if folk took time to listen and watch what I actually have taught on the subject there would not be so much speculation, assumption and opinion as to what I actually believe and teach.

    One thing I have now come to appreciate is that fully understanding salvation in the Millennium is more complex than we can imagine and as such we should not be dogmatic about our individual understanding.

    When the disciples asked Jesus if He would establish His kingdom in Acts chapter 1, Jesus responded by telling them to focus on being witnesses and making disciples and leaving the Millennial Kingdom to its own time and season.
    Ours is to be ready for the Lord’s return and to be found loving Him and one another, exhorting each other as the day of His return draws ever nearer.

    Blessings in our precious Lord,
    David Nathan

  34. Exactly! how can any enter into the eternal state without His grace; such a thought is utterly preposterous! "By grace ye are saved" Eph.2:5, but not in the millennium according to Prasch & Nathan! what of the everlasting gospel?

    Certainly this subject does need "a lot of thinking", however if we deny basic simple truths and adopt unbiblical theology, I have no doubt that God will allow us to fall in the ditch, see Mat.15:14.
    God bless.

  35. Colin,

    Prasch and David studied the Mellinnum a great deal. They are not simply making up theology out of thin air, it is based on the entirety of scripture based on all the scripture that supposedly has to do with the Millennium. It is those scriptures that tell us THE LAW WILL PROCEED OUT OF THE MOUNTAIN OF ZION. It is these verses that tell us that Animals will make ATONEMENT. Atonement for what?? Why will the law proceed out of Zion during the millennium? Why must gentiles be circumcised for temple entrance if Christ has torn the veil and opened up communion with God, and the need for circumcision is said to be nullified? Why will gentiles be punished if they do not keep the feasts?

    Most certainly Prasch and David are not thinking under darbyism that is just totally illogical.

    How does grace continue with all of these contradictory requirements in millennial scripture of the old testament?

  36. Dear Brethren

    Having happened upon your comments I see that many are not familiar with what I have actually taught or believe yet state quite categorically in some of your comments things that I have simply never taught or believed.
    If you are wanting to know what I have taught regarding the Millennium and the final chapters of Revelation, you are welcome to view the teachings I have done on this on our YouTube channel at



    I am the first to admit that there is so much that we cannot understand regarding this time that the Lord has placed in His own hands. I have always maintained that although it is interesting to consider these things, it is of little value to our personal walks with the Lord or with the great commission to make disciples in His name.

    Let us rather focus on building one another up and exhorting each other, especially as the day of His return draws ever closer.

    As the apostle Paul wrote to the strife-full believers in Corinth (1 Corinthians 13:8-13), let us consider his exhortation by the Holy Spirit,

    "Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
    And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

    Blessings in Him whose blood alone can save and redeem us unto the Father.
    David Nathan

  37. Just to bring Clarity,

    "Anonymous " who has been speaking and responding to Colin and Treena is not David N. whom has clarified in his two comments that is him. I will go by AGAPE ANONYMOUS.


  38. I read 2 Timothy 2:16 about avoiding vain babblings, here is a commentary on it.

    Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
    (16) But shun profane and vain babblings.—But, in strong contrast to the conduct just urged, on the workman of God, do thou avoid (or, withdraw thyself from) vain babblings. The word rendered “shun” is a strong one, and signifies literally, to make a circuit so as to avoid; or, as Alford paraphrases it, “the meaning seems to come from a number of persons falling back from an object of fear or loathing, and standing at a distance round it.” The word is used in Titus 3:9. On the words “profane,” “vain-babblings,” see 1Timothy 6:20.
    For they will increase unto more ungodliness.—Better translated, for they will advance unto . . . The tendency of these useless discussions and idle disputes is to lead men into vain and profitless speculations, which end too often—as in the case, cited below, of Hymenæus and Philetus—in the most fatal doctrinal error. The close connection between grave fundamental errors in doctrine and a lax and purely selfish life is constantly alluded to by St. Paul.

    I know that scripture is been discussed regarding the Millennium but much of what has been said is mere speculation and the danger is that speculation leads to serious error. I am concerned that pride and competitiveness has led to much sin in this situation. I remember Dave Hunt, a man I greatly respected but didn't always agree with, saying when his wife asked him what something meant in scripture,his answer was often " I don't know". Maybe just saying sometimes "I don't know"! is the best answer.

  39. I would respectfully dismiss Anonymous's comment when he says "Prasch and David studied the millennium a great deal. They are not simply making up theology..." It is my contention that they ARE doing just THAT! Prasch's awful intra-seal theology for starters is of his OWN making (ask Treena!). I suggest Anonymous read through the previous posts on this thread and he MAY start to understand? Nathan may not have taught Prasch's exact same error, nevertheless, he has made some VERY ill advised (his former friends would say "heretical") statements.

    Prasch and Nathan ARE on record as teaching TWO gospels-this IS a plain and undeniable fact. Granted, it is mostly by INFERENCE, NOT BY PLAIN SPEECH, nevertheless, it IS plainly THERE for all who have the eyes to see it. I don't want to keep repeating myself, but Prasch and Nathan HAVE clearly been influenced by Darbyism, for Darby taught the very SAME theology in respect of two separate ways of salvation (one by works-observance of the law) for Israel, and one for the PREDOMINANTLY Gentile church-through grace.
    There is NOTHING "contradictory" in the Old Testament Scriptures as Anonymous asserts, no, NO NOT ONE THING! It is only our understanding of unfulfilled prophecy that is lacking, NOT the inspired written word of God. Lets get our premises right, shall we? or we will all be lost at at sea! Anonymous, what you assert is akin to the Marcionite heresy.

    Let us not forget that these men are heading up international ministries, (or I would rather, HAVE BEEN), so to make the scandalous unbiblical statements that they have made is NO small matter. These were NO UNGUARDED statements-how many people have they led astray, I ask?

    I don't know what Prasch and Nathan believe at the present moment, but one thing I DO know is this; I for one WON'T waste one tiny little nano second of my time listening to anything they have to say on theology.

  40. I can and I have completely dismissed Jacob Prasch as an honest bible teacher and even as an honest person as you know Colin. I cannot say the same about David Nathan however. In my limited interaction with him I have found him to be a humble and honest person.

    As far as "vain babblings" are concerned, there is a danger of speculation involved with this subject. Nevertheless John Steele.. I have found it to be a valuable experience doing this study and I have gained a some clarity on the issues.

    God bless.

  41. Colin,

    in other words you have absolutely no answer. A lot of blusterous words and condescending paragraphs. You want the cake and to eat it too. You want the millennium literally, you want the grace of eternality, and you want the literalism of the old testament possible millennial verses. You can’t have them all Collin. Or at least you have to propose a thought out answer to the dilemma. If you have no theological well thought out answer to the millennial problem Then peace and blessings. And as David Nathan states let’s get back to the basics. Any final plausible answers? Simply calling everyone a heretic won't do, and for your info, Jacob absolutely detests Darby. He did a whole ANTI pretrib documentary with Joe Schimmel which angered a lot of Darby fans and pre trip fans. Its simply not evidenced by anything.

    I am wanting understand this drastic rapture debate of which Prasch seems to state that near the end of the 7 years, at the 6th seal the rapture will occur. What is your view Treena? And what is your view Collin? Feel free to actually address the issues and the people talking instead of third person beating around the bush sir (Collin) :)



  42. I am convinced that the pre-wrath view is correct Anonymous. This puts the rapture in between the sixth and seventh seal of Revelation and avoids Prasch's errors. Alan Kurschner is the man to read/listen to on this subject. There is also a very comprehensive pre-wrath study available by Paul Dorgan on YouTube.


    God bless.

  43. Anonymous,
    I would far rather be falsely accused of bluster and condescending, than being exposed as a liar or a heretic-thank you! I know Nathan would have me down as a heretic, but here I digress.

    The millennium is a subject that has vexed many of God's children, of that there is no doubt! Nevertheless, I am 100% certain that God's word CLEARLY teaches Christ's Second Advent will be pre-millennial, so how can it not be a profitable study? To take God's grace out of the period and teach salvation by the keeping of temple rites, is an altogether different matter. We know what Prasch and Nathan have said on these things, Prasch has been exposed as a liar, so we don't listen to him. no doubt Nathan has a far more humble demeanor than Prasch (it would be difficult not to!) nevertheless, he too has been caught telling untruths. Somewhere on this blog (I believe), he STRONGLY denied making a particular statement in an interview with Stewart Menelaws (the particular issue escapes my mind at present) and subsequently he was proven to be untruthful! (maybe Treena would enlighten us?).

    I don't see "eye to eye" on many theological issues with Treena, but lets try hard to be honest? We can call many our brothers and sisters in Christ, even though we disagree on much! But to speak lightly of the Atonement, and God's grace, through the blood of Christ is something else!

    I am very well aware what Prasch has said about Darby, I have read his books, and heard him speak on many occasions! but, as we know, he speaks with a forked tongue! I have only ever maintained that he has been INFLUENCED by Dispensationalism, he has just put the rapture in a different place, and has been dogmatic (wrongly-so) on the identity of the restrainer, and other things.

    As for myself, I believe that the rapture will be post tribulation, and is one and the self SAME event as the Second Advent; ushering in the Day of the Lord. (Historic pre-millennialism).
    God bless.

  44. I think you are referring to a video that Stewart Menelaws posted of a Q&A at Bill Randles church Colin. The small excerpt from the Q&A didn’t include a previous segment of teaching by DN that Moriel and Randles objected to. I have been assured by Deborah Menelaws that this was an entirely innocent and that it was not done in order to deceive anyone. As the Menelaws have been truthful in every other respect, I believe that this was the case. As far as I am aware David Nathan has not been untruthful.

    I am keen for accuracy regarding what David Nathan actually said regarding the millennium and I have been listening to him again:

    Eschatology 2017 - Part 11 - The Millennium

    DN: "Once the rapture takes place, no one for all eternity will ever be saved as we are.. There is no second chance for salvation as we know it.." (about 30 minutes in)
    It is here he talks about the wedding and the door being shut etc.

    The difficulty I have is that he says "saved as we are" and "salvation as we know it".

    Actually Prasch is in full agreement with DN on this aspect of salvation during the millennium. However, I find it immensely problematic.

    God bless.

  45. I have added a few further thoughts to the main body of this post as I continue to think about the subject of the millennium:

    The distinction between "the people of God" and "the family of God" is problematic.
    Both these terms are used for believers in both the OT and the NT.
    The phrase "the door is shut" is also problematic, since it is qualified in Matthew 25:2-11 by the other/foolish virgins.
    Can the reintroduction of the Law (albeit modified) change the grace of God and eternal salvation for millennial believers? This is an enormous claim to make!
    David Nathan taught it emphatically and Prasch has emphatically agreed.
    I think they are both playing with fire!
    God bless.

  46. The grace of God is eternal!

    It has been supposed by some that because "THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST-BORN ONES" enter upon the Church's corporate standing of glory in the heavenly city at the commencement of the Millennium, therefore no others can be subsequently admitted. They have reasoned on the supposition that when once a corporate position has been formally taken, it is impossible that any individuals should afterward be admitted into that position or its privileges. But is it so? Take Israel for an example. Do they not, at the commencement of the Millennium, assume their CORPORATE standing in the earth? Are they not at that time regarded as the earthly Bride, married unto the Lord their God? "THY MAKER IS THY HUSBAND." (Is.54:5. See also Is.62:5.) "THOU SHALT CALL ME ISHI," i.e. my husband (Hosea 2:16). "i WILL BETROTH THEE UNTO ME FOREVER." (Hosea 2:19). Such is the corporate relation of Israel to their God at the commencement of the Millennium. But millions of individuals will be added to Israel and be made partakers of their privileges as the Millennium proceeds. It is, therefore untrue that the possession of a corporate standing necessarily forbids the addition of individuals. Abundant examples of the reverse may be found both in the arrangements of men and of God. In the PERSONAL glory of "THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST BORN ONES," the millennial saints will see an example and pledge of their own PERSONAL glory: in the COLLECTIVE glory of the Heavenly City, they will an example and pledge of that COLLECTIVE glory which they will finally inherit in the New Heavens and New Earth.
    (Capitalization-italics in original)

    Page 20-21 The Millennium And Israel's Future. B.W.Newton.

    The book is well worth reading.

    God bless.

  47. I have found a link for BW Newton: https://www.brethrenarchive.org/media/360530/israel_s_prospects_in_the_millennium.pdf

    BW Newton: "Ever remember then, that “the Church,” in its eternal sense,
    means all the redeemed—all of every dispensation who
    have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. Remem
    ber too that there is no redemption apart from union
    with the person of the Redeemer. Remember these
    two great truths, and they will be to you as beacons
    to guard you against those quicksands and shoals of
    error on which many are making shipwreck touching
    these things.

    But although the final condition of the redeemed,
    when together brought into the new Heavens and new
    earth will be one, yet they who are not raised, and,
    consequently, not glorified, until the end of the thousand
    years, cannot of course share with the Church of the
    first-born, the glories of the millennial reign of Christ.
    They who rise in the first resurrection will alone share
    the glories of Christ, during the time that he is subduing
    all enemies. During the millennium they only will be
    the partners of His Throne. Yet great as this blessing
    is—distinctive as is this honour, it is temporary only.
    The power of the millennial kingdom, assumed when
    the Son of man is brought before the Ancient of days
    to be invested therewith, is to be laid down as soon as
    He shall have subdued all things, and destroyed a... last
    enemy. It is a temporary dispensation therefore; and
    nothing temporary can be weighed in the scale against
    that which is final and everlasting. The personal glory
    of the redeemed as made like unto their risen Lord—
    their “reigning in life,” and their employment in the
    government of God, will not terminate with the millen

    BW Newton expresses it just as I understand it myself Colin.
    God bless.

  48. Newton is so right! It is so 'simple' if only we would stick to PLAIN GOSPEL TRUTH.
    It is not too difficult to know what he would make of Prasch and Nathan's 'teachings', is it??
    God bless

  49. I don't hold out much hope for Prasch, but maybe DN will read this link and think about it Colin.
    God bless.

  50. I think that's a bit unfair Treena. David has maintained for months now that his focus is and remains on the gospel of this age and has ceased from speculation. We have delved into the topic here and had a productive conversation, Yes I even appreciate the comments of Mr. Colin who is quite a character :) To continue to judge David for his past views is quite wrong I believe. And I maintain that the Millennium is an issue we will not know until that day we are in our resurrected bodies. I do certainly believe that if the Lord chose to have others whom inherit the earth, and yet still had a large portion of Jewish elders of the Bride who would also rule on the 24 thrones, then all things are possible with God. I do not believe that a speculative view is "playing with fire". However as I said David's speculative view has been put on the back burner and that is certainly commendable to me. I don't even judge Jacob for holding his view, I only take issue with his dogmatism when it. comes to the Millennium.


  51. ..and yet DN continues to keep his unscriptural millennial teaching online?? They are not his "past views" - they are his current views. I have requested that he retract them and he has refused.
    God bless.

  52. Anonymous says; Nathan's "...focus is and remains on THE GOSPEL OF THIS AGE and has ceased from speculation." (my emphasis).

    Whoa!!! this IS Dispensational thinking! Anonymous's statement most strongly infers that there IS ANOTHER gospel in the future age (millennium), as there was (so they believe) in the OT age. Until Dispensationalism wreaked havoc in the Church of Christ from circa 1830, orthodox gospel truth was that there is but ONE way of salvation-in ALL ages for Jews and Gentiles, from Abel to the great white throne. Anonymous might not be quite aware of the gravity of Nathan's erroneous teachings, for IF there is another gospel for the Jews/Israel in the present age, as many errantly think, then it may be that in "this age" Nathan and such of his mindset may not be compelled to preach it to his unsaved Jewish friends and relatives that still carry on in Talmudic Judaism? A pernicious error!

    Galatians 1:8 teaches in no uncertain language the destiny of those who would preach another gospel!

    Prasch and Nathan have taught that in the millennium, (and to the best of my knowledge, continue to do so) that "it all reverts back under law - and there will be salvation, but not as we now know it", (I have heard them with my own ears!)-what is this but another gospel???

    I believe Treena has it right-they ARE "playing with fire!"

    I would suggest that Anonymous meditate on Titus 2:11, and 1 Pet.5:10, and learn that salvation is entirely by God's grace ALONE; in the past, present, and future, one "everlasting gospel" Rev.14:6.

    God bless.

  53. Colin I like your writing style, your zeal, and your imaginative guilt by association. I feel the passion behind your words! However, until you can explain to me Ezekiel 44:9, Isaiah 2:3, Ezekiel 45:20, then all your passionate discourse is simply Pathos without Ethos nor Logos. I hold my breath and wait for a honest courageous scriptureal response, I continue to offer the challenge to you to put your money where your keyboard is. But I shall not wait too long as I have been highly disappointed. How bout it, STILL waiting for a bold attempt. care to venture into a scriptural attempt to solve the problem? Or give us another eloquent river of empty swelling words meant to be taken for conviction? We wait on Brother, we wait on.

    Agape Anonymous

  54. The terrible attack launched against David Nathan by Prasch was truly awful.. and yet I understand how the Lord does sometimes use His enemies as a way to discipline His children. Israel is the "apple of God's eye" (Zechariah 2:8). Anyone who touches Israel either by word or deed is playing with fire. Speculation concerning the scriptures is not acceptable no matter what the subject. We should be seeking exegesis not eisegesis. This is not a personal attack on DN, but now I have come to understand the subject better, it comes to mind that to deny Israel as God's wife, although now temporarily estranged, is an outrage to the Lord.
    God bless.

  55. I really don't see any difficulty in those passages of Scripture that our anonymous friend quotes above, I believe they explain themselves. The difficulty exists only when we put on incorrect theological glasses to interpret them! In the millennium, as in the OT era, there will be a massive distinction between the Gentile nations and Israel, we all know this, so what is the problem? Nevertheless, I will be only too happy to address any particular difficulties, if he would tell us his main concerns. Although, I do believe we have been through much of this?
    God bless.

    I may not be able to reply until tomorrow, as I am travelling today.
    I agree, Prasch's attack on Nathan was/is WELL "beyond the pale".

  56. Ok Colin let's break it down and respond when you can. lets compare some verses...

    Ezekiel 44:9 King James Version (KJV)

    9 Thus saith the Lord God; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel. (Gentiles must be circumcised to come to the sanctuary of Israel
    Galations 5:2
    2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that IF YOU LET YOURSELVES BE CIRCUMCISED, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
    Galatians 3:28 New International Version (NIV)

    28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
    Hebrews 4:15-16
    15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

    16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

    Let's begin here. We see that gentiles in the Millennium will be forced to be circumcised to come to the Sanctuary, however Paul makes it very clear we are not to go back to circumcision, and there is neither Jew nor gentile any more, and Jesus has torn the veil of the sanctuary. We are all one in Christ now, we all can come boldly to the throne, and we all can.

    So which is it Colin? Are we free from the law of circumcision, are we all one body with the Jews as we are grafted in so there is neither Jew nor Gentile, is the Temple now open and the Veil torn?? Which is it?

  57. Some recent thoughts I had concerning the topic. (please Colin respond to my last post before expounding beautifully on this one thank you)

    Psalm 103
    19 The Lord has established his throne in heaven,
    and his kingdom rules over all.
    20 Praise the Lord, you his angels,
    you mighty ones who do his bidding,
    who obey his word.
    21 Praise the Lord, all his heavenly hosts,
    you his servants who do his will.
    22 Praise the Lord, all his works
    everywhere in his dominion.

    The angels Obey the word of the Lord, they possess a form of righteousness and apparent sinlessness in heaven to be in fellowship with him. They clearly are not under the necessity of sacrifice or redemption and have remained faithful to the Lord.

    Adam and Eve may have been created by God to not sin meaning God may have desired them to not need the sacrifice of the son, correct?

    Also, God has had limited fellowship with humanity even in their fallen sinful state.

    It then would seem to be possible that God could have an earthly group of people, post grace covenant of which may not possess resurrected bodies but live in a sinless earthly state as Adam and Eve once did.

    Is it so heretical to even ponder such a possibility? Clearly not. It does not limit the blood of Christ in any way because none of us assume that Christs redemptive purpose is incapable certainly not! Simply we are wanting to decipher what God's intended purposes are as we contemplate celestial justice, and his eternal kingdom. I think when we look through the scriptures is not blasphemy to contemplate the possibly nor would it necessarily violate scripture as we understand it. However in consideration I would urge all to remember that this is only a possibility and never to be understood as theology nor to be confidently stated even as a probablility only to be contemplated and explored. We cannot be afraid to use our brains at God has given us and is not offended by being able to consider things that may initially seem to go against or preconceived notions as long as we use scripture as our perfect guide.

    Blessings Agape A.

  58. I obviously don't know what you and DN have personally talked about, but I believe it has been important for him to leave his teachings up as if they would have all been deleted many would have believed he was hiding them. Prasch put out a big dishonest campaign against him and people needed to be able to refer to the teachings to see all the cards on the table. Also, DN states in said teachings that eschatology is exciting to study and learn but does not really apply directly to the church as it is the Gospel that is what should be focused on (I know you said you watched them so you know what I mean).

    David has tons of teachings on marriage, faith, the christian life, making God your first love, and then he has his eschatology teachings which are mostly standard teaching for knowledgeable christians. I read in your book that you even agree with him on the restrainer being Michael. Well the only teaching of controversy remains the Millennium. David has his logical reasons for concluding what he concludes though I see why it is controversial.

    I would rather not delve into the errors of Bill Randles who continued to pronounce judgement no matter what DN did. We all must follow our own conscience however so that is my own judgement on the issue.

    On a separate note thank you for that great article on Bill Johnson, the grave honoring is something I was completely unaware of and is deeply disturbing and very worthy of bringing to light, thank you for your articles I have enjoyed several of them now.


  59. I think it is a red herring to say that eschatology is not important, or that it is only for "knowledgeable Christians".

    David Nathan says: "I have always maintained that although it is interesting to consider these things, it is of little value to our personal walks with the Lord or with the great commission to make disciples in His name..Let us rather focus on building one another up and exhorting each other..

    One third of the bible is prophecy!

    "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," (2 Timothy 3:16).

    David Nathan taught his theory emphatically in 2017..and since his video remains on YouTube, he obviously thinks it is still relevant. I find his comments unacceptable.

    You say: "Adam and Eve may have been created by God to not sin meaning God may have desired them to not need the sacrifice of the son, correct?"

    The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8).

    “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8)

    There has always been grace in every age Anonymous..

    Your arguments do not make sense.

    God bless.

  60. Anonymous,
    Those verses explain themselves as clear as "a morning without clouds" 2 Samuel 23:4.

    There is no contradiction between Ezekiel 44:9 & Galatians 5:2, to say that there is would be akin to saying God's written word is not inspired! The difficulty here is not the Scriptures; they are not opposed to each other. it is our understanding of them (as always) where any difficulty ever lies. No uncircumcised in the FLESH could enter the sanctuary in the Aaronic tabernacle, yet look what happened to Nadab and Abihu? (Leviticus 10:1-3). Clearly they WERE circumcised on the eighth day, but they were NOT circumcised in heart, that much was obvious! If God in the millennium requires those who would enter His sanctuary to be circumcised in the flesh, what is the problem? I see none, do you? Would you contend with Him?
    As to Galatians 5:2, Paul is expounding on SALVATION! Many Jews in our present age who have been circumcised that have come to saving faith in Christ (and those who will yet come to faith) will KNOW that "Christ will profit you nothing" IF they REST on the rite of circumcision to save them-that is all, and if they be in such a dark place as that, then they become "a debtor to do the whole law"; what bondage! for NO man, the Saviour apart could keep it! I have absolutely no problem with Jewish believers circumcising their children (or Gentiles!) in the present hour; as long as they are NOT under the strange delusion that this rite has any saving grace-for it has zilch! (such as the RCC apply to baptismal regeneration). "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." 1 Corinthians 7:19. Read Paul's 'impressive' pedigree in the flesh (Philippians 3:4-6) before his supernatural conversion (come to think of it-ALL conversions are!), yet HELL-BOUND he WAS! Paul confessed that his boastful pedigree (read the full context in Philippians-the whole chapter) was WORTHLESS in Galatians 5!

    Who is forcing who to be circumcised? Is God forcing you to obey the Commandments? "If ye love Me, keep My commandments." John:14:15!
    This is no new thing, for strangers (Gentiles) were commanded to be circumcised if they were to partake of the Passover (Exodus 12:48), such WILL be the case regarding the sanctuary in Ezekiel 44:9. Many Jews because they 'observed' the law believed they were God's elect; that they had Abraham as their father (but only in the flesh), but what did the Baptist say to them? read Luke 3:8, in this verse, the "stones" are the Gentiles, who were as dead as the unbelieving Jews, yes DEAD as stones WITHOUT His saving grace!

    It is obvious why Nathan, Prasch & others, have made such calamitous statements, for they believe law and grace ARE opposed to each other! they are not; this is the error of Dispensationalism. Grace and law are in perfect harmony, they are inseparable, you cannot have grace without God's law. Our attitude should be the same as David in Psalm 119:97-God's law is written on the true believer's heart (Jeremiah 31:33, Romans 2:15, Hebrews 10:16 etc), this is God's grace.

    What is God but grace? He is "upholding all things by the word of His power" Hebrews 1:3. He is "the God of all grace" 1 Peter 5:10. People might speculate on eschatology, but biblical eschatology is not speculative, truth is singular, error plural. Paul declared "the whole counsel of God" Acts 20:27, eschatology is part of that counsel. "Post grace" whoever heard of such a thing!?

    The blame for all this lies at the door of the wicked teaching of Dispensationalism which created the doctrine of two distinct salvation's! from whence people think "the age of grace" is peculiarly from the cross to the millennium. No! "Now is the day of salvation" 2 Corinthians 6:2 will apply to the millennium as well, remember, the gospel is "everlasting" Revelation 14:6.

    God bless.

  61. Treena,
    That last comment of yours is so apt-hits the bulls-eye!
    God bless

  62. Collin,

    You conflate your own Millennial view with "akin to saying God's written word is not inspired! " This is quite an error. You are claiming that your interpretation of Millennial events is authoritative which is dangerous.

    Treena would agree I believe that the 1,000 years indeed very complex and even Treena has stated it is only in the past month that she has gotten more of a grip on her own views on the topic.

    Revelation 20 in all but three or so verses is there any concrete New Testament info on the Millennium. Show me ONE out testament scripture which speaks of one thousand years as does revelation 20. It does not exist. There is none. Zero Zilch. We are left then to make a bit of a faith leap to assume that the millennium is literal, and that Ezekiel's description of Jewish reign is this time period however to be dogmatic about it is presumptive and indeed a great error.

    You are also quite wrong on your desperate attempt to interpret Galations 5 as simply having to do with salvation. The entirety of Paul's writings are to explain that we should never go back to the covenant of the LAW because it is death to do so. Being forced to be circumcised under punishment is quite exactly what Paul tells the jews is nullifying the covenant of grace. I can't seem to understand how you do not understand this. The circle simply does not fit the square peg. Paul explains in Romans, Galations, and in Acts that to force people to keep the laws that "even our forefathers could not bare" is putting you outside the saving grace of God.

    I can lay out an airtight scriptural study here if needed to show you this but as you seem to be fairly biblically knowledgable I would assume you know the scriptures I am talking about.

    To clarify to Treena, I stated it poorly about Adam and Eve. To clarify, though Christ's redemptive work was from the beginning of Time, God had perfect fellowship with Adam and Even until the point in Time of which sin entered humanity. Time plays out different in our world then God's timeless eternity. It would seem reasonable to assume that God did desire that sin had never entered the world though he knew it was inevitable. That would be to say that before the time that Adam and Eve had fallen, they had no need at that point of the shedding of blood.

    We can discuss that topic in full after my main man Mr. Colin here responds again, as I will hold him to the difficulty at hand until he decides to not dance around it and help solve this mystery.

    Blessings and happy Sabbath to you and I am absolutely enjoying this thread :)