Pre-Millennial Return Theory is logically incompatible with numerous prophecies. For just one example, most versions of a pre-millennial return tell us that the saints will be brought back to the Land of Israel by supernatural means (i.e., in a cloud, or in a ‘Rapture,’ or a ‘catching away’ of some kind). This idea is contrary to the prophecy over the return of the Lost Ten Tribes given in Isaiah 66:20-21, which tells us that the tribes (i.e., the Christians) will return back to the Land of Israel by natural means (and not supernatural ones).

 

 

 

One can well imagine that the horses, chariots, litters, mules and camels of this passage are the trains, planes, automobiles and buses of the modern era. However, what we need to see is that Isaiah does not speak of the Lost Ten Tribes returning to the Land of Israel by supernatural means, but by natural ones. It does not say they will return to the Land in a cloud.

The second witness that Pre-Millennial Return Theory is wrong is found in Jeremiah. Speaking also of the time of the return of the Lost Ten Tribes (at the beginning of the Millennium), Jeremiah 3:18 tells us:

 

 

This verse does not tell us that the Lost Ten Tribes will return back to the Land of Israel in a cloud; but that they will ‘walk’ back home to the Land. While Jeremiah may be speaking in symbolic language, he never speaks of a supernatural means of return (such as being caught up in a cloud). Rather, he only speaks of natural ones (such as walking).

 

Now we begin with the logical-dilemma proofs. These are all based on the fact that all Scripture is inspired, and is given by inspiration of Elohim.

 

In his second epistle to Timothy, the Apostle Shaul tells us that all Scripture is given by inspiration of Elohim:

 

If all Scripture is given by inspiration of Elohim, and if all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, then whatever doctrines we have must agree with all of Scripture. However, Pre-Millennial Return Theory fails this test.

 

As we explain in the Nazarene Israel study, Yeshua told us not to think that He was sent to do away with even the smallest part of the Torah (the Law of Moses), or of the Prophets.

 

 

 

 

For example, Genesis 49:22-24 speaks of a great national leader who will arise from the Tribe of Joseph. This is an important passage, so let us look at it in the original Hebrew.

 

 

 

Verse 24 tells us that there would be a man called ‘the Shepherd,’ and ‘The Stone of Israel.’ However, this man would not arise from the Tribe of Judah (as Yeshua did), but from the Tribe of Joseph:

 

 

It might at first seem baffling that any shepherd would ever arise from the Tribe of Joseph. After all, Yeshua tells us that He is the Good Shepherd.

 

 

 

Yeshua, however, did not arise from the Tribe of Joseph, but from the Tribe of Judah.

 

 

 

Further, how can Genesis 49:24 speak of the ‘Stone of Israel’ coming from Joseph? Isaiah tells us Yeshua is the Stone of Stumbling, and the Rock of Offense.

 

However, once again we are left with the logical contradiction that while Yeshua was from the Tribe of Judah, Genesis 49:24 speaks of a ‘Stone of Israel’ that comes from the Tribe of Joseph.

 

No one can born into both the Tribe of Joseph, and the Tribe of Judah (not even Yeshua); and as we will see, this also gives us yet one more witness as to why Yeshua cannot possibly come back to earth at the start of the Millennium.

 

In Isaiah 42:8, YHWH tells us that He will not share His glory with any human being.

 

 

 

In addition to this, Yeshua tells us that He and His Father are one.

 

 

 

We talk more about the nature of Yeshua in the study, ‘Manifestation of Elohim’ available on the Free Studies page at www.nazareneisrael.org. The question we need to be asking here, however, is that if Yeshua and His Father are one, and if YHWH the Father will not share His glory with any other, then why would Yeshua share His glory? Does it make any sense that the Lion of the Tribe of Judah would share His glory with a mortal human being? And if not, then what should we do with the prophecy at Genesis 49:24?

If Yeshua hypothetically returns at the start of the Millennium, to rule and reign supreme over the earth with a rod of iron, would He not have to share at least some of His power and glory with a man who earns the moniker, ‘The Shepherd, the Stone of Israel?’

 

If a man from the Tribe of Joseph earns the name, ‘The Shepherd, the Stone of Israel,’ then surely he will have some kind of power and glory. However, if Yeshua returns at the start of the Millennium, to rule and reign supreme (and if He will not share His power or glory with another), then how can this man called ‘The Shepherd, the Stone of Israel’ ever earn his name? How can he earn this glory, if Yeshua has it all?

 

Further, what need would there be for a great national leader to arise from the Tribe of Joseph if Yeshua is already ruling and reigning supreme, sharing His power and glory with no man? Would it not be an insult to the Son of Elohim, to have to share his power and glory with a mortal human being?

 

What should we do in cases where we find a passage in prophecy that does not fit with Pre-Millennial Return Theory? Should we ignore that passage because it does not fit with our theory? Or should we abandon the theory instead?

 

What should we do with passages such as Hosea 2:2 (1:11 in English versions), which speaks of a national leader for combined twelve-tribe Israel, which cannot logically be Yeshua? Do we ignore that passage also?

 

The Book of Hosea was written primarily for the House of Israel (or Ephraim). It speaks of how Ephraim was scattered, how Ephraim would be regathered, and then re-united with his brothers in Judah.

Remembering that Kepha tells us that one prophetic day can represent a thousand earth years (2^nd Peter 3:8), Hosea 6:2 tells us that the Ingathering of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel (Ephraim) will take place some two thousand years after some special event.

 

 

 

As we explain in the Nazarene Israel book, that ‘special event’ was the advent of the Messiah, who was born on-or-about 4 BCE, and whose ministry lasted from approximately 26 to 29 CE. Two thousand years after His birth (i.e., 1996), the House of Ephraim began to re-assemble; and it seems likely that there will also be special events approximately two thousand years after His ministry and His resurrection (circa 2026-2029 CE). This is perfectly in keeping with the Hebraic conception of a Messiah: one who vanquishes Israel’s enemies, and then brings the lost and scattered of Israel back to the eternal Covenant (the Torah). Yeshua is doing all of these things for His people (His Body), leading them by His Spirit.

 

Hosea 2:2 (1:11 in most English versions) speaks to the time when Yeshua’s Spirit has brought the House of Israel (Ephraim) back together, and has even re-united them with their brothers in Judah (at the start of the Sabbath Millennium, Hosea 6:2). When we read this prophecy carefully, we see that it implies that combined Israel will elect a leader for themselves (which cannot logically be Yeshua). What it says, specifically, is that Judah and Israel (Ephraim) shall ‘put’ (i.e., appoint, or elect) one head for themselves.

 

 

Proponents of a pre-millennial return insist that this passage refers to Yeshua. They say that when Yeshua returns to earth as the Conquering King (and the people are caught up to be with Him in the clouds), that all Israel will quite naturally want to follow Him. They will ‘elect’ Him, in that sense.

 

Once again, the pre-millennialist argument makes no sense. Zechariah 14 tells us that when Yeshua returns to earth, His feet will touch down on the Mount of Olives, splitting it in two.

 

This passage speaks of a very-much-larger-than-life-sized Yeshua. It speaks of a Yeshua so large that His feet will smash a small mountain (that is basically solid rock) in half. So when this very-much-larger-than-life-sized Yeshua returns to earth and His feet smash a solid rock mountain in half, are we going to stop and take an electoral vote, to see if we should appoint Him as our Head? And since Yeshua is not a respecter of persons in any way, why would He even care?

 

Picture it: the Conquering King stops, and allows His people to take a vote, to see whether they want to follow Him or not. Does it even make sense?

 

Consider the absurdity: In the day of His wrath, a man whose feet have just smashed a solid rock mountain in two will stop to recognize a popular vote? Just the thought of it would seem to make a mockery of His absolute power as a monarch.

 

So, since this elected (or ‘appointed’) head of Hosea 2:2 cannot logically be Yeshua, it must be a human; and now the same problem arises as before. If Yeshua comes at the start of the Millennium, to rule and reign supreme for a thousand years, then why would He share His power and glory with the man in Hosea 1:11?

 

This same problem crops up again in Jeremiah 30:6-9. Like most of the other passages we will mention, Jeremiah 30:6-9 speaks of the time of the Ingathering, and the re-establishment of a theological (religious) state in Israel. 

 

In Jeremiah 30:6-9, there is to be a ‘king’ in Israel who is ‘raised up’ from among the people. Since this king is ‘raised up’ (rather than coming down from the clouds), this cannot be Yeshua.

 

 

Who is David their king that is ‘raised up’ in this passage? We will talk more about spiritual resurrection later on in this book, but it cannot be Yeshua, for two reasons.

 

First, while Jeremiah was used to give this prophecy before the time of Yeshua’s ministry, it speaks of a time that is still in the future. The king being mentioned here will be ‘raised up’ (future tense) whereas Yeshua has already been raised up (past tense).

 

Second, while “David their king” will be raised up, the Book of Acts tells us that when Yeshua returns, He will come down from the heavens (in a cloud).

 

Being ‘raised up’ is not the same thing as being brought back down, so let us take a look at Acts One.

 

 

So now we have the same question as before: If Yeshua returns in the clouds, but ‘David their king’ will be ‘raised up,’ then who is ‘David their king’? And, if Yeshua will not share His power and glory with any man, is it possible that these men could co-exist?

 

Now, drop down a few verses to Jeremiah 30:18 (which still speaks about the time of the Ingathering, and the subsequent religious unification), and we will see yet another leader of the Nation of Israel, who also cannot logically be Yeshua.

 

 

 

Verse twenty-one is mistranslated in many English versions, so let us look at it in the Hebrew. Here we find one man who is called to draw near to YHWH, who is referred to both as Israel’s leader, and as Israel’s governor. Since this man will come from the midst (rather than from the clouds) he cannot be Yeshua.

 

Next let us consider Zechariah 3:8. 

 

The Orthodox Jews also agree that Zechariah 3:8 was fulfilled in Second Temple times (reference Ezra 3). However, since some verses seem to speak of future events, many Protestant and Messianic scholars believe that Zechariah 3:8 is still a future fulfillment. 

 

Because so many Protestants and Messianics believe Zechariah 3:8 has not yet been fulfilled, let us assume (for the purposes of discussion) that Zechariah 3:8 is still to be fulfilled. It would nonetheless speak of persons who cannot be Yeshua, because as we shall soon see, more than one person wears a crown.

 

 

 

Many believers think that Yeshua is this ‘Branch,’ because Isaiah 11:1 tells us that a ‘Branch’ would come forth from the root of Jesse (King David’s father).

 

The problem with this interpretation is that the reasoning is based on the English translations of the Hebrew, rather than on the Hebrew itself.

 

The word ‘Branch’ in Zechariah 3:8 is Tzemach (צֶמַח), whereas the word ‘Branch’ in Isaiah is Netzer (נֵצֶר). צֶמַח and נֵצֶר are completely different words; and yet because both of them translate to ‘Branch’ in English, Pre-Millennial Return Theory assumes that both of them refer to Yeshua. However, as we shall soon see, while Isaiah 11:1 does refer to Yeshua, Zechariah 3:8 does not.

 

Protestants and Messianics also tend to assume that Zechariah 3:8’s reference to Yehoshua the High Priest is a reference to Yeshua, simply because we are told that Yeshua is our High Priest in the heavenly realms.

 

 

 

Even assuming a future fulfillment, Yehoshua ben Yehotzedek is a different name than Yeshua ben Yosef (the Messiah). Further, just because Yeshua is our High Priest in the heavenly Tabernacle does not mean that Israel will never have another earthly (human) High Priest. In fact, if we read this passage closely, we should be able to see that Yehoshua the High Priest is not even one-in-the-same person as the ‘Branch’ (who will allegedly build Ezekiel’s Temple). Zechariah 3:8 shows us that these are (or actually, were) two separate people.

 

 

Zechariah 6:11-13 clearly shows us that Yehoshua and the Branch are (or were) two separate persons, in that there are (or were) two crowns (plural), and a covenant of peace between both Yehoshua, and the Branch.

 

 

 

If Yehoshua the son of Yehotzedek and the Branch will be one in the same person, then how can there be a counsel of peace between them both? Are the Pre-Millennial Return Theorists suggesting that Yeshua will actually be two separate human beings?

Now, assuming a future fulfillment, if Yeshua the Messiah hypothetically returns at the start of the Millennium, and if one of these two persons will be Yeshua, then who will the other person be? And why would they both wear crowns, if Yeshua is YHWH, and YHWH will not share His glory with another?

 

Moreover, if Yeshua the Messiah will allegedly be our next earthly High Priest, then why does Ezekiel 44:1-3 show us that next the high priest (here called ‘the prince’) will not be Yeshua? If we read this passage carefully, we should be able to see that the ‘prince’ being described here must be a mortal human being.

 

 

 

The pre-millennialist reads the word ‘prince’ in English and he says, “This prince must be Yeshua, because Isaiah 9:6 tells us that Yeshua is the Prince of Peace!” The only problem is that the word ‘Prince’ in Isaiah is a different Hebrew word.

 

The word ‘prince’ in Ezekiel 44:3 is ‘Nah-see’ (נָשִׂיא).

 

 

In contrast, the word ‘Prince’ in Isaiah 9:5 (9:6 in most English versions) is ‘Sar’ (שַׂר).

 

The ‘prince’ in Ezekiel cannot be Yeshua because he will be restricted from using the same gate that Yeshua used in the first century, because Yeshua used it.

 

 

 

Does it make sense that Yeshua will not be able to use the same gate that He used in the first century? Does it make sense that the Conquering King will only get to eat bread in the vestibule of the same gateway that He freely went in-and-out of in the first century, precisely because He went freely in-and-out of it, in the first century?

 

 

All thanks and praise to YHWH our Elohim, there is.