The Smith Division Of The Apostolic
People
Refuting Larry T. Smith's slippery errors,
false doctrine, and heresy!
By Pastor G.
Reckart
Parts written By Pastor Reckart Copyright 2002, All Rights
Reserved
Smith says: "How are those who pierced (crucified) Him going to see Him coming unless they are still alive on that day? This fulfillment would be impossible if this is referring to a time in the future. It would have been easy to fulfill if this was referring to His coming in their generation" (Abomination of Desolation, 2002).
Response By Pastor Reckart: Smith does a nice perversion here. Yes indeed it was prophesied in Zech 12:10 they will look upon him whom they pierced. And yes, this prophecy was quoted by John at 19:27 and fulfilled when Jesus was upon the cross. But then, Smith has this text fulfilled at the coming in judgment of Jesus in 70AD AND NOT WHILE HE IS ON THE CROSS! In other words, Smith disagrees with John that this took place on Calvary and claims that when Jesus comes in 70AD those then living will see him whom they pierced. John and Smith see this fulfillment two different ways. The text "they" shall look upon him whom they pierced, from Zech 2:10 was fulfilled at Calvary. The text of Revelation 1:7 "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen" is not speaking of the Zechariah prophecy. This is just saying that the Jews of the Jewish nation who by inheritance are considered guilty of his death, shall also see him when he appears after the tribulation at his second advent. The word "they" does not demand only those then living in Jerusalem who participated in the crucifixion. The word "they" can point to unbelieving Jews in general. The guilt of the crucifixion of Jesus is shared by all Jews. The only way to get this guilt off is by salvation. Gentiles admit they share in this guilt, and the Revelation verse shows all kindereds of the earth shall wail because of him, when they learn they are damned. This did not take place in 70AD. When did the Gentiles of all kindereds of the earth wail in 70AD? Peter accused Jews from 16 nations with the crucifixion of Jesus. These were not in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion. Yet Peter said: "whom ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." My point here is that the text "every eye shall see him, even they also which pierced him" does not demand it be Jews living in Jerusalem. And if this is true, then when Jesus returns even the children of those who crucified Jesus (let his blood be upon us and our children), will be guilty of the piercing of Jesus. Those alive in the last days can also qualify to be among those who "pierced him." In a technical sense, it may be that no actual Jew pierced him. A Roman soldier pierced his side. Roman soldiers are likely to have hammered the nails in his hands and feet, since Jews then were forbidden to put anyone to death. It makes sense then that the words "every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him" does not refer to 70AD since it includes Gentiles wailing over the lost condition of their souls. This wailing of the Gentile nations is when Jesus comes in the clouds after the tribulation of Matthew 24:29 and not in 70AD. The cloud Jesus returns on is the same cloud he departed on. We have scripture for that.
Smith said: "Every Bible teacher that I have ever studied from or heard speak always says this is the three and one-half year Great Tribulation. The problem is that they usually place the tribulation sometime in the future instead of allowing it to stay in the timeframe in which the Bible says it should remain—the generation that was alive during the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem" (Ibid).
Response by Pastor Reckart: If Smith has the great tribulation ending in 70AD, and he has Jesus visibly coming on clouds in judgment and every eye seeing him, even those who pierced him, then he must also allow for the sound of the trumpet (resurrection) and the gathering together (rapture) of all the elect at the same time. This means whether or not he openly confesses it, he believes a rapture and a resurrection occurred in 70AD, otherwise why the trumpet that signals the rapture and the gathering of the elect?. He can deny he believes this, but his language doeth betray him! If he divorces the sounding of the great trumpet and the gathering of the elect to the end of the world, then we must place the tribulation just prior to the same end of the world event.
Smith claims: "Josephus wrote extensively about an apostate Jew named John Levi of Gischala. John fled to Jerusalem when the city was under Roman siege, and while there he presented himself as a God-sent savior that came to help his people fight against the Roman Armies. He soon showed that he wasn’t really a savior, but was rather a wicked man who burnt Jerusalem’s storehouses of food, hired Idumaeans, who were descendants of Esau to help him take the city. These gentiles killed the Jewish High Priest, because he resisted giving John control over the temple. This resistance could have been the resistance that Paul spoke of in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9. John took over the control of the Temple, set himself up in the Temple as the Jewish savior, looted the vessels of the Temple for their Gold, and caused the daily animal sacrifices to cease. Later Titus asked John to leave the Temple. John flatly refused and his refusal was the very reason why the Temple was razed with the city. Paul’s words about a man of sin sitting in the Temple are easily seen as being fulfilled in the above scenarios, and cannot be used to make the prince in Daniel 9:26 & 27 into a future antichrist of our day" (70th Week of Daniel, 2002).
Response by Pastor Reckart: Smith is a double-minded man, very unstable in his prophecy interpretations. On the one hand he claims Jesus is the one who ended the daily sacrifices. Then above he claims John Levi Gischala does this prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. In one of his writings he has Jesus ending the daily sacrifices in the first half of the seventieth of Daniel and then has John Levi Gischala ending the daily sacrifices in the three and a half years of tribulation prior to 70AD. Smith cannot make up his mind. Hey guy is it Jesus who ends the daily sacrifice or this supposed antichrist John Levi Gischala? Smith has Gischala fulfilling the dispensationalist theory that the "prince" is the antichrist who makes himself God and sits in the temple. His double-minded theories is not "Rightly Dividing The Word of Prophecy." Where is his theory of Gischala any different then the dispensationalist who also have an antichrist making a covenant and then ending the daily sacrifice during the tribulation? Smith does the same thing! Did Smith not make this comparison to show dispensationalist their theory was already fulfilled in John Levi Gischala? I want the $10,000 he promies to pay if any one can prove Jesus did not end the daily sacrifices. I want the $10,000 by proving that Smith himself has John Levi Gischala as the one who ended the daily sacrifices and not Jesus. Surely that ought to be worth something? Of course since Smith is a verified prevaricator I will not hold my breath to get the $10,000. This is a fancy little prophecy perversion, trying to prove the antichrist is not future. Only thing is John Levi Gischala does not qualify because he does not fulfill the scripture as the Beast or Antichrist. First, he did not have a false prophet with him whom he called fire down from heaven (Rev. 13:13); Second, there were no mircaulous miracles performed by John Levi Gischala or by a false prophet by which the whole world was deceived (Rev. 13:14); Third, when did John Levi Gischala cause all to receive the mark of the beast (Rev. 13:16)?; fourth but not last, Rev. 19:20 says the antichrist and his false prophet were cast alive into the Lake of Fire. This means they did not die by any form of death during the so-called tribulation. John Levi Gischala died in the siege of Jerusalem. If John Levi Gischala is the Beast, the Antichrist, and he sat in the temple as God, then why does Smith work so hard to later tell his public that the antichrist is Nero? Can Smith get Nero in the temple in Jerusalem during the three and a half years from 66AD to 70AD? Can Smith get Nero causing all to receive the mark of the beast? Can Smith get Nero to do miracles with a false prophet by which he deceived the nations? I agree with Smith on one point, although he reverses himself with this Gischala garbage, the word "Prince" in Daniel 9:26-27 does not refer to a future antichrist, it points to Jesus. But then I disagree with Smith, it cannot apply to John Levi Gischala or Nero!
Concerning the Antichrist or Beast, Smith said this:
"The Rightly Dividing the Word book The Coming of the Lord…, proves that this had a perfect historical fulfillment in Nero. He persecuted the Church for 3½ years. Nero’s name numerically also met the requirements of the numbers 666 (Hebrew) and 616 (Latin) as is translated in different versions of the Bible from the various languages. This scripture also cannot be used to prove an antichrist in Daniel chapter 9" (Ibid).
Response by Pastor Reckart: There is absolutely no proof Nero persecuted the Church for three and a half years. Smith's claim that he did is more of his perversions. And if he did so what? Smith says there is no 7 years of tribulation, he says there is only three and a half. He must have Nero in a 7 year cycle since he does not reign through to 70AD. Smith marks off 66 and a half AD to 70AD as the three and a half years of the tribulation. He already has John Levi Gishala in the Jerusalem temple as the Beast and the Antichrist for the last three and a half years of the tribulation that ended in 70AD. Why does Smith later apply this three and a half years to 66.5--70AD and Titus and not Nero? Nero died stabbed to death by his servant in the year 68AD. Where is the prophecy text the beast or antichrist is to die in the middle of the tribulation? If Nero is the beast and he is to endure 1260 days and the days start in 66.5AD then Nero should not have died until well after 70AD! He does not qualify as the Beast or Antichrist. Smith is good at number rigging I would like to see him practice his magic on that one. Nero was not cast alive into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 19:20) to qualify as the beast. All Smith's numbers juggling is fancy and interesting, but it is all falsehood! It is not enough to get Nero's name to equal 666, Smith must also get him ordering and making sure everyone has the same mark. Can Smith produce the historical goods to prove Nero issued a mark of the beast upon all Jews since he claims this "coming in judgment" was upon Israel ONLY?
Smith says: "Do not let the word Preterist throw you off. It simply means past. This group believes in a partial past interpretation of prophecy. Most believe the Church—Jew and Gentile in one body—is the True Israel of God, Daniel’s 70 weeks are fulfilled, the Great Tribulation and the time of Jacob’s trouble was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Jerusalem was Revelation’s Babylon the Great, Matthew 24 was fulfilled during the generation in which it was written, the first 19 chapters of the book of Revelation are fulfilled, and the remaining chapters of Revelation are being fulfilled in the Church. They believe there still is a final judgment, and a final coming of the Lord that will end the Church Age and will resurrect the dead in Christ, even though the destruction of Jerusalem was referred to in scripture as a "coming of the Lord." (This viewpoint is probably closest to the position that I currently endorse on Bible prophecy. However, I strive to remain open so that I can always walk in the light as God reveals more understanding about the Scriptures.)" (Today's Prophecy Views Defined, 2002).
Response by Pastor Reckart: The word Preterist also means CATHOLIC! For it was from this fountain of monks and priests the perversion was born. When a Preterist amillennialist says his doctrine is "historical" he is saying CATHOLIC! Yes, it means "past" but in the original scheme of the Catholic amillennialist it meant all prophecy of the Bible was fulfilled and past by 70AD. To even use the word "preterist" with this historical identity is heresy! It is just as bad as the word "trinity." There were no "partial preterist" in Catholic history. This is a new scion among the modern breeds of this heresy. It is a compromise group who want the futurist view on some prophecy and preterist on others. All preterist are spiritualist who bring in private interpretations and make them doctrine. Being a partial preterist is like being partial pregnant. You either are or you ain't, you are never partial. When anyone carries the preterist baby, it will be preterist when it is fully born. Partial preterist have the same germ of heresy that full preterist have. Ever notice that partial preterist will cut dispensationalist to ribbons with their sharp tongues and never use this weapon against full preterist? Full preteristism is far worse then dispensationalism. Why do partial preterist not attack full preterist? Because they are both amillennialist and they overlook the gross heresy of their trinitarian brothers. They both teach Jesus visibly came back in 70AD and every eye saw him, even those who pierced him. They both claim all of Matthew 24 was fulfilled and this includes the completion of carrying the Gospel of the Kingdom to all the world and the sound of the resurrection trumpet to announce the gathering of the elect. The partial preterist cannot lie out of this by claiming they believe in another resurrection just prior to the end of the world. The problem is they do not believe the sounding of the trumpet and the gathering of the elect in Matt 24:31 is the resurrection and rapture just prior to the end of the world. Smith says Matthew 24 "was fulfilled during the generation in which it was written." so it cannot be fulfilled at the end of the millennial if it was fulfilled in 70AD. If he says he does not believe there was a rapture and resurrection in 70AD then he has lied. Then he says the first 19 chapters of Revelation are already fulfilled. Actually he believes Revelation 20:1-10 also was fulfilled by years end in 70AD. Since he believes the beast was either John Levi Gishala or Nero, then he must believe the deaths of the saints and the first resurrection of Revelation 20:1-10 occurred in 70AD. He can weasel out of this but there is a reason. He knows he has found a loop-hole in the UPCI system of jurisprudence, at least with the Texas Board. When he was called in and questioned he told them he was not fully persuaded on the amillennial doctrine. With this weasel answer he was able to slip by them. When he was asked about the rapture, he told them he believed there was a future rapture. Bingo! The Board decided that since he was claiming there was still a future rapture and he was not fully persuaded about the millennial, they would NO NOTHING! So why is it that he will say in one breath all of Matthew 24 and all of Revelation from chapter 1-19 are fulfilled, and then claim in another breath that he still looks for the rapture (coming of the Lord)? It is to keep his license! Smith's heresy will divide the Apostolic people and provide a road of return into the arms of the papacy!
I see one thing out of this. I see Smith's amillennial-preterist heresy as a UPCI coming out of the closet of those who hold this doctrine. The UPCI has a choice, dump these men or do as the Catholic Church did with pagan holidays, open up their arms, compromise, and keep the organizational faithful in the fold. When numbers is the game, it is funny how organizations will relax their doctrinal standards. I see the UPCI making room for Smith and his brood. How other organizations handle his heresies is another matter. Few men today are equipped to handle major doctrinal scandle. Smith has caught them off guarde and by surprise! Here is where the independents come in. We are not afraid to tell it like it is. We have no lords to please or obey. We can contend to our different views to the disunity of the body. We can identify heresy and false doctrine with impunity. And men like Larry T. Smith need exposed and their lies refuted.
Since Smith believes the "devil bound" doctrine of the amillennialist-preterist; that is to say, the devil is bound a thousand years and cannot deceive the nations, and Smith has the thousand years a spiritual time period covering the Church age. Therefore there is no devil right now, he is bound and not to be released until the thousand years are past, that is, the Church age has ended! Who is this devil Pentecostals have been casting out if he is bound? Who is this devil inspiring false doctrine and false prophets if the devil is bound? Who is this devil still attacking our saints if he cannot deceive the nations right now? How did Smith get the devil out of his prison?
Pastor G. Reckart
August 2002