What specific biblical passages do critics say David Jeremiah misinterprets?

1. Broad charge: “New” framework for return of Christ

Reviewers summarized in the available material say Jeremiah relies heavily on a relatively recent theological system — dispensational premillennialism — to divide New Testament eschatological texts into discrete stages (rapture, tribulation, second coming) rather than treating the texts as describing one unified set of end‑time events; critics call that approach speculative and say it lacks long historical consensus in the church ^[1].

2. Where the controversy concentrates: prophecy passages

The debate centers on passages that discuss Christ’s return, tribulation, and judgment: Jeremiah’s work on the rapture and end‑times (for example, The Great Disappearance) argues for an imminent, pre‑tribulation rapture and reads apocalyptic passages through that lens. Critics contend that reading those texts through a dispensational timetable leads him to partition texts that many historical interpreters treated as a single sequence ^[1].

3. Scholarly objection: historical reading versus modern system

A key critical point presented in current reporting is historical: for “nearly 1,800 years” the church tended to understand end‑time passages as part of a unified event; Jeremiah’s system is characterized as dependent on a relatively modern interpretive model and therefore viewed by some scholars as departing from that longstanding approach ^[1].

4. The critic’s implied textual claim (what they say he “misinterprets”)

Critics imply Jeremiah misreads the relationship among eschatological verses by imposing the dispensational schema onto texts that might instead be read as describing different aspects or perspectives of the same event. The sources summarize this as a methodological disagreement — interpretive framing rather than an accusation that he mistranslates single words ^[1].

5. Jeremiah’s background and why his reading resonates

Jeremiah’s education at Dallas Theological Seminary and his public ministry make him a prominent proponent of dispensational interpretation; that pedigree explains both why his readings are influential and why they provoke pushback from those who favor alternative eschatological frameworks ^[1].

6. What current reporting does not show: precise verse list

Available sources do not provide a list of specific biblical passages or verse citations that critics single out as definitively misinterpreted by Jeremiah. The critique in the reporting is framed at the level of overall theological framework and interpretive method rather than enumerating particular misread verses ^[1].

7. Alternative viewpoints in the sources

The material notes that Jeremiah’s emphasis on spiritual preparedness and urgency is also seen as biblically grounded and pastorally valuable by some readers; his critics nevertheless argue the theological scaffolding he uses to reach those pastoral ends is contestable ^[1].

8. What readers should watch for when evaluating these claims

Evaluating whether Jeremiah “misinterprets” particular passages requires comparing his exegesis of individual texts with alternative hermeneutical approaches. Current reporting signals the dispute is between interpreters who adopt dispensational, pre‑tribulation frameworks and those who view prophetic texts as parts of a unified eschatological panorama — not a simple error list ^[1].

Limitations: available sources provided here are limited in scope and focus mainly on a single critical review and summaries of Jeremiah’s ministry and publications; they do not include direct quotations from critics listing specific verses nor Jeremiah’s detailed exegetical replies ^[1].