Over the years of writing this blog, I’ve rarely written concerning the issue of the rapture. My reason for this is because of the tendency for this issue to stir up disputes, divisions, and a high level level of emotion amongst the brethren. When I have commented on this issue, I’ve tried to avoid emphasizing the timing issue, and more so emphasize the applicational, pastoral aspect of the discussion. Is the view that we hold causing us to have a deep sense of urgency for evangelism, missions, and the pursuit of holiness, etc.? Are we preparing ourselves, and those who listen to us, to face antichrists and great tribulation? If you hold to the pre-tribulational view and believe that you will be raptured from the earth seven years before the return of Jesus, are you at least open to the idea that your view could be wrong? Are you willing at the heart level to face the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation? This has simply been my way of trying to get to the root of the matter while admittedly avoiding what I feel are most often unproductive disputes, or at least disputes that are outside the parameters of the specific issues that I feel as though the Lord has had me to emphasize. But there have been others who have done a very good job at emphasizing the timing issue and all of the detailed hermeneutical aspects of the discussion. Tim Warner of Answers in Revelation for instance has done a bang up job of presenting and arguing for the Post-Tribulational view, whereas Alan Kurschner of Eschatos Ministries has been been diligently working for the past three years at writing a book which presents the Pre-Wrath view of the rapture. For what it is worth, at the present time, I am still processing exactly where I stand between these two views, believing that it may be possible to reconcile the two perspectives to some degree. But ultimately I view the difference between these two positions as very minor. Both views prepare the Church for what is coming. That said, as I process all of the relevant passages, I’m really looking forward to working through Alan Kurschner’s new book, just released, on the Pre-Wrath position: Antichrist: Before the Day of the Lord. Click here for info on how to order your own copy.
104 Responses
Sounds good to me. I’ve been pre-wrath for several years, was pre-trib before that but only because it was the only thing I’d ever heard and so I never bothered to look into the Scriptural basis for it. As for the difference between pre-wrath and post-trib, I’d say the semantic difference is significant whereas the practical difference is almost negligable: the former has the tribulation cut off before the full 3.5 years are up (Matthew 24:22) but does not say how short or long it is otherwise, whereas the latter has it going to full period. I’d say to simple be prepared to endure it no matter how long it goes, and especially to be prepared to offer encouragement to others through it.
Preparation for the future – I consider it to be wise to place eschatology into that context.
To be honest I have never satisfied with any explanation. I tend to think that the restrainer is the work of the Spirit in the conviction of mankind through Torah and actually this work continues up to the final testimony of the two witnesses.
Pray for pre trib prepair for post!!!
Joel; I woke this morning, in Romania wondering when “that” book was going to be published. I thought… Joel has his act together. I will check his site. If “that” book is out I want to get it and study it. You didn’t let me down. The timing of the Rapture is important only if knowing that Pearl Harbor would be attacked would have been important, or knowing if the World Trade Center would be hit, or knowing if the Trojan Horse had enemy combatants in it, or knowing that the tsunami would hit the Indian Ocean, or if the Titanic was going to hit the iceberg. Just hoping for “pre trib” and preparing for “post” is not the answer. The “false” prophets of the Old Testament always promised peace. Pay attention to what Jesus told Peter when he said “no Lord” don’t go to Jerusalem. This issue is far more important then people realize. I hate to say it but a simple reading of 2 Thes. 5:1-3 and then on to 5:4-10 solves the issues for most people. Then moving on to 2 Thes. 2:1-3 seals the deal. Well, I just wrote to tell you how much I appreciate YOU and your work. God bless you my brother, press on. More and more people are listening and this is called “influence.” I pray the Lord will continue to give you more and more love for His word, His work and Himself! I can’t wait to read this book…
The exodus was “post trib & pre wrath”. I’m sure the greater exodus will follow this pattern. Stick to the core-narrative!
Joel – do you believe that the “rapture” is the same thing as the resurrection, i.e., does the rapture actually describe the resurrection? Also, what is the difference between the terms “pre-Wrath” and “pre-Trib”?
Joel, thank you for the careful wording of a volatile subject – kind of like handling Nitroglycerin, eh?
Even in some of the early posts on this subject is a latent disdain or hostility to views other than that preferred by the author. Frankly, when obduracy and scorn are present, my interest in the post wanes rapidly.
Perhaps some wise instruction regarding the meaning, usage, context and uniqueness of the terms “Day of the Lord”, “Great Day of the Lord”, “the coming wrath”, “the coming night”, “the time of Jacob’s trouble”, “time of tribulation”, “great tribulation”, etc. would be means to a more fruitful end?
Doug,
While I do believe that pastorally speaking, the pre-trib view is potentially very very dangerous, I should be clear that there are many men and woman of God who embrace this view. So taking a particular view, regardless of how staunchly, in no way infers any degree of disdain or condescension toward any other believer personally. And we should do all we can to avoid any language that would infer such. What I have found over the years is that Pre-tribbers often feel attacked by those who are not Pre-trib, whereas the same holds true for those of the Pre-Wrath or Post-Trib view. They feel bullied by the Pre-tribbers. So certainly humility and love needs to be emphasized all around as the issue is discussed. This is not an issue to break fellowship over for sure. Wouldn’t the enemy so love that.
Blessings
Jeanne,
I do believe that the rapture and the resurrection are one and the same. I also believe that the return of Jesus and the resurrection are one and the same.
The terms Pre-Wrath and Post-Trib refer to the views of each respective position concerning the timing of the rapture. Pre-Wrath emphasizes that it occurs prior to the wrath of God being poured out, highlighting the fact that there is a distinction between the persecution of Satan and the wrath of God poured out on His enemies. The Post-Trib view classically sees no distinction and simply sees the rapture as occurring after the Great Tribulation.
The strength of the classic Pre-Wrath view in my opinion, is the timing of the signs in the heavens as well as the notion that we are raptured prior to the wrath of God being poured out. Its weakness, for me at this point, is the idea that we are raptured separately from the actual return of Jesus. It makes the rapture and the return two distinct events. The strength of the Post-Trib view in my opinion, is that we are raptured when Jesus returns and not in two distinct phases. Its weakness is that it seems to place the rapture / return sometime after the cosmic signs of the sixth seal. I very much do believe that the return of the Lord and the establishment of His kingdom is a process that unfolds over a period of time. At this point, I personally believe that we are raptured and with Jesus as the wrath of God is poured out on the enemies of God and His people. So on one hand, we are on the earth, but on the other hand, we are in our resurrected bodies and thus not subject to the wrath of God being poured out. Rather, we are actually with Jesus as he conquers His enemies, perhaps participating with him in that activity. There are also some evidences that the non-resurrected Jews will participate with Jesus in the conquering and subjugation of His / their enemies as well.
Sadly, pre-tribulational rapturism ignores, as does its dominionist roots the very Hebraic heart and focus of the Scriptures. The driving hope of the Biblical field of context is and always will be the restoration of the world and the resurrection of the dead under the headship of Christ’s single and one time return to the earth to establish his eternal throne. This is the expectation and hope of the Hebrew prophets continued in the Lord’s teaching to the Apostles onward. Within that context is the no less important theme of suffering and perseverance even unto the very end, the epicenter of which is his cross. Today, a majority of evangelical Christians have bought into the post modern feel good lie that their own personal self esteem and prosperity in every avenue of life and influence are more important than rejection of sin, the need for repentance, the call to holiness of life, truth and obedience to Scripture and salvation in the Name of Jesus Christ. Thus the Church heads off in a direction where ‘it’ is its own focus rather than Christ and the Gospel declared and demonstrated gets replaced by some kind of socio-economic model that’s preached by a “life-coach” posing as a pastor and preacher where personal happiness, financial well being and “King’s Kid” escapism are the goals of the faith. As a pastor, I see this philosophy in even the strongest Christians and it troubles me because the Trojan Horse that this theory is, is actually more potentially serious and insidious than many think.
I had a very long debate with brother Alan Kurschner here a number of years ago. Rosenthal’s pre-wrath position — though a very welcomed shift away from pre-tribism — still suffers from many of the same problems inherent to the pre-trib position. For instance, Paul says:
Paul is very careful to show us that the dead in Christ are resurrected first, and then those of us who are alive and remain (survive) are caught up with them. We will by no means precede those who are asleep in Christ. The obvious question, therefore, is when does this resurrection happen? John tells us in Revelation:
The dead in Christ that rise first are caught up in the First Resurrection, which is after the tribulation according to John in Rev 20:4-5. The logical implications of the plain and straightforward teachings of the text is undeniable: If the First Resurrection is after the tribulation then there can be no resurrection before the end of the tribulation, and if there is no resurrection before the end of the tribulation then there is therefore no rapture before the end of the tribulation. Pre-tribism (which puts the rapture before a seven-year “tribulation”) and even pre-wrath (which puts the rapture closer to the “middle” of a seven-year tribulation) are impossible. According to Scripture, the rapture can only happen after tribulation.
The only way for the pre-trib and pre-wrath positions to get around this dilemma is to somehow contend that there are “phases” to the First Resurrection, but when we draw that suggestion out to its logical conclusion it is essentially stating that the rapture takes place before the First Resurrection is even fully completed, yet Scripture is clear that we who are alive and remain will by no means precede those who are asleep in Christ. The dead in Christ rise first, and then we who are alive and remain will be caught up with them. According to Revelation 20:4 there are obviously still those who are dead in Christ at the end of the tribulation who will be raised in the First Resurrection, thus showing us that the rapture and Second Coming are married together as one singular event.
Additionally, in 1 Thess 4:16-17 Paul says that when Christ descends, the dead in Christ are resurrected to Christ and then we will be caught up to meet Christ and the resurrected saints in the air. The word “meet” is the Greek word “apantesis”, and this word only occurs here and in three other places. In Vocabulary of the Greek Testament by G. Milligan and James Hope Moulton, “The word apantesis seems to have been a kind of official welcome of a newly arriving dignitary – a usage which accords excellently with its NT usage.” In Matthew 25:1,6 it describes the virgins going out to meet the bridegroom, to escort him back into the house. In Acts 28:14-16 it is used to describe brethren from Rome coming out to Appii Foru, to meet Paul and his company, and then escort them back to Rome. In each example of “apantesis”, the escort back is virtually immediate. We don’t have them going out to meet the subject, then going to where the subject came from for months or years, and then escorting the subject back. That was not the custom. The subject who was coming is met by those who are already at his destination. And what is His destination? Where we are — earth. When Christ comes back to Earth, we will go out to meet him, we will remain in the air briefly until the indignation (“orge” wrath) is complete, and where ever He goes, we go, and He is going to Jerusalem to set His feet upon the Mount of Olives.
In Greek culture the word “apantesis” had a technical meaning to describe the visits of dignitaries to cities where the visitor would be formally met by the citizens, or a deputation of them, who had gone out from the city for this purpose and would then be ceremonially escorted back into the city. Apantesis was often used to suggest the meeting of a dignitary or king, a famous person, describing people rushing to meet the one who was coming. For instance, when a Roman emperor approached a city, the leading citizens went out to welcome him and had the honor of processing into the city with him. This whole event was described as the “apantesis.”
Apantesis from apantáo from apó = from + antáo = to come opposite to, to meet especially to meet face to face describes a meeting especially a meeting of two who are coming from different directions.
What is Scripture saying? It is saying that we are not removed from the Earth to conveniently go to Heaven for a relaxing vacation while all hell breaks loose down below. Those of us who are alive and remain (the Greek word means those who survive) are transformed from corruptible to incorruptible, and we are caught up to meet the Lord in the air per the “apantesis”, which means that we escort Christ back to earth — ie. Jerusalem — which is consistent with its usage in each of the other verses of Scripture. Other positions aside from post-trib suddenly change the intended meaning of the word. Instead of us escorting Jesus back to Earth for His Second Coming, they have us conveniently going to Heaven instead, which the text does not say anywhere, at any place, at any time.
After extensive study of Daniel, Revelation, Matthew 24 and much more, and paying close attention to the text exegitially and hermenetically, I’ve been forced to conclue a post-trib *and* pre-wrath view that is closer to the view promoted by Roland Rasmussen, not simply just Pre-wrath as promoted by Marvin Rosenthal. To understand one of the reasons why, visit MidnightWatcher’s Blogspot and read the article titled “Lost In Translation: ‘Not Appointed Unto Wrath’ – What Scripture Is Really Saying”. God bless!
http://wp.me/p1qlPa-k7
Hi Mitchell,
Thanks for your comments. There is actually a lot I can respond to in your comments since you made a a lot claims, but I simply do not have the time.
But I do want to briefly respond to your misunderstanding of Apantesis, and your larger methodological problem of determining word meanings.
With all due respect you committed four lexical fallacies: the root fallacy, the illegitimate totality transfer (the most common in my opinion), the limited corpus fallacy, and using dated lexical sources.
i. Apantesis is not a technical term as you claim. You are assuming that Paul has the Hellenistic reception idea in mind when he uses this term. He does not, and even if he does it cannot be assumed that he has ALL the elements associated in mind. In fact, the elements of a hellenistic reception are absent in Paul’s context in 1 Thess 4:15. See Cosby’s excellent article on refuting this: Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul’s Use of Apantesis 1 Thessalonians 4:17,” Michael R. Cosby, Bullentin for Biblical Research 4 (1994) 15-34
ii. Quite the contrary to a Hellenistic concept, the elements in Paul’s text are similar to the Jewish context of the imagery in Exodus 19:10-19.
iii. Instead of allowing the context to determine what happens, you are reading into it by importing unrelated contexts to Paul’s meaning (illegitimate totality transfer); i.e., reading into this the concept of an “immediate escort.” Not to mention that you are not treating the Parousia event as a unique event, allowing the context to determine its nature.
iv. The root fallacy that you committed is:
“Apantesis from apantáo from apó = from + antáo = to come opposite to, to meet especially to meet face to face describes a meeting especially a meeting of two who are coming from different directions.”
You _never_ determine a word meaning by its parts. That is simply lexical analysis 101. You determine it by context. I refer you to D.A Carson’s book Exegetical Fallacies where he addresses this all-too common fallacy.
V. You committed the corpus fallacy, or more specifically the “depending on a couple of instances withing a corpus fallacy”:
“In Matthew 25:1,6 it describes the virgins going out to meet the bridegroom, to escort him back into the house. In Acts 28:14-16…”
Why is New Testament instances more important than the many other instances it is used outside of the NT without this associated element of a ? You are uncritically assuming that “immediate escort” is part of the meaning of this word. It is not.
vi. You cited: “Vocabulary of the Greek Testament by G. Milligan and James Hope Moulton.” This is a dated lexical source of a 100 years! Using Moulton you have to be very cautious and be linguistically competent so as to not uncritically use it.
More could be said, but I actually have an entire chapter devoted to this fallacious use of this term in my forthcoming book _Prewrath Answering Posttribuationism_ (2014 Eschatos Publishing). I feel as though many (not all) posttribulationists will invoke this word to mean this, as if it proves their schema of the Lord’s return.
Mitchell, thanks for your response and I hope you get a copy of my book when it comes back. I would appreciate your feedback.
Blessings,
Alan
Hi brother Alan! It’s been a long time, hope you’re doing well. 🙂
With respect to Michael R. Cosby (who is a post-tribulationist by the way like myself), even he admits that most Greek scholars do not agree with his thoughts in this regard. For him, the intended meaning of “apantesis” is moot and therefore inconsequential because the whole of Scripture itself unquestionably supports the post-trib position.
Regardless, there are many assumptions and oversights that Cosby needed to make in order to arrive at his personal conclusion regarding “apantesis”, as Robert H. Gundry of Westmont College shows. In part, Gundry writes:
“Cosby is correct to note the difference between the summoning shout and trumpet blast at the Parousia (1 Thess 4:16) and the shouts of acclamation at Hellenistic formal receptions,4 but this difference is understandable in view of the need for supernatural action in the raising of deceased Christians and in the catching of them and living Christians up to meet the Lord in the air. At least the Parousia and Hellenistic formal receptions share the element of happy noise.
Cosby argues that for the Parousia ‘no donations are encouraged nor taxes levied to purchase presents to honor the heavenly king [as at Hellenistic formal receptions]. Instead, he brings rewards for his faithful servants.’5 But no such rewards are mentioned in the passage at hand (1 Thess 4:15-17); and going elsewhere in Pauline literature, we find not only rewards for faithful servants of the king at his Parousia but also a reception-like presentation to him: ‘to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him … that we may present every person mature (teleios) in Christ’ (Col 1:22, 28b; cf. 2 Cor 11:2: ‘to present you as a pure virgin to the Christ’).
The execution of ‘wrathful judgment of the wicked’ at the Parousia does not lack a counterpart in Hellenistic formal receptions,6 for Cosby himself references the execution of prisoners at those events.7 The comment that ‘divine judgment occurring as part of the event [of the Parousia] … is far different from Peterson’s assertion that arriving dignitaries sometimes pronounced judgment as part of the ceremonies’ looks itself like an assertion having little or no probative value.8
Again, Cosby himself supplies a reason why ‘Paul makes no mention of the Hellenistic custom of a dignitary offering sacrifices on local altars after the reception,’ i.e., ‘in Paul’s thinking … Jesus already offered himself as the definitive sacrifice, so this aspect of the formal reception would be abhorrent, a grim reminder of the paganism from which he sought to deliver people.’9
On the whole, then, Paul’s description of the Parousia in 1 Thess 4:15-17 comes closer to what we know of Hellenistic formal receptions than Cosby allows. True, apantēsis does not by itself connote a reception of that kind.10 But the Thessalonian context, the autos which calls special attention to Jesus’ dignity as Lord or Emperor (‘the Lord himself ‘–1 Thess 4:15), the remarkable fact that only here in the NT are Christians said to be ‘caught [up] … to meet the Lord in the air’ (1 Thess 4:17, though cf. Matt 25:1, 6), and the appearance of elements of Hellenistic formal receptions also in other Pauline mentions of the Parousia all combine to favor such a connotation for apantēsis.11 Of course, this connotation is hardly needed to keep Cosby or anyone else from slipping back into the doctrine of a pretribulational rapture of the church.” Read more at http://tinyurl.com/ke4k3u9.
More could be said, but for the sake of brevity I’ll end by simply saying that, in my humble opinion, the “lexical fallacies” claim doesn’t fly with respect to “apantesis.” Given the overall context, Paul’s usage of the word in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 by all accounts maintains the definition as it is used elsewhere in Scripture, supporting the post-trib postion. The pre-wrath view, however, is forced to get around this by somehow changing its intended meaning. The Early Church Father John Chrysostom (347-407) even comments on this passage by saying that, “If he (Christ) is about to descend, on what account shall we be caught up? For the sake of honor. For when a king drives into a city, those who are in honor go out to meet him; but the condemned await the judge …” He seems to have understood perfectly well the intent of the “apantesis” in the Thessalonican epistle. And we should, too. Granted, we’ll disagree since we’ve decided where we stand in this regard, and that’s ok. Others who have not decided should take the time to study both sides, hold fast to that which is good, and be convinced in their own minds.
Blessing to you as well my brother!
Mitchell
Joel, in your response to Jeanne you make some awesome points. I think you and I are in agreement but even after re-reading your post I wasn’t sure. It appears you take a modified Pre-Wrath position, as I do. That the rapture occurs prior to the wrath of God being poured out but also occurs at the time of Christ’s return. This requires that Christ and the raptured saints are on this Earth for some undetermined time PRIOR to the Wrath of God.
My supposition is that the Cosmic signs occur AFTER the tribulation as Jesus states in Matthew 24:29. Then Jesus comes on the clouds of heaven and the whole world sees Him as in Matthew 24:30. Then he sends his Angels to gather the elect in Matthew 24:31. From that point the elect are with Christ in resurrection bodies and they and Christ on “in the Land”. Then an undetermined length of time occurs before the Wrath of God is poured out.
My supposition has always been that the Fall feasts will be fulfilled like this: Jesus returns on Rosh Hashanah and raptures us. A final Days of Awe occurs to give the lost one last chance. This is when Israel finally recognizes Jesus as Messiah. Then on Yom Kippur the Wrath is poured out. On the Feast of Tabernacles Jesus prepares a table for us in the face of our enemies still burning in the valley of the shadow of death, which is the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.
This view fulfills all the feasts and permits the strengths of the Pre-Wrath and Post Trib views to both be expressed.
Jim,
To answer your question, while I have some convictions based on my reading of Scripture, I do not have any solid timeframe which I would say I absolutely hold to. I am presently working through some of these things. I believe that Jesus returns and pours out his wrath and executes his victory on the earth. Psalm 68 seems to intimate that we are with him in the procession of God. Other passages such as Obadiah and Zechariah 12 show that national Israel will defeat their enemies under his leadership as well. I have written an outline concerning how I believe it will line up with the feasts, but I’m not confident that we can sort all of the timing out with absolute confidence. I am also sure we can identify numerous elements of the story and I am absolutely sure that we must prepare for it. Beyond that I cannot give any definite answers at this time.
@Jim – I see it the same as well. The gathering is post-trib, but it is also pre-wrath. Pre-tribism and Rosenthal’s pre-wrath position assume that since we are not appointed unto wrath that, when the wrath does come, we are raptured into Heaven while all hell breaks loose far away upon the earth. The only difference between these two views is when the wrath happens. Pre-trib believes the “7-year tribulation” is the wrath that we are not appointed unto and says we are raptured beforehand, while Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view places the wrath somewhere closer to the middle or a bit little later. So let’s examine the text a little more closely in an effort to better understand the wrath that we are specifically not appointed unto, and the wrath that we see taking place in Revelation. Something very, very important has been lost in translation.
First, let’s begin by looking at all the verses which tell us that we are not appointed to wrath, or are saved from wrath:
* 1 Thess 1:10, “And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.”
* 1 Thess 5:9, “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ”
* Romans 5:9, “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.”
* Eph 5:6, “Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.”
Next, let’s look at the Greek word specifically used for “wrath” in each of these verses to better understand what we are studying:
* 1 Thess 1:10, — The wrath that we will be delivered from is the Greek “orge” (G3709).
* 1 Thess 5:9, — The wrath that we are not appointed to is the Greek “orge” (G3709).
* Romans 5:9, — The wrath that we are saved from is the Greek “orge” (G3709).
* Eph 5:6, — The wrath upon those who are disobedient is the Greek “orge” (G3709).
The original text of Scripture is simple and straightforward. We are not appointed to suffer, and are saved from, the “orge” wrath of God.
Next, let’s examine the wrath of God that is described in Revelation. The word “wrath” itself is found about 13 times in English translations of Revelation, but what many pre-trib and pre-wrath teachers of Biblical prophecy fail to delineate is the fact that, in the original Greek, the word translated as “wrath” is not just simply from the Greek word “orge”. It is from two separate words — “orge” and ”thymos.” Since many have overlooked this significant distinction they also then overlook the fact that the “orge” wrath of God that we are promised deliverance from according to the verses above is itself only found six times in Revelation. And here’s the kicker: Each time “orge” is found it is always used in a post-trib context only:
1 and 2. It is mentioned AFTER the cosmic signs and the revealing of Christ Jesus (Revelation 6:16-17). Jesus tells us in no uncertain terms that these signs happen immediately AFTER the tribulation (Matthew 24:29).
3. It is found AFTER the SEVENTH trumpet (Revelation 11:18). When the 7th and last trump begins to sound we find the rapture described in Revelation 10. (Because of Revelation’s Semitic style, the 7th seal, 7th trumpet and 7th vial all end together in the same consummation – immediately after the tribulation).
4. It is used to describe the final torment of unbelievers in hell (Revelation 14:10, the wine of the “thymos” of God is poured out into “the cup of His indignation“- orge).
5. It is found AFTER the SEVENTH vial/bowl (Revelation 16:19). (The trumpets and bowls are two sides of the same coin. They are separate descriptions of the same events whereby the trumpets are the cause and the vials/bowls are the effect).
6. It is used in connection with Christ’s Second Coming (Revelation 19:15).
Moreover, according to John in Revelation, the ”thymos” wrath is directed upon a very specific group only — the Antichrist, his land, his kingdom, those who have received the Mark of the Beast, those who worship the image of the Beast, those who have shed the blood of the saints (cf. Revelation 16). Those upon whom the vials/bowls of “thymos” are being poured are still given the opportunity to repent, but they refuse (Revelation 9:20-21; 16:9-11). When the “orge” wrath comes, however, there is no such provision for repentance. According to the text, we will be here on earth witnessing these events right up until the beginning of the seventh and last trumpet, at which point we are then immediately gathered together to Christ just before His “orge” wrath comes upon the wicked.
According to the preponderance of the evidence, the text is therefore telling us that the “orge” wrath that we are saved from is not the same type of wrath that we find during the tribulation. The “orge” wrath that we are saved from is only found immediately after the tribulation at the Second Coming of Christ. As such, even if the rapture does not happen until immediately after the tribulation we are still saved from the “orge” of God as promised, yet still present to witness the “thymos” of the first six trumpets and vials/bowls upon Antichrist, Antichrist’s kingdom, and Antichrist’s people.
When presented with this reality, some will then incorrectly contend that both the “orge” and “thymos” wrath of God must somehow have essentially the same meaning. If that were the case, then why did the Holy Spirit inspire the writers of the New Testament to use them both? Why were they both used at times in the same verse? Why does God-breathed Scripture only tell us that we are saved from the “orge” wrath? Obviously, although both “orge” and “thymos” could have similar meanings they must still be qualitatively distinct. Here are some examples where they are both used in the same verse:
Colossians 3:8, “But now ye also put off all these; anger (orge), wrath (thymos), malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth”
Revelation 14:10, “The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath (thymos) of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation (orge); and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb”
Revelation 16:19, “And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness (thymos) of his wrath (orge).”
Truth be told, the trumpets are themselves not even identified as “wrath” anywhere at all in the text. As was mentioned above, however, the trumpets and vials/bowls are opposite sides of the same coin where the trumpet is the cause and the vial/bowl is the effect. Knowing that the vials/bowls are called the “thymos” wrath of God would therefore associate the trumpets with “thymos” wrath as well, which is defined as sudden and passionate anger but an anger that will boil up only to subside again later. With the “orge” wrath that is found only after the Second Coming of Christ, however, we see deliberate anger. We see righteous indignation. We see the hostile and violent vengeance of a just and true God, and every time in Scripture we read that we as believers are not appointed to wrath or will be delivered from His wrath it is always the post-trib “orge” wrath of God only. In the “orge” wrath the anger will not subside. It will not abate. It is not a punishment to chasten and invoke repentance like the “thymos” of God — because when the “orge” of God comes it is then too late.
Proverbs 10:30, “The righteous will never be removed, But the wicked will not inhabit the earth.”
Thanks for this Joel as a very important subject.
I started out believing pre-trib as another commentator pointed out because I was told, and hoped for it until I could find little Biblical basis myself. I am a little concerned many Christians are not prepared though if we do go through a tribulation. All I can think is why would we in the West escape tribulation when the rest of the world doesn’t? Look at recent history and now in the ME. Is that not a sort of tribulation, if not THE tribulation. Many Christians have told me ” not to worry” when I spoke of end-times ” we will be raptured out of it” I would feel stained or something, having no faith, as I was led to believe. Since then I only take the Word of God whatever anyone says, to heart and can honestly say as far as the rapture goes I just don’t know but inclined to believe in pre-wrath. The most important for me now is I get myself prepared, oil in my lamp.
@ Mitchell: thanks for your helpful post.
Hi Mitchell,
Honestly, I do not know where to begin 🙂 You have a methodological problem in “word studies.” And I am saying that with all due respect.
You are committing the very common word-concept fallacy.
Pretribs commit this all the time, as well; for example, “the word “church” is not used in Revelation chapters…therefore…”
James Barr exposed this fallacy decades ago in his classic (yes, I it is considered classic in linguistic literature) book _The Semantics of Biblical Language_. It is still required reading for any Greek linguistics course on a masters level.
I have also addressed this fallacy several times on my website including an entire radio show on it. Here is just one link to an article:
http://www.alankurschner.com/2012/06/01/posttribulationism-and-the-word-concept-lexical-fallacy/
Also, I have an endnote in my book _Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord_. Here it is:
This is called the “word-concept” fallacy, an assumption that studying a single word or phrase corresponds to having studied the entire biblical concept. The fallacy is also called the “concordance” method of interpretation. One should not simply open up a concordance and finger down the page looking for usages of a single word and stop there. It can be a beginning point for study, but there is an important difference between studying a biblical concept and studying the range of meanings of a single word. For example, if we want to learn what the Bible teaches about love, it would be a mistake to restrict our study only to the word agapē because there are many terms describing different aspects of love. We need to take Scripture in a normal, natural, contextual sense and recognize synonyms and other similar phrases that describe a concept rather than collapsing an entire concept into a single term. Moisés Silva gives this additional example: “A very important passage on the subject of hypocrisy is Isaiah 1:10–15, but the student suckled at the concordance would never find [the word “hypocrisy”]; instead, he would come to an unrefined understanding of the topic.” Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 27. See also D. A. Carson, “Word-Study Fallacies,” in Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 27–64. Therefore, we must be careful not to assume if a passage lacks the exact expression “day of the Lord,” it must not be referring to God’s eschatological judgment.
All this to say, you do not determine interpretation on the meaning of a word. Words have NO meaning outside of their context. And my main point: the absent of a particular word does not mean the concept if absent.
I hope that helps, Mitchell.
Blessings,
Alan
@SMA – To answer the question as to whether or not the West will experience tribulation, please take a moment to first read the following article:
Unsealed: A Closer Look At Revelation 6 And ‘The Four Horsemen Of The Apocalypse’
In it I attempt to explain where we are right now in the eschaton. With that in mind, let’s now consider that, in each and every single verse in the Book of Revelation that refers to the Antichrist/Beast and the “whole earth” or “all the world”, the word for “earth” and “world” is the Greek word “ge”. This word often refers to “a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region” and suggests the likelihood of a geographical limitation to Antichrist’s power. Old Testament prophets themselves also suggest a geographical limitation of the eschatonic Beast with some very specific details of their own, describing the nations that come against Jerusalem at Armageddon in terms of being all of the “surrounding peoples” (Zechariah 12:2), or “surrounding nations” (Joel 3:11-12, Zechariah 14:14) or “neighbors” (Ezekiel 28:24-26).
Although the “seat of the Beast” (cf. Rev 13:2, 16:10) will be primarily regional, Antichrist’s influence over his people will definitely be felt globally by the common denominator that links all the nations surrounding Israel together: Islam. We are seeing Islam’s influence today all throughout the West. Consider that just a few years ago an American-born Al Qaeda leader publicly called upon Muslims in America to start buying guns and begin killing non-Muslim Americans. I’ve believed for some time now that when this does come it may, with the right “triggering event”, not be isolated. As we all know, there are millions upon millions of Muslims living in Western nations today. If an event were to occur in the world that would be eschatologically pivotal for Muslims this would be sure to awaken any radical elements within the Muslim population all across the globe, radicalizing some of those who were previously considered “moderate” by friends and neighbors. We could be looking at tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of potential jihadists waging an all-out campaign of terror against their local non-Muslim infidels in America and other Western nations. The Fort Hood killer, a Muslim US Army Major, waged his own jihad and took 13 lives. This was just one man with a gun. The Tsarnaev brothers killed 3 and wounded hundreds in Boston with just two “pressure-cooker” bombs. Imagine what tens of thousands throughout the country wielding guns and knives and anything else they could use to maim and kill could do with similar intent.
When Christ returns in power and great glory Scripture lists the nations that He fights against by name, and every nation that is identified in Scripture is today a Muslim nation. Although the “seat of the Beast” is primarily regional, its effect will certainly be felt globally. The extent to which it will be felt before Christ’s return, however, remains to be seen.
@Alan Kurschner – Hi brother Alan. The “word concept fallacy” argument may be a good rebuttal to certain pre-trib arguments, but here is what it does not do against the post-trib position:
* It does not change the fact that the wrath we are saved from according to Scripture is the post-trib “orge” wrath only.
* It does not change the fact that the First Resurrection of the dead in Christ is post-tribulational only (Revelation 20:4-6) and therefore eliminates any resurrection prior to the end of the tribulation.
* It does not change the fact that the Blessed Hope of eternal life (Titus 1:2, 2:13, 3:7) is actualized at the “epiphaneia” of Christ, which is post-tribulational (2 Thessalonians 2:8).
* It does not change the fact that we are told to expect tribulation right up until the glory of Christ is revealed (1 Pet 4:12-13). His glory is not revealed until immediately after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31).
* It does not change the fact that that Marriage Supper of the Lamb is still being anticipated after the destruction of Babylon (Revelation 19), which is post-tribulational.
* It does not change the fact that we are told by Christ to watch for certain “cosmic signs” and to be ready in Him so that we can escape all these things in “that Day” — the Day of the Lord — which is post-tribulational (Luke 21:25-36; Matthew 24:29).
* It does not change the fact that the Apostle Paul ties in the Day of the Lord with our gathering to Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3) and uses the word “episynagōgē” (G1997) when referring to the rapture as “our gathering”, which is from the word “episynagō” (G1996) — the exact word that Christ used in Matthew 24:31 regarding the gathering of the elect immediately after the tribulation. It therefore does not change the fact that in explaining the rapture, Paul refers directly to Christ’s own teaching in the Olivet Discourse and connects the “watching” for the rapture with Jesus’ instructions for His disciples to be watching for His coming “immediately after the tribulation”.
* It does not change the fact that “we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds” in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. Every time these “clouds” are mentioned in Scripture contextually it is always post-tribulational (Matthew 24:29-30; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 17:24-30; 21:25-30; Daniel 7:13; Revelation 1:7; 14:14).
More could be said, but allow me to close by saying this. The “word concept fallacy” wants us to ignore every bit of sound exegesis if that exegesis does not line up with Rosenthal’s pre-wrath position. At the end of the day, however, Rosenthal’s view itself commits the very thing it accuses all other views of committing by assuming, for instance, that the wrath we will in no way be present to witness is all of God’s wrath we find in Revelation. In reality, the wrath we are promised deliverance from is a very specific type of wrath only — the righteous indignation of His “orge” that allows no provision for repentance. And this wrath is post-tribulational only.
Great discussion brother, God bless!
I agree with those who have a concern about a pre-Trib rapture that it may lead Christians to not prepare. We also must not forget the many Christians who are already suffering terribly and, in many circumstances, in unimaginable ways, around the world. We must not forget the persecuted believers who are presently experiencing their own “tribulations”. Would we be able to endure as they are?
I wonder if the attitude of Western Christians about not going through the Great Tribulation is rooted in the fact that most of us in the West have lived, thankfully, relatively peaceful lives, free from oppression and tyranny, and they cannot imagine anything else. But so many of our brothers and sisters have experienced otherwise.
Goshen. “global” Babylon only over middle-east, same with MedoPersia, Greece, Rome, why not with the last empire?(feet and toes). Psalm83 = Gog v Magog & Armageddon. Not the Big Brother total rule of George Orwell but something more scriptural….after all some of Ammon and Edom are excluded. “Antimessiah”=the statue in Dan2 and the last Caliph before Deut30 restoration of His people from rejection/exile. Good News? Lots of questions still but my joy comes when I get back to the core narrative! HalleluYah.
For what it is worth here is my $.02.
If we serve a God who was, is, and is to come, meaning He doesn’t change and that we can always count on Him to do things the same way He has done them in the past, then we can continue with my point.
Many folks have used the example of Enoch and Elijah being “raptured” to heaven as examples of God rupturing His people before the Tribulation. However it is important to note the exact reasons for their rapture. Was it to avoid persecution? If so then Why does Jesus tell us that we will be persecuted for His name’s sake? Why are their Christians today being persecuted and killed? Why is God not rapturing them? Elijah and Enoch were both raptured as a reward for their faithfulness to the Father and to not have to face death. I am sure one could successfully argue that there were other reasons as well that only the Father knows.
Also, whenever we see God’s wrath poured out on the Earth or on a particular people, we see that God always and consistently protected His people from His own wrath. For we can all agree that we who are in Christ are not subject to the Lord’s wrath.
For if we all agree that God is consistent and never changing, Why did God not rapture Noah and his family out of the earth before the great flood? Was God not capable of such a feat? Was He not capable of creating new life and knew animals to populate the earth? Most assuredly, I tell you He was and is. Why then did God not rapture the Israelites from the earth when He sent plague after plague and even the Angel of Death to the Egyptians? Did God not allow protection of His people from His own wrath?
Compare the plagues of Egypt to the plagues/wrath of the Tribulation. You will see they parallel the Exodus uncannily.
If God protected His people from His wrath in Egypt, will He not do the same for you and I?
But even if you disagree with me on the nature of our Father in Heaven, then let’s look at it from a logical perspective.
I am a post-tribulationist. I am not even pre-wrath as to me that is another form of pre-trig, but that is a different discussion. But let’s say that I end up being wrong on the rapture being Post-tribulation and the rapture occurs 7 years before Christ’s return (3rd?). If I am wrong I lose nothing. But let’s say for argument’s sake that those who are pre-tribulation are wrong. If you wake up one day and the Antichrist is revealed and there is no trumpet sounded, what then? How will you know what to do and how to deal with persecution and facing conversion or death.
Like the military train their minds and their bodies over and over to prepare themselves for war, so to we are to prepare ourselves for persecution. To know that it is coming will only benefit you. But if you are wrong as a pre-tribber, you are more likely to be overtaken.
I, as many of you likely have as well, have heard it said before, that if one believes in God and is wrong, they lose nothing. But if one does not believe in God and accept Christ as the Messiah, and he is wrong he gains nothing but instead loses everything including eternal life.
My point here is, is not better to plan for being post-tribulation and hope for pre-tribulation, rather than believing and hoping for pre-tribulation with the chance of being wrong? What loss is there in post-tribulational thinking and planning if you are wrong? Has it been said that only those who believe in pre-trib will be raptured? I tell you that it has not.
Pray about it and read the entire books that deal with the rapture and not just a few verses before and after. Do so while having no bias or presupposition on the matter. Have an open mind or as Christ put it; an ear to hear and and eye to see.
So you if you know now what would come, you couldn’t have prepared a place to hide Jews seeking a hiding place? “Lord, when did we see you and you needed shelter?” I think many farmers throughout the European countryside would greatly disagree with you. Simply being in Christ, and doing nothing is all that we should be doing? No need to set aside provision in order to share with others in their moment of greatest need, as an opportunity to share the gospel? And on a personal level, no need to hide his word in your heart? NO need to study what is coming? No need to understand the signs? No need to build a history of personal devotion, prayer and worship? You may mock the idea of always having oil in your lamps, but the Scriptures say those who did not ended up in the outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Many who are unprepared in the last days will fall away because of offense.
“A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions. The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.” —Proverbs 27:12
The Bible says that many who are “saved” will fall away from the faith in those days. So I would suggest that your action plan, or specifically your inaction plan is deeply unbiblical.
At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other —Matthew 24:10
You have just called the warning and words of Jesus “garbage”.
Franklin Graham’s Warning !
Franklin’s warning of coming persecution of Christians echoes what his mother Ruth and father Billy have clearly stated. Re Ruth, see search engines including Google for “Letter from Mrs. Billy Graham.” To see what Billy has written, Google “Famous Rapture Watchers – Addendum.”
Since Franklin blamed the Obama administration for his own National Day of Prayer snub and persecution, and since he accused “Christian” Obama of “giving Islam a pass,” readers can get some rare insights into Obama and his fellow travelers by Yahooing “Obama Supports Public Depravity,” “Obama Avoids Bible Verses,” “Separation of Raunch and State,” and “The Background Obama Can’t Cover Up.”
To see some exceptional in-depth studies of coming persecution, see two unique books by media figure Joe Ortiz entitled “The End Times Passover” and “Why Christians Will Suffer ‘Great Tribulation’ ” – both published in the US and UK by AuthorHouse. Also Google “Margaret Macdonald’s Rapture Chart,” “The Unoriginal John Darby,” “Pretrib Rapture Secrecy,” “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty,” “Pretrib Rapture Pride,” “Pretrib Rapture Politics,” and “Pretrib Rapture Stealth” – most by the author of “The Rapture Plot” (the most accurate and comprehensive history of the 183-year-old pretrib rapture view) available by calling 800.643.4645.
[Hi, JT. Spotted the above on the fascinating web. Any reaction?]
Thank you Joel for letting us know where you stand. I saw videos of you on YouTube when you were on the Sid Roth show and I wondered if you were pre-trib or post-trib. I am also post-trib (use to be pre-trib until I studied the Word MYSELF and did not listen to man’s teaching) So many will fall away in the end times. They will feel lied to about the rapture. They will see what is happening and get scared. I can see the connection of Islam to what is coming. We must prepare in every way for what is about to come upon us. I believe God will protect us, but we should not sit idle, we need to be ready to help our families and other people. Christians will have to lean on each other in those terrible days and many will get saved because of us helping others. Keep up the work for the Kingdom! God bless you and your ministry!
As much as I wish that no one will fall away in the last days, Jesus’ words are quite explicit. The word skandalizō in the Greek of Matthew 24:10 can only be a reference to falling away. The KJV unfortunately doesn’t communicate the full impact of Jesus’ words here.
At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other (NIV)
And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. (ESV)
“At that time many will fall away and will fnbetray one another and hate one another. (NASB)
And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another. (RSV)
And many will turn away from me and betray and hate each other. (NLT)
I don’t really have anything to add except to say that the above was a very interesting discussion. I agree with Jim’s timeline vis a vis the return of our Lord, as does Mitchell. When synthesizing all of Scripture and considering the moedim that’s what I arrive at too.
I am very glad to see Joel writing on the moedim (in a separate article) and publicly proclaiming his post-trib position. I wish he would reconsider his belief in a 7 year Trib which I believe to be nothing more than a vestige of Dispensationalism/Pretribism. I don’t see the Bible telling us anywhere that we have X + 7 years to wait for His return.
Kurt,
For me, the the case for a seven year period is fairly solid. Matthew 24 contains Jesus’ outline of that 7 year period, wherein Jesus is expounding upon Daniel. If we reject this view, we are forced to interpret a passage that is in my opinion, clearly speaking about the Antichrist, as referring to Jesus. You see, there are four references to the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel. Each one involves the establishment of the abomination and the ceasing of offerings. The view which holds only to the 3.5 years forces us to interpret only one of these verses as referring to Jesus while interpreting the other three as referring to the AC. This is inconsistent. The Bible does clearly speak of a week, the question is, is it broken up by two thousand years or is it contiguous? The idea that the week is broken up with a 2000 year gap with the first 3.5 years being the ministry of Jesus and the last 3.5 being the ministry of the AC simply doesn’t work for me. Just my perspective, God knows best of course. But regardless, the final 3.5 years begin with the AC setting up himself in the Temple. When that happens we will know…
Hi Kurt,
Yes, no one will get it all right. Myself foremost.
That said, as I understand your perspective, it has some serious problems.
First you said:
This is not true. The idea of a seven year final period predates Dispensationalism. I could cite numerous commentators who predate dispensationalism who held to this view. So it is a total fallacy to see this as merely a dispensationalist construct. Nevertheless, we do not reject something simply because it is associated with a system that we have some level of disagreement concerning. We base our view on Scripture.
Second, your view requires us to interpret Daniel 8 and 11 as being primarily fulfilled in Antiochus with the AC only being a secondary fulfillment of these passages. Yet Jesus referred to the Abomination of Desolation and placed it in the future to occur under the reign of the AC. He was not speaking of Titus. The Olivet Discourse refers entirely to the final seven year period.
This is critical!! With Jesus’ as our guide for a proper hermeneutic in understanding Daniel, we recognize that the specific passages that speak of offerings ceasing ceasing are primarily and ultimately being something that occurs under the AC, not Antiochus, and most certainly not Jesus!
Third, you said, “The temple is not coming back”. But again, Jesus harkened to Daniel and placed the coming Abomination of Desolations in the future during the tribulation, under the AC, not in the past. So of course there will be a Temple that the AC will defile.
Paul also validates Jesus’ words and tells us that the Antichrist will set himself up in what? “The Temple of God”!
The Temple could not be viewed or referred to within Holy Scripture, the very word of God as “God’s Temple” if it were not an unholy thing. This is also so critical. One cannot defile something that is already evil or unholy. One defiles something that is holy.
So also does John in the book of Revelation refer to a last days Temple, and in positive terms:
Three and a half years, The AC and his people will trample and defile the Temple of God. There’s no getting around it.
Beyond all this, context and some basic background would cause us to recognize the fact that no first century Jew would view the ceasing of offerings as a good thing. Nor did Jesus, and obviously nor does the Bible as it repeatedly calls it “God’s”.
I hope this has helped. As always, forgive my brevity.
Blessings
Kurt,
I want to say this respectfully, but there are so many problems with what you have laid out here, I don’t even know where to begin. I’m not sure if you even realize it, but you are intermingling various approaches of interpretation that are in absolute fundamental conflict with each other. And you are espousing ideas that are fundamentally in conflict with Scripture. I want to say this respectfully, but forcefully.
Lets go back to the foundational passages. Again, Daniel 11:31 speaks of the Abomination of Desolation, that leads to the ceasing of offerings. Jesus placed this event in the future in Matthew 24:15. You are trying to say that Titus fulfilled this and that it was fulfilled in 70 AD. Yet earlier you said it was fulfilled in Antiochus. This obviously is a problem. No matter which way you argue, whether for Antiochus or Titus, there are insurmountable exegetical problems.
I would argue that the immediate context makes it impossible to understand this as referring to anyone other than the Antichrist. Consider the immediate two verses where Jesus says:
The end of what? Those who endured to the end of the tribulation of 70 AD, would be saved? And then Jesus continues:
If verse 15 concerning the abomination is referring to 70 AD, then one must also believe that the gospel had already been preached to all the earth, the great commission completed before 70 AD. This is the stuff that hyper-preterists will claim. No, when Jesus referred to “the end”, he meant the end.
And not only are the immediate verses preceeding Matthew 24:15 concerning the Abomination clearly speaking of “the end” of this age, but so also are the verses immediately following 24:15 speaking of the last days:
If the abomination and great tribulation has already occured, then the events of 70 AD were the worst thing to have ever occurred in human history and will never be surpassed in terms of tribulation. Oh wait, the Holocaust was far worse. Scratch that.
Jesus then goes on to describe the events that will immediately follow the tribulation he is describing, and removes all doubt:
NOt only does your view require us to slice the Olivet Discourse into a mixed garbled mess, but it also runs into a train wreck with Daniel 11-12. You see, Jesus was in many ways expounding on Daniel 10-12. These three chapters in Daniel are one cohesive, contiguous prophecy. Forget the chapter division here. So the individual described in Daniel 11:21-45 and the acts that he carries out are continued to be described in Daniel 12, which begins with “at that time”, linking the timing of that which follows to that which was just described in Daniel 11. And what does chapter 12 describe? Let’s take a look. Notice that the first verse is what Jesus was quoting in Matthew 24 when he described an unequalled and unparalleled time of tribulation:
And what immediately follows? This is critical. Its the resurrection from the dead:
The bottom line is if one wishes to take any part of this prophecy and shove it back to 70 AD, they are forced to be consistent and argue that the Son of Man has already come and the resurrection of the dead has already occurred. This is hyper-rpreterism, a heretical view that has its roots in a spiritualized Greek-Platonic-Pagan worldview.
In any case, I could go on and on, but hopefully this has explained what I feel are some of the severe, I would argue insurmountable, problems with what you are trying to argue for.
Blessings
Hi Joel,
Thanks for the dialogue.
You wrote “Lets go back to the foundational passages. Again, Daniel 11:31 speaks of the Abomination of Desolation, that leads to the ceasing of offerings. Jesus placed this event in the future in Matthew 24:15. You are trying to say that Titus fulfilled this and that it was fulfilled in 70 AD. Yet earlier you said it was fulfilled in Antiochus. This obviously is a problem. No matter which way you argue, whether for Antiochus or Titus, there are insurmountable exegetical problems.”
To be fair you have to admit that 1) Antiochus was a foreshadow (at least) of the future AC and AoD and so “fulfills” some (at least) of the prophecies of Daniel regarding him. I would include 11:31 in that list. Also, 2) Jesus says in Mt 23:37-38 that He is leaving Israel desolate, and the lack of the temple and sacrifices (and the need for them) is another aspect of desolation. So assuming you are correct that there is a third “Abomination of Desolation”, I believe you would agree with me that already two have occurred, in some form. So I don’t think scripture is completely clear, cut and dried on this, thus the discussion we are now having.
Additionally, Jesus is addressing three questions the disciples ask in the first vss of Mt 24 and dissecting which of his statements answer which questions is not that simple. I have interpreted his answers addressing certain questions slightly differently in some cases than you have.
I have to work, I would like to address the other issues. My mind is not completely made up, I’ve modified my beliefs on these topics before!
Take care,
Kurt
Shalom…..Interesting conversation and you both present good points !
Ellis Skolfield believes the “abomination ” took place when the Muslims built the Dome of the rock on Temple Mount,but as he points out is on the historic ” court of the gentiles” ! He does not believe in a final AC ( also believes islam was and is the beast) and tribulation of seven years, but times of great distress , wars , natural disasters etc as prophecied will mark the end times with no country unnaffected, until the return of Jesus.
He also presents a convincing case, but not without some holes . Some of which Joel has mentioned.
The mathematics of it all I find confusing but am praying for wisdom in these matters at the moment , thanking you both for thought-provoking information !
Kurt,
Yes, absolutely, Antiochus was the pattern, the shadow. But he is not the ultimate fulfillment. First, there are things within the text (in both Dan 8 and 11) that Antiochus did not fulfill, but also, Jesus placed the AoD (verse 11:31) in the future, so this also rules out Antiochus as the ultimate fulfillment.
Also, I fully agree that the Temple has suffered abominations multiple times throughout Jewish history. Under Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus, Titus. But all of these, the Bible uses as types of the ultimate final last days event that will carried out by the Man of lawlessness.
All I am saying is that a careful examination of Matthew 24 and Daniel 8-12 reveals that yes, there will be another final Antichrist who will repeat that which has taken place multiple times in Jewish history. This is the teaching of Jesus, the Apostles, as well as the early Christians writers.
Blessings!
With respect to Daniel’s 70th week, here is an alternative view that is worthy of some study, one that I’ve written about previously. The traditional dispensational position which teaches that the 70th Week of Daniel is still awaiting a full future fulfillment does seem to be a relatively recent invention. If it was taught prior to Irving and Darby, I would be interested in reading those sources. Be that as it may, it is my humble opinion that the understanding of a full future fulfillment may not be as solid as we’ve always assumed it to be. From what can I find in Scripture alone, I am persuaded to believe that Christ is the One Himself who already fulfilled at least the first half of Daniel’s 70th week.
Daniel’s 70 weeks were divided into 7 weeks and 62 weeks and 1 week. From what I’ve gathered, the first 7 weeks (49 years) is likely the time it took to rebuild the Temple and the city, and the subsequent 62 weeks (434 years) was the time that God allotted to bring about the anointing of Messiah (John 1:29-32) and begin the fulfillment of the final week (7 years) of Daniel’s prophecy. When it was pronounced to Daniel that 70 weeks were determined for his people and that the Messiah would be “cut off” after the first 69 weeks, the plain and straightforward reading of the text naturally suggests that the death of the Messiah would take place sometime during the last week, and considering that the Messiah is mentioned more times in Daniel 9:24-26 than anyone else, it stands to reason in my mind that the Messiah is Daniel’s primary focus here. (The “people of the prince that shall come”, though an important detail, is largely parenthetical to the overall thrust of Daniel’s primary focus, but may be referenced afterward once more, which I’ll highlight in just a moment). In speaking about the Messiah, Daniel then writes in 9:27a:
Daniel 9:27a, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease…”
If a covenant was subsequently confirmed by Christ, then Scripture should affirm this elsewhere. And does it? Let’s allow Scripture to speak for itself and compare Danial 9:27a above with the following verse below:
Galatians 3:17, “And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.”
Not only does it imply as much, Galatians 3:17 uses the exact same language as Daniel 9:27a, indicating that the Apostle Paul was quoting Daniel directly and telling us that Daniel’s 70 weeks did not stop once the 69th week came to an end. It continued right into the 70th week, the time when Messiah began His ministry and the time during which the Messiah would be cut off according to Daniel 9:26. The Hebrew word for cut off is karath, which means to cut off, cut down or kill. Although it is frequently used in the sense of being rejected, it is also used 54 times in the Old Testament in the context of being killed (eg. Exodus 31:14). And indeed, something pivotal took place about 3.5 years after Jesus began His earthy ministry, in the middle of the 70th week. Not only was the Messiah rejected by the people (Psalm 118:22; Matthew 21:42), He was also crucified in accordance to the plan of the Father for the sins of the world. As the Prophet Isaiah wrote, “He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was stricken” (Isaiah 53:8), and being cut off and the shedding of His blood would be, according to the words of Messiah Himself, the confirmation of the covenant for many:
Matthew 26:28, “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
There is no doubt that Daniels prophecy is telling us that the Messiah would be killed. The NIV renders Dan 9:26 to say that He “will have nothing”, however the Hebrew also means “but not for Himself”, which is precisely how it is translated in many Bibles. The Messiah would die, but He would not die for Himself. Why? Because He would be dying for others. This describes Christ’s work, His substitutionary death on the Cross perfectly. The Messiah is the Lamb of God. He is our Passover. And because of His sacrifice, the sacrifice and oblations (offerings) of the old law ceased. They were no longer required, and were no longer of any value.
Hebrews 8:6-8, “… he [Christ] is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.”
Hebrews 10:1-10, “For the law … can never with these same sacrifices … make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered?… For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: ‘Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come — In the volume of the book it is written of Me — To do Your will, O God.’’ … then He said, ‘Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.’ He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].”
There is nothing in Scripture that I could find to suggest a pause in between the 69th and 70th weeks, as many of us believe. But a pause in time, however, is not out of the question in the middle of the 70th. Admittedly, I could be wrong, but the possibility of a mid-week pause is a strong one in my view. We even find an example of a “mid-pause” in time essentially from a comma. In Luke 4:16-21 when Jesus went into the synagogue and read the prophecy of Isaiah 61:1-3 to proclaim its fulfillment, He stopped mid-way in the prophecy. This is what He fulfilled:
Isaiah 61:1-3, “The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD [{– Fulfilled | Not Yet Fulfilled –}], and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.”
Interestingly, Jesus felt the need to mention something a few verses later in Luke 4:25, stating, “But I tell you truly, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a great famine throughout all the land.” Could this have been a clue to something? Only God knows. But, per Christ Himself, the first half of the Isaiah 61:1-3 prophecy was fulfilled at Christ’s First Coming. The second half of the prophecy would obviously be fulfilled at Christ’s Second Coming, and likely following the second portion of Daniel 9:27:
Daniel 9:27, “Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.” (NKJV).
Daniel 9:27b appears to be referring not to Messiah, but to someone else (perhaps to the “people of the prince that shall come”?) In addition to the NKJV, other translations infer a separate subject as well in 9:27b, such as the ESV (“And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate …”), the NASB (and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate …”), the RSV (“and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate …”), ASV (“and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate …”) as well as others.
Now, some will wonder from when do we therefore calculate the beginning of Daniel’s 70 weeks per 9:25, to which there are various opinions. One of them is that the starting date for the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was announced by Artaxerxes in 457 BC (cf. Ezra 7:13,20). Others contend that the command to rebuild Jerusalem was already given to the Israelites by Cyrus per Ezra 1:3, however they were commanded to stop rebuilding by Artaxerxes according to Ezra 4:21,23. Another command was later given by Artaxerxes to begin rebuilding again. According to Daniel 9:24-25 the Messiah would be anointed after 69 weeks had been fulfilled, which is 483 years (69×7). 457 BC plus 483 years brings us to the year 27 AD (I use the term “add” loosely, because there is no year “0″ in the calendar, so 483 years after 457 BC brings us to 27 AD) which was the year that Jesus was baptized by John and anointed by the Holy Spirit to begin His ministry. This was the beginning of Daniel’s 70th week.
In my view, the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 BC is the best of the four separate decrees we find in Scripture and is, in my opinion, a sound logical deduction (the others are either too early or too late) since this one lines up perfectly with the prophecy. Daniel wrote in 9:25 that “From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One [Messiah], the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’”. Daniel did not say that “from the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Messiah rides into Jerusalem on a donkey” or “until the Messiah is killed”. Jesus had already been well known for a few years prior to His “Triumphal Entry” into Jerusalem. Daniel said “until the Anointed One comes”, which is to say, is made known publicly or is revealed. When did this happen precisely? According to Scripture, it happened the day He was baptized by John the Baptist, when “John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’” (John 1:29-30). Notice what John says next: “I myself did not know Him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that He might be revealed to Israel.” (v 31). And indeed, the Messiah [meaning “the Anointed One”] has now come, “And John bore witness, saying, ‘I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him’” (v 32). The Anointed One is now revealed to Israel in fulfillment of Daniel 9:25.
With respect to the 70th week of Daniel, if only the first half was fulfilled then the other half is yet to be fulfilled. And the answer should be obvious as to what that would be: the 1260 days / 42 months / time, times and the dividing of time spoken of by the prophet Daniel and John in Revelation. It is the 3.5 “prophetic years” of Antichrist during which time the people of God suffer intense persecution by the Beast, unparalleled in history, and during which time a coalition of Islamic nations gather against Israel for the battle of Gog-Magog. It is also the time during which the Beast and its people incur the chastising “thymos” wrath of God before their ultimate end at His “orge” wrath. Scripture itself never really speaks of a future seven-years of tribulation. That view is based entirely upon one interpretation of one verse in all of Scripture. But it does speak of 3.5 “prophetic years” repeatedly, which just so happens to be half of Daniel’s 70th week.
A thought came to me some time ago with respect to “the temple of God” and how many of us expect there to one day be a new Jewish temple built on the Temple Mount before the Second Coming of Christ, one in which the Antichrist himself would eventually stand in and literally claim “I am God.” While an effort does exist by some orthodox Jewish groups to rebuild the third temple, I think it would be wise for all students of Scripture to at least consider the possibility that this may not have been what the Holy Spirit was referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2 and Matthew 24.
To understand why, we first need to keep in mind that the Apostle Paul and Jesus both pointed to a Last Days event that would take place just before the Day of the Lord (Christ’s post-trib Second Coming). Paul referred to it as the “man of sin/lawlessness” who sets himself up in “the temple of God” (2 Thess 2:4), while Jesus described it as the Abomination of Desolation standing in “the holy place” (Matt 24:15). Many have assumed that the temple mentioned by Paul must be a physical temple in Jerusalem, but according to the verses below we are continually reminded that the true temple of God is no longer a physical temple — after the final sacrifice of Christ the veil was torn and animal sacrifices were no longer of any value — but is instead now a spiritual temple:
1 Cor 3:17, “If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.”
1 Peter 2:5, “And now God is building you, as living stones, into his spiritual temple. What’s more, you are God’s holy priests, who offer the spiritual sacrifices that please him because of Jesus Christ.” (NLT)
Eph 2:19-22, “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner[stone], in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”
With this thought in mind, let’s now turn our attention to another portion of Scripture that many watchers often point to in support of the idea that we should still be looking for a rebuilt Jewish temple. In Revelation 11:1 we read, “Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, ‘Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there’” (Rev 11:1).
One thing I’ve always wondered is why was John given a “rod” and told to “measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein”? I’m sure that an entire word study could be done on just the word “rod” (cf Psa. 23:4, Thy rod and Thy staff shall comfort me), or “measure” (cf Hab 3:6, He stood and measured the earth …), but let’s take another look here at temple and the temple imagery instead:
1. The very first time we find the word “temple” in Revelation is in 3:12a regarding the Church in Philadelphia when Christ says, “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more.” For one to be made a pillar in the temple it must mean that the temple in view here is not one made of stone, but rather one that is made of people.
2. Lampstands/candlesticks were important items that were found in the physical temple in the Old Testament, yet John shows us that this time the lampstands/candlesticks in the temple are represented by the two witnesses (11:4), which again would indicate that the temple in view is not a physical temple made of stone, but rather one of people.
3. In the Old Testament a priest was one who served within the physical temple of God. In Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 we are told that anyone who has been washed by the blood of Christ is a priest, and the Christian understanding of this according to 1 Peter 2:5 is that as priests we now “offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” We no longer offer animal sacrifices in a temple made of stone.
All of this again reminds me of Ephesians 2:19-22, which tells us that as believers we are growing into a holy temple in the Lord and are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. In this light, could it not therefore stand to reason that when John speaks of the temple being trampled on in chapter 11 that he is referring to God’s people, and not a physical third temple per se built in Jerusalem? I say yes.
If Jesus in Matthew 24 and the Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 are referring to the holy place that is the new spiritual temple of God — the Church — then it may be that all we need to watch for in this respect is ‘someone’ of significant importance to stand within or beside, yet against, the ekklesia of God. This new spiritual offensive could even commence as a physical offensive against Jews and Christians at the Temple Mount itself whereby this ‘someone’ would proclaim himself to be something that only the true God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can lay claim to. And what could that be?
As you know, the Muslim world is waiting for their “messianic” figure whom they call “The Mahdi” or “The 12th Imam” that will lead them into a new era of Islamic “justice” that would “spread around the globe” and unite the Ummah (the Islamic “church” if you will) against non-Muslims. Of particular interest here is the fact that Islamists view this figure as the savior, not only for Muslims, but for all of humanity. If the Mahdi proclaimed himself to be — or is proclaimed by the Muslim world to be — the “true savior” of mankind that the whole earth must follow, this would fly directly in the face of God who says in Isaiah 43:11 that “I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior.” According to Scripture, anyone who would proclaim himself to be the savior of the world would therefore be claiming to be God by attributing to himself a title that only God can hold. Moreover, if this Islamic “savior” is announced to be the savior of humanity who then demands that Judaism, Christianity (and all religions) be abolished and demands that all Christians convert to Islam and no longer worship Jesus Christ, would he not also be causing the “sacrifice and oblations (offerings) to cease” according to Scripture?
Romans 12:1, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.”
Hebrews 13:15, “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks to his name.”
1 Peter 2:5, “And now God is building you, as living stones, into his spiritual temple. What’s more, you are God’s holy priests, who offer the spiritual sacrifices that please him because of Jesus Christ.”
With that thought in mind, we begin to see the text in a whole new light:
2 Thess 2:3-4,8, “Don’t be fooled by what they say. For that day [the day of the Lord] will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed — the one who brings destruction. He will exalt himself and defy every god there is and tear down every object of adoration and worship. He will position himself in the temple of God, claiming that he himself is God … And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom THE LORD WILL OVERTHROW with the breath of his mouth AND DESTROY by the splendor of his coming.”
1 Cor 3:17, “If anyone defiles the temple of God, GOD WILL DESTROY HIM. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.”
One obvious question, however, would be how does this affect Jews living in the nation of Israel if it is referring primarily to the spiritual temple of God? There are a couple of possibilities that we could deduce from this thought, especially if we accept the likelihood that the coming Antichrist will be Islam’s awaited “savior of humanity”:
1. The Mahdi (according to Islamic teaching) will not only claim to be the ‘savior’ but will also be the driving force behind uniting a coalition of Islamic nations that come up against the nation of Israel. He will also desire to subjugate the world into converting to Islam, according to Islamic teaching. In this way, it would definitely have much bearing on the Jews living in Israel even if this is only referring to the spiritual temple of God.
2. It will have a direct bearing on all Messianic Jews who would — along with Gentile Christians — recognize this “Abomination of Desolation”. I do not believe that the Olivet Discourse or even the Book of Matthew as a whole was for an “orthodox” Jewish audience only as some contend (who would never read the book anyway, I fail to see the point) but rather I believe that it was for Messianic Jews, and by extension all Gentile Christians. (Matt 24:9 says, “… ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.” Orthodox Jews are not hated because of Jesus’ name, but Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians are. (In fact, even many orthodox Jews hate Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians because they adhere to the faith of Jesus).
3. It is possible that there could be a dual fulfillment. Most translations render Matt 24:15 as “standing IN the holy place” which causes those who read the English translation to envision a fully rebuilt temple. However, the word for “in” in the Greek is “en” (G1722) and is also translated as “on”, “by”, “at” or “with” in addition to “among”. Although some orthodox Jewish groups are actively seeking to rebuild the third temple, all that they require to offer sacrifices is an altar and an unblemished red heifer. (The alter began construction in July 29, 2009 and has been completed). This could be on the Temple Mount, or right beside the western wall (which I could see happening if they suddenly have a perfect red heifer but no rebuilt temple yet.) Perhaps this could be Christ’s reference to “standing in/on/by the holy place” and the reason why He did not mention a temple per se, whereas Paul could have been referencing the new spiritual temple of God comprised of Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians, writing in 2 Thess 2:4 that the “man of sin/lawlessness” would take his seat “in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” It is important to note, that the Greek word for “in” is the word “eis” (G1519), but it does not only mean “in.” It is also translated dozens of times as “against” in Scripture. For example:
Matthew 10:21, “Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.”
Matthew 18:21, “Then Peter came to Him and said, ‘Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?’”
Mark 14:55, “Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none.”
When, in the context of 2 Thess 2:4 the Apostle Paul made a reference to the “temple of God”, the natural assumption on the part of the translators would have therefore been to interpret “eis” to mean in. But in light of the full canvas of Scripture we now understand that the New Testament writers no longer defined the temple of God in terms of one that was made of stone, but rather as one made of people — the Church.
4. There is also one final point that needs to be considered as well with respect to the “man of sin/lawlessness”. We should not discount the possibility that the “man of sin/lawlessness” — though often referred to in Scripture in anthropomorphic terms — may not be pointing to one single person as it were, though the general consensus is precisely that, but could instead be pointing to one single entity or system. The ekklesia of God is comprised of a great multitude of believing Jews and Gentiles created as “one new man” in Christ who are marked by God (Eph. 2:15, Rev. 14:1) and described by John in Revelation 7 as the “multitude of the lamb”, ie, Jesus Christ. Conversely, the “man of sin” (2 Thess 2:3) could therefore be its direct antithesis comprised of those who have the Mark of the Beast and described by John in Revelation 13 as the “multitude of a man”, ie, the “prophet Mohammed”. If this is the case, then we may be even closer to the cusp of prophetic fulfillment than many of us realize.
Isaiah 14:12-14, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation … I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”
The Enemy has been hard at work seeking to exalt and magnify himself as Isaiah prophesied above through the religious ideology of Islam, one that diametrically opposes everything that the Judeo-Christian faith represents and stands for. Though Satan will try to destroy the congregation that God has created, he cannot and will not prevail against God’s Ekklesia. All he can do is create his own corrupted version of God’s elect, to wage war against God’s elect, all in an effort to replace God’s elect with one that is created in his own image. Knowing that the Ekklesia of YHWH is the “Body of Christ” and is also referred to as His Bride and filled with “the glory of God”, it stands to reason in my mind that Satan’s counterfeit of the Church — the Ummah of Islam — is the “Body of Antichrist” and also referred to as the Whore of Babylon who is “full of names of blasphemy.”
It appears to me that the intended meaning of the temple of God in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, keeping the overall context and teaching of the temple within the full counsel of the New Testament, is a direct reference to the spiritual temple of God — the Church — and not necessarily a physical, rebuilt Jewish temple. The Mahdi, or “man of sin/lawlessness”, does not have to outright say “I am God” in order to show (“apodeiknymi”, declare) himself as God. Jesus did the same thing without telling the Sanhedrin “I am God”, yet they understood the theological significance of His words and sought to kill Him. Likewise, this man could merely approach the temple mount where the Islamic Dome of the Rock stands and from there proclaim itself or himself to be the “savior of mankind” whom both Jews and Christians must follow. Not only would Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians recognize this as an affront to the faith of Christ and the significance of this event, even orthodox Jews would know that this would be a declaration of divinity, someone other than God showing himself to be God. They, too, understand Isaiah 43:11 as God declares “I am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior.” Indeed, “…I am God, and there is none like Me” (Isaiah 46:9).
Mitchell,
While we should always remain humble with regard to our views concerning the end times in order that we are not deceived by our own overly rigid views or unbending pride, etc., I absolutely, completely, thoroughly disagree with you on this one. And I hope to win you over, because this is really important.
So let me begin by mirroring back what you are arguing. You are claiming that Scripture teaches the Antichrist will not literally set himself up in any future literal Temple in Jerusalem. Paul’s reference in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is only referring to a spiritual reality.
Now, there are four references to the Abomination of Desolations in Daniel. They all clearly speak of a literal Temple, the defilement of that Temple, and the resultant ceasing of offerings. I must assume that you agree with this. If any of these four references can be shown to refer to the actions of the Antichrist, then your whole argument collapses. If the little horn of Daniel 8 can be shown to be ultimately referring to Antichrist, and only partially to Antiochus as a shadow, then your entire argument falls apart. If the one making a firm covenant in Daniel 9:27 can be shown to be the Antichrist, then your whole argument collapses. If the King of the North of Daniel spoken of in 11:21-35 can be shown to ultimately refer to Antichrist, then your argument collapses. If it can be shown that Daniel 12:11 is speaking of the future, then your argument collapses.
Rather than unpack the numerous points that could be made, let’s just touch on Daniel 8 and the little horn:
Did Antiochus cause some of the stars (angels) to fall to the earth? Or is this ultimately referring to Satan/Antichrist? The Book of Revelation makes this quite clear (eg. Rev. 12:3-9; 13:1-7). If this passage is fulfilled in Antiochus, then how did he cause Angels to fall from heaven? If you wish to rule out the Antichrist as the ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy, then this must be explained satisfactorily.
Of course, the subject of this passage is the one who tramples the Temple and causes offerings to cease:
So is this fully fulfilled in Antiochus or is it ultimately fulfilled in Antichrist? Our first timing indictor is given in verse 13:
If you wish to argue that it was completely fulfilled in Antiochus, you have a huge problem. Antiochus didn’t defile the Temple for 2,300 days. Of course, some argue that the phrase “2,300 evenings and mornings” actually means 1150 days. But either way, no matter how one calculates this, Antiochus does not fulfill it. Multiple corroborating historical sources tell us that he defiled the Temple for only 1,095 days.
So when then is the ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy?
When time does the prophecy pertain to?
Again, when does it pertain to?
I’ll leave it there for now.
Bless ya
Kurt,
Again, your position just doesn’t work. Daniel 12:1 simply doesn’t allow for it. The worst tribulation ever that Jesus referenced is inextricably linked with the resurrection of the dead! You cannot say that Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD. Daniel 12:1-2 simply doesn’t allow for it.
You also said that the discussion concerning the Tribulation doesn’t begin until verse 29. Yet it says, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days” Which days? The days he was just previously describing! This isn’t that difficult.
Don’t let the preterists beguile you!! The entire Olivet Discourse in Luke 21, Matthew 24 and Mark 13 are entirely tribulational.
Joel, you wrote ” The entire Olivet Discourse in Luke 21, Matthew 24 and Mark 13 are entirely tribulational.”
So do you then conclude that Jesus does not answer these questions in Mt 24:3 and Luke 21:7 “Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?” with a prophecy of the 70 AD destruction, that He skips over them and is only discussing end-time “tribulation” events?
That when the disciples commented on the temple buildings and Jesus said “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down” He was not talking about their destruction in 70 AD but in some future rebuilt temple’s destruction?
I think we have to admit that at least some of Jesus’ prophecies of Mt 24 and Luke 21 were fulfilled in 70 AD, do we not? That’s why I carefully compared Luke 21 with Mt 24 — is not Jesus, when He says in Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near” foretelling the siege by the armies of Titus? No?
And when He says in the next verse “Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city”, He isn’t talking to the Jews and Christians who would reside there? Please tell me you see at least a dual fulfillment with 70 AD, I submit it couldn’t be more plain.
So if you will agree (I suppose perhaps if you really do believe that these Olivet prophecies are entirely tribulational you won’t agree) that at least there is a dual fulfillment, or perhaps He is just answering their discreet questions WHEN will the buildings be torn down, WHAT is the sign of your coming and WHAT is the sign of the end of the age? This interpretational method of assigning some answers to one question and some answers to the other questions seems to be the simplest exegesis.
I did follow the link you provided to Sam Clough’s “Partial Preterism Leads to a Full Heresy”. The argument he makes is that Preterists make the mistake of taking Jesus’ statement that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” requires Preterists to believe that all of the Olivet Discourse prophecies have already taken place if any have taken place–that’s nonsense. I just explained the most logical, simple way to decode what Jesus is saying–He is answering multiple questions, some having to do with the temple’s destruction and others having to do with His return.
I don’t rely on the “this generation will not pass” argument for any of my beliefs that some events have already occurred. It is obvious that not all the prophecies of Mt 24 and Lk 21 have taken place. The “you” to whom Jesus refers is to both His listeners and to those that would later read His words, the ekklesia to follow.
Mr. Clough also completely ignores Luke and the light it sheds on the parallel passages in Matthew, at best. At worst he ignores it BECAUSE it more plainly shows that Jesus WAS prophesying the destruction of the temple and the ending of the sacrifices.
Anyway, I would appreciate a clear up or down from you–did anything of what Jesus say in Mt 24/Lk 21 concern the temple of His day? If so, then either 1) they are NOT entirely tribulational (in the sense Dispensationalists define “tribulation” or 2) “the tribulation” needs to be redefined/expanded. I definitely believe the latter is correct.
Kurt,
I should correct myself for clarity. Technically, the “Great Tribulation” of the Antichrist is only the last 3.5 years of Daniel’s 70th week. We are in complete agreement here. This is why the 3.5 years are the primary focus in the Scriptures. So when I said “entirely tribulational”, to be technically accurate, I should have said that they are speaking entirely of Daniel’s 70th week.
Now, there are many things that I try to be very relaxed about. Particularly concerning speculating about events in the future etc. But this is something that I am quite confident and unbending concerning. Jesus’ sermon about the last days begins in Matthew 24:4 and from that point forward, his ultimate and full focus is on the last days, the period that will immediately precede his return.
The breakdown of his sermon is as follows: Matthew 24:4-8 refers to the first 3.5 years of Daniel’s 70th week, (which is not the Great Tribulation). Then between verses 9-15 he transitions to speak of the final 3.5 years, (which is the Great Tribulation). Many interpreters accept this, but most have a much more difficult time accepting that Luke 21 is also entirely referring to the last week. See a couple of good articles below.
Of course the events of 70 AD were shadows of the Last Days. They were a partial fulfillment, but not the primary focus. Futurism acknowledges partial fulfillment. All futurists see a partial fulfillment in 70 AD. But 70 AD was absolutely not the ultimate or primary subject of what Jesus was speaking of in verses 4-51. It was only a shadow. Preterism as a system of interpretation rejects partial fulfillment. Preterists will claim that once something has been fulfilled, there is nothing further to look for.
The danger, and why I am so hopeful that you will see what I am saying here, is once you begin accepting that much of Matthew 24 is past, logical consistency will lead you to the conclusion that everything other than the return of Jesus and the resurrection is future. That is the definition of partial preterism. Full preterism (also called consistent preterism, hyper-preterism, or heretical preterism) actually goes so far as to spiritualize His return and the resurrection. They claim that even these things took place in 70 AD. This is all there is. We are essentially just waiting to die and go to heaven at this point. Until then, we are to Christianize the earth. Its a thoroughly Greek/Platonic corruption of the Scriptures.
But even partial preterists claim that the Antichrist is past, the Abomination of Desolation is past, the tribulation is past. By accepting that Matthew 24:15, 21 are already past, you are already slipping down the slippery slope of preterism, a good way down this slide of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. What Preterists are aware of is that Luke 21, Matthew 24, and Daniel 11-12 are inextricably linked together. This is sooo crucial to understand. You cannot say that Jesus in Matthew 24:21 was quoting Daniel in Daniel 12:1 and say that Jesus was talking about the past, but Daniel was talking about the future. They are referring to the same thing. (Daniel by the way is expounding upon Jeremiah 30:6-7, and the time of Jacob’s Trouble):
This is why I keep pointing you to the connections between Matthew 24 and Daniel. But once one portion is rejected as being yet future, eventually the whole house of cards falls down. Or conversely, I think that once you recognize that it is all future, you will become a full futurist. (Which again, fully embraces the idea of partial fulfillment/ shadow fulfillments in the past, but it rejects that idea that any of the things Jesus is speaking of in Matthew 24 is fully history).
Here is a good article, though there are several arguments that I would make differently, that argues for Luke 21 as being entirely future:
Luke 21:20-24 Fulfilled or Future? Part 1
Luke 21:20-24 Fulfilled or Future? Part 2
Blessings Kurt!
Kurt and Mitchell,
Also, before I forget, just off the top of my head, I know that both Ireneaus and Hippolytus taught a future 70th week.
Hi brother, it’s perfectly ok for us to disagree in some areas! If everyone saw everything eye-to-eye all the time then discussions such as these wouldn’t be nearly as engaging. But then again, they wouldn’t be nearly as long, either. 🙂
I am claiming there is more than one way that some prophecies can be fulfilled and that the text does not absolutely necessitate a future physical temple in Jerusalem. I’m sure you will agree that in the New Testament, the Church and the Temple of God are synonymous. As Christians, we’ll naturally lean towards certain interpretations or understandings of prophetic fulfillment, but I would encourage all brothers and sisters in Christ by saying that even though we’ll often lean upon our own understanding at times it is wise to be open to alternative, Biblical explanations and to view things in other ways that Scripture allows. For instance, even though the “man of sin/lawlessness” could be an actual man standing in a literal temple, we should not discount the possibility that the Holy Spirit could have been referring to the “man of sin/lawlessness” in anthropomorphic terms much in the same way that believing Jews and Gentiles are defined as “one new man” in Christ, yet was referring to the counterfeit church (the Whore of Babylon, the Ummah of Islam) standing against the true Church (the Bride of Christ, the Ekklesia of God) and essentially displaying itself as God and Savior by usurping the Divine title/office/way of Salvation in claiming that salvation is only found in “Allah and His Messenger” and not in YHWH and His Messiah. Sure enough, the Ummah of Islam stands against the temple of God and does this very thing today, blaspheming the God of our Salvation and boastfully declaring that “Jews and the Christians are enemies of the [Islamic] believers” and that Jews and Christians are “cursed” because “adhering to Islam is the only path to enter heaven, and escape hellfire” (See here). This may be a “novel” view to some, but I believe it has some merit, so I don’t want to dismiss it just because it differs from the more common understanding.
Yes.
This is where I disagree. There are many portions of Scripture that are prophetic foreshadowings, types, shadows. Sometimes, what may have been physical and literal in the Old Testament is fulfilled in other ways under the New. Consider, for instance, how animal sacrifices performed by literal priests in a literal temple in the Old Testament were a shadow that pointed towards the substance to come, the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ (John 1:29). Or the old literal Temple of stone built by men, which was a type of the Spiritual Temple now comprised of believers and built by Christ (Matt 16:18, 1 Pet 2:5, Eph 2:19-22). Or the Ark of the Covenant (the mercy seat, angels positioned at the head and the foot) in Exodus 25:10-21 and how it foreshadowed the Messiah’s mercy and His death & resurrection (John 20). Or even physical circumcision, an outward expression which points to an inward reality of the circumcised heart by the work of the Holy Spirit (Col 2:11). In those examples, what was literal and physical in the Old Testament pointed to something else in the New.
Although there may be a future physical temple, I would say that we should not ignore that the defilement of the Temple of God may be fulfilled in a way that we hadn’t considered or expected, much like many prophecies have been and will be fulfilled in ways that many Jews and Christians hadn’t expected.
How so? If, for the sake of argument, the “man of sin/lawlessness” is Islam, has it not grown exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land already, and continues to do so? Has Satan — the spiritual force behind Islam — not cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground? Through Islam, does Satan not already exalt himself as high as the Prince of the host? If the Temple is indeed the Ekklesia of God, does Satan not already attempt to take away the daily sacrifices that we offer up to God through our praise and worship? If Antichrist is the Mahdi, will he not unite the Ummah and seek to do the same?
Walid Shoebat once explained how, in Isaiah 14:12, the name Lucifer is “heylel” meaning “light-bearer”, while the Arabic equivalent of Satan’s name was “hilal” and meant “crescent moon.” When we also consider the “Takbir” of Islam — the victory cry of “Allahu Akbar” — they are saying “Allah is Greater” and not “God is great” as it is often translated in the West. If it is Satan’s intention to be like the Most High and to exalt his throne above the stars of God and sit upon the mount of his own congregation according to Isaiah 14:12-14, it only stands to reason in my mind that Satan will seek to accomplish these things and perform such blasphemies through the religious system to which he has given power and authority — Islam. After all, those who marvel and follow the Beast “worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast” (Rev 13:4), and Satan knows that when they are worshipping “Allah” and the image of Islam/the Beast, they are worshipping him. Satan is therefore working to exalt and magnify himself as the Prophet Isaiah described through the religious ideology of Islam that diametrically opposes everything that the Judeo-Christian faith represents and stands for. But although the enemy will try to destroy what God has created, he cannot and will not prevail against the Ekklesia of God. All he can do is create his own corrupted version of God’s elect, to wage war against God’s elect, in an effort to replace God’s elect with one that is created in his own image. Just as the Ekklesia of Yahweh is the “Body of Christ” (and also referred to as His Bride), Satan’s counterfeit of the Church — the Ummah — is the “Body of Antichrist” (and is referred to as the Harlot):
* Yahweh has the Ekklesia (The congregation of God).
* Satan has the Ummah (The congregation of Allah).
* Yahweh’s Ekklesia is “as a bride adorned for her husband” and filled with “the glory of God”.
* Satan’s Ummah is a harlot “decked with gold and precious stones and pearls” filled with abominations.
* Yahweh has given the Ekklesia His Word, the Bible.
* Satan has given the Ummah its corruption, the Qur’an.
* Yahweh’s Ekklesia is the multitude of the Lamb, Jesus the Messiah, whom they follow.
* Satan’s Ummah is the multitude of a man, the “prophet” Muhammed, whom they follow.
* Yahweh’s Ekklesia comes out of Great Tribulation.
* Satan’s Ummah is responsible for it.
* Yahweh’s Ekklesia receives the seal of God upon their foreheads and are redeemed.
* Satan’s Ummah receives the Mark of the Beast upon their foreheads and are condemned.
* Yahweh’s Ekklesia will be lead to springs of living waters.
* Satan’s Ummah will drink of the wine of the wrath of God.
In my humble opinion, it can be claimed, but it cannot be shown. What can be shown, however, is that “the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ” (Galatians 3:17; cf. Daniel 9:27a) is “a better covenant, which was established upon better promises” (Hebrews 8:6-8), for His blood of this new covenant was “shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28). In doing so, the old sacrifices and oblations ceased and “we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]” (Hebrews 10:1-10). This fulfills Daniel 9:27a perfectly.
I’m not following the logic on that one. Can you please explain?
I believe that it is speaking of the future, too. My position is that great tribulation is 3.5 prophetic years, and future, and that it will begin very, very soon.
It seems that you’re under the impression that I believe Antiochus fulfilled all of Daniel’s prophecies, which is not the case. I am in agreement with you in terms of what Antiochus has fulfilled and what he has not. Where we differ, however, is how we read some of the prophetic texts in terms of the 70th week and what temple is in view in the eschaton:
Joel: Daniel’s 70th week is all future.
Mitchell: Daniel’s 70th week was severed when Christ was “cut off” and confirmed a superior covenant (Dan 9:27a). The other half is future and will be fulfilled by Antichrist (Dan 9:27b).
Joel: A literal temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem
Mitchell: While there may be a literal temple, I lean towards the understanding that a physical temple is not in view here but rather the New Temple created by Christ — the Church.
Joel: Antichrist will be a man, the Mahdi.
Mitchell: Antichrist will either be the Mahdi, but if it is not then Antichrist is Islam and the god they worship — Satan.
I also agree with you that Gog of Magog is a direct reference to Antichrist. In keeping with the “alternative” side of things, however, although Gog sounds like a person and is spoken of in personified terms as being given over to ravenous birds and animals (Ezekial 39:4) who will be buried in Israel (39:11), I would again say that we should not dismiss the possibility that Ezekiel may not be describing a man, but rather the leading spiritual entity behind the Antichrist or the political-religious system that exercises authority over that region, similar to how Daniel describes the spiritual forces exercising authority over Iran and Greece as “the prince of Persia (Iran)” and “the prince of Javan (Grecia)” in Daniel 10:20. Ezekiel calls Gog “the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal” in 38:2, 38:3 and 39:1, which is the region north of Israel in modern day Turkey. Incidentally, in Revelation 2:13 Jesus says that the region of modern day Turkey (which is where Gog is “the chief prince” of) is “where Satan’s throne is” and “where Satan dwells.” It is therefore conceivable that Gog could simply be referring to Satan himself, which would explain why we suddenly read of another Gog-Magog battle immediately after Satan is released following his 1,000 years of captivity in Revelation 20:7-8.
There is obviously much more going on behind the curtain of this physical world than meets the eye. Since the casting down of Satan is also described in physical terms by the prophet Isaiah whereby Satan is “brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit” (Isaiah 14:15) even though Satan is non-corporeal, as is his being bound by “chains” and being thrown down into the abyss (Revelation 20:1-3), the “chief prince” being given over to the animals and buried in the land of Israel at the first battle of Gog-Magog could simply be referring to the physical destruction of the armies of the surrounding Islamic nations (cf. 38:5-6) that he brings against Israel through deceptive means. Knowing that Satan is also referred to elsewhere as the “prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2), the “prince of this world” (John 12:31) and the “prince of demons” (Matthew 12:24) who “deceives the whole world” (Revelation 12:9), to be called the “chief prince” who leads nations to wage war against Israel is entirely consistent with the titles and tasks of the adversary described elsewhere throughout the Biblical texts.
Although Antichrist may indeed be the Mahdi, this is one other reason that we should not dismiss nor discount the possibility that Antichrist may not be a man per se at all, but rather the Islamic “system” that we see manifest today. Just as the Church (Ekklesia) is the Body of Christ, Satan’s counterfeit of the Church — the Ummah of Islam — would be the “Body of Antichrist” that is given its power and authority by Satan himself (cf Revelation 13:2-4). Although Antichrist could be a literal man who will soon be revealed, the “embodiment” of the religious-political-militant system of Islam (the multitude of a man, Mohammed) that is given its power by “the chief prince” or spiritual force who exercises authority over Meshech and Tubal may be what is truly in view here, even though it is often referred to anthropomorphically as a “man” in Scripture much like the Church (the multitude of the Lamb, Messiah) is referred to as “one new man” in Ephesians 2:15. Either way, Gog is Antichrist.
Given the fact that the disciples/apostles wrote repeatedly of being in tribulation and that we would all experience tribulation, do you think it is possible that tribulation could be an extended prior of time, from the time of the disciples and all throughout Church history, and that it will culminate in 3.5 years of “great tribulation” prior to the Second Coming of Christ? Would you not agree that we are in tribulation today?
‘Global Crisis’: Christians In Islamic Nations Face Extinction, ‘Mass Exodus On A Biblical Scale’ Taking Place
Great discussion brother, I know you’re a busy man and I appreciate the time you’ve taken to reply and rebutt. God bless :).
Mitchell
They were teacher and student if I recall, and were outliers in that they were the only two who held that view amongst all the early Church fathers. Their predicted date of the Second Coming didn’t pan out, either. Do you know of any others who taught a future 70th week of Daniel prior to the 19th century? Francisco Ribera (1585) is the earliest futurist that I could find, but he taught that the first half of Daniel’s 70th week was already fulfilled and only 3.5 years of great tribulation remained, not the full 70th week.
Mitchell, Kurt,
I don’t have time to do a full historical survey to cite every pre-Dispensationalist or non-Dispensationalist who interpreted, or interprets Daniel’s 70th week as contiguous. I mentioned Irenaeus and Hippolytus. They were not “outliers” on this matter. Among the limited resources we have from the ante-Nicene period, these two are the only ones (that I am aware of) who made explicit statements supporting the view which you (or Kurt) stated had not been taught until after the birth of Dispensationalism. Of course they were not perfect, but they are among the most literalist and excellent commentators among the early Christian writers.
The point is that it is not a modern invention as was claimed somewhere previously in this discussion.
Again, I don’t have time to do a more thorough survey on this matter, but I did just skim through a few of my resources (I have approx. 100 commentaries on Daniel). So here are a few commentators, both Jewish and Christian, who are either pre-Dispensationalist or non-Dispensationalists who hold that the 70th week as contiguous and not broken in half by 2000 years, as you gents are trying to argue. MInd you, Dispensationalism began being propagated around roughly 1850, but it was not actually widely popularized until the publication of the Scolfield Reference Bible in 1909.
Irenaeus
Hippolytus
Rashi
Maimonides
Hegesipus
Africanus
Theodotion
Theodor F. Kliefoth
C.F. Keil (The renowned German Hebraist thoroughly decimates the preterist argument in his commentary.)
Frederick Delitzsch
S.P Treggelles
G.H Lang
H.C. Leupold
Joyce Baldwin
Steven R. MIller
Gleason Archer
You may not know who all of these folks are, but there are some serious heavy hitters within this list. But this is neither here or there. I am simply citing these to refute any notion that this view is merely a Dispensationalist invention. I do not agree with every element of Dispensationalism, but thank God for these men who helped rescue Biblical interpretation from the miry muck of the Greek / pagan spiritualization.
Blessings,
Joel
The article referenced by Alan Kurschner concerning Paul’s use of apantesis may be read free here:
https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_1994_02_Cosby-Apantesis1Thes.pdf
Great. Thanks Nick.
Thanks for the list Joel. Although they viewed the 70th week as contigious, did they all view it as futurist? I can understand some Jewish sources who view Daniel 9:24-26 as referring to Messiah needing to view it (somehow) as an event yet to be fulfilled since, in their mind, the Messiah hasn’t arrived yet. But what about the Christian sources?
Also, in a reply to Kurt you stated that “once you begin accepting that much of Matthew 24 is past, logical consistency will lead you to the conclusion that everything other than the return of Jesus and the resurrection is future.” What if one views Matthew 24 as commencing in the past, yet is still in process? Would you define this as partial preterism? I ask because I would like your opinion on the article below (when you have time) and whether you would classify it as partial preterism, or more of a “marriage” between a modified historicist (Islamic paradigm) and a futurist view? I classify myself as the latter, viewing history as a sort of “crescendo” that is building up to the final climax of the ages, namely, the great tribulation and the return of Jesus Christ in power and great glory:
Unsealed: A Closer Look At Revelation 6 And ‘The Four Horsemen Of The Apocalypse’
>> Hello, this is a message that the Lord spoke to me a couple of years back.
>> The Spirit said the words, I just wrote them down.
>> I have had to reread the message from the Lord a number of times myself
>> to get a complete understanding of this message.
>> As of the day not one person has been able to dispute the Lord’s message here.
>> It was sent out to 500 different people. [who also sent it on the others]
>> No one to this date,has been able to dispute the Lord’s Message!!!
>> Sorry some of the web links are no long on the web.
>>
>>
>>
>> Subject: MULTITUDES DISAPPEAR!
>> > Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2009 07:30:07 -1200
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > MORE PROOF THAT THE BIBLE IS “NOT” A BOOK OF MYTHS. AND THAT
>> > EVERY WORD OF IT WILL COME TO PASS!
>> >
>> >
>> > ————————————————————
>> > And the kings of the earth,
>> > and the great men and the rich men and the chief captains,
>> > and the mighty men, and every bondman,and every free man,hid
>> > themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
>> > And said to the mountains and rocks,Fall on us, and hide us
>> > from the face of him that sitteth on the throne,and from the
>> > wrath of the lamb:
>> > For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be
>> > able to stand? Revelations 6: 15,16 &17 [KJV]
>> >
>> > SO, AS WE CAN SEE IN THE WEB LINKS BELOW. THESE VERSES WILL
>> > SOON BE FULL FILLED! THE UNDER GROUND CITIES HAVE BEEN
>> > BUILT. AND ARE NOW BEING STOCKED.
>> >
>> >You will likely need to copy and paste these web links.
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVauU3KRsU&feature=player
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.detailshere.com/tunnels.htm
>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCF-uUnfYBg&feature=related
>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEDAE_9v4h0
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXW_vzQppGI
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/13/vivos_bunkers/
>> >
>> > SO THIS IS WHERE THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD
>> BEGAN TO SPEAK.
>> >
>> >
>> > So, what about the Christians disappearing?
>> >
>> > BUT THIS, THE WISE SHALL KNOW!
>> >
>> > In 1 John 2:21- The word of God declares “Have I not written
>> > unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know
>> > it, and that NO lie is of the TRUTH.” [KJV] According to
>> > this verse, regarding the truth of the word of God. TRUTH is
>> > absolute, there are no gray areas (no lies) in truth!
>> >
>> > So when it comes to the catching away of the saints or
>> > Rapture/resurrection. What does the bible say about this
>> > very important message? And know this for sure, it is a very
>> > important message. Because each one of us, MUST be prepared
>> > for the days ahead, and to make ourselves [as the bride]
>> > ready for the groom. [the wise know this.] Let’s see what
>> > the
>> > word of God [the truth] declares regarding the
>> > resurrection/rapture ie: caught up and the return of Jesus
>> > Christ [groom].
>> >
>> > The KEY verses dealing with this subject are
>> > found in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and verse 16 reads “For the
>> > Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, and
>> > with the trump of God;and the dead in Christ shall rise
>> > first. (17) Then we which are alive and remain shall be
>> > caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord
>> > in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. [KJV] So
>> > as we see here both the resurrection and the rapture/caught
>> > up happen in moments of each other!
>> >
>> > So what are the KEY words that are in these verses that we
>> > must take note of?
>> > 1.The Lord descends from heaven with a SHOUT. See Revelation
>> > 11:15
>> >
>> > 2.And with the TRUMP of God. (see Matthew 24:31,
>> > 1 Corinthians 15:52)
>> > NOTE it is the LAST trumpet. (see Rev 10:7, Rev 11:15)
>> >
>> > 3.The dead in Christ rise FIRST. (see Rev 20:6)
>> >
>> > 4.Then the ones that are ALIVE and REMAIN are caught up with
>> > the Lord. (see Mark 13:26&27) and verse 26 reads “And then
>> > shall THEY SEE the Son of man coming in the clouds with
>> > great power and glory.”
>> >
>> > These are the words of God for they are the TRUTH!
>> >
>> > So now the question remains when is this great and wonderful
>> > happening going to occur? BELIEVE ME THIS IS IMPORTANT THAT
>> > EVERY PERSON, SAINT OR UNBELIEVER UNDERSTAND THIS. BECAUSE
>> > YOU WILL NEED TO KNOW WHICH MULTITUDE THAT YOU WILL WANT TO
>> > BE WITH, WHEN THESE HAPPENING OCCUR!
>> >
>> > So, how many resurrections are there?
>> >
>> > Well the answer to
>> > that question is found in JOHN chapter 5:24-29 and verse 28
>> > reads “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the
>> > which “ALL” that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
>> > (29) And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto
>> > the resurrection of LIFE; and they that have done evil, unto
>> > the resurrection of DAMNATION.
>> >
>> > So as we can see there are TWO resurrections. And it makes
>> > no difference if you are a saint (truly born again) or an
>> > unbeliever, in the King of Light (see 1 Timothy 2:3-6.) You
>> > will still be involved.
>> >
>> > You will be resurrected to stand before the King of Light
>> > see John 1:1-12. So now that we know that there are two
>> > resurrections (the dead raised) does the word of God “the
>> > truth”tell us when they occur?
>> >
>> > Well the KEY words in these verses are the resurrection of
>> > LIFE and the resurrection of DAMNATION. Again this takes us
>> > to Revelation 20,
>> > which speaks of both the resurrection of life (see Rev.
>> > 20:5) the last part of the verse, refers to verse (4) and
>> > also verse (6).The first part of verse (5) refers to the
>> > resurrection of Damnation. And continues on in verses (7 to
>> > 15).
>> >
>> >
>> > As we see here the resurrection of the Damned, does NOT
>> > happen
>> > until AFTER THE 1000 YEARS ARE OVER. We can also see in
>> > verse (4) that the resurrection of LIFE does NOT happen
>> > until after the MARK of the BEAST has occurred. (see Rev
>> > 13:1-18)
>> >
>> > So can we pin point the resurrection of LIFE any closer in
>> > the last seven years that the word of God declares will be
>> > the greatest tribulation that this world will ever
>> > experience? (see Rev 7:9-17)
>> >
>> > Are there any other places found in the Book of Revelation
>> > where the saints will experience death? The answer to that
>> > question is YES!
>> > (see, Rev 6:9-11, Rev 12:11, Rev 14:13, Rev 16:6, Rev 17:6
>> > and of
>> > course Rev 20:4).
>> >
>> > So now, let me ask you a question.
>> >
>> > What is the LAST ENEMY
>> > THAT THE KING OF LIGHT CONQUERS WHEN HE COMES BACK TO EARTH?
>> > The answer to that question can be found in
>> >
>> > (1 Corinthians 15:20-28) and verse 26 reads “The LAST enemy
>> > that
>> > shall be destroyed is DEATH.” [KJV} So in order for that
>> > scripture to be full filled, it is virtually impossible for
>> > Jesus
>> > Christ to return to the earth, To resurrect the saints from
>> > the grave [resurrection of LIFE] and rapture/caught up
>> > those that are alive and remain until after the end of the
>> > tribulation. FOR MORE PROOF, of when the KING OF LIGHT
>> > returns. ( See Matthew 24:27-31 )
>> >
>> > So we now know that there is only one return of Jesus Christ
>> > at the end of the tribulation. To call ALL his saints to be
>> > with him.
>> >
>> > The Bible declares, the word of TRUTH. “God is not a man,
>> > that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should
>> > repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he
>> > spoken, and shall he not make it good?” Numbers 23:19 [KJV]
>> >
>> > So what about those that are teaching this Deceptive
>> > message? [AND LET’S BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS. THESE ARE
>> > DEVIL DECEIVING LIES!]
>> > Of a Pre-tribulation or a Mid-tribulation
>> > resurrection/rapture.
>> > The Jacks, the Chucks, the Hals, the Dr. Davids and the
>> > multitude of others. That are preaching this deceptive
>> > message. Does
>> > God’s word “the truth” say any
>> > thing about them?
>> >
>> > The word of God declares that Satan (the
>> > deceiver) is a LIAR and the father of lies. (see John 8:44)
>> > The word also goes on to say “Let God be true and every man
>> > a liar” (see Romans 3:4). Romans chapter 3 tells us we can
>> > NEVER receive justice in the sight of God, preaching lies!
>> > (see Romans 3: 3-10). Paul goes on to tell us in Galatians
>> > Chapter 1:8&9
>> > “But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other
>> > gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you,
>> > let him be accursed.
>> > (9) As we said before,so say I now again, If any man preach
>> > any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let
>> > him be ACCURSED!
>> > NOTE: WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY -ACCURSED-“(1)under a
>> > curse (2)Damnable.”
>> >
>> > So what is the word of God (the truth)
>> > telling us here? Well the answer to that question is found
>> > in Revelation 21:8 “But the fearful and the UNBELIEVING and
>> > the abominable, and murders, and whore mongers, and
>> > sorcerers , and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their
>> > part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
>> > which is the second death. [KJV] Do you understand what the
>> > WORD OF GOD is telling you here? YOU ARE DAMNED AND YOU WILL
>> > RISE IN THE RESURRECTION OF DAMNATION! Revelation 21:8
>> > confirms this! The word of God (the TRUTH) also goes on to
>> > confirm your destiny in Revelation 22:18&19.”For I testify
>> > unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of
>> > this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall
>> > add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: (19)
>> > And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of
>> > this prophecy, GOD SHALL TAKE AWAY HIS PART OUT OF THE BOOK
>> > OF LIFE, AND OUT OF THE HOLY CITY, AND FROM THE THINGS WHICH
>> > ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK. [KJV] Matthew chapter 7:13-29
>> > further confirms this, (7) Not every one that saith unto me;
>> > Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he
>> > that doeth THE WILL of my Father which is in heaven.(22)Many
>> > will say to me in that day, Lord,Lord have we not prophesied
>> > in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in
>> > thy name done many wonderful works? (23)AND THEN WILL I
>> > PROFESS UNTO THEM, “I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM ME, YE
>> > THAT WORK INIQUITY.” or defined, Wickedness! this includes
>> > lies.
>> >
>> > FIRST STEPS IN THE “RIGHT” DIRECTION!
>> >
>> > So what must you do to be saved? REPENT, REPENT , REPENT!
>> > Repent of being deceived by Satan.
>> > Get on the strait and narrow and stay on it!
>>
>> THIS IS WHERE THE SPIRIT STOPPED.
>>
>> >
>> > http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/6422913710.html
>> >
>> > http://www.nosecretrapture.com
>> >
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > http://www.mt.net/~watcher/nopretrb.html
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mitchell,
The Christian commentators viewed it as yet future, yes. Concerning your question about Matthew 24 commencing in the past and continuing on today, that would be a mixture of partial preterism and historicism; a perspective fraught with even far more inconsistencies that simple preterism. I haven’t been reading your material for sometime, other than occasionally taking note of a news article. In reading your article and all that you have previously argued for, I see that what you are doing is in fact arbitrarily mixing partial preterism, futurism and historicism. There have been some Seventh Day Adventists who have done this. One of these commentators, an Australian named Desmond Ford, refers to this method as the “apotelesmatic” approach. What you seem to be doing however does not resemble any systematic method, but appears to be more of a loosely defined pick and choose method, without any discernible rule to guide your methodology. I don’t have the time or energy to even begin to try to untangle what I see as a terrible mess of a hermeneutic here. I’m not saying this to be rude or combative. But I’m really saddened to see this. The logical and theological contradictions of your approach are too numerous to address, though I began to do so by simply touching on Daniel 8 for instance. But the very idea that you are even suggesting that “Islam” is the Antichrist as opposed to an actual individual, or that while Daniel affirms a very literal reality, you reinterpret it to be a mere spiritual / allegorical fulfillment was quite shocking to me.
Hi Joel,
I may be misunderstanding you, so please correct me – are you saying the people in your list all believed in a contiguous 70 weeks (which is my position, although I acknowledge that there could be a break in the 70th week when Messiah makes a “firm covenant with the many”, per Mitchell’s argument) or they believed in a contiguous last week, also my position, since if all 70 weeks are contiguous, by definition all 490 days are as well?
Something else I want to ask you about your list:
Maimonides was a 12th Century Jew – how does he support your position that Messiah (Jesus) was cut off after 69 weeks and there will be a future, 70th week? He wasn’t even a Christian, how could he be a Dispensationalist? He did say that Messiah would build the future temple, which is my position–the future temple will be built as a memorial during the Millennium.
Theodotion also was a Jew and never converted to Christianity–same question.
Hegesipus was a Jew in the 2nd Century that converted to Christianity, per Wikipedia “Hegesippus’ works are now entirely lost, save eight passages concerning Church history quoted by Eusebius…” Now I haven’t read Eusebius’ work, and he may carefully cite Hegesipus as believing in a future, contiguous 70th week, but nonetheless, anything we have of Hegesipus’ beliefs would be coming to us second hand.
Mitchell already commented on Irenaeus and Hippolytus, and I didn’t look into any of the others, but the 1st three I chose randomly seemed not to support a Dispensationalist position, so like I said, maybe I’m missing your point?
Kurt,
Do you believe that the last 3.5 years is future and pertaining to the end times or not? Or are you simply unsure of what you believe on this matter? I understood you to be claiming that first 3.5 years of the final 70th week was already fulfilled during Jesus ministry, and the final 3.5 years will be fulfilled just prior to his return. Or are you claiming that it was all fulfilled in history?
The view which sees the 70th week as one contiguous week, unbroken in the middle is not the sole property of Dispensationalism. It has been held by a wide variety of other authors from the earliest days of the Church. Irenaeus and Hippolytus, while not perfect, are among the closest to the apostolic view of any other early authors. You are following more in the path of the Alexandrian authors who sought to combin Greek-Platonic (pagan) philosophy with Christianity, resulting in a deeply allegorical or spiritualized perspective. Origen being the worst of the bunch. Of course the Jews did not hold to the Christian interpretation, but my point is that they did not break the final week in half by a large gap.
Again, the view which breaks the final week up with a 2000 year gap requires one to look at the four passages in Daniel (Daniel 8:11, 9:27, 11:31, 12:11) which describe an abomination and a desolation of the Temple and the resultant ceasing of offerings to be the result of the actions of either Antiochus Epiphanes or Antichrist in 3 of the verses and to Jesus in the other one. Both C.F. Keil and Gleason Archer do a great job showing that the Hebrew does not allow for Jesus to be the one who desolates the Temple. Those who take your view seem undecided if it was Jesus or Titus who is responsible for the desolation of the Temple. The one responsible for the ceasing of offerings is the one who desolates it. But the bottom line is that Jesus was not here to do so in 70 AD.
As I said before, I am saddened to see that you brothers have embraced such thoroughly confused views. This is more than a small matter in my opinion. I’m thinking it is probably necessary for me to break off from the Joel’s Trumpet Forum. It may have been irresponsible for me to not monitor it. In the past, by allowing a complete free flow of thought on this site, I later realized that I allowed far too much brazen error to take root and influence folks who came here. I simply cannot be responsible for this to happen again.
I appreciate the more complete answer to me about a dozen comments ago, I understand your position now concerning the fact that there is partial fulfillment in 70 AD of Jesus’ prophecies in Matthew 24, you said
You went on to say
It seems you reject the ability for people like me to see some truth in Preterism, some in Historicism and some in Futurism–that my view is not a “system”, and therefore to be dismissed as not even a possibility. Well then, I have a question: What if I were a faithful Israelite, living during the Macabean times, after Antiochus desecrated the temple, and saw what he did as a partial fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies, yet acknowledged that it seems that there was more to happen? For instance, Daniel 9:24-27 hadn’t occurred yet, but that it had similarities to Daniel 8 & 11 (which I believe were partially fulfilled by Antiochus)? Would you call me a “Preterist”?
I am the same as that hypothetical Israelite–I see that 2 of the 3 questions that were asked of Jesus in Matthew 24:3 and both questions asked in Luke 21:7 were answered in those respective chapters, but some of his prophecies have “more to go”…
Its the same with Seals and Trumpets of Revelation: most have occurred but there is “more to go”.
I do understand your concerns about interpreting Daniel one way and Matthew the other, but IMHO there is a path that sees some prophecies fulfilled and some with “more to go” without violating scripture. Yes, Jesus’ “desolation” prophecy was future to Him, but as I see it, its past to us, at least as it applies to the physical temple and literal animal sacrifices, and so therefore I don’t foresee a future literal temple being built before Jesus returns. It seems we will find out soon, one way or the other.
Hi Joel, I never heard of “apotelesmatic” until today, so thank you for your input. Fortunately, although the term does infer reading the “stars”, the only stars I read are the ones that fall immediately after the tribulation, not to mention the signs of the times. 😉 As for Seventh Day Adventists, while some SDA teachings do now fall within the pale of orthodoxy, there are still some teachings of theirs that I take serious issue with. But that is a whole other topic for another day.
Since we cannot name one single denomination or church or teacher that has a complete and perfect understanding of Scripture or that is without error, it started becoming somewhat apparent to me some time ago that one interpretative method alone does not have all the answers. Given what has happened throughout history to Israel and the Church and what is happening today, I decided to approach Scripture by taking what merit “partial preterism” (I don’t like the term because of the negative connotations it’s been given), futurism and historicism each have. I do admit that to do so assumes that Scripture is not silent regarding what has taken place up until this time, a premiss which is categorically rejected by most futurists. But in my humble opinion, keeping the good meat of these views and spitting out the bones does seem to provide answers that in and of themselves they cannot fully answer or explain.
When we’re dead set on one specific view, any alternative view that deviates from what is generally accepted by its “mainstream proponents” or thinks outside a certain systematic box will, understandably, seem quite “messy.” I’m sure you’ve experienced this to some degree when your books started being published (which I always recommend everyone read, by the way). Dr. Reagan comes immediately to mind, not to mention many other Bible teachers and students of prophecy. But, to your credit, many of them later began to see that the books are actually putting certain pieces of the eschatological puzzle into place — like Chuck Missler, John MacArthur and now even Marvin Rosenthal — because of what is happening in the world today. What I’ve sought to do is to toss in a few “alternative” pieces into the mix. Maybe there are other pieces that are yet to be added and when all is said and done perhaps we’ll end up with a few that were not even required to begin with. Be that as it may, although the puzzle is starting to come into clearer focus, we still continue to see it through a glass darkly.
Having said all that, do you at least agree that there are clear parallels between Matthew 24 and Revelation 6-7?
Kurt and Mitchell,
This isn’t an issue of me being jerky or overly rigid or so forth. (I didn’t miss the reference to Reagan). Don’t take my stance as personal. But I feel very strongly that this is an issue worth taking a stand on. I say this because I understand the implications of what you are articulating and the potential result if one follows these ideas to their logical conclusion. Preterism, among other things, is a theological cancer that robs the Body of a proper theology of the cross, that is the very heart of Christian theology and practice. But this is another issue.
Now, I suspect Mitchell that you began teaching this view out of your concern that we could be closer than most think and wouldn’t want to “miss it” due to being tied to some popular system of interpretation. If so, I understand your concern. Again, too be clear, I agree that humility is one of the most crucial keys to not being deceived either today or in the days to come. That said, taking a specific position of purposefully rejecting any “method” of interpretation is itself a dangerous method. By rejecting any specific “system”, (specifically Dispensationalism as Kurt so forcefully declared somewhere back), you are in fact just creating and embracing your own “system”. And from my perspective, you are both being somewhat dogmatic in your defense of your position. Instead of saying something along the lines of, “Thanks for the references Joel, I was wrong concerning the 70th week being an exclusively dispensationalist creation”, instead the conversation immediately shifted into an effort to marginalize the sources. That’s a defensive posture, not one of teachability.
So again, simply because you are embracing an amalgamation of three different views does not make it any less a system. Unfortunately, while you do not seem to see it, it is an approach and a system that requires one to embrace major contradictions, stands in direct conflict with far too many clear Scriptures, and in some cases requires one to use a highly allegorical, spiritualized approach to interpreting what is clear and literal. Again, I fully understand the need to remain humble and open to different ideas etc., but where does one draw the line? What is your line? You are now openly teaching and defending the idea that we are now in the Great Tribulation, there is no future Abomination of Desolation, and you are even suggesting the idea that the Antichrist may not even be a real person. So Hyper-prerists will take this a step further and claim that Jesus has already returned, the Day of the Lord is past, and the resurrection has already occurred. So will you both take a firm stance against these ideas? And if so, does it mean you are being too rigid and holding too dogmatically to your “system? Of course, I would hope that you would take a firm stand against these heretical ideas. And I hope you will come to understand why you should also stand against the other ideas that I am also rejecting. I am not claiming that you guys are not brothers, I am simply saying that your views are in such strong conflict with mine on matters of such importance that I am not sure I can endorse your teaching ministry lest I am responsible for misleading others myself.
Blessings
Hi brother, was this addressed to me? In case I wasn’t clear, please be aware that I am not saying that we are in the Great Tribulation, only that we are in tribulation as the apostles themselves also believed. Even Jesus said that in this world we would have tribulation. We are in this world, and Christians are experiencing tribulation. Although I believe that we are today within the 5th Seal, I, too, believe that the Great Tribulation is future, as is the Abomination of Desolation, and that the AoD is what will usher in 3.5 years of Great Tribulation, which the 5th Seal emcompasses.
With respect to Antichrist not being a real person, I am not saying that this is the case at all. What I have offered, however, is an explanation of what Antichrist would have to be if it is not a real person, as some believe. While Scripture does not seem to allow this explanation in some areas, it does seem to allow it in others. The question is can they be resolved? An article of mine below presents a strong defense as to why Islam’s Mahdi can, and is likely to be, Antichrist (I had folks like Dr. David Reagan and Sean Osborne in mind when writing it, I’m sure you remember brother Osborne), but the article also offers an alternative in the “More Than Just A Man” section, offering reasons why Antichrist could be more than some think:
The ‘Perfect Human Being’: Can An Islamic Antichrist Present Himself As God And Receive Worship, Yet Remain A Servant Of ‘Allah’?
Absolutely! It is quite apparent to me that these are all future, and the articles and comments I’ve written over on the blog make this abundantly clear. If anything I wrote in this discussion suggested in any way that these events were in the past, then I should have been more clear and apologize.
I see no disconnect with what I myself have been presenting and the fact that the Second Coming, the Day of the Lord and the resurrection are all future. If there are contraditions somewhere that I am somehow missing, I am open to having them presented so that I can investigate them.
My apologixies. The reason is that I haven’t yet researched them to know what is was that they taught and when they were taught. I knew that teachers throughout church history viewed the 70th week as contigious, but if the Christian sources presented all believed a separation between the 69th and 70th week, viewing the 70th week as entirely future and preceded Irving and Darby, then yes I was certainly mistaken and stand corrected (which means that I’ll need to update one of my articles accordingly). I was under the impression that Francisco Ribera’s work in the 16th century was the first to identity with futurism (aside from Ireneaus and Hippolytus who put a date on Christ’s second coming that has long since come and gone).
I can understand that completely brother if you decide that. All I ask, however, is that what I am saying be understood before being outright rejected. Given some of your comments I’m under the impression that you had not really understood where I was coming from, and the fault would be mine for not explaining it more clearly. While I do see some differences in what we both promote, the pillars upon which they stand are virtually identical. We both see the same end, though the road to get there may be somewhat different.
I bet you’re starting to wonder if you should have even posted a topic about the timing of the rapture! 😛 God bless …
Mitchell,
Since I misunderstood you concerning the Great Tribulation, that was entirely my fault. Please accept my apologies. I’m trying to juggle conversations with you and Kurt at the same time, and you both seem to be in relative agreement. Never the less, forgive me for assuming that you are in complete agreement. In the end, while we agree on some issues, we are still in quite strong disagreement on others. Your overall hermeneutic and the resulting interpretations have, I believe, positioned you on a slippery slope of allegorization. This same approach has led others to replacement theology for example. This may seem like a minor issue within theology, but in the end, replacement theology was largely responsible for a silent German Church during the Holocaust. As the time of the end gets closer, the controversy of Zion will only intensify and what were once minor issues of theology will become life and death issues. Again, beware of the corrosive leaven of preterism. Its a truly destructive view. I’m fine leaving the link to your site up and appreciate your efforts. I have however removed the link on my site to my former forum, though it remains to be fairly well populated. Let me know if you would like to assume it to you site. “Rock Solid” and Kurt have been managing it for the past could years quite ably. I could give you my passwords and you could incorporate it to your site. I’m pretty sure the name could be changed and so forth.
http://joelstrumpet.freeforums.org
Blessings
Kurt,
No. That would be a futurist interpretation. Pretrism does not allow for any partial fulfillment. Partial preterism sees certain aspects of the end time narrative as completely past (The Antichrist, Israel’s election, AoD, Great Tribulation). Preter simply means history. Full Preterists also see the return of Christ, the establishment of His Kingdom and the resurrection of the dead as fulfilled in 70 AD. Although that may sound crazy, the tuth is that full preterists are in fact far more theologically consistent than the partial pretersists. But if you see something as having been partially fulfilled as a shadow of that which is to come, then you not a preterist, but a futurist. I believe that preterism is completely bankrupt and see no value in it whatsoever.
Blessings
Joel,
To be as clear as possible:
1. I think the 70 weeks concluded in the first century. I think the 70 weeks are consecutive and uninterrupted. I believe Jesus was crucified in the middle of the 70th week. The final 3.5 years were from the ressurrection to the stoning of Stephen, when the gospel expanded to the entire world; the 70 x 7 was concluded. This is my current belief. However, I am not certain about the last 3.5 years. It could be as Mitchell believes. I am not dogmatic about the 3.5 years. I also believe that per Ezekiel 38 & 39 there will be a great battle, just one, as you also teach. I do believe that just before Jesus returns there will be a terrible persecution of God’s people, Christians and Jews. I think we are already seeing the front end of that today with the “Arab Spring” in the Middle East.
2. I completely reject the notion that Jesus returned in 70 AD. I am pre -Mill, post -Trib just like you.
3. I do not believe in replacement theology nor in dispensationalism; I believe in a grafted-in theology, that the ekklesia is made up of both Jews and non Jews. We are grafted in to the Commonwealth of Israel. I completely support Israel. I believe that Jesus will rule physically from Israel during the Millennium.
4. I believe in the “Islamic Antichrist” Middle East paradigm.
5. I acknowledge that prior to Francisco Rivera others believed in an unbifercated 70th week, however I think they also believed in a contiguous 70 weeks, right?
I’m not sure what else I can say to assuage your concerns. Frankly I see very little daylight between our positions. I continue to look to you as being on the forefront of eschatology.
Your brother,
Kurt
No problem brother. 🙂
It’s ok to disagree in some areas, even vigorously. Fortunately, we are united on the essentials of our faith, as well as other non-essential areas. I am also in complete agreement with you regarding replacement theology. In fact, I take it one step further and even reject the notion that the New Testament church is the Bride of Christ beause, from what I read in Scripture, it is believing Israel that is the Bride, not the NT church alone. My view is much closer to progressive dispensationalism. As Gentile believers we do not replace the Bride, believing Israel. Rather, we are grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel and are now fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built together as one body per Ephesians 2. In my view, the traditional dispensational understanding is therefore itself another form of replacement theology, which I reject in all its forms. In other words, we should not view believing Jews as being a part of the Church because they believe in Jesus, but rather it is we as Gentiles who are now a part of the Church because we believe in Yeshua. But that’s a whole new can of worms for some I’m sure.
Indeed it will. When the time of the end is finally fulilled, I can’t even begin to imagine how momentous a time it will be when, once the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, all of Israel is finally saved, delivered from the constant threat of war and death.
I’ve heard a Messianic Jew give his thoughts on this, but I’m curious to know what yours are. In your view, is the Second Coming of Messiah the catalyst that brings about their belief in Yeshua, or will their belief in Yeshua be the catalyst that brings about the Second Coming of Messiah?
Sure, to keep it continuing, I’ll link to it from my site and look into changing the name if its possible.
Mitchell
Not to beat a dead horse, but I’ve been looking into the dates of the Christian sources and what they, if prior to Irving and Darby, taught. Joel is correct that Irenaeus and his student Hippolytus taught a future 70th week, however they (at least Hippolytus anyway) also predicted that the 70th week would be fulfilled at Christ’s return with the end of the world happening a few hundred years later around 500 AD, which of course did not happen. As for Hegesippus, I could not find any writings that spoke of Daniel’s 70 weeks and from what I could find on Africanus he seemed to believe that all 70 weeks were fulfilled with no gap between the 69th and 70th(?). It looks like the others from Theodor F. Kliefoth through to Gleason Archer were 19th and 20th century theologians so I did not check what they taught, which was moot, since my original argument was that a full future fulfillment of the 70th week seemed to be popularized in the 19th century. Although it still seems to be largely a relatively recent view, Joel is correct that it was not merely a dispensational teaching, so I will update my article’s error in that regard accordingly.
Mitchell,
What you are not taking into account is how limited our resources are concerning what believers thought concerning Daniel’s 70th week prior to the 1800’s. Not to mention the nearly universal early corruption of eschatology after Augustine, including the terrible eschatology of the reformers. But do a study and find out how many total writers actually commented on this specific verse before the 1800s. Apart from the reformers, there are not many.
That Irenaeus and Hippolytus taught the full future 70th week is not to be ignored or taken lightly as indicating the apostolic view. Simply because these men espoused a wrong date does not discredit them entirely. Consequently, do you know why they believed this? It was not due to wrong theology, but a wrong chronology. The point being that for the most part, the eschatology of Irenaeus and Hippolytus is the most orthodox of any of the other early Church writers.
The point is not to find numerous pre-Dispensationals who hold to the future 70th week view. We have two of the strongest of all ancient writers. And then beyond this, we have many very scholarly non-Dispensationalists who also hold to this view. The point is simply that the full-future 70th week is not a Dispensationalist invention nor is it unique to Dispensationalism.
On the other hand, which authors that you are aware of hold to your view, seeing the first 3.5 years as being fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus and then splitting it down the middle by 2000 years with the latter half fulfilled in the last days?
Blessings
Kurt,
Thanks for being clear brother,
I’m still trying to get some further clarity here. The 70th week is described in three segments: 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and then the final 1 week. Do you agree?
In your opinion, and according to the text, when does the 69th week end? What event marks the end of the 69th week?
If the Messiah is cut off after the 69th week, how then can you say that half of the final 70th week overlaps the 69 weeks? In the Middle of the &0th Week, will come “one who makes desolate”. Who is this? Do you believe this is Jesus or Titus?
And again for clarity, what does the completion of the 70 weeks entail?
So to be clear, you believe that this is all past? Vision and prophecy was sealed up and the most holy place has already been anointed, all in the context of the first 3.5 years after Jesus rose?
Blessings
The most orthodox according to today’s full 70th week futurists, yes, but not according to the overwhelming number of Christian theologians and teachers all throughout church history. The general consensus was that the 70 weeks were completed in full (Historicists present their reasonings here, attempting to explain how this vision and prophecy was sealed up and how the most holy place had already been anointed (basically the writer argues that Christ “sealed” this Old Testament prophecy by fulfilling what was written of Him) and here). I do acknowledge, however, that just beause the majority believes something does not mean they are correct.
Off the top of my head Francisco Ribera was the first futurist who held a future 3.5 years. I’ve read that James Ussher was as well. Today, more Christian teachers are beginning to believe in a future 3.5 year fulfillment, such as Ken Birks, Douglas Cox, Maria Merola. I’m sure there are others, and although I may not agree with everything they teach, I make every attempt to rightly divide, to keep the meat and spit out the bones. My focus is not with what others teach per se, but rather if Scripture confirms what they say is so and to hold fast that which is good. At the end of the day we have to admit that Scripture never speaks of 7 future years at all that need to be fulfilled, only of 3.5 years:
* The “two witnesses” prophecy for 3.5 years (Rev 11)
* During this time the “woman” flees into the wilderness and is fed for 3.5 years (Rev 12)
* The “time of trouble” is for 3.5 years (Dan 12:7)
* There are 3.5 years following the Abomination of Desolation (Dan 12:11)
* Daniel says that these 3.5 years would be “such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then” (Dan 12:1)
* Jesus says that these 3.5 years would be “unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again” (Matt 24:21).
The preponderance of the evidence therefore leads me to view the first half of Daniel’s 70th week as fulfilled in the work of Christ. The Apostle Paul certainly seemed to believe this, explicitly telling us in no uncertain terms that Christ confirmed the covenant and that the sacrifices therefore ceased from being offered. If the first half is already fuflfilled by Christ, it certainly seems to me that the last half is therefore yet to be fulfilled by Antichrist.
Daniel 9:27, “Then he shall confirm a covenant [‘the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ’ (Gal 3:17] with many [‘this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many’ (Matt 26:28)] for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering [‘For the law … can never with these same sacrifices … make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered?’ (Heb 10:1-2]. {– Christ | Antichrist –}] And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate. [‘And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued. (Dan 12:1)].“
Mitchell,
Just so I can better understand your view, my reading of the following verse says that it is the Messiah’s death (being cut-off) that marks the end of the 69 weeks, leaving one full week remaining after his death. Would not your view hold that it is after the 69.5 weeks that the Messiah is cut off?
Second, what do you then do with the next verse, where the ceasing of offerings occurs specifically in the middle of the week, whereas the ceasing of offerings did not cease until roughly 40 years after Jesus died:
Third, what do you do with the fact that regular offerings will take place again in the future:
Fourth, if offerings have ceased forever, what do you do with the fact that sacrifices and offerings clearly continue during the Millennium?
Hi brother, yes, my view holds that Messiah is “cut off” in the middle of the 70th week. Daniel 9:26 does not say that Messiah being “cut off” is what ends the 7+62 weeks. Rather, Daniel is saying that after the 7+62 weeks is when the Messiah would be “cut off”. In other words, the Messiah is killed during the 70th week. The NIV renders Dan 9:26 to say that He “will have nothing”, however the Hebrew also means “but not for Himself”, which is precisely how it is translated in many Bibles. The Messiah would die after the 69, but He would not die for Himself. Why? Because He would be dying for others. This describes Christ’s work, His substitutionary death on the Cross perfectly.
Moreover, let’s note that in the previous verse Daniel wrote in 9:25 that “From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One [Messiah], the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’”. In other words, itis at the end of the 69 weeks that the “Anointed One” would be made known. Daniel did not say that “from the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Messiah rides into Jerusalem on a donkey” or “until the Messiah is killed”. Jesus had already been well known for a few years prior to His “Triumphal Entry” into Jerusalem and His subsequent death. Daniel said “until the Anointed One comes”, which is to say, is made known publicly or is revealed. When did this happen precisely? According to Scripture, it happened the day He was baptized by John the Baptist, when “John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’” (John 1:29-30). Notice what John says next: “I myself did not know Him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that He might be revealed to Israel.” (v 31). And indeed, the Messiah [meaning “the Anointed One”] has now come, “And John bore witness, saying, ‘I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him’” (v 32). The Anointed One is now revealed to Israel in fulfillment of Daniel 9:25. This is what started the 70th week.
The focus is upon the Messiah and what the Messiah did, not upon what Jews who rejected Him continued to do. When Jesus was anointed and began His ministry the 70th week began. John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God and, as the lamb of God, is fulfillment of the Passover (1 Cor 5:7). In the middle of the week He was “cut off” and because of His sacrifice, the sacrifices and oblations (offerings) of the old law ceased. They were no longer required. They were no longer of any value. The book of Hebrews makes this abundantly clear even while referring to temple sacrifices in the present tense as if they were still being performed, making no mention of any temple destruction, which suggests a composition prior to 70 AD. Regardless, Hebrews is clear that:
Hebrews 10:1-10, “For the law … can never with these same sacrifices … make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered?… For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: ‘Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come — In the volume of the book it is written of Me — To do Your will, O God.’’ … then He said, ‘Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.’ He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
Thus, in the middle of the 70th week, Jesus — the anointed Lamb of God — confirmed the covenant by shedding His blood for many, and His sacifice was perfect and final and accepted by God. From that point on, all other sacrifices that were made for one’s sin were no longer acceptable to God, for through Messiah “we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
If physical offerings take place in the future, then we can expect to see either an altar (it’s already built) or a rebuilt temple (given the state of the Muslim world right now and the fact that they’ll be in an uproar if even a Jew is caught drinking from a fountain on the temple mount, a rebuilt temple would have to take a miracle!) If, however, the prophecy refers to the eschatonic temple that is the Ekklesia (the temple and the church are synonymous in the NT — we are God’s holy priests (1 Pet 2:5) who offer up our bodies as living sacrifices (Rom 12:1) by offering praises to God continually (Heb 13:15)), then I would surmise that the Great Tribulation begins when the Antichrist stands in/against the Temple of God (Messianic and Gentile believers) and demands that they stop worshipping YHWH and convert to Islam, or die. We’re starting to see some clerics issuing fatwas/decrees in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan like this, demanding that Christians convert to Islam or die. A fatwa like this issued against Jews and Christians by the Mahdi on the temple mount would send shockwaves all throughout the Islamic world. If that were to happen “then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be” (Matt 24:21).
Not sure, I haven’t studied that in depth, but the only purpose I can imagine is that they’d serve as a constant reminder of the sacrifice that Christ made. Some believe that the nail marks and even some of the scars will be physically visible on Christ as well (cf. Zech 13:6).
No they didn’t. Not for approximately another 40 years. Yet the verse says that offerings actually cease, specifically in the middle of the week, does it not?
Yet even Paul himself and the other believers continued to participate in the Temple sacrificial system, did they not?
Yet Paul the Apostle continued to engage in his observance of Torah. We will not discuss the role of Torah after Jesus’ death, as we are likely in agreement for the most part, and I don’t want to get off on another issue. But per our discussion, your problem here is that what you are saying the verse is saying, and what is actually says, are two very different things. It does not say that offerings would “no longer be of any value”, rather it specifically says that someone will come who will make the Temple desolate, even until “a complete destruction”, until that very same one is himself destroyed.
So again, in your view, who is the “one who makes desolate” here? Do you think it is Jesus or Titus? Again, I would submit to you that it is the Antichrist, the same one referred to in all four of the other virtually identical references (Dan. 8:11-13, 11:31, 12:11, Matthew 24:15).
I don’t suspect that you are going to budge on this issue, but my final caution once more is this:
(1) The Abomination of Desolation, (2) the destruction of the Temple, and (3) the ceasing of offerings, are described four separate times in Daniel, and referenced once by Jesus (Daniel 8:11-13, 11:31, 12:11 & Matthew 24:15).
Do you really feel comfortable ascribing (1) the abomination of desolations, (2) the desolation of the temple, and (3) the ceasing of offerings, four times to the Antichrist and only once to Jesus?
Blessings
Joel,
Thank you for continuing to dialogue with us. I am sorry I’ve come across as “strident”–this is not my intention, please forgive me.
I’ve been away at my youngest son’s wrestling tournament today and haven’t had a chance to respond until now to your latest comment addressed to me. Fortunately Mitchell has responded to most of what you asked me pretty much as I would regarding the 3.5 years remaining, so I will focus on other aspects of your comments.
You wrote:
I will just make the point once more that I am not sure about the 70th week, whether it was completely fulfilled or whether there are 3.5 years remaining. I lean toward “completely fulfilled” and I will explain why. However, if it is only half fulfilled my reasoning would be exactly the same as Mitchell’s. Mitchell actually provided some links for Historicist reasoning on why the 70 weeks are continguous, but I will just summarize how I see it:
1. We are given no rationale in Daniel to insert any amount of time between the 7 weeks, 62 weeks, or 1 week. We don’t insert time between the 7 and 62, why would we between the 62 and the 1? The angel says “Seventy weeks have been decreed”, not “69 weeks plus an indeterminate amount of time, plus an add’l week far into the future.”
2. What event marks the end of the 69th week: I think it is the beginning of the 70th week, when Jesus is baptized and begins his ministry… it is to “fulfill all righteousness”; in Dan 9:24 Jesus’ actions on the cross after His ministry will bring in “everlasting righteousness”.
3. I concur with Mitchell and others that Jesus is cut off after the 62 and 7 weeks, which means it could be in the middle of the 70th; in fact this is what v27 is telling us, IMO.
Daniel 9:27 up until “and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate” is discussing Jesus’ accomplishments on the cross; so I believe this desolation is after the 70 weeks are complete.
Who is the one who makes desolate? It is Satan, thru Titus and numerous other “Antichrists” (John uses the plural to describe more than one). I think there have been (and are) many “Antichrists”; there is but one Beast and false prophet, who are also Antichrists. The desolation is caused by Israel’s abandonment of the sacrifice that mattered, that of Christ Jesus. Israel (in the main) didn’t believe in its Messiah and so was left desolate (Mt 23:37-39); Satan is more than happy to participate in the desolation by destroying the temple. As has already been discussed, Hebrews tells us the sacrifices that were happening at the temple had been superseded by Christ’s sacrifice.
IMO its either the stoning of Stephen or the persecution that began the spread of the gospel beyond Jerusalem and Judea–the 70 x 7, 3-1/2 years after Jesus’ resurrection, for Israel, was up. There is an interesting question posed to Jesus by Peter in Mt 18:21:
Now on one level we know that Jesus means we should never stop forgiving our brother if asks us to forgive him. On the other hand, its interesting that Jesus chose seventy times seven. The only other time in scripture this amount is used is to describe the amount of time “decreed for your people (Israel) and your holy city (Jerusalem).” I think Jesus is alluding to this prophecy and confirming that after this time the gospel would be primarily spread to the whole world. Not that it was no longer spread to the Jews/Israel, but the “time was up”… “up to seventy times seven.”
I think visions and prophecy as far as scripture is concerned is past and yes the holy place was anointed, per Hebrews. I am a charismatic and believe in and practice the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Now, as far as the 1260 days/42 months of Revelation, I lean toward the “day for a year” interpretation we use in Daniel 9 and elsewhere and believe something along the lines of Ellis Skolfield (see here). I don’t think he has it 100% right, and I am definitely not A-mill, as he is. It is interesting to note however that he identifies the Beast as Islam too.
I do want to make the point that if it is a literal 3.5 years, that it doesn’t necessarily have to be the last half of the 70th week; both these things could be true: The 70 weeks are contiguous AND there is a 3.5 year “great tribulation”. Ultimately we will have to just see, but I do anticipate great persecution for Jews and Christians just before the end, which is already happening in the 1/4 of the world controlled by the Beast.
As has been said when it comes to teachings that have some things right, but not everything, we need to chew on/eat the meat but spit out the bones.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond,
Blessings,
Kurt
Kurt,
I do not take you as strident at all. Nor Mitchell. Despite any disagreements, I appreciate you both.
Blessings
Hi brother, you’re referring to those who rejected Jesus as Messiah. However, this is not the intent of the text and does not change the fact that Christ’s substitutionary death rendered all sacrifices and offerings from that point on completely ineffectual. The substance of the shadow had now come and those who reject Messiah, those who reject the substance who came, cannot have their sins atoned for without faith in the actual substance.
I’ve heard some say that Paul did not perform an animal sacrifice in Acts 21:26 for sin. Though it is implied, the chapter doesn’t mention an animal being sacrificed anywhere at all in the text (the Greek word is “prosphora” which is better translated as offering. If it would have been an actual animal sacrifice a better word would have been “thysia”, see Hebrews 10:5). Regardless, I believe he could have made an offering of some sort and Paul’s reasoning should be evident in reading 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 where he writes that “to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”
Paul would have therefore participated in this offering for the sake of these new Jewish believers, even though the efficacy of sacrifices and offerings ceased when Christ confirmed the new covenant. These new Jewish believers were evidently still “zealous for the law” (v 20) and were under the impression that Paul was teaching Jews to forsake Moses (v 21). Of course, this was not the case. Given Paul’s teachings elsewhere, he knew that he needed to give new babies in Christ spiritual milk, to teach them that in order to fulfill the requirements of the law they were not to do so in accordance the letter of the law under the old covenant, but in accordance to the spirit of the law under the new covenant in Messiah (see Rom 13:8-10; Rom 7:6; Gal 3:25). Even though to the Jew he became as a Jew and to the weak he became as weak, Paul did so in order that he would win as many of them as possible for Christ. Doing so, however, in no way negates the fact that Christ confirmed the covenant and put and end to sacrifices and offerings, and Paul obviously knew that. We now offer ourselves as living sacrifices and offer up the sacrifice of praise through Christ. Teaching this new reality wasn’t going to happen overnight.
I see two different subjects in Daniel 9:27. Let us remember that although the text in inspired, chapter and verse divisions are not. They were later added by men. If those who added verse divisions had split verse 27 in to two separate verses, would you have been able to see two separate subjects in view? For instance:
Daniel 9:27, “Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.” (NKJV)
Daniel 9:28, “And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.” (NKJV)
Of course, 9:28 is actually 9:27b, but this does not change the fact that Daniel 9:27b appears to be referring not to Messiah, but to someone else as the Hebrew seems to infer (perhaps to the “people of the prince that shall come”?) In addition to the NKJV, other translations suggest a separate subject as well in 9:27b, such as the ESV (“And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate …”), the NASB (and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate …”), the RSV (“and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate …”), ASV (“and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate …”) as well as others. The one who comes to make the temple desolate is after the One who confirms the covenant with many.
One of the primary reasons why I ascribe Christ to the one who confirmed the convenant with many, aside from the fact that Christ said His blood was the blood of the covenant that was shed for many, is because the Apostle Paul himself — who was an expert when it came to the Old Testament scriptures — obviously believed that Christ was the One who confirmed the covenant and caused the sacrifices to cease, almost quoting Daniel 9:27a verbatim in Galatians 3:17 and Hebrews 10:2. Why did he do that, unless it was because Christ was indeed the One who confirmed the covenant and caused the sacrifices to cease? The way that your question is phrased highlights what at first glance appears to be a possible inconsistency, but we’re dealing with types or prophetic foreshadowings of events that took place during the time of Antiochus, Christ and maybe even Titus, and how we can see fulfillment in the eschaton. We’re still seeing through a glass darkly, but if the Apostle Paul clearly believed that Christ confirmed the covenant per Daniel 9:27a, then so must I.
One question I’ve been meaning to ask. In your view, when the Abomination of Desolation happens, do you believe the desolation will be immediate?
Your explanation of Paul’s sacrifices makes him a hypocrite carrying out actions merely to please/fool men, but not carrying out his actions unto God. This is precisely the argument that those who like to attack Paul make. Either he was Torah observant substantively, or he was being fake. I don’t accept that explanation for a second.
You still keep avoiding who you believe “the one” here is:
Hebrews 10:2 has absolutely nothing to do, no similarity in content to Daniel 9:27 whatsoever. Nor Galatians 3:17. Yet Jesus said, “When you see the Abomination of Desolations spoken of in Daniel” actually quoting Daniel 9:27 verbatim. The Greek in Matthew 24:15 is identical to the Greek in Daniel 9:27 (LXX). The LXX, of course, is what the apostles and Jesus almost always quote directly from. So while you are imagining a connection in Heb 10:2 and Galatians 3:17 that doesn’t even exist, claiming Paul is quoting Daniel 9:27, you are rejecting any connection whatsoever between Jesus’ words and Daniel 9:27. The arguments you are using to spiritualize away and reinterpret literal OT passages is precisely the same form of argument used by supercessionists to spiritualize the future election of Israel away as being subsumed in the “Church”.
Hi brother! Sorry, but I certainly do not see it that way at all. Paul did not please or fool anyone, evidenced by the very fact that he was being accused of teaching Jews to forsake Moses (v 21) and was even attacked and nearly killed after visiting the temple (Acts 21:27-32). Surely, if he was “pleasing” and “fooling” anybody then he was woefully inept in his efforts to please and fool. Again, Paul participated in the offering for the sake of these new Jewish believers, and may have made or intended to make an offering of some sort. The text isn’t clear as to precisely what that was, and all we can do is assume. Be that as it may, let’s really dig into it a little deeper and be reminded of what we can, and cannot, ascertain from the text:
1. The text does not tell us that Paul even had the chance to make any offering.
2. Though implied, the text does not tell us that this involved an animal sacrifice.
3. He was asked to participate to show he was not forsaking Moses. We’re only told he participated in the ritual cleansing.
4. The “them” in verse 26 could easily be referring to the men only and not to Paul.
Knowing this, why do we therefore have to assume that he made an animal sacrifice in Acts 21 when all it tells us is that he participated in the cleansing ritual at their request? Does it not stand to reason that the Jews could have been so angry with him because he did not have a dove to sacrifice, yet there he was at the temple on such an occasion as this? Does it not stand to reason that, given the fact sacrifices were performed on the 8th day per Numbers 6:10 and Paul was attacked, seized and removed by the Romans when the seven days were nearly over, that he didn’t even make any offering whatsoever? Does it not stand to reason that the Holy Spirit knew what some would have him do and what would happen when he didn’t do what all the Jews had expected, and that he should have listened when he was told “through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem” (Acts 21:4)? Even some of the greatest men in Scripture don’t always listen, and Paul was no exception.
I thought I had already answered this, but I believe that this is Antichrist and that it fulfills the second half of Daniel’s 70th week (see comment on 11/15).
Hebrews 10:2 and Galatians 3:17 have everything to do with it, imho. Hebrews 10 explains how sacrifices were merely a shadow of what was to come — Messiah — and now through Messiah’s sacrifice the old sacrifices ceased from being offered (10:2) because of the new covenant (10:16) that was confirmed by Christ (Gal 3:17), through which we learn that Christ is the heir of all the promises. Jesus came “to confirm the promises made to the fathers” (Rom 15:8) and is the Seed of Abraham upon whom the blessings are bestowed, the only One to “bring in everlasting righteousness” (Dan 9:24). Galatians 3:14 clearly tells us that receiving the Holy Spirit is fulfillment of the covenant God made with Abraham. When were we to receive the Holy Spirit? After Messiah confirmed the covenant upon His death (Gal 3:17; Matt 26:28; Dan 9:27a; cf. John 16:7):
Daniel 9:27, “Then he shall confirm a covenant [‘the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ’ (Gal 3:17)] with many [‘this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many’ (Matt 26:28)] for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering [‘For the law … can never with these same sacrifices … make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered?’ (Heb 10:1-2)]. [{– Christ | Antichrist –}] And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate. [‘when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel … then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again (Matt 25:15,21)].”
Remember, in the context of Daniel 9 the word “covenant” is Messianic. It is not referring to a “peace treaty” as we’ve often imagined.
No, again, Daniel 9:27b is speaking of the Abomination of Desolation and is referring to Antichrist. This is what Christ was referring to in Matthew 24:15.
Some may do that, but I do not. As I mentioned previously, I am in complete agreement with you regarding replacement theology and in fact take it one step further by also rejecting the notion that the New Testament church alone is the Bride of Christ because, from what I read in Scripture, it is believing Israel that is the Bride, not the NT church alone. Although I do not adhere to traditional dispensationalism (that replaces the Bride with the NT Church), I also do not adhere to covenant theology that replaces Israel with the Church. I adhere much more closely to progressive dispensationalism because, as Gentile believers, we do not replace the Bride, believing Israel. Rather, we are grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel and are now fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built together as one body per Ephesians 2. In my view, the traditional dispensational understanding is therefore itself another form of replacement theology, which I reject in all its forms. At the end of the day, we should not view believing Jews as being a part of the Church because they believe in Jesus, but rather it is we as Gentiles who are now a part of the Church because we believe in Yeshua.
We’ll agree to disagree. Again, it’s ok to not always agree on every point and have differences of opinion. Truth be told, that’s why many books are written, as you know. 🙂
God bless brother!
Mitchell,
I am not claiming you are a supercessionist. I’m not sure why you are defending yourself against this as if I have ever made this claim. What I keep repeating is that both your hermeneutic and the line of reasoning you are using concerning the Abomination of Desolations and the Temple to interpret spiritually that which is clearly literal is precisely the same hermeneutic and line of argument employed by supercessionists and / or preterists to spiritualize away other biblical realities such as Israel (the people) and the land. I am happy you are inconsistent in your application of this hermeneutic toward Israel as a people and land. I’ve not said you are not. I am simply warning that by embracing this hermeneutic, you have embarked down a slippery and dangerous slope.
I’m also in full agreement with you concerning what Paul teaches throughout the NT regarding Jesus fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant (though I disagree with you concerning how this relates to Jewish believers and how it was walked out by Paul), but your claim that Paul was actually “quoting” Dan 9:26 in any of the passages you claimed, is simply not true.
I’m going to check out of the conversation at this point. Of course everyone is free to believe and teach what they want. This is not an issue. But for me, what I have seen has simply made me really sad. I’ll leave it at that.
Blessings
Dear joel, I read in Jude 1:14-15 ” Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken.
If there is no pre-trib rapture then where did these saints come from?, if we are not in heaven before Jesus return?
Hi David,
The holy ones are both angels (Matthew 25:31, Mark 8:38) and resurrected saints who have died (1Thes 4:14) and those who are yet alive (1 Thes 4:17).
I hope this has helped.
Blessings
I Realize I’m entering into an old discussion here but I read something in the comments and just want to throw my bit in here. Concerning the restrainer who keeps the antichrist from being revealed I read an excellent study here: http://www.dailybread.com.au/7000/200/175-003-05.html It’s a scriptural case for the restrainer being Michael the archangel who stands before Israel and who goes up to heaven (taken away) to fight the war in heaven and cast out satan to earth at which time Jacobs trouble occurs because the antichrist is revealed. What do you think of that study Joel? Does it make sense?
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this discussion, and I am happy to say it has strengthened my understanding the Post Trib position. Thank you. I wanted to adress your comment about the LXX. I have run into the position many times that Jesus quoted from it, and I found the position somewhat confusing. I was very excited to find this faith building critical analysis of the LXX which I thought you also might like to read. Here is the link, my brother:
http://www.christianmissionconnection.org/The_Septuagint_A_Critical_Analysis.pdf
Grace, peace and blessings to you.
In Jesus,
Matt
Joel, it is my fear that the falling away from the church mentioned by Paul might in part be a by product of this belief in the “Rapture”. How many western Christians will become disillusioned when it becomes apparent that their lives will be adversely affected during some near future calamity. Why is it that so many Americans believe that they are the only ones worthy to be spared from this trial? Tell a Chaldean Christian in Iraq not to worry because they will be “raptured” before any tribulation.
Many blessings to you. Richard
1 question… Where in the bible did God punish righteous living ?….where in His word does He pour out His fury & Wrath on His own whom are living in obedience ?…. The day of the Lord..the Hour of trial… The Day of His wrath..the Hour of Temptation etc..is for UNRIGHTEOUSNESS …
those in the tribulation who are sealed & protected are the 144,000 of the tribes of Israel all other people’s will be attacked…
I could write so, so much with scripture…I tried then internet went out…Suffice it to say…our lives are hard there is a price to pay if we surrender all to Christ’s hand & holy spirit…we are tried & tested through sufferings , persecutions & tribulations in this world…..but one day…we will be caught up to meet our beloved saviour…I believe pre tribulation… And so shall we ever be with the Lord.
fleur,
There is not a single verse in the Bible that says we will be raptured out before the tribulation.
Joel,
I’m glad to see from the above post that you still check this post 🙂 You posted the following a few years ago right here:
“The strength of the classic Pre-Wrath view in my opinion, is the timing of the signs in the heavens as well as the notion that we are raptured prior to the wrath of God being poured out. Its weakness, for me at this point, is the idea that we are raptured separately from the actual return of Jesus. It makes the rapture and the return two distinct events. The strength of the Post-Trib view in my opinion, is that we are raptured when Jesus returns and not in two distinct phases. Its weakness is that it seems to place the rapture / return sometime after the cosmic signs of the sixth seal. I very much do believe that the return of the Lord and the establishment of His kingdom is a process that unfolds over a period of time. At this point, I personally believe that we are raptured and with Jesus as the wrath of God is poured out on the enemies of God and His people. So on one hand, we are on the earth, but on the other hand, we are in our resurrected bodies and thus not subject to the wrath of God being poured out. Rather, we are actually with Jesus as he conquers His enemies, perhaps participating with him in that activity. There are also some evidences that the non-resurrected Jews will participate with Jesus in the conquering and subjugation of His / their enemies as well.”
I was wondering if you’ve come to any conclusions? I would love to see a chart or written explanation of what you have come to believe about the timing of these events. I’m in the spot you were in when you posted that. I lean towards a pre-wrath view, but I’m unsure about the two-phase second coming.
If we truly examine the Scriptures carefully, we will find that the Scriptures are quite clear on conveying to us that there is no Pre-Tribulation Rapture.
The Scriptures are very clear that a very high priority of the Lord, is “TRUTH”. The Lord states to us in the 9th chapter of Jeremiah “My people are not valiant (to be brave, bold, mighty) for the “Truth!”
Truth is of such high priority with God, that HE states in the 8th chapter of Zechariah “Jerusalem shall be called the city of “TRUTH”!
So much of the things that are accomplished in a Christian’s life, is through the working of the Holy Spirit. However, a Christian has the sole responsibility of being valiant for the “TRUTH!”
We must always be valiant for the truth of God’s Word, even if it means losing friends or causing friction. If that should be the case, there was never much of a relationship to begin with.
In my previous comment, I forgot to state that having a clear Biblical understanding that there is no Pre-Tribulation Rapture, is of monumental importance to the Believer in Christ. The Lord wants His people to be prepared for the Great Deception and the Fiery Trial which is fast approaching us.
You’re a rare bird, Mr Richardson. There are not many prominent Evangelicals with sound doctrine who hold to a post-Tribulation rapture. I know it’s a tough sell but Darbyism is setting up millions of believers for a terrible shock when the antichrist takes over and we’re still here.
Four little words destroy the pre-Tribulation rapture: first, last, before, after:
1.Revelation 20:4-6 states that the FIRST Resurrection will happen when those who refused to worship the beast come to life. I Thessalonians 4:13-17 states that the dead in Christ will rise FIRST before the living are caught up to meet the Lord in the air. Both of these resurrections have to be one and the same since there obviously can only be one FIRST Resurrection. So the Rapture cannot possibly happen before the antichrist takes over.
2.The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, our gathering together with Him and the Day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes FIRST, the man of iniquity is revealed and sits in the temple as god (II Thessalonians 2:1-4). This agrees perfectly with Matthew 24:15 which states that this Abomination of Desolation will occur during the Tribulation BEFORE the Lord appears on the clouds to gather His elect from the sky.
3.The Apostle Paul said not all believers will sleep, but we will be changed when the LAST trumpet sounds at Christ’s coming (I Corinthians 15:52, I Thessalonians 4:16). The LAST trumpet in the Bible is the Seventh Trumpet at the end of the Tribulation (Revelation 10:7,11:15). Paul could not have honestly said the rapture will happen at the LAST trumpet with seven more trumpets to sound.
4.The Prophet Joel said the sun will be darkened and the moon will turn to blood BEFORE the Day of the Lord comes. The Sixth Seal of Revelation describes these exact events as occurring AFTER the Tribulation is almost over. So the Day of the Lord certainly cannot start at the beginning of the Tribulation as a pre-Tribulation rapture requires (Joel 2:30-31, Revelation 6:12-13).
5.Jesus said His return to gather His elect from one end of the sky to the other, will happen AFTER the Tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31). He also told us to look up after we see the events of the Tribulation begin to happen because our redemption is drawing near (Luke 21:28).
6.The Mystery of God, which is Christ and the Church (Colossians 1:26-27), is not finished until AFTER the Seventh Trumpet (no longer a mystery because every eye will see Him and the rapture too). If the rapture of the Church happened before the Tribulation, the Mystery of God would be finished then, not AFTER the Seventh Trumpet sounds (Revelation 1:7 and 10:7).
7.Rahab, a type of the Church, was not taken out until AFTER the seventh trumpet sounded on the seventh day of the battle of Jericho, just like the Church will not be taken out until AFTER the Seventh Trumpet sounds at the end of the Seven Seals of the Tribulation (Joshua 6:12-23, I Corinthians 15:52, I Thessalonians 4:16-17 and Revelation 10:6-7 and 11:15).
First means first, last means last, same with ‘fore and after.
To Joel
I remember on another post that you considered that Isa 26:16-18 described events known as the Messianic woes or birth pangs of Messiah. I agree with this, but lets not stop there. V19 speaks of a resurrection (and there is only ONE until the 2nd at the end of the millennium)and v21 is the 2nd coming, but between these two events some time transpires referred to as a LITTLE WHILE v20, during which those resurrected go or hide in rooms as the remainder of the Lords wrath is played out. It seems that the rooms are the many rooms that Jeshua speaks of in Jn 14:2-3, the Fathers house in heaven. It would be reasonable to say that we are hidden in these rooms not for minuets but at least days. The chronology of Isa 26:16-21 is tribulation, resurrection, THEN a little while and Then the 2nd coming. If there are at least days between the resurrection and the 2nd coming how can they be viewed as contemporaneous as post trib does?? This Scripture teaches a gap of some time, a little while between the resurrection and the 2nd coming and any end time scenario must have a gap because the scriptures can not be broken. Also how can it be said that rev 20:4, the 1st resurrection is after the tribulation when Isa 26 places it a little while before??
I’d just like to pass on another way to help spread the gospel and it’s simply this:-
Include a link to an online gospel tract (e.g. http://www.freecartoontract.com/animation) as part of your email signature.
An email signature is a piece of customizable HTML or text that most email applications will allow you to add to all your outgoing emails. For example, it commonly contains name and contact details – but it could also (of course) contain a link to a gospel tract.
For example, it might say something like, “p.s. you might like this gospel cartoon …” or “p.s. have you seen this?”.
For what it’s worth here’s my $.01
What I’ve noticed is that the principles and events that take place in the NT, often also take place in the OT in a similar way but on a different scale. So in order for me to get a better understanding of a rapture, when I read about it in the NT, I tend to look for events or situations in the OT that are similar to a rapture or that at least suggest the idea of someone being raptured.
I think it’s fair to say that there are at least two OT events that are candidates:
1) Noah and the flood
2) Lot and the devastation of Sodom and Gomorrah (I would like to call this a rapture on a smaller scale)
Before you start laughing at me, hang on a minute here.
I’m personally convinced that the Great Tribulation is essentially caused by satan – God allows the GT to happen (see the first 4 seals in the Book of Revelation), but the affliction, temptation and trouble themselves are caused by satan – whereas the wrath being poured out on the Day of the Lord is done by our Lord, not by satan. Perhaps you could say “wrath of satan is followed by wrath of God”. I believe this distinction is imperative because it helps to understand when the rapture will take place (before, during or after the GT) and why at that moment.
When God instructs Noah to build an ark, He says there’s nothing but evil in the world. The evil that afflicts Noah is caused by satan and its climax can be viewed as a GT in Noah’s time. God’s wrath and jugdment – the flood – follows, destroys the wicked and rescues Noah and his family. Note that God’s judgement or wrath and this ‘rapture’ more or less happen simultaneously.
When Lot was about to leave Sodom and Gomorrah, the Bible describes a situation in 2 Pe 2 that reminds me of the one of Noah:
2 Pe 2: 7-9:
And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds; the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgement to be punished.
Like Noah must have experienced, Lot also experienced affliction and tribulation. This affliction wasn’t caused by God but by the devil. What follows the affliction is God’s wrath and it is THIS wrath that God saves Lot from. So here again I see tribulation and affliction followed by judgement and wrath. The first is caused by satan (and allowed by God), the second is brought by God. And again, the wrath and rescue, both happen more or less simultaneously. You could say that the rescue takes place a short period of time before God’s wrath is being poured out upon Sodom and Gomorrah.
A number of verses in the Bible position the rapture after the tribulation; two of the verses being in favour of that are, I believe, 2 Th 2 and Mt 24. In 2 Th 2: 1-3 it is said that “the day of our gathering together unto Him [the rapture] shall NOT take place before an apostacy and manifestation of the son of perdition.” In my opinion the sequence of events that I’ve described regarding Noah and Lot, confirms that biblical rapture will take place after great tribulation.
What do you think?
Ps. very good point mentioned by Yochanan saying that the Exodus is post-trib and pre-wrath; I wouldn’t be surprised to see the greater exodus following the same pattern.
I would like to add this: I believe the apostacy mentioned in 2 Th 2 could be portraying a large number of christians who believed in a rapture before the great tribulation. When pre-tribbers start experiencing things they thought they would never be experiencing, many of them may choose to abandon faith, wrongfully assuming that the Bible is not true.
I would like to thank you Joel, Kurt & Mitchell for sharing your discourse on this blog. I spent a good part of the day reading all of the comments posted here and feel my quest for the truth of end time prophecy has been well stimulated. I appreciate how you, Joel, were willing to engage in conversation & debate. As I’ve started to follow your ministry recently, what’s spoken to my spirit the most is your willingness ‘to get in the game’. I’ve watched the documentaries you did with FAI and all the episodes of The Underground (and taken notes). I love the heart you have shown toward Muslims and that you are putting ‘feet’ to your prayers. It has challenged me in my life choices and has blossomed a conversation I am having with God.
In the last two months, my business has dried up. Over the last 26 years I’ve experienced this periodically, but this time has been different. My passion has changed. Rather than stressing and feeling anxious and seeking new marketing ideas, I’ve been spending my waking hours seeking the scriptures on prophecy as a guide to what we are currently experiencing in our world. I’ve been a believer since I was a young adult, but stayed away from prophecy because of all the division I saw it caused among believers. Until recently, as a 53 year old man, I never felt it was going to ‘play out’ in my lifetime or my children’s.
As I’ve been on this quest, I’ve had conversations with many of my Christian friends scattered around the country. Many have been Pre-Trib, citing that God has promised to protect His people from His wrath. They suggested to me to read Mark Hitchcock (which I have) or the Left Behind series. One such friend is a major prepper, so I asked him “If you believe in a pre-trib rapture, what are you prepping for?” His reply was, “Just in case I’m wrong”.
None of these friends could provide me with scriptural evidence to back their theology, other than John 14:1-3, 1 Cor. 15:50-57 & 1 Thes. 4:17. My discernment and those limited verses weren’t at peace. I entered this quest hoping they were correct, but had an open mind to strive to seek the truth of God’s word…. In my journey for the truth I came across you.
I realize my post is not of the intellectual level of the others, but I wanted to let you know that your message is reaching the ‘simpletons’. You’re willingness to engage in discourse on the comment section spoke volumes to me and the debate greatly educated me. Kurt & Mitchell raised many excellent points that I know my mind would have eventually graduated to (and I will be processing in the days to come). But the fact that I was able to read this as though in real time, with all sides being respectful of differing views, was awesome! That spoke genuineness to me! I sensed you questioned your discernment in entering these debates, I’d like to affirm your decision. It greatly benefited & blessed me! Thank you
Many blessings to you Dave. Grace grace to you going forward.
On or before Dec. 5 I posted the following comment, and it still hasn’t come through. Is there any particular reason why? Feel free to write me at my email address if there’s something wrong with what I wrote.
_______________________________________________
Bob,
Because we fundamentally reject the preterist and historicist position, comments promoting such views are not posted here.
I didn’t read all the comments, but I really appreciate Joel’s ‘Underground’ and calm, straightforward take on things prophetic. But, I do want to ask the same question – are you willing to consider the pre-trib position? I’m 57 and my dad studied prophecy his whole life and was a pre-trib believer. I’ve studied prophecy my whole life and have vacillated back and forth. And the jury is still out. I lean toward pre-trib. I think dancing around the issue so you don’t offend other brothers is good, but at the same time you’re in the same boat of totally disagreeing with others…. that’s obvious. I just really wonder what the Lord intends for us all knowing that either position could be pretty well ‘argued’. Each side could say it’s perfectly clear. So obviously, it’s not clear. Why? So we trust Him to do what’s best? Maybe. Or maybe we just haven’t really discovered the ‘right’ answer.
Hi Julie,
I definitely am not pre-trib. I genuinely see no real basis for it in the Scriptures. That said, It is always wisdom to hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst. I encourage you to read the book the Rapture Question Answered Plain and Simple. Then move on the Alan Kurschner’s books.
Mitchell talks too much.
I have recently discovered your work. I was raised as a “Historical Amillennialist,” but the more I studied the more I recognized so much that remained unfulfilled. I thank you for your work and eagerly await our Lord’s appearing.
As for the “rapture.” There is too much warning in the text about the need to stand firm in the expected trials of the last days to accept a “pre-trib.” view. Besides, how can the true wheat be separated from the chaff unless we are all shaken? I can see a “mid-trib” as meeting the hopeful words that things would be cut short “for the sake of the elect.” But I feel that a need to stand firm for the full period before Jesus returns will be necessary.
God’s blessings on you.
Joel,
Do you have any reference materiel on your timeline for Daniels 70th week?
Hello Joel (and all),
Concerning your question between the Pre-wrath and Post-trib views, I understand the Pre-Wrath view to be a correctly defined Post-trib view: the rapture is post (after) the Great Tribulation which begins at the AoD (midpoint) and is cut short (at least for those raptured) at the Day of the LORD (which occurs at some unspecified point in the latter half or Daniel’s 70th week. Marvins Rosenthal’s “The Prewrath Rapture of the Church” does an excellent job of laying this all out. I highly recommend reading his book – although he himself does not cal the Prewrath position a “correctly” defined Post-trib position – that is what it is and it is what I call it.
And as far as the question of whether, or how, to promote the Prewrath view to a largely Pre-trib audience – that is up to you, but I see great dangers in the Pre-trib position – especially when it is combined with a once saved always saved position. People are basically being told that not only are they bullet-proof, but they will get sucked outa here before the the bad man with the rifle shows up. Today, people in America are already falling away from the faith (even though they may attend church) by the pursuit and lure of the things of this world: wealth and self-centeredness chief among them. Just wait until the most extreme persecution comes. Read the Parable of the Sower carefully – especially Luke’s version. The church has been feed a watered-down, cheap grace, once saved always saved, you gonna get sucked outta here early message. Many of those listening to this kind of message have no deep roots, and will wither and die when tribulation comes. These false teachings and those behind them (and their motives) needs to be addressed. This is a very, very serious issue – no need to skirt it for political correctness. Jesus wasn’t at all politically correct when the time called for it. If time is running out, someone has to try to get the truth out. And many churches and pastors have left their first love – that being the love of the truth – they have settled for things which make them feel good and which make them and their churches very popular. When Jesus got to the latter part of His ministry, when He started teaching about the cost of discipleship and bearing one’s cross daily – His following dwindled. The truth hurts and many will not even give it a chance. I feel for what is coming and where many will be heading, but I am powerless to do anything but pray about it.
Please forgive me, I posted the wrong edition of the article (the closing comments on the one I posted were not complete). Here is the correct one :
Comparing the Pretrib, Midtrib, Posttrib, and Pre-Wrath rapture positions.
The Pre-Wrath rapture simultaneously fulfills the reasons for the Pretrib rapture, the Midtrib rapture, and the Posttrib rapture without the scriptural conflicts that compromise these three positions. The basis for each of these three end-times positions is biblical; it is how they apply these conclusions that demonstrate their position is not consistent with the Word of God:
Pretribulationists correctly claim that we cannot determine when the rapture will happen. Pretribulationists also correctly place the rapture just before God’s end-time judgments begin, as the Pre-Wrath rapturist claims. However, their conclusion that the church is raptured before the peace treaty is rejected because they claim that all seven seals are included in God’s end-time judgments. This would mean that the fifth-seal martyrs are killed by God specifically because they maintain a faithful testimony of Him! [See Revelation 6:9]
Midtribulationists correctly place the rapture after the peace treaty and after the first half of Daniel’s seventieth week, as the Pre-Wrath rapturist claims. However, their conclusion that the church will be on earth during God’s end-time judgments is rejected because we are promised that we will not experience God’s wrath. Secondly, the Midtribulationist’s conclusion that the church is raptured at the midpoint of Daniel’s seventieth week (3½ years after the peace treaty) is rejected because our Savior proclaimed that we cannot calculate when the rapture will happen. [See Matthew 24:36–39 and Romans 5:8–9]
Posttribulationists correctly place the rapture after the peace treaty, after the abomination of desolation and after the great tribulation is cut short, as the Pre-Wrath rapturist claims. However, Posttribulationists also conclude that the church will be on earth during God’s end-time judgments as well as claiming that the fifth seal martyrs are killed during God’s end-time judgments! Finally, Posttribulationists set the date of the rapture at the end of Daniel’s seventieth week, 7 years after the peace treaty! As with the Midtrib rapture position, this is rejected since we cannot calculate when the rapture will happen. [See Romans 5:8–9 and Revelation 6:9]
Each of these three end-time positions does have accurate biblical reasons for their conclusions; but none of them can solve all of the following eight conditions concurrently:
It is impossible to calculate when the rapture happens as Pretribulationists claim.
The rapture will be before God’s end-time judgments begin as Pretribulationists claim.
The rapture will be after the peace treaty is signed as Midtribulationists and Posttribulationists claim.
The rapture will be after the abomination of desolation as Posttribulationists claim.
The rapture will be after the great tribulation begins as Posttribulationists claim.
The rapture will be after the great tribulation is cut short as Posttribulationists claim.
The rapture will be before the Trumpet judgments begin as Pretribulationists claim.
Finally, the rapture will be before the Bowl judgments begin as Pretribulationists and Midtribulationists claim.
All of these eight conclusions are consistent with the Pre-Wrath rapture position! How can all of these conditions be concurrently possible? What appears to be utter confusion is easily resolved if we merely correct the understanding of timing of the seals … the seven seals are not God’s end-time judgments (the first Trumpet is the beginning of God’s judgments) and the seven seals do not end at the abomination of desolation!
The Pretribulationist, Midtribulationist, and the Posttribulationist claims that all seals of the seven-sealed scroll are broken before the midpoint of Daniel’s seventieth week (before the Antichrist commits the abomination of desolation). This seems to be a natural transition point. However, that conclusion neglects the fact that we are looking at the events from God’s perspective, not the world’s perspective. Nothing in the timeline requires such as ridged placement of the seals. Pre-Wrath rapturists place at least seals 5–7, after the abomination of desolation, and within the great tribulation (I also include the fourth seal within the great tribulation).
Michael E. Pfeil // 940-262-0473 // [email protected]
What about the 7 lamp stands that ARE the 7 churches? They were on earth during Revelation 1 through 3, then are with God in Chapter 4. Everything after Chapter 4 is about the Tribulation and we of the 7 churches are standing in Heaven with God – and – enjoying the Wedding Ceremony getting ready to come back with the Lord to rule and reign with Him. The “Second Coming” IS Christ coming to earth a second time because the Rapture is Christ coming TO the earth in the clouds but not ON the earth to rule and to reign, but to pick up his Betrothed. Bride – the Church – not married yet!
The Second Coming is also to have the Marriage Supper of the Lamb – what happens after the wedding. How can Christ gather His bride and celebrate the wedding before getting married? We are his BRIDE until the Ceremony, and there is a time when there is a Wedding Ceremony which is described as occurring in heaven, most likely during the Tribulation (look at the Hebraic Wedding Ceremony model.)
The notion that Christ will come for the dead in Christ and leave the living even for a moment during the Tribulation time frame, does not then deal with us who might die after the dead are raptured but then before the second coming. What is the differentiation between those who were saved by faith as opposed to those who had to live in fear of their eternal salvation and then accepted Christ during the Tribulation? What if the rapture occurs for the dead in Christ and for instance, I die the next day? Do I then have to wait until the Lord comes again, or, do I get to go before those who are alive and will be resurrected mid trib, or post trib. If it happens post trib. I am going to make a quick U Turn, but will have missed the marriage ceremony along with all the other living Christians, or, is the Ceremony going to be delayed and if so, where’s the scrripture that then refutes the scripture that states the wedding ceremony will happen during the Trib in Heaven? OK? How then do I proceed those who are livinig when the living who are now all ready gone? This mid and post trib just doyens;t make sense in terms of timing of when people who are dead and are dying go to meet the Lord as it causes a traffic jam with those who are alive. And, it kind of messes up the Marriage Ceremony date and attendance!
The timing works better (as it relates to what is happening in Heaven at the same time) if the dead in Christ at the time of the Resurrection are taken then immediately those alive who are saved meet the Lord in the air/clouds We “The seven lamp stands)” get to stand before God in waiting for the Wedding Ceremony with Christ , We then go back to earth with Him at the time of His second coming to earth to rule and reign AFTER the Wedding Ceremony, and after Christ deals with the enemies of Israel.
The Holocaust: A Biblical Examination (Future Implications) Conference Videos
Submitted for your review as you may have opportunity.
Thank you.
Fred London
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7FYrTPiS3b0RGzkiEES9UX3XnGS_zw_z
My goodness Joel you certainly opened up a “can of wormsl
reply to DAVID W. MAZEPINK
harvest allegory and 2nd coming is in two phases
1. separate the wheat from the chaff (threshing) … = tribulation … Rev.6 & Mat.24:4-Mat.24:28
2. Phase 1 – remove grain from the field … = rapture bride to heaven … Rev. 7 & Mat.24:31
3. burn chaff and prepare the field for replanting … = wrath of God Rev.8-18
meanwhile in heaven, the marriage of the Lamb to the bride – 7 days
feast of tabernacles – 7 days
promised land / kingdom is turned over in 7 days
Jos 6:16 At the seventh time, when the priests blew the trumpets, Joshua said to the people, “Shout! For the LORD has given you the city.
4. Phase 2 – replant the field … = Jesus and bride to earth … Rev.19 & Mat.25:31-46