David Wilkerson on coming hard times

David Wilkerson is seeing desperate times coming too.
Here's a message of warning and encouragement from him.

And here's a message from him on the Second Coming.

Chuck Missler on UFOs, Nephilim -- Supernatural Spectacles in the Last Days

Just finished listening to Chuck Missler on The Nephilim and UFOs.

I'm familiar with this topic from Scott Johnson's studies and Missler doesn't say anything different but it's confirmatory to get another report on something like this.

I've been aware of UFOs as some sort of demonic apparition since a friend lent me a book by the UFO researcher Jacques Vallee almost twenty years ago. What's new to me over the last couple years is the likelihood that UFO phenomena are to be part of the scenario of the last days, and the connection with Genesis 6, the "giants," the "mighty men" and "men of renown" as the offspring of angels and women, a return of such beings being brought about by the reproductive tamperings that are associated with alien abductions.

Genesis 6:1-5 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Far out stuff for sure. This is taken seriously by some on both sides of the Rapture question. Missler sees this as the scenario for the 70th week of Daniel -- after the Rapture of the church. Others who put the Rapture off to the end apparently see it as gradually developing in the wings as it were, then to suddenly come upon us, probably very soon.

Only being in Christ can protect a person from this. If the Rapture people are right people will be saved in the last seven years, but it's far far better if you have any idea what's slated for that period of time to be in Christ -- whether or NOT the Church is Raptured out. If we're raptured out of course we're safe that way, but Christ is our protection DURING evil events if we have to go through them and it seems to me that a faith in His miraculous provision is going to be necessary and powerfully exercised during that period. In any case SOME people are going to be going through this and that includes many people we know and love, family and friends who are not now in Christ.

But this no doubt sounds too far out to be taken seriously at all by some. Well, listen to the talk I've linked above and then see what you think. I personally get bored with Missler's fascination with scientific explanations of multiple dimensions and that sort of thing and he does a fair amount of that on this video, so if you also get impatient with such things, after he gets started on it -- somewhere in the first hour on up to the second hour -- just skip to the second hour 1:00. That's where he gets into the Biblical basis for the phenomena he's talking about.

================

I guess it's to be expected. On that same page with Missler's video are other videos on the same general theme and some are pure blasphemy. They deride God and think the aliens on the UFOs are good creatures we should trust -- I haven't listened through any of them yet but I'm sure they'll get to the Ancient Astronaut lie and the Ascended Masters lie, the idea that they created us, not God and so on, and now they're coming again to help us out since we're so bad at running things ourselves. Well, there you have it, the Great Delusion of the last days the Bible promises will fall on those who reject the truth.

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I don't agree with either system completely

I'm not sure that Missler and Riddlebarger can be said to represent two opposing theological systems exactly enough to identify them as representative of those systems, but as I've been listening to their end times talks I've taken sides with one or the other of them on particular points and can sort it out that way at least:

I agree with Riddlebarger / the Reformed / the Amillennialists on the general point that there is now no more Jew nor Gentile but all are one in Christ. The Church IS both Jew and Gentile, therefore it does not "replace" Israel, it is an expansion of the people of God to include believing Gentiles with believing Jews. There was a massive influx of Gentiles into the Church in the first centuries on down to the present, and according to scripture there is yet a time coming, very soon it seems to some of us, when God's focus will shift and there will be a massive influx of Jews into the Church. Riddlebarger sees it this way and so do many on the other side of the theological divide.

To deny that physical earthly Israel must have a part in this drama, as the Reformed / Amillennialists do, seems completely blind to me. Their restoration to the land and their preservation there over the last century are marked by miraculous events. This has to be God's work even though the people of Israel do not acknowledge Him. This has to be fulfilled prophecy. And there must be more to come.

On the other hand, those who see a restored Israel as a return to Old Testament religion, as the final form to persist after Christ returns, have gone too far in this direction. Scripture does suggest that the temple will be restored, so that there will be at least an interim return to OT practices, but the revelation of the Antichrist in that temple is to wake up the Jews and bring them to Christ, and the OT practices which are clearly identified in the NT as the types and shadows of Christ will be finally done away.

I believe Paul's "Israel of God" of Galatians 6:16 refers to all believers, both Jew and Gentile. Missler says this is literal Israel, believing Israel, and does not include the Church. I disagree with Missler. Gentile believers are children of Abraham no less than Jewish believers are, are therefore all of the Israel of God.

Nevertheless I disagree with the Reformed / Amillennialists that the temple of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 refers to Christians. I posted below my conclusion that it must refer to the physical temple in Jerusalem, and if the context is the Antichrist of the very last days sitting in that temple, this has to mean the temple will be restored, and there have been plans underway for decades now for that restoration.

I also disagree with them about the 70th week of Daniel (a post I haven't yet written). The first 69 weeks were a literal period of time counting up to the revelation of Christ as King in Jerusalem. The events right after that revelation do not fit into a "week of years" no matter how much nudging you do. The Lord Jesus was crucified within days of that revelation. There is simply no week of years to be found in that time frame or any time up to the present. Therefore it is right to think of that last 70th week as yet future. The Amillennialists take that week and turn it into an allegory of the obedience of Christ. Ridiculous.

None of this proves the timing of the Rapture one way or another.

More to come.

A Jumble of Thoughts Between Topics

Kind of bogging down lately. Thought it might clear my head to sketch out some of the traffic jam therein.

Next post plan is to address the Amillennialist view of the 70th Week of Daniel. It shouldn't be too complicated but it's hard to get going on it for some reason. I only want to write about the last week, but it will require a little background on that whole passage and I think that's where I'm bogging as I don't want to get too deeply into all that.

Then I wanted to post on a couple of websites that looked at first glance like good defenders of their respective end times position, one pre-trib with a strong emphasis on a Jewish Millennium, the other post-trib with a good grasp of the Fall Feasts of Israel as stages of the Second Coming. But then as I got to reading more extensively in them I've discovered some views that are at least borderline heretical. Seems to happen a lot these days, can't take anything for granted. I may post on them anyway.

Meanwhile, maybe I can just telegraph a few thoughts on the way there.

Kim Riddlebarger, whose series Amillennialism 101 is my source for the Reformed Amillennial position, said a couple of times that the idea of a literal thousand-year millennium just doesn't occur in the NT: He doesn't see the NT writers having a future thousand-year "golden age" in mind. Answer: The prophets of the OT didn't have two future comings of Christ in mind either, but that nevertheless turned out to be the case and in retrospect it can be found in their writings.

I've been wanting to get more of a sense of what Millennialists expect in a thousand-year reign of Christ on earth and found one expecting a restoration of Old Testament temple animal sacrifice and all the OT laws back in place. This could almost make Amillennialism look good to me. I was just shaking my head through the whole description. How could such a thing possibly occur with Christ reigning on the throne of David, the Sacrifice Himself? I can see how a restored temple could be part of a short period of God's resumed dealings with blinded Israel before Christ returns, especially as scripture does seem to suggest that, but not after He returns.

Nevertheless I'm still most drawn to the pre-trib Rapture, and as I think through the specific scriptures that support it their interpretation seems most solid. What to think about the Millennium is still down the road for me.

One thought I had, though, was that there's something fitting about a thousand-year rule of Christ on earth to finish up humanity's story, as it would make up the 7th Millennium since Adam and Eve, and seven is the number of perfection or completion. But what life in that millennium would look like I haven't begun to grapple with.

Later: Listening to an old tape of Art Katz on the (millennial) Restoration of Israel in which he adamantly rejects the pre-last days Rapture as a heresy, for the reason that since in that period (before the Millennium) Jews will be persecuted all over the world their only helpers could possibly be Christians (to give a cup of cold water "to one of the least of these My brethren"). So Christians must still be present and go through the persecution with the Jews in the period before they come to know their Messiah. [However, what with not being able to buy and sell if you refuse the "mark of the beast" as Christians certainly would, it doesn't seem to me that Christians are going to be in any better shape than the Jews.]

So far my investigations into the relevant scriptures are dealing with Amillennial objections to passages that don't specifically bear on the Rapture, but do suggest a focus on the Jews in the end times -- the temple, the 70th week of Daniel etc., and so far I'm deciding against the Amillennialists on those points. So the plot keeps developing here but not for or against the Rapture yet. Eventually maybe I'll actually come to a conclusion about that.

Considering the Amillennial View: The Temple of 2 Thessalonians 2:4

Trying to settle some things in my mind about what the Bible says about the end times, I've been listening to some lectures on Amillennialism by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger (down right hand margin), to see if I think their interpretation of various passages is better than that of the Dispensationalists, who preach the pre-trib Rapture. I finally listened enough to have a fairly decent idea of what they believe, so I want to sketch out my response.

I want to start with 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in which the "temple" is interpreted by Dispensationalists to be a physical temple in Jerusalem and by the Amillennialists as the Church:

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The Amillennialist argument is that the "temple" refers to Christians because that's the only way Paul has used the word elsewhere, so that anyone who disagrees would have to prove that he's departed from his usual use of the word for this one verse.

In principle I don't have a problem with the temple-as-the-church idea because Paul has shown many times in his New Testament writings that Christians are the true Temple of God. Also, Dr. Riddlebarger at one point made it clear that there is historical support for this interpretation: The Protestant Reformers regarded the temple in this verse as the church because they believed the papacy was the seat of the Antichrist. I found that Matthew Henry's Commentary shares this understanding. (I have to assume they still regarded the Roman Church as including enough true Christians to justify seeing the Pope as sitting within the Church of God).

But I end up disagreeing with him, and I'll sketch out my reasons:

1. "... he as God sitteth in the temple of God... This doesn't read like it could possibly be a metaphor rather than a literal reference to a building. I can't see Paul describing someone who arises out of the Church as "sitting in the temple of God." It's a very awkward and unnecessary way of talking that I can't impute to Paul.

The amillennialist answer is that "to sit" simply means "to rule" but that just seems to make it even more unlikely, as if Paul suddenly starts speaking in cryptic symbolic language when he has never done so before. He would TEACH such symbolism but he wouldn't just casually USE it. Can they show anywhere else that Paul ever uses such a metaphorical way of speaking? I can't think of one place myself. In the other passages where Paul refers to Christians as the Temple of God, he is teaching the people that they are the temple and what that means. But in 2 Thess 2:4 if the Amillennialists are right he would be using the word in a completely different way, using it to imply something he could have said much more directly, such as He will arise out of the Church to rule over the people of God, pretending to be God himself. [I've listed all the places Paul refers to a temple at the bottom of this post]

2. But now this begins to show another problem with this reading in that the true Church would never be the seat of a ruling Antichrist, he could only rule over an apostate church, and it's hard to see that Paul would call THAT church the Temple of God. This was pointed out in different contexts in commentaries I read.

3. Another point is that since the Jerusalem temple was still standing at that time, and Paul is writing to people who knew it was standing, he wouldn't just toss off such a cryptic use of the term and expect them to know that he was using it in the sense of the Church. Just because the Church is now the true Temple of God doesn't mean the physical temple has lost all meaning in everyone's mind. In 1 Cor 9:13 Paul does refer to the physical temple, to illustrate his point that workers for the gospel deserve to be supported by those they serve. So this is another reason why if he's going to use a phrase like "sit in the temple" to refer to the Church he'd have to make a clear distinction so as not to be misunderstood, and he doesn't do that. Also, Paul continued to participate in the temple functions himself although he knew the temple no longer represented God, and many believing Jews went on practicing their customs and rituals for many years, so although it is true that a rebuilt temple now would amount to blasphemy, there's no reason to think that it had yet that meaning in those days.

No, he wouldn't just toss out a phrase like "sit in the temple of God" and expect his audience to know he meant the Church. Therefore he didn't mean the Church.

So I disagree with the Amillennialists on this point, and agree with those who read this to refer to the physical temple in Jerusalem.

This of course does imply that if the Antichrist is yet future there will have to BE a temple in Jerusalem for him to sit in to show that he's God and right now there isn't one. But there have been plans for many years for it to be rebuilt. So I think if we believe God's word, and trust that His prophecies will all be realized in historical time, that this temple WILL be rebuilt at some point in the future and then it will be there for the Antichrist to sit in.

The objection that its rebuilding would be blasphemous is a rather odd objection, it seems to me, since we're talking about a time when evil is to be permitted to come to its perfect flowering, and when unbelieving Jews will be saved en masse out of the evil to the glory of God.

====================================
All the scripture verses where Paul uses the word "temple:"

1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1Co 9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?

2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Answer to Reformed Objections continued

Continued from previous post:

Rather, the promise of an inheritance is made to those only who have faith in Jesus, the True Heir of Abraham. All spiritual benefits are derived from Jesus, and apart from him there is no participation in the promises. Since Jesus Christ is the Mediator of the Abrahamic Covenant, all who bless him and his people will be blessed of God, and all who curse him and his people will be cursed of God. These promises do not apply to any particular ethnic group, but to the church of Jesus Christ, the true Israel.

Yes, we understand this. This is the New Testament revelation of the meaning of the Old Testament and it is absolutely correct.

HOWEVER, not ALL the promises of God apply to Christ and His church in such a direct way. The 69 weeks of years mentioned above were a pointer to the coming of Christ but they were a literal 69 weeks of years literally fulfilled. God DID promise Abraham that his descendants would inhabit the land of Canaan and they literally did. God's prophets did warn of coming disasters that were also historically fulfilled. God did reveal through Daniel that four great empires would arise one after the other -- all types of the human and no doubt also demonically inspired rebellion against God -- and this was historically fulfilled.

In fact, think about it -- the whole last "week" of years is pretty much the time of the devil, the Antichrist and the Human Rebellion come to its pinnacle of expression. Daniel's visions were predominantly of the growth of evil in the world, the enemies of God, and the Book of Revelation echoes his themes. The revelation of Christ's Kingdom as "not of this world" shows the true heavenly mission of redemption and salvation, but meanwhile there is still an unfinished drama to be played out on planet Earth. It will be a time when evil is completely unrestrained. We look forward to the coming of Christ (and speaking for myself I yearn for that more and more these days), but I have the impression that scripture is telling us that there is to be a massive culmination of the "mystery of iniquity" before that happens, in a specially marked-out time for that purpose -- the time when the Anti-king does his damnedest, you could say, to demonstrate his right to reign, only to be destroyed when the true King appears.

NOBODY (?I hope) is arguing that earthly Israel is some kind of perfection of God's plan, while it was originally God's picture of His plan of redemption, it would now, after Christ, be a miscarriage of God's plan and that is the whole point. If the temple is restored, just as Israel is restored, it is so that the forces of evil get to play themselves out to the hilt.

The Book of Revelation calls the "holy city" by the name of the evil city Sodom and the evil empire Egypt.

Re 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

And yet there will be these two true witnesses of God alluded to in that verse denouncing it all, and there will be many who will come to see the truth, believe and be saved, giving glory to God -- EVEN in a time of the purest unrestrained evil imaginable, the full blossoming of fallen human "perfection" under the influence of the devil.

Why not, Reformed people? I don't see how this violates the plan of God's revelation on earth at all. It brings the ancient drama to a fitting if horrifying climax just before the return of Jesus Christ.

The people of God, whether the church of Israel in the wilderness in the Old Testament or the Israel of God among the Gentile Galatians in the New Testament, are one body who through Jesus will receive the promise of the heavenly city, the everlasting Zion. This heavenly inheritance has been the expectation of the people of God in all ages.

See my responses above. Except I might caution that even the unsaved Israelis as an "ethnic group" most likely have more importance in God's eyes than this document is willing to recognize.

7. Jesus taught that his resurrection was the raising of the True Temple of Israel. He has replaced the priesthood, sacrifices, and sanctuary of Israel by fulfilling them in his own glorious priestly ministry and by offering, once and for all, his sacrifice for the world, that is, for both Jew and Gentile. Believers from all nations are now being built up through him into this Third Temple, the church that Jesus promised to build.

Again, no argument, but again I make the suggestion that there are levels to prophecy, levels to the Temple, the one a type, yes, and the other its fulfillment, but it may be that God still has a use for the type in bringing the world to heel.

8. Simon Peter spoke of the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus in conjunction with the final judgment and the punishment of sinners. Instructively, this same Simon Peter, the Apostle to the Circumcision, says nothing about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel in the land of Palestine. Instead, as his readers contemplate the promise of Jesus' Second Coming, he fixes their hope upon the new heavens and the new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

It only makes sense that he would focus on the true fulfilled spiritual meaning of Israel, our true hope. A restored physical Israel isn't our hope, but it does seem to have acquired a separate secondary significance in our time as eschatalogical theories are proliferating and there are other signs of the last days rapidly approaching.

9. The entitlement of any one ethnic or religious group to territory in the Middle East called the "Holy Land" cannot be supported by Scripture. In fact, the land promises specific to Israel in the Old Testament were fulfilled under Joshua. The New Testament speaks clearly and prophetically about the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70. No New Testament writer foresees a regathering of ethnic Israel in the land, as did the prophets of the Old Testament after the destruction of the first temple in 586 B.C. Moreover, the land promises of the Old Covenant are consistently and deliberately expanded in the New Testament to show the universal dominion of Jesus, who reigns from heaven upon the throne of David, inviting all the nations through the Gospel of Grace to partake of his universal and everlasting dominion.

Yes, all this is true. The Jews misunderstand the everlasting promise of the land to them as a people and are blinded to its fulfillment in Christ (though Abraham understood, and of course others). They are continuing to act out the types.

But that doesn't preclude the possibility that God is using these things to draw them back to the land for purposes of His own, and it seems to some of us that He has even demonstrated His watchfulness over Israel in certain miraculous protections in their various wars. In fact I think it takes a peculiar blindness not to notice these things playing out in history right before our eyes. Two levels. They have to come to Christ to be saved, but God may lead them there through their fleshly misunderstandings and through a great tribulation.

10. Bad Christian theology regarding the "Holy Land" contributed to the tragic cruelty of the Crusades in the Middle Ages. Lamentably, bad Christian theology is today attributing to secular Israel a divine mandate to conquer and hold Palestine, with the consequence that the Palestinian people are marginalized and regarded as virtual "Canaanites."

No! Now here I have to say that this is NOT what is happening. I wouldn't claim that Israel is especially righteous since they are a worldly nation without God, but anyone with eyes to see ought to be able to see that Israel is completely on the defensive among peoples who only want her dead, while she has gone great lengths to try to accommodate the Palestinians, who, first of all, have no right to that land (that's a historical fact) and second, have been offered land nevertheless and have always turned it down, and third, are kept in their marginalized position NOT by Israel but by their Islamist leaders and the surrounding Arab nations who are using them as pawns in their satanically inspired Islam-based war against israel.

The "bad theology" here, the theology that is likely to bring about bloodshed, however unwittingly, even another Holocaust, is the very Reformed theology of this document.

This doctrine is both contrary to the teaching of the New Testament and a violation of the Gospel mandate. In addition, this theology puts those Christians who are urging the violent seizure and occupation of Palestinian land in moral jeopardy of their own bloodguiltiness. Are we as Christians not called to pray for and work for peace, warning both parties to this conflict that those who live by the sword will die by the sword? Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can bring both temporal reconciliation and the hope of an eternal and heavenly inheritance to the Israeli and the Palestinian. Only through Jesus Christ can anyone know peace on earth.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE. And perhaps we SHOULD be warning that living by the sword will bring death by the sword, and not only to these two warring parties but all warring parties in the world.

BUT THAT IS NOT PALESTINIAN LAND, that is a complete fiction designed to keep Israel on the defensive. I'm really sorry to see Reformed theologians defending a false understanding of what is going on over there, manufactured in perhaps unknowing collusion with Islamists who seek the death of Jews (and Christians and all other nonMuslims ultimately).

I don't think the Reformed thinkers behind this document are anti-semitic but they are certainly at least unwittingly playing into the growing anti-semitism of our time, which is spearheaded by Islam, and which will most likely build up to a new Holocaust under the Antichrist when he appears -- and that will fulfill the prophecy of "the time of Jacob's trouble" as prophesied in scripture:

Jeremiah 30:7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.

Meanwhile, yes yes yes, only the gospel of Christ can bring peace to this earth, in that situation or any situation, so let us take the gospel to the people with fervor -- fervor to the point of willingness to be beheaded because that is the likely cost of seriously evangelizing Muslims. It's what we should be doing. But no no no, your political analysis is all wrong.

The promised Messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ has been inaugurated. Its advent marks the focal point of human history. This kingdom of the Messiah is continuing to realize its fullness as believing Jews and Gentiles are added to the community of the redeemed in every generation. The same kingdom will be manifested in its final and eternal form with the return of Christ the King in all his glory.

True, but you seem to be glossing over quite a bit of prophecy on the way to that grand finale, Jesus' Olivet Discourse for instance, and the whole Book of Revelation and its types in the Old Testament for instance.

Of all the nations, the Jewish people played the primary role in the coming of the Messianic kingdom. New Testament Scripture declares that to them were given the oracles of God, the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises. Theirs are the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and from them, according to the flesh, came Christ. Salvation is, indeed, of the Jews. While affirming the Scriptural teaching that there is no salvation outside of Christ, Christians should acknowledge with heartfelt sorrow and grief the frequent oppression of the Jews in history, sometimes tragically done in the name of the cross.

But what are we to make of the unbelief of Israel? Has their unbelief made the faithfulness of God without effect for them? No, God has not completely rejected the people of Israel, and we join the apostle Paul in his earnest prayer for the salvation of his Jewish kinsmen according to the flesh. There always has been and always will be a remnant that is saved. While not all Israel will experience the blessing of participation in the Messianic kingdom, yet Jews who do come to faith in Christ will share in his reign throughout the present age and into eternity. In addition, it is not as though the rejection of some in Israel for unbelief serves no purpose. On the contrary, because they were broken off in unbelief, the Gospel has gone to the Gentiles, who now, through faith, partake of the blessings to the fathers and join with believing Jews to constitute the true Israel of God, the church of Jesus Christ.

The drama of the last days that some of us see as likely to unfold is to bring in such a glorious harvest of Jews and others to make this "all things going on as usual" understanding look pretty anemic.

The present secular state of Israel, however, is not an authentic or prophetic realization of the Messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ.

No, in itself it is not the REALIZATION of the Messianic kingdom, of course not, but it may be a prophetic realization ON THE WAY to the final fullness of that Messianic kingdom, leading up to the return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. On the way to that desired end some pretty miserable situations have to develop and the reclamation of the land of Israel seems to be a major stepping stone. I would hope this idea that it embodies some kind of happy fulfillment could be done away with. If it is held by some it is certainly not held by many. A lot has yet to happen to bring the people of Israel into the Kingdom of God, it isn't going to stay a secular state. It's going to be ultimately replaced by the heavenly Jerusalem, although I don't yet have a settled view of how and when. If the "literal" reading of the Book of Revelation is correct, the last days are going to entail unimaginable sufferings, unimaginable evil, but the end result is going to be a purification and a fitting for the Kingdom of God of the overcomers. The secular state is NOT the goal. PLEASE -- who is saying it is???? I hate to think that there are many Christians who believe as this document thinks they do. I have to think this is a monumental straw-man misrepresentation.

Furthermore, a day should not be anticipated in which Christ's kingdom will manifest Jewish distinctives, whether by its location in "the land," by its constituency, or by its ceremonial institutions and practices. Instead, this present age will come to a climactic conclusion with the arrival of the final, eternal phase of the kingdom of the Messiah. At that time, all eyes, even of those who pierced him, will see the King in his glory. Every knee will bow, and every tongue will declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. The kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever.

In light of the grand prophetic expectation of the New Testament, we urge our evangelical brothers and sisters to return to the proclamation of the free offer of Christ's grace in the Gospel to all the children of Abraham, to pray for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and to promise all humanitarian sympathy and practical support for those on both sides who are suffering in this current vicious cycle of atrocity and displacement. We also invite those Christian educators and pastors who share our convictions on the people of God, the land of Israel, and the impartiality of the Gospel to join their names with ours as signatories to this open letter.

Advent

In the Year of our Lord 2002

Soli Deo Gloria

[A long list of signers follows]

Well, I probably repeated myself much too much in the above and may come back and try to refine it later.

The upshot of my response to this document is that while its declarations of the gospel are unimpeachable, they've got the historical and political factor wrong, they aren't appreciating the gloriously Biblical foundation of the view of Israel's resoration that they are objecting to, and worst of all they are feeding the very anti-semitism they decry. ABSOLUTELY UNINTENTIONALLY!!!! -- I underscore that. This is not anti-semitism, it is simply a deplorable misreading of the historical facts through a theological lens that for all its laudable emphasis on the gospel of Christ trivializes it by stripping it of its full context.

Answering Reformed Objections to Evangelical Support of Israel

I ran across the link to this document on a Reformed Christian website, and besides its being provocative because my political persuasions about Israel are so much the opposite, it also looked like it would make a useful vehicle for exploring some of my objections to the theological position it represents.

An Open Letter to Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties:

The People of God, the Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel

Recently a number of leaders in the Protestant community of the United States have urged the endorsement of far-reaching and unilateral political commitments to the people and land of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, citing Holy Scripture as the basis for those commitments. To strengthen their endorsement, several of these leaders have also insisted that they speak on behalf of the seventy million people who constitute the American evangelical community.

It is good and necessary for evangelical leaders to speak out on the great moral issues of our day in obedience to Christ's call for his disciples to be salt and light in the world. It is quite another thing, however, when leaders call for commitments that are based upon a serious misreading of Holy Scripture. In such instances, it is good and necessary for other evangelical leaders to speak out as well. We do so here in the hope that we may contribute to the cause of the Lord Christ, apart from whom there can never be true and lasting peace in the world.

At the heart of the political commitments in question are two fatally flawed propositions. First, some are teaching that God's alleged favor toward Israel today is based upon ethnic descent rather than upon the grace of Christ alone, as proclaimed in the Gospel.

Has this been stated somewhere in these terms? Perhaps in a document of this sort they can't specifically quote the position they're answering?

I haven't carefully followed this issue but this sounds like an extrapolation and not a fair representation of the position in question Perhaps there are some who see it as described. I suspect there are many different shades of theology involved among Protestants who support Israel with at least some degree of Biblical perspective on it. In a sense I don't support Israel because of my Biblical beliefs at all; I simply think they have a right to be where they are and they are the victims in the whole scenario.

But in terms of the Biblical framework, it is true that present-day Israelis think in terms of their ethnic claims to the reestablishment of Israel, which they see as given to them by God, while I see it as a different historical route to the grace of Christ for the Jews that picks up some unfinished Old Testament threads, not as a denial of the grace of Christ. When the prophecies are understood in the messianic context, this removes all the ethnic assumptions, but I believe they are nevertheless to have a literal earthly fulfillment as well. God's promises to bring them back to the land and cause the land to flower may certainly have a messianic fulfillment in Christ and His Church and the Kingdom of God, but that doesn't mean they won't also have a literal earthly fulfillment as well.

I have to admit, however, that much of my reasoning is based on the fact that Israel is there, that the wilderness has been flowering under their care, that against extreme odds they won some wars that were initiated against them by others, and that their neighbors and the world hate them with a passionate unjust hatred -- all signs that this is God's work.

God began His revelation of Himself on this dusty material planet, and it makes perfect sense that He would bring His final revelation of His glory -- to the entire human family as well as the heavenly creatures -- from the same geographic place He chose to set His name in the first place.

The Reformed or Amillennialist position insists that there are no unfinished Old Testament threads, that all have been fulfilled in Christ and the Church. I'm not sure that ALL the prophecies have been fulfilled. Certainly in Christ there is now no more Jew nor Gentile but we are all one in Christ; certainly the Church IS the true Israel of God -- and yet there does seem to be some unfinished business left for the physical land of Israel. OR, put it this way: Even if all the OT prophecies have been completely fulfilled in Christ, that doesn't prevent there being another level, if you will, to those same prophecies that is yet to have a literal physical temporal fulfillment.

And again, this would be quite in keeping with the fact that the whole Old Testament plays out in this real world after all, even if Israel and the temple and the land are all now fulfilled in Christ and His Church. That is, God may still have dealings with Israel on a temporal earthly level, with the ultimate goal of both judging this world AND bringing the last generation of Jews into His Church.

The angels told the disciples that Jesus is going to come back exactly the same way He left, in real time to a real physical planet, and I don't see a way to spiritualize the passage that describes His literal physical return to the Mount of Olives, which will then split from the impact. Since to the Reformed mindset Israel does not rightly belong where it is, it seems they have to imagine an uninhabitable wilderness with a few scattered farms and nomads, as Mark Twain witnessed Palestine in the 19th century, as the proper place for Christ's return.

Second, others are teaching that the Bible's promises concerning the land are fulfilled in a special political region or "Holy Land," perpetually set apart by God for one ethnic group alone. As a result of these false claims, large segments of the evangelical community, our fellow citizens, and our government are being misled with regard to the Bible's teachings regarding the people of God, the land of Israel, and the impartiality of the Gospel.

There is probably something to this criticism as I've heard this idea expressed by supporters of Israel, even to the denial of the need for Jews to be saved through Christ, but I think it's a minority view. If it's not, if much of how this document characterizes the supporters of Israel IS true, then I have to say I don't agree with THEM either.

However, again on the earthly physical level, the repopulation and revitalization of the land of Israel, PLUS their being surrounded by implacable enemies, certainly looks like fulfilled prophecy, at the very very least certainly HAS to be God's own work. I think these Reformed theologians are falling for a false either/or -- and perhaps there is some reason for this if their opponents are doing the same thing in the opposite direction.

In what follows, we make our convictions public. We do so acknowledging the genuine evangelical faith of many who will not agree with us. Knowing that we may incur their disfavor, we are nevertheless constrained by scripture and by conscience to publish the following propositions for the cause of Christ and truth.

1. The Gospel offers eternal life in heaven to Jews and Gentiles alike as a free gift in Jesus Christ. Eternal life in heaven is not earned or deserved, nor is it based upon ethnic descent or natural birth.

I must say I feel like saying to this, "So what else is new?" because it seems to be erecting a straw man of the evangelical defense of Israel. Again, MAYBE there are some (I've seen some who appear to tilt in that direction) who deny this fundamental gospel truth, but I doubt that's more than a slim minority, while everyone else would say "Of course, we know that."

2. All human beings, Jews and Gentiles alike, are sinners, and, as such, they are under God's judgment of death. Because God's standard is perfect obedience and all are sinners, it is impossible for anyone to gain temporal peace or eternal life by his own efforts. Moreover, apart from Christ, there is no special divine favor upon any member of any ethnic group; nor, apart from Christ, is there any divine promise of an earthly land or a heavenly inheritance to anyone, whether Jew or Gentile. To teach or imply otherwise is nothing less than to compromise the Gospel itself.

Perhaps they are answering a fringe segment, such as John Hagee and others who believe like him? I think they are a small minority among those who strongly support Israel's existence as fulfillment of prophecy.

Again, I don't know if my view of this is shared by many others or not, but I think this is a function of the two levels of prophetic fulfillment I suggest above. They don't contradict each other, they are parallel aspects of God's revelation. God's people ARE Christ's people, He is the way and no-one comes to the Father but by Him, so the Jews have to become Christ's people to be saved, but on the way there God is also dealing with all the peoples of earth.

Besides saving out a people for Himself He also has the objective of declaring His glory and His possession of the land -- the land is the whole earth as well as the spiritual or heavenly Canaan. His Israelites were His chosen instrument for that purpose and after all the promises have been fulfilled in Christ He might yet resume those dealings in the 70th week of Daniel, both to bring His rebellious people to Christ and to judge the world. Sure, I guess He could do this without temporal Israel, but it looks to many like He's chosen to do it with them. He'll probably teach some Christians a lesson in the process too.

Biblical logic is on our side. For instance, the Seventieth Week of Daniel is a major major sign that the Reformed camp seems to want to play down. The first 69 weeks of Daniel's prophecy were fulfilled EXACTLY, so why would we expect the 70th to be fulfilled any less exactly? And since it remains unfinished to this day it must be yet future, and since the first 69 week marked off the last years of the Old Testament up to the revelation of Christ as King, it makes perfect sense that the last week could very well occur within a resumed Old Testament context and be marked by the revelation of the Antichrist, and this does seem to require a restoration of Old Testament trappings, Israel itself, the temple and so on, even if ultimately these things will have to be abandoned as the Reality of Christ and the heavenly Jerusalem is completed. It's beautiful, it's almost symphonic in its arrangement, I do think it takes a spiritual tin ear to hold to the one-dimensional Reformed argument.

3. God, the Creator of all mankind, is merciful and takes no pleasure in punishing sinners. Yet God is also holy and just and must punish sin. Therefore, to satisfy both his justice and his mercy, God has appointed one way of salvation for all, whether Jew or Gentile, in Jesus Christ alone.

No argument here, folks. I'll try to be sparing now about repeating what I've said above.

4. Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man, came into the world to save sinners. In his death upon the cross, Jesus was the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world, of Jew and of Gentile alike. The death of Jesus forever fulfilled and eternally ended the sacrifices of the Jewish temple. All who would worship God, whether Jew or Gentile, must now come to him in spirit and truth through Jesus Christ alone. The worship of God is no longer identified with any specific earthly sanctuary. He receives worship only through Jesus Christ, the eternal and heavenly Temple.

No argument here either. As for the project to rebuild the Temple, I really don't see that Christians regard this as a legitimate alternative to Christianity -- do some? Sad if so, but that hasn't been my impression from the discussions and studies I've been in on about this. As many objectors to this idea point out, its reestablishment would be blasphemy in itself. But it seems to me that's a major theme of the last days, the coming to fruition of the "mystery of inquity."

The blinded Jews want the Temple back, of course, it's part of their heritage as they understand it, and it IS possible to argue from scripture that it must be rebuilt to fulfill certain prophecies of the last days. It's just a type, and in the Christian age it's blasphemy, but may nevertheless very possibly be packed with implications for God's plans for planet earth and indeed the entire cosmos: to glorify Himself in the eyes of the world in the full redemption of the Jews, the root of the tree into which the Gentiles were grafted, and in the judgment of the world. To glorify Himself. The ethnic factor is error, but they aren't Christians -- yet.

5. To as many as receive and rest upon Christ alone through faith alone, to Jews and Gentiles alike, God gives eternal life in his heavenly inheritance.

6. The inheritance promises that God gave to Abraham were made effective through Christ, Abraham's True Seed. These promises were not and cannot be made effective through sinful man's keeping of God's law.

Very true and I don't know any Christian who thinks otherwise.

Continued next post.

A Literal Historical and Future Day of the Lord

Now I'm remembering why I never got very far into studying eschatalogical/end times systems. I pay attention for a while, listen to sermons and lectures from different points of view, read a few books, take some notes, ponder various diagrams and charts, learn some scripture, in fact I learn quite a bit, but eventually I nevertheless get confused, mystified, overwhelmed and give up.

Of course I absorb some of the ideas, I do read the scripture -- I've even read Revelation a number of times -- so it's far from a total loss; in fact I'm much the better off for the studying I've done. It's just that I never felt any of the different systems was completely trustworthy, which means I always end up with objections I can't resolve and that the answer from any particular system just doesn't dispel.

Although there's always been quite a bit of fringey excess in the Pre-trib Rapture camp (mostly interpreting every eruption of violence in the Middle East as a major sign of the End) I never completely gave up on them because much of their thinking makes sense to me, and maybe more important, their critics just never do a fair job on them.

At the same time I pretty much rejected the pre-trib Rapture itself in favor of a post-tribulation rapture because I never could see how the last generation should be allowed to escape tribulation that the rest of the church has gone through for millennia. That's a conclusion based more on reason than on any specific scripture, of course, but most of the scriptures used to buttress the pre-trib Rapture are also never fully convincing, usually seem open to alternate interpretations. NONE of the arguments from ANY camp are FULLY convincing, so although I was predominantly post-trib I had to keep all lines open, and I never settled on any particular system.

So I've been getting discouraged again -- largely a result of spending too much time recently listening to amillennialist arguments perhaps --, but if I step back and assess my current understanding objectively I have to acknowledge that I am a step ahead of the stalemate I've usually fallen into. I did pick up some support for the Pre-trib Rapture after all -- really a pretty big boost for it if I think about it: That is, I HAVE become convinced that the Lord promised to protect His church from His wrath and that the "great tribulation" of Revelation is God's wrath (or most of it is -- there's little I can state with certainty in all this).

The Book of Revelation is about The Day of the Lord, after all, that is prophesied throughout the Old Testament and discussed as well in other books of the New Testament.

The Day of the Lord is undeniably God's wrath against rebellious humanity, or the "heathen" and "sinners" in the King James, and there are at least two clear statements that this certainly doesn't include His own faithful people:

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

If His church is "not appointed" to wrath, the implication is that He will protect us from it one way or another. This COULD be by removing us from the scene altogether before the wrath begins, as the Pre-trib people argue, or it could be by other means, such as miraculous sustenance and protection during the period of wrath (as He provided for Elijah during the period of the famine). The passage in Revelation does convey a somewhat alarming note of conditionality -- that is, those who have "kept the word of [His] patience" will be kept from it, but SOME of the church will nevertheless not escape it. That's one way to read it anyway.

So I am now this much closer to the Pre-Trib Rapture position. It's a lot closer than I was before I embarked on this exploration a couple weeks ago. So that has to be acknowledged.

I also have to add that this includes the recognition that the Day of the Lord is a specific event in history. God's wrath has certainly come against this world in many ways over the millennia, and scripture tells us that God's wrath "abides on" those who reject Him, that all human beings are "children of wrath" in our fallen nature, until we repent and submit to Him, but the Day of the Lord is something quite above and beyond this "normal" wrath.

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Clearly this doesn't just imply that in our fallen condition we are destined for the final wrath of Hell, as I've sometimes read these verses, but also experience wrath in this world, as we inherit all kinds of suffering for sin through our fallen nature.

The Day of the Lord is presented as an intensification of extreme suffering beyond most of what is normally encountered in this world. And it is indisputably WITHIN this world that it is to be encountered, indisputably within history, and indisputably therefore MUST be yet future.*

=============================================
*I don't know how this is explained by the post-tribulationists and post-millennialists (who say the church is going through the events of God's wrath as laid out in Revelation), and the amillennialists (I'm trying to grapple off and on these days with the amillennialists' peculiarly mystifying ways of thinking and haven't yet come across any systematic treatment of the Day of the Lord) but it seems to me that if they recognize the historicity and future expectation of the Day they would also have to reckon with God's promises to protect His church from it and therefore recognize a major claim for the pre-trib Rapture. Let me guess: They DON'T recognize the historicity and future expectation of the Day of the Lord -- they manage to spread it out over the last 2000 years or spiritualize it in some way.

FOR REFERENCE: SCRIPTURE pertaining to the "DAY OF THE LORD"

Isaiah 2:12 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

Isaiah 13:6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.

Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

Jeremiah 46:10 For this is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood: for the Lord GOD of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates.

Ezekiel 13:5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the LORD.

[What does this say? That it will be possible for some of the "house of Israel" to stand IN the Day of the Lord -- and that more might if they were supported rightly. The point is that the Day of the Lord is going to be survivable by some. Those who repent. Want to include here the commentary from Jamieson Fausset and Brown as it shows clearly the reason why God's own people may come under judgment]: 5. not gone up into . . . gaps--metaphor from breaches made in a wall, to which the defenders ought to betake themselves in order to repel the entrance of the foe. The breach is that made in the theocracy through the nation's sin; and, unless it be made up, the vengeance of God will break in through it. Those who would advise the people to repentance are the restorers of the breach (Eze 22:30; Ps 106:23,30).

hedge--the law of God (Ps 80:12; Isa 5:2,5); by violating it, the people stripped themselves of the fence of God's protection and lay exposed to the foe. The false prophets did not try to repair the evil by bringing back the people to the law with good counsels, or by checking the bad with reproofs. These two duties answer to the double office of defenders in case of a breach made in a wall: (1) To repair the breach from within; (2) To oppose the foe from without.

to stand--that is, that the city may "stand."

in . . . day of . . . Lord--In the day of the battle which God wages against Israel for their sins, ye do not try to stay God's vengeance by prayers, and by leading the nation to repentance.

Ezekiel 30:3 For the day is near, even the day of the LORD is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.

Joel 1:15 Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.

Joel 2:1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;

Joel 2:11 And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

Joel 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

Joel 3:14 Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.

Amos 5:18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.

Amos 5:20 Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?

Obadiah 1:15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.

Zephaniah 1:7 Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GOD: for the day of the LORD is at hand: for the LORD hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests.

Zephaniah 1:14 The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

Acts 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

1Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

2Corinthians 1:14 As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.

1Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

2Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

NOTE: The Day of the Lord is closely associated with the coming of Christ, both first and second coming, and sometimes the characteristics of the two events get confused because of their close association. I haven't yet sorted all this out myself, but I want to note it here that they need to be kept conceptually separated.

Chuck Missler as I'm discovering him

I'm right now mostly engaged in listening to Chuck Missler on various end times topics at Google Videos. Years ago I read some of his pamphlets but was never very interested in them. I think that's because he has a tendency to get off into applying the Bible to news headlines and current affairs, which is just too iffy for me, and because he enjoys speculating about things like quantum mechanics and the science of walking through walls and that sort of thing, which bores me to distraction.

But when he's talking pretty strictly Biblically, as he (mostly) is in the talks I've been listening to, then I can really appreciate him. I don't mind at all if he gets off into speculations that are Bible-based, as he does when he proposes that "the Assyrian" is a better candidate for the final Man of Sin than others, because in the Bible that term does appear at times to refer to a specific but unidentified individual, unlike the similar phrases "the Egyptian" or "the Chaldean" which either refer to known individuals or stand for Egyptians or Chaldeans in general. I ran these through the Concordance and it is interesting that "the Assyrian" definitely has this specific connotation. (And the most famous Assyrian was Nimrod, and Nimrod is considered to be the prototype for all the false gods that have been worshiped by one civilization after another down to the Roman Empire, and then taken up into the Roman Catholic apostasy, as exposed particularly by Alexander Hislop in The Two Babylons. Nimrod is an Antichrist and the Antichrist will have to be in the spirit of Nimrod in any case.)

So I find observations like that to be stimulating possibilities to juggle along with others, and Missler is particularly good at noting such distinctions and patterns in the Bible.

But when he gets off into insisting that "the Lord's day" as used by John in Revelation 1:10 does not refer to John's being in the spirit on a Sunday but to the "Day of the Lord" -- which is where he says John was when "in the Spirit" -- he loses me:

Jamieson Fausset and Brown (JFB) Commentary on Rev 1:10:

on the Lord's day--Though forcibly detained from Church communion with the brethren in the sanctuary on the Lord's day, the weekly commemoration of the resurrection, John was holding spiritual communion with them. This is the earliest mention of the term, "the Lord's day." But the consecration of the day to worship, almsgiving, and the Lord's Supper, is implied in Ac 20:7; 1Co 16:2; compare Joh 20:19-26. The name corresponds to "the Lord's Supper," 1Co 11:20.

IGNATIUS seems to allude to "the Lord's day" [Epistle to the Magnesians, 9], and IRENÆUS [Quæst ad Orthod., 115] (in JUSTIN MARTYR). JUSTIN MARTYR [Apology, 2.98], &c., "On Sunday we all hold our joint meeting; for the first day is that on which God, having removed darkness and chaos, made the world, and Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead. On the day before Saturday they crucified Him; and on the day after Saturday, which is Sunday, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught these things." To the Lord's day PLINY doubtless refers [Epistles, Book X., p. 97], "The Christians on a fixed day before dawn meet and sing a hymn to Christ as God," &c. TERTULLIAN [The Chaplet, 3], "On the Lord's day we deem it wrong to fast." MELITO, bishop of Sardis (second century), wrote a book on the Lord's day [EUSEBIUS 4.26]. Also, DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH, in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 4.23,8]. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [Miscellanies, 5. and 7.12]; ORIGEN [Against Celsus, 8. 22]. The theory that the day of Christ's second coming is meant, is untenable. "The day of the Lord" is different in the Greek from "the Lord's (an adjective) day," which latter in the ancient Church always designates our Sunday, though it is not impossible that the two shall coincide (at least in some parts of the earth), whence a tradition is mentioned in JEROME [Commentary on Matthew, 25], that the Lord's coming was expected especially on the Paschal Lord's day. The visions of the Apocalypse, the seals, trumpets, and vials, &c., are grouped in sevens, and naturally begin on the first day of the seven, the birthday of the Church, whose future they set forth [WORDSWORTH].

It also doesn't seem to me that John would say it that way if he meant he had been transported in vision to the final Day of the Lord, since he would know that the reader would need a great deal of orientation to grasp such an experience. Other prophets, such as Daniel and Ezekiel, very clearly designate where their visions take them, and are careful to describe even the experience of being taken there; they don't leave us with merely an ambiguous phrase to figure out.

So I reject that idea and would rather not even spend so much time on it, but since it's the sort of thing that is likely to come up again and again it's probably best to get my own answer put down as definitely as possible as soon as possible. (It turns out that Missler's objection to the phrase in Revelation has to do with his strong ideas about the Saturday Sabbath, which he calls by the Jewish word "Shabbat." That's a whole complicated discussion I'm not going to get into here -- except to say I disagree with his view of it, and with his use of Jewish terminology for this and other things).

Otherwise I have to say that Missler is a GREAT Bible expositor on topics related to the end times. His argument for the Rapture is Biblically impressive, and he is as Biblically well grounded on the Antichrist and the Book of Revelation as on the Rapture. His solid Biblical perspective contrasts with some discussions of other eschatalogical positions such as amillennialism, where you can get lost in abstractions and rhetorical or poetic Biblical allusions without finding much of an attempt to prove the system from specific Bible verses. If I have the patience I want to try to deal with some of those discussions too.

Missler is masterful at identifying the interrelationships of elements in the entire Bible, patterns that tie it all together. Even if one ends up with a different understanding of, say, the Book of Revelation, than his understanding, it can only be a huge benefit to have heard his discussion of it. He gives such a coherent and thoroughly Bible-referenced overview you can't help but come away feeling you FINALLY understand at least the STRUCTURE of that book and its place in the context of the rest of the Bible.

Rosh Hashanah as the trigger for the Rapture (or the 70th Week of Daniel in any case)

Finding some great stuff on the Rapture. Sorry I'm not stopping to get to know much about the various websites hosting this material, if I get the impression it's making good scriptural sense then I just try to absorb as much as I can. When I come up for air I should return and give credit where credit is due, Lord willing.

Got to say that I'm more and more convinced of the Rapture. Just a short while ago I would never have thought I'd come to this conclusion. Not that I'd finally settled on a particular end times interpretation -- I hadn't, in fact I was taking the position that we wouldn't know until it was upon us. It seemed to me that there were facets of different eschatalogical interpretations that had scriptural support, as well as some claims that have little or no support at all, but beyond that, judging among them was just beyond me. But I didn't expect the Rapture to end up being the winner it now seems to be becoming for me, because I couldn't really see much evidence for it -- or the evidence seemed to be pieced together from unlikely ways of reading different verses. Yet none of the other interpretations made any better sense, and at least the Rapture always has had the virtue of giving a clearly future fulfillment to prophecy, and that part I always held to.

Now I'm finding discussions covering some of the particulars involved in the Rapture scheme. Once you accept it, you have a head full of questions about how it all plays out, how things are the same and different on both sides of the Rapture divide for instance.

Here are some really handy discussions:

The Rapture on Rosh Hashana

Jewish tradition holds that Rosh Hashanah celebrates the anniversary of the creation of the world, a day when “God takes stock of all of His Creation,” which of course includes all of humanity...

“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation. Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.” (Leviticus 23:23-25)

God does not do things in vain, or without purpose. The Old Testament Holy Days were not just some sort of Divine make-work project to keep the Israelites busy while they were out wandering in the desert. All of the Old Testament Holy Days (Passover, Days of Unleavened Bread, The Feast of Weeks, The Feast of Trumpets, The Day of Atonement, The Festival of Tabernacles and the Last Day) were, and continue to be, living symbols of the stages of God’s Plan of Salvation for all humanity. Those events are now in progress, and true Christians are the manifestation of it.

In the Christian world, Rosh Hashanah is known as The Feast of Trumpets. Many Christians observe this festival for its Christian prophetic application – the Rapture of the Church.

“Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” (1 Corinthians 15:51-53)

“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 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.” (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17)

All the Spring Feasts were fulfilled at Christ’s first coming. All the Fall Feasts picture the Second Advent, and the Feast of Trumpets is the first of the fall feasts, picturing the Rapture.

Now there are more feasts to be fulfilled with the second coming.

Yom Teruah (Rosh HaShanah) / Feast of Trumpets
The Rapture; the last trump; wedding of the Messiah; New Moon; Open Door
Yom Kippur / Day of Atonement
Sukkot / Feast of Tabernacles (Booths). . .

Rosh HaShanah is also referred to as ‘Yom Teruah’, the Day of the Sounding of the Shofar, or the Day of the Awakening Blast. On Yom Teruah, the Day of the Sounding of the Shofar, it is imperative for every person to hear the shofar.

Yom Teruah is the only festival that no man knows when exactly it will occur. This is due to the fact that it begins on the new moon. The new moon was sanctified when two witnesses see the new moon and attest to it before the Sanhedrin in the Temple.

This sanctification could happen during either of two days, depending on when the witnesses come. Since no one knew when the witnesses would come, no one knew when the Feast of Trumpets would start.

From that same source: What Is the Identity of the Twenty-Four Elders? And another: The Seven Feasts and Their Meanings. And another: Where Is The Promise of His Coming?

I also want to link to a site where the Fall Feasts of Israel are understood to be markers of end times events, but a pre-trib Rapture (or pre-Second Coming Rapture) is rejected. And here he specifically proposes that a future Rosh Hashana or Feast of Trumpets will be the inaugurating event for the last seven weeks or the Seventieth Week of Daniel.

=========================================
Some good studies by Chuck Missler too: A video here, on the Rapture, Part 1: John 14 first scripture he mentions. Many mansions. Wedding practices of ancient Israel to show Christ's relation to the church. The parable of the ten virgins. Marriage supper various verses. Hope to spend more time on Missler as I absorb his teachings.
=========================================

The Pre-Seventieth Week Rapture

I'm continuing to study end times arguments and look up the relevant scripture, trying to convince myself one way or another about the Rapture. As soon as I lean in one direction I run across arguments from another direction that seem to raise valid questions, and so back and forth I go. But right now I'm leaning again in the direction of the Rapture. John MacArthur is convincing on it. I tried to follow an anti-rapture argument at You Tube which I may eventually post on, but I'm not going to identify it here because my own comparisons of the relevant scriptures seem to invalidate their thinking.

Now I'm reading in a website called Grace Through Faith, run by a Jack Kelley, some of whose articles are linked at Jan Markell's Olive Tree Views, and so far his pro-rapture arguments are quite convincing.

He addresses one of the objections I raised in my posts on the 36 reasons, that is, why the church should escape tribulation since we are promised tribulation, in Tribulation versus Great Tribulation. He deals with the same question in a recent article, September 4th -- There is No Seven-Year Tribulation showing that the contexts are different in which tribulation is described as the normal expectation of the church as versus the Great Tribulation.

It's convincing and important, but doesn't really answer something like Corrie Ten Boom's letter in which she describes people who have learned a false expectation that they will escape persecution from belief in the Rapture and are therefore unprepared for the suffering they are facing. I also think of Josef Tson who was persecuted under Ceaucescu in Romania, talking about how persecution is coming to America and quipping that the rest of the world doesn't wonder about the timing of the Great Tribulation, only whether or not America will ever go through it. Well, it looks like we are about to go through tribulation here too -- that normal kind of tribulation.

But it also looks like the entire world is on the brink of The Seventieth Week of Daniel (formerly known as The Great Tribulation).

And I thank Jack Kelley for pointing THAT out too, because it's confusing that the last seven years of planet earth are so often called The Great Tribulation when most studies of the relevant prophecies identify only the last three and a half years as the period of tribulation. He's right, much better to call it The Seventieth Week (The first half of the 70th week will be taken up with God's Wrath, as described in Revelation 6. That's going to be hard enough to get through).

Also, referring to Daniel’s 70th Week (which concerns Israel) as the tribulation (which is world wide) hides the fact that Israel and the Church can’t co-exist during that time. Because of this, many Christians don’t realize that during Daniel’s 70th Week God’s focus will be on Israel, with its Old Covenant Temple, animal sacrifice, keeping the commandments and all things Jewish. How can the dispensation of Law and the Dispensation of Grace exist in the same place at the same time when the two are theologically incompatible? Truth be told this is perhaps the most compelling reason for a pre 70th Week rapture.

I'd say it's pretty compelling.

John MacArthur preaches the Rapture

I either never knew or forgot a long time ago that John MacArthur teaches the Rapture. Here he is describing it on You Tube. He's saying pretty much what was said in the 36 scripture references I posted below.

The second question in the following You Tube Q&A of John MacArthur asks whether the Holy Spirit will be taken away with the Rapture of the Church. The answer he gives is that the Holy Spirit's role of restraining evil will be removed, but He Himself won't be. MacArthur says there is to be the greatest Revival ever known in history in this Tribulation period as huge numbers will be brought to salvation through the Holy Spirit.

This does answer the misunderstanding some apparently have of the Rapture position, that the Holy Spirit Himself will be taken away as the "one who restrains."

However, the scripture does say that "he" will be removed, not just a restraining power.

Here is a series of You Tube videos of John MacArthur on the Second Coming:
Part I.
Part II. He discusses the Rapture from about 6:10 of this part, God's Plan for the Church.
Part III. In this part he talks about the redemption of the Jews.
Part IV.
Part V. From 3:15 he describes the Lord coming first for his church, followed by the series of judgments that are the Great Tribulation, Israel comes to salvation "along with vast multitudes across the earth," then the Lord returns to judge all the ungodly and sets up his glorious kingdom.
Part VI. Continuing Luke 17 through 21

Here is a video on the timing of the Rapture. IF the Rapture is really going to occur, it makes sense that it would happen during the Feast of Trumpets, which is Rosh Hashanah (coming up Wednesday the 8th by the way -- to last from sunset of the 8th up to nightfall of the 10th. I'd REALLY love to be gone by then, but if not, maybe next year). There is a "last trumpet" in a series of trumpet blasts associated with that holiday, presaging the last trumpet of Revelation, for instance. There's also the nice fact that the first four feasts of Israel were all neatly fulfilled by events connected with the salvation of the Church, and we have to expect that the last feasts of the Jewish calendar will also be literally fulfilled.

Scott Johnson: FYI /// And more revelations about Glenn Beck's fiasco of a rally

Well. I'm listening to Scott Johnson's talk for today, skipped the first parts to hear the third because according to his list of subjects he was going to be talking about Glenn Beck. He's playing audio from the opening of the Restoring Honor rally, a part of it I had missed. There's to be a pastor who keeps saying "Gods" where he should be saying "God" -- haven't heard that part yet. And there are some native Americans out on the stage in full Indian regalia, and Glenn Beck's speech is pure Mormonism.

And Scott Johnson doesn't seem to know it. This whole business of the Native Americans having the true religion is really puzzling him. Scott, you need to know that that comes straight out of the Book of Mormon. In fact Beck's opening remarks about the true God dealing with His chosen people through Moses at the same time He was dealing with people on this continent is pure Book of Mormon. And pure idiocy.

Actually Beck didn't even get the time frame right. I read the Book of Mormon in order to talk to a Mormon girl missionary years ago and was appalled that such utter stupidity could ever be taken for reality by anyone.

[Later: Just listened again to the Beck speech from Johnson's site: "The story of America is the story of humankind" he says. Huh? Then he says "Five thousand years ago, on the other side of the planet, God's chosen people were led out of bondage by a guy with a stick who was talking to a burning bush. Man first began to recognize God and God's law." [Nonsense. Humanity had known God and God's law since Eden but it had become corrupted because of the Fall. God was now beginning to train a people to carry His word for the rest of the world, and especially for the purpose of producing the Messiah He'd promised to send back in Eden, to save us from the consequences of the Fall, our disobedience to God. But Beck goes on:] "The chosen people listened to the Lord." [Well, sort of, some of the time anyway. They also made a golden calf to worship as soon as Moses wasn't around to keep them in line. Now here comes the BIG FAT STUPID MORMON LIE:] "At the same time those things were happening, on this side, on this land, another group of people were gathered here and they too were listening to God."

Uh oh. Remember, he's identified this time as 5000 years ago, which is absurdly wrong for starters for identifying the time of the Exodus under Moses, which occurred more like 3400 years ago or about 1400 BC. Abraham's time was about 500 years before that or about 1900 BC. The Flood was about 2500 BC, so Beck's time frame would put Moses before the Flood. But Beck goes cheerfully on spelling out his Mormon fiction:

"How these two people were brought together again happened because people were listening to God." [Scott Johnson interrupts here to ask "What does that mean?" Even if you don't know anything about Mormonism or even the time frame of the Old Testament, yes, you still have to ask "What does that mean?" because Beck is not making sense. Johnson points out that when the Pilgrims got to America the Indians were immersed in paganism, showing no signs of ever having learned anything of the true God. I'm leaving out a few comments here, then we get to:]

"God's chosen people, the Native Americans, and the Pilgrims . . ." [and here some people start cheering and applauding -- what on earth for?] [Johnson, who clearly doesn't know that this all comes out of the Book of Mormon, simply comments at this point, "The Native Americans weren't saved, they needed the gospel of Jesus Christ." Quite true.] Then Beck goes on to introduce a Rabbi, a couple of Indians and a pastor who he says is a descendant of the Mayflower Pilgrims. "To restore America, to restore honor, we've got to start at the beginning and look at the patterns" Beck then says. "When people came together of different faiths in the spirit of God . . . and the first thing they did was pray together." Man, if I'd heard this part of the rally the first time around I wouldn't have had to struggle to recognize that the whole thing was a bizarre religionistic fraud. Even without knowing that Beck is preaching pure Mormon lies it should be clear to a Christian, as it is to Johnson, that he's preaching ecumenical gobbledygook that no Christian should countenance for half a second.

At this point Johnson goes on to play what he says isn't a very clear audio of the prayer in which the pastor keeps saying "Gods" instead of "God." Yes, a few sentences into this you can hear "Lord Gods," and yes he keeps repeating this odd "mistake," two times, three times, over and over. Yes, very very strange.

Hey, Christians, wake up. NO attempt to restore America is worth compromising with the devil, and this is what this is. Abandon America if we must, No matter how much it hurts, if it means abandoning the true God, as in this abomination of a religiopatriotic rally it clearly means.

Anyway here's the story as I recall it from the BoM. In 600 BC [this is about the time of Jeremiah, when the Israelites were going into captivity in Babylon, considerably later than Moses . Beck himself -- along with Mormons in general? -- is confused about the timing of Old Testament events I guess. I recall the BoM saying 600 BC but there's Beck saying 5000 years ago. Maybe they rewrote the BoM since I read it? I know they have a habit of doing that when their errors become embarrassing.], some Israelites took off in a boat and ended up in South America. Or was it Central America. Somewhere south of us anyway. The leader's name was Nephi, and there are other names that may come back to me or may not. (I answered this girl among other things that God had told the Israelites through Jeremiah that they HAD to go to Babylon, He wouldn't let them even go to Egypt. So here are these renegade Jews taking a boat across the ocean? Against God's clear directives? And they survived the trip? In 600 BC?)

[Here's another thought: If the Mormons believe that the 600 BC time frame of their Book of Mormon is the same time frame as Moses' bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, they are going to have to explain how it is that so much of the book of the prophet Isaiah is reproduced in that same Book of Mormon. Isaiah precedes Jeremiah so the "Nephites" could conceivably have taken it with them to America, timewise anyway, but if they think it all happened at the same time as Moses there was no Isaiah yet. Of course such facts wouldn't have stopped Joseph Smith. Faced with such a disparity he would no doubt simply have claimed that those passages of Isaiah were given to them direct from God. Even in the exact English of the King James of Smith's era, not even in Hebrew, which presumably the "Nephites" should have spoken -- except I think Smith has them speaking some sort of Egyptian -- that's what the BOM was written in anyway. Only absolute total ignorance of history and of the Bible could make any of this seem remotely believable].

I'm fuzzy about the rest of the story but at some point there were warring tribes of these new "Americans" and many died and their religion was lost, and they eventually became the Native Americans, who according to Mormonism are Jews. Jesus Christ supposedly came and preached the gospel to them directly (they say that's because Jesus said He had "other sheep" to tend, ignorant of the fact that He meant the Gentiles to whom the gospel was taken by Paul, at least, and many others of the apostles according to tradition if not scripture. The idea that Jesus would have made a completely secret trip to some other "sheep" across the world is ridiculous. He ascended into heaven, there to remain until His return.)

So these people wrote stuff ("scripture") down on golden tablets and Joseph Smith found them centuries later. There are so many absurdities in the story I couldn't get through it all, but I found enough contradictions with scripture in the first couple chapters to write pages against it for the girl missionary. Who of course didn't take any of it seriously. Or so I suppose since I never heard from her again.

So right off Glenn Beck is preaching Mormon doctrine at his rally. How many recognized this? People cheered at one point when he identified the Native Americans as believers in God. Something very strange about all this. (Perhaps there were a huge number of Mormons in that audience?) About that time any knowledgable true Christians in the audience SHOULD have started walking out.

If I'd heard that part I would have been immediately alerted, but I started listening later when it was mostly a lot of gospel talk of a fairly unobjectionable sort. Even that of course is wrong, as I eventually recognized, because a Mormon doesn't use the words the same way a Christian does. So already there were problems with them all sharing the stage. If it had been just a political rally, no problem. But it turns out that Beck has been getting more and more "spiritual" recently, and that's where we have to part company with him. But I had missed the first part where his Mormon beliefs were overt -- and nobody objected!

So at least thanks to Scott Johnson I got to hear that part.

=======================
But Scott did get something else wrong that really needs to be corrected, because it amounts to wrongly accusing someone.

Before getting to Glenn Beck he responded to somebody who'd written him that Del Tackett of the Truth Project seemed to be promoting contemplative Christianity because he used the term Unio Mystica.

I saw all the Truth Project teachings and not once did Del Tackett say a word about contemplative Christianity unless I suffered a brain paralysis during that segment. I've been wracking my brain to remember what he DID mean by that phrase and I'm not sure. He used various Latin type phrases to characterize different phases of the teachings. ALL of the Truth Project is about cultural Christianity, and how it is derived from Biblical wisdom -- how to develop a Biblical worldview.

I think the term simply refers to the fact that Christian believers are united with Christ through faith, though I don't remember the context in which that came up. In any case, it had nothing whatever to do with contemplative Christianity. But Scott hung this on him with no evidence whatever, simply the use of that Latin phrase which is apparently also commonly associated with contemplative Christianity.

I thought the Truth Project was excellent. Tackett covered every facet of a Biblical Worldview from science to law to government to education to art and so on.

Since watching the Truth Project I signed up for their newsletter and I don't like it as much. In a recent issue on the Biblical Flood, although he did a good job of showing the evidence for the Flood, he went on to allow that an Old Earth is possible although it violates the Bible. That bothered me. Old Earth Creationism is a compromise with worldly evolutionism that denies the Book of Genesis.

In this same talk Scott Johnson also listed some of the problems with James Dobson's Christian beliefs, which I was at least vaguely aware of myself, enough to have wondered how the Truth Project got associated with Dobson's Focus on the Family. I decided there didn't seem to be much connection, and there may not be, but it's hard to know. It may turn out that Tackett shares some of Dobson's errors too.

I wonder who is going to be left standing in the end? Anybody at all?

Some Support for the Pre-Trib Rapture Part 2

From now on this list of scripture supports for the pre-trib rapture gets deeper into pre-trib assumptions.

16) The Bible says, “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming” (II Thess. 2:7-8). The most common interpretation of this is that the Antichrist can’t be revealed until the Restrainer [who most commentators say is both the Holy Spirit and the Church] is removed. If the Restrainer is the Church only, this means the Church will be removed before the Antichrist is revealed [that’s the Pre-Trib. Rapture]. If the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit only so that the Holy Spirit is removed without the Church, this means believers will cease to be indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It also means the Church will be left behind to go through the worst time the earth has ever seen [the Tribulation Period] without the help of the Holy Spirit. This would contradict the teaching of Jesus when He said, “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever” (John 14:16). And, “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Heb. 13:5).

This is convincing I think. It doesn't make sense that the Church would be left without the Holy Spirit. However, does it make sense that ANYONE would be deprived of the Holy Spirit whom God intends to save? The Mystery of Inquity is going to be released to full operation -- and "revealed" -- when the Restrainer is removed. Who IS the "restrainer" of 2 Thessalonians 2? IS it the church? How COULD it be the Holy Spirit? How could anyone survive what's coming on the earth without Him? *

I'm also now convinced by what I've been reading here that if the Great Tribulation is equivalent to the unleashing of God's wrath as indicated by the opening of the Seals in the book of Revelation, that the Church won't be going through that, that we HAVE been promised protection from it. At least those who are faithful have been promised that protection; perhaps there are some who will go through it and yet in the end overcome. This I'm not sure about.

What's not clear is what to classify as wrath and what as expectable tribulation. But again I think it's important that those who are committed to the Rapture view recognize and strongly affirm that there IS tribulation for Christians in this world, and that means NOW too, up until the Rapture if it is to occur whenever that may be, because too many have fallen for the false idea that we aren't to suffer in this world.

17) Isaiah wrote that God said, “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain” (Isa. 26:19-21). Notice, that the dead rise first [that’s the Rapture], next God’s people are summoned to enter into His chambers for a short while until the indignation [a name of the Tribulation Period is past]. God will raise the dead and summon His people because He intends to punish the inhabitants of the earth [send the Tribulation Period].

Have to think about this; it seems to be stretching the point. For one thing it doesn't say Enter into MY chambers, but into THY chambers.

18) Malachi wrote that God said, “They shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not” (Malachi 3:17-18). Pre-Tribulation teachers believe God is saying He will come for His Church [the Rapture] and then He will return with His Church [the Second Coming] to judge between the righteous and wicked.

19) In the Rapture, Jesus comes for His Church (I Thess. 4:16-17; John 14:3). When He comes at the end of the Tribulation Period, He will come with His Church (I Thess. 3:13; Rev. 19:14).

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 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. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

This passage doesn't seem to lend itself all that easily to the Rapture interpretation. I need to think about it a lot more myself.

20) Concerning the Second Coming, Jesus said, “But of the day and the hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Matt. 24:36). But if the Church goes through the Tribulation Period, some will know the day because it will be seven years from the signing of the seven-year covenant. Some will know the day because it will be 1260 days from the day the Antichrist defiles the Temple (Rev. 12:6).

21) Concerning the Antichrist, many scholars believe the Bible teaches he won’t be revealed until after the Church is gone (II Thess. 2:6-8), but if the Church goes through the Tribulation Period, some will know who he is because he will sign the seven-year covenant (Dan. 9:24-27), he will head up the world government (Rev. 13:1-10), he will try to force multitudes to worship him, and to receive his mark, receive his name or his number (Rev. 13:15-17). Many of those who are here and being forced to worship him and take his name or die will know who he is.

22) The Antichrist is not suppose[d] to be revealed until after the Church is gone (II Thess. 2:6-8), but if the Church goes through the Tribulation Period, the Church will know who the Antichrist is because he will put a statue of himself in the rebuilt Temple (Dan. 11:31; Dan. 12:11; Matt. 24:15).

23) If the Church goes through the Tribulation Period, the Church will know who the Antichrist is because he will head up the world government and receive a deadly wound to his head that will be healed (Rev. 13:3). Some think he will be raised from the dead or at least fake the resurrection.

24) If the Church goes through the Tribulation Period, the Church will know who the Antichrist is because he will head up the world government and be supported by the head of the world religion called the False Prophet (Rev. 13:11-18).

25) If the Church goes through the Tribulation Period, the Church will know who the Antichrist is because he’s the one that will kill the Two Witnesses (Rev. 11:7).

If the idea here is that those who DO go through the Tribulation are not to know any of these things, that seems very unlikely. If the Church suddenly disappears there are bound to be some among those left who have heard of the Rapture and will immediately turn to scripture and learn all the things the Church would have known anyway. And it seems to me essential that any who do go through the Tribulation SHOULD know these things so that they will have the strength to persevere through what is going to be unspeakable misery. It is true that the Second Coming of Christ can be pretty well established from the information given in scripture, but not necessarily perfectly, just very close, AND you have to be absolutely sure what the starting point was to be able to make that calculation. [Later: I've been reading End Time Pilgrim who rejects the rapture idea, and he shows that the starting point is the covenant with Israel to be made by the Antichrist as interpreted of Daniel, so quite exact calculations can be made.]

And why would such calculations have been made available in God's word if the Church isn't going to be around to make use of them, unless those who ARE still around can learn them too? I don't see why people who, according to the rapture idea, come to faith during the Tribulation WOULDN'T be able to learn these things -- are all Bibles to be confiscated? Well, it's very likely I suppose that most of them would be. And it's also likely that any that are preserved will be the false modern Bibles, not the King James. Not that you can't get most of the truth out of them, but they do lend themselves to devious interpretations that the King James doesn't and the Antichrist will surely know how to twist them to his own purposes.

26) Many people don’t think the Church will go through the Tribulation Period because of verses of Scripture that say things like, “The Lord preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked he will destroy” (Psa. 145:18-20). Many believe God will preserve the Church from the Tribulation Period or keep the Church out of the Tribulation Period not destroy the Church in the Tribulation Period.

However, such verses as these are easily enough interpreted to apply to the final judgment, not the Tribulation period.

27) There are verses of Scripture that say things like, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it” (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:5-6; Rev. 22:18-19). Some believe people have to throw away verses of Scripture to believe the Church will go through the Tribulation Period.

If you're going to claim this you should give the verses in question so we can see what you mean.

28) In the seven letters to the seven churches, Jesus said, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” seven times (Rev. 2:7,11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). When we get to the Tribulation Period, Jesus said, “If any man have an ear, let him hear” (Rev. 13:9). He left out, “what the Spirit saith unto the churches” because there are no churches on earth to go through the Tribulation Period. The Church will be in heaven.

Since scripture is often to be read with this degree of precision I think this is a good argument, or could be anyway. The objections would be that you can't argue from an absence, and scripture is to be read cumulatively, all applicable teachings to be understood in conjunction with each other.

29) When the Rapture happens the Church goes up to meet Jesus in the air (I Thess. 4:13-18), but at the end of the Tribulation Period the Church will come down to the earth with Jesus to witness what He does at the Battle of Armageddon (Rev. 19:14-21).

This is that same passage that above I note doesn't all that readily lend itself to the Rapture idea, so it needs more pondering, at least from me.

30) The Pre-Tribulation Rapture is more consistent with God’s grace, love, mercy, compassion, etc. The Mid and Post-Tribulation Rapture is more consistent God’s wrath.

Well, this hinges on whether the Tribulation IS God's wrath or not. I'm pretty well convinced by now that because it's all about the opening of the Seven Seals with the various judgments to be poured onto the earth that it IS God's wrath we're talking about and that the Church WILL be protected from it, but I'm not sure that everything that is taken to refer to this period actually does refer to it.Natural disasters are clearly God's wrath, but what about the persecutions of the saints by the Antichrist? Down through history the Church hasn't been protected from that.

There are different ways the Church could be protected too, however, without taking the Church off earth altogether, such as sustaining us miraculously for instance.

But in any case the problem has always been to my mind that this emphasis on removal from suffering APPEARS to deny that the Church IS called to suffer for Christ and somehow this doesn't get discussed by the rapturists.

31) If the Rapture takes place at the end of the Tribulation Period, and all the wicked are removed from the earth at that time (Matt. 13:24-30, 47-50; 25:41), no one will be left to re-populate the earth during the Millennium. If all of the saved are Raptured and all the lost are removed from the earth at the end of the Tribulation Period, no one will be left to re-populate the earth.

This objection ASSUMES the Millennial interpretation of the rapturists. That's a whole other topic for another time, for me anyway.

32) The Antichrist will prevail against the saints during the Tribulation Period, but the gates of hell won’t prevail against the Church (Rev. 13:7; Matt. 16:18). Therefore, the Church won’t go through the Tribulation Period.

I think there is a confusion of contexts here. Prevailing against the saints in a worldly context -- which we know happens from time to time in this world or the lions could never have eaten any of them nor the Inquisition killed so many and so on -- isn't the same as prevailing against the Church in the ultimate scheme of things, which we know isn't going to happen. Even when the saints are martyred they triumph too and martyrdom ultimately defeats Satan.

33) The twenty-four elders [representatives of the Church] will be in heaven before the seven-sealed scroll is broken (Rev. 4:4; 6:1-17).

Yes, but weren't they already there in John's time anyway?

34) Jesus was talking about the Tribulation Period when He said, “Pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass” (Luke 21:36). He didn’t say, “Pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to endure some or all of these things that shall come to pass.”

Was He talking about the Tribulation period in the sense of the pouring out of God's wrath or a period when false prophets who hate His people would be proliferating, which is well underway already, and are they these same thing? This is part of my fuzziness again here so I need to do more study and pondering.

35) There are no signs of the Rapture, but if the Rapture takes place during the Tribulation Period, it would have to be after the seven-year covenant is signed by the Antichrist, and perhaps after several other things depending upon what a person believes about Mid-Trib, Post-Trib, etc.

Hm.

36) Jesus said, “When these things [the signs] begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads for your redemption draweth nigh” (Luke 21:28).He didn’t say, “After all these things have happened your redemption draweth nigh.” He said, “When these things begin to come to pass it’s close.”
Prophecy Plus Ministries
Daymond & Rachel Duck
daymondduck@bellsouth.net
rachelduck@bellsouth.net

OK. Lot of food for thought there. For me in particular.

=========================
* Concerning the Restrainer, here's a three-part video series that claims he can't be the Holy Spirit OR the Church. Watch to see who their candidate is. OK, I won't make you do that: It's Michael the archangel, who is the protector of Israel. In Daniel 12 he is described as standing up, at which point terrible sufferings are unleashed against God's people. [Rapture believers regard "Daniel's people" as exclusively the Jews; but it is just as defensible an idea to regard them as "God's people" or believers, all those who are "written in the book," which defines ALL believers.