The Imminent Translation of the Church

[greenbear]

http://www.walvoord.com/page.php?page_id=228

Chapter 4
The Imminent Translation of the Church

By:
John F. Walvoord
Return of the Lord

Buy the Libronix Book

The Hope of the Early Church

Ever since the Lord Jesus was taken from His disciples to glory on the day of His ascension, the hope of His imminent return has been the constant expectation of each generation of Christians. In the early church this was a dominant theme of the apostles’ teaching and an impelling motive in their witness. As gradually the great truths about the purpose of God in the church were unfolded and the present age began to extend, the hope of His return continued undimmed. At the close of the last book of the New Testament, the aged Apostle John still breathes a prayer, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22:20).

Unbelief and Confusion on This Doctrine Today

The passing centuries have brought scoffers who have said, “Where is the promise of his coming?” (2 Pet. 3:4). It is the fashion of our day in high theological circles to discount the doctrine of the coming of the Lord and to isolate this portion of Scriptural teaching as outside the realm of scholarly investigation. We are told that Paul and the other apostles were mistaken and naive to hope for the coming of the Lord in their day. Others, while admitting the teaching of the Scriptures on this doctrine, have interposed various prophesied events and thereby have postponed the hope of His return by generations and even millenniums. Resulting controversies have obscured and confused the blessed hope of the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Three Leading Questions

Before an intelligent understanding of the issues involved in the hope of the imminent return of the Lord can be achieved, three main questions must be considered: (1) Can we believe the Bible and accept its revelation literally? (2) Are there predicted events which must occur before the Lord’s return? (3) Do the Scriptures present the fulfillment of the hope of His return as an imminent event, i.e., as possible of fulfillment at any moment?

For the purpose of the present study, in answer to the first question, we must assume the inspiration of the Scripture and the validity and infallibility of its revelation. The present chaotic condition in prophetic study has come partly through failure to accept the Bible as the Word of God.

The answer to the second question is one of the most complicated in the whole field of prophecy. Many schemes of interpretation have been offered. The postmillennial view interposes a whole millennium between the present and the coming of Christ, thereby postponing that glad event by at least a thousand years. The posttribulationists believe the church must continue on earth through the Day of the Lord, including that unprecedented and indescribable time of trouble on the earth culminating in the great tribulation which Christ predicted (Matt. 24:21) and of which the Apostle John gives great detail (Rev. 6-19). If either of these two views—the postmillennial or the posttribulational—is correct we must give up the doctrine of the imminent coming of the Lord and must look instead for either a millennium on earth or a time of great tribulation.

What Do the Scriptures Teach?

The Bible teaches, according to the premillennial interpretation, both the doctrine of a millennial kingdom of righteousness on earth and the awful time of tribulation which will precede it. The question is whether Christ will come first, before both of these predicted periods, to meet His church in the air and take her home to glory. This we believe to be the teaching of the Scripture and the only view which fully resolves all the problems of interpretation involved.

The Word of Comfort to the Thessalonians

In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11, the great truth of the coming of the Lord is expounded. One can gather from this section that Paul had taught the Thessalonians much of this doctrine in his brief stay with them (Acts 17:1-10), but some questions remained. One of these questions concerned those of their number who had already passed into the presence of the Lord. When would they be raised from the dead? That they would be raised no one doubted, but would they be raised at the time the Lord came for the living saints or would it be later? This is answered emphatically in this passage. The dead in Christ would be raised first, just a moment before the living saints were caught up to meet Christ in the air. On the basis of this hope, they were exhorted, “Wherefore comfort one another with these words” (1 Thess. 4:18). The word which is translated comfort in both the Authorized and Revised Standard Versions includes the idea of exhort and encourage. This was to be a great encouragement and comfort to them—their reunion with their loved ones was no more distant than their reunion with the Lord when He came for His own.

Having established the order of the resurrection and translation, the next question was the time. When was the event to occur? In chapter five this is answered. Under the term “day of the Lord” (1 Thess. 5:2) the period immediately following the translation is described. It will come as a thief in the night— unexpected by those in that period (1 Thess. 5:2). It will involve “sudden destruction” and “they shall not escape” (1 Thess. 5:3), In contrast to these overtaken so suddenly by destruction, this trouble will not overtake the saints (1 Thess. 5:4). The reason is that the saints are “children of light” and “children of the day” (1 Thess. 5:5). “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:9; cf. Rev. 6:17). In a word, the contrast is made sharply between those translated and those left on earth so unexpectedly to destruction while the church is caught up to be with the Lord. The day of wrath, destruction, and judgment will follow the translation. The church will not be included in the wrath poured out upon the earth (1 Thess. 5:9). The teaching of the apostle in this passage establishes not only the order of resurrection and translation but also the relation of these events to the time of tribulation which follows.

The very exhortation of comfort of the Lord’s return loses its meaning if the church must pass through the great tribulation. What comfort can there be to a prospect of distant deliverance if in the path between there is probably martyrdom, destruction, and persecution? Far better to die a normal death and be raised in the resurrection than to endure such a period in order to avoid death in translation. The whole point of the Thessalonian passage hangs on the imminency and pretribulational character of the coming of the Lord.

The Word of Revelation to the Corinthians

The fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians is rightly known as the resurrection chapter. With its gospel introduction (1 Cor. 15:1-4) it first argues the resurrection of Christ as an essential of Christian faith and hope, and then links this with the resurrection of men in general. Having established these great truths, in the close of the chapter, by sharp contrast, the grand exception to the doctrine of resurrection is revealed: “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” (1 Cor. 15:51-52).

This passage is obviously parallel to 1 Thessalonians 4. It is the time of the resurrection of the dead and translation of the saints. The subject is introduced as a “mystery.” As used in the New Testament, this word refers to truth “hid” from Old Testament revelation, but now revealed in the New. That there should be a resurrection of the just is certainly no mystery. Nor is it a mystery that there should be living saints on the earth at the time of that event. Both of these general factors are clearly indicated in the Old Testament (cf. Dan. 12:2; Zech. 12:10). The mystery is that the living saints shall be translated, “changed” from a mortal body to an immortal body “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump” (1 Cor. 15:52). This is nowhere taught in the Old Testament. It should be carefully noted that this transformation is for “all”— “not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” (1 Cor. 15:51).

This teaching demands a time interval between the event here revealed and the coming of the Lord to establish His kingdom on earth. In other words, this event must occur before the tribulation while the kingdom is established by the coming of the Lord to the earth after the tribulation. The necessity of this conclusion is plainly implied in the passage before us. According to the premillennial interpretation of Scripture, during the millennium there will be tilling of the ground, raising of crops; there will be marriage, increase in population, and death. Amos speaks of the plowman, planting, the vineyards, the making of gardens, and eating of their fruit (Amos 9:13-15). That this refers to the millennium is made clear because the promise is related to the final gathering from which there will be no more plucking up out of the land (Amos 9:15). If this is true, there must be a body of saints still in the flesh, not resurrected, and not translated, to perform these natural functions. Further, this body must be on the earth at the time of the Lord’s coming to establish His kingdom on earth. But, according to the 1 Corinthian passage, all the living saints at the time of the Lord’s coming for the church are translated, leaving no redeemed to fulfill a natural function on earth. The only way both concepts can be fulfilled is for a time interval—the seven years anticipated in Daniel 9:27—to elapse between the translation of the saints of this age and the return of Christ to establish His kingdom. In this period a new generation of believers can be formed. In other words, the passage in 1 Corinthians is left without an adequate interpretation unless Christ comes for His own before the tribulation.

Posttribulationists have no explanation of this problem and usually choose to ignore it. The truth is that the great Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments dealing with the return of the Lord to establish His kingdom at the end of the tribulation never speak of a translation at that time. The saints on earth who greet Christ on that occasion remain on the earth, in the flesh, and enter the millennial kingdom as either redeemed Gentiles or redeemed Israel. By contrast, the redeemed of this present age are translated, changed, and caught up to glory.

In view of this tremendous revelation, the apostle concludes the section: “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, immoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58). Our hope is translation, not resurrection; the coming of the Lord, not the tribulation.

Let Not Your Hearts Be Troubled

Probably the first recorded revelation clearly distinguishing the translation of the saints from the establishment of the kingdom on earth after the tribulation is found in John 14 in the tender context of the Upper Room Discourse. Peter had just been informed that he would deny his Lord thrice. All were troubled at the Lord’s words, “Whither I go, ye cannot come” (John 13:33). Then came the comforting exhortation, “Let not your heart be troubled” (John 14:1). They are exhorted to believe in God and also to believe in Him. Simply the Lord unfolds the tremendous revelation: “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:2-3). Here is the explanation of the reason why they could not follow Him now and why He was going to leave them. He was coming back to take them to the prepared place in the Father’s house. What a contrast this is to the Jewish expectation understood by the disciples! The Jews were looking for an earthly kingdom promised by the prophets. Christ was expected to rule on the throne of David on earth. But this was different. Christ says here that He would take His own to heaven, to the Father’s house. This was to be their expectation as believers in this present age. With this they were to comfort their hearts and for this they were to wait.

In the light of the later revelation given in Thessalonians and Corinthians, it should be evident that we have in John 14 a parallel passage. Christ is speaking of the time of the translation of the saints. Obviously, the disciples could not go to the Father’s house apart from such a transformation of body and spirit. The important fact was that the Lord was coming for them and the time of separation, however long, was only temporary.

In Thessalonians it was revealed that the translated and resurrected saints would meet the Lord in the air. In John we learn where they go from that meeting place. They go to heaven, to the Father’s house. The place has been prepared by the loving Bridegroom for His bride. How fitting to leave behind the world with its cares and sins and to be taken into the glorious presence of the Father’s house! Those who believe the church will go through the tribulation think otherwise, however. For them the meeting in the air is just a momentary event followed by immediate return to the earth with the Lord to establish His kingdom and to destroy His enemies. The church corporately, for them, never goes to heaven at all. If they are right, the place prepared in the Father’s house will never be used by the resurrected and translated church. Instead, the church will be plunged immediately into the millennial earth and afterwards into the newly created new heaven and new earth. How much better the interpretation that gives full luster to the hope of the imminent return of Christ as an event before the time of tribulation with its provision for the refuge in heaven while the storms of divine wrath purge the earth and fit it for the millennial state! Such a hope brings solace to hearts wounded by separation and longing for the face of the Beloved. There is no cloud between, no wearisome events of ominous proportions standing between us and that glad moment. In the twinkling of an eye the transcending event is accomplished and the church is forever with the Lord.

Every Man That Hath This Hope

The truth of the Lord’s coming was intended to be a comfort, an exhortation, and a hope that quiets troubled hearts. In 1 John we have a further truth as a counterpart to that revealed in the Gospel:

“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 John 3:2-3).

What a prospect! We shall be like Him when we see Him. This is not a reward for long toil and walking the weary road. This is the love token of a Bridegroom to the bride. The transformation, of which Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15, is to transfigure the bride until she, like the Bridegroom, is altogether lovely and without a trace of sin or disfigurement. This is not merely a sentiment, an ecstasy of anticipation. This is a purifying hope. “Every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.”

As in the other passages considered, the imminency of the Lord’s coming is that which underlines and emphasizes the meaning of the exhortation. It is because it is a moment-by-moment expectation that the believer is exhorted to holiness. It is as if a distinguished guest were expected at any moment. Everything must be in order and spotless. There will be no time for preparation when he comes. Not only is there the customary cleaning; but as the moments of waiting continue there is the constant reinspection to be assured that all is in order. If it were known that the guest would not arrive for days or months or years, there would be no need of vigilance. It is the imminency of his coming that determines the urgency for preparation.

So it is with the coming of the Lord. Many there are for whom this hope is dim and distant. By reason of theology or unbelief, they are assured that there is yet plenty of time for preparation. Much must intervene first before the Guest comes, they believe. For such His coming is not a purifying hope. But, “Every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” Those who really believe in the imminent coming of the Lord are more mindful of their purity than of anything else, more eager to see His face than to participate in things of the earth. So may it be with us. May the coming of the Lord be a blessed hope, a purifying hope, a comforting hope, a steadfast hope, the ray of light in a dark world, the path to glory!

[Spectrism]

This is written with that pet doctrine in front of his eyes and he cannot see his own blind side. So it is with us when we approach God with our own idols.

Eze 14:2 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Eze 14:3 Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be enquired of at all by them?
Eze 14:4 Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the LORD will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols;


When we inquire of YHWH with idols between us, He will answer and to us lies will come. Can a man wearing sunglasses see pure light? Can a horse with blinders see anything but where it is pointed?

[greenbear]

Whatever.

[greenbear]

http://www.walvoord.com/page.php?page_id=229

Chapter 5
The Seventieth Week of Daniel

By:
John F. Walvoord
Return of the Lord

Buy the Libronix Book

The interpretation of the revelation given to Daniel concerning the seventy weeks (Dan. 9:24-27) constitutes one of the determining factors in the whole system of prophecy. The attention given to it by all schools of interpretation, and the attacks upon the authenticity of the book itself combine to focus the white light of investigation upon it. The interpretation of this passage inevitably colors all other prophetic views, and a proper understanding of it is the sine qua non of any student of prophecy.

The Importance of The Revelation

The importance of the revelation of Daniel 9 lies first of all in the chronology which it establishes. The major outline is given of the period from Daniel to Christ and from the rapture of the church to the second coming of Christ in glory. Certainly, no other Old Testament passage does as much for ordering events future from Daniel’s point of view as does the passage under consideration.

Properly interpreted, the prophecy of Daniel furnishes an excellent example of the principle that prophecy is subject to literal interpretation. Practically all expositors, however opposed to prophecy per se, agree that at least part of the seventy weeks of Daniel is to be interpreted literally. In fact, the force of the literal interpretation is such that those who deny the possibility of accurate prophecy are compelled to move the date of the writing of Daniel until after the events which they believe fulfilled it. If the first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel were subject to literal fulfillment, it is a powerful argument that the final seventieth week will have a similar fulfillment.

Another important aspect of the passage is frequently overlooked by expositors. The seventy weeks of Daniel, properly interpreted, demonstrate the distinct place of the Christian church and Israel in the purposes of God. The seventy weeks of Daniel are totally in reference to Israel and her relation to Gentile powers and the rejection of Israel’s Messiah. The peculiar purpose of God in calling out a people from every nation to form the church and the program of the present age are nowhere in view in this prophecy.

The Historic Fulfillment of The Sixty-Nine Weeks

The interpretation of the seventy weeks of Daniel is divided into two main problems, the fulfillment of the sixty-nine weeks, and the fulfillment of the seventieth week. Our present study is primarily concerned with the latter problem. However, in order to have a background for judgment and interpretation, it is necessary to survey briefly the various interpretations of the first sixty-nine weeks.

There are few passages of Scripture which have occasioned a greater variety of interpretations than Daniel 9:24-27. A comparison of commentaries reveals that seldom can two be found with exactly the same exegesis. As James A. Montgomery states in concluding his long discussion of the passage:

“To sum up: The history of the exegesis of the 70 Weeks is the Dismal Swamp of O. T. criticism. The difficulties that beset any ‘rationalistic’ treatment of the figures are great enough, for the critics on this side of the fence do not agree among themselves; but the trackless wilderness of assumptions and theories in the efforts to obtain an exact chronology fitting into the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the 70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology.”1

While we do not share Montgomery’s pessimism, there is a bewildering lack of unanimity among expositors.

Most of the difficulty of expositors in the study of this passage may be traced to their premises. In general, there are two main divisions of interpretation: Christological and non-Christological. The former interprets the first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel as culminating in Christ while the latter finds fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy in events before or after Christ. Most writers on the subject have not been slow to notice the repeated use of the number seventy in relation to the prophetic program. It had been predicted that Israel’s servitude under the Babylonians would last seventy years. The seventy years were inflicted because of her failure to observe her Sabbatic years (Lev. 26:34-35; 2 Chron. 36:21). The plan for the Sabbatic years involved the basic number seven. Sir Robert Anderson also advances the interesting conclusion that it was exactly 490 luni-solar years (360 days each) or seventy times seven years from the dedication of the temple in the eleventh year of Solomon to the dedication of the second temple in 515 b.c.2 These facts have led expositors to seek a literal fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27.

The non-Christological interpretation of the passage attempts to find fulfillment of the seventy weeks in the events leading up to the persecution of Antiochus IV, known commonly as Antiochus Epiphanes. In 168 b.c, a pagan altar was constructed on top of the great altar of burnt sacrifices, and a pagan sacrifice was offered under the rulership of Antiochus Epiphanes.3 The act precipitated the Maccabean revolt which Antiochus attempted unsuccessfully to put down with great cruelty (167-164 b.c). The system of chronology adopted by those who interpret Daniel to prophesy this event varies with the writer.

Generally, there is agreement among them that the seventy weeks of Daniel began with the beginning of the seventy years of Jeremiah. The beginning of the servitude of Jerusalem in 606 b.c. does not, however, give a satisfactory terminus for the first seven weeks, or forty-nine years of the prophecy. Accordingly, Montgomery quotes with approval the view that the seventy weeks began at 586 b.c, when Jerusalem was completely desolated according to his chronology and the forty-nine years accordingly bring us approximately to 538 b.c. when the Jews were permitted to return to Jerusalem. The sixty-two weeks or 434 years begin at 538 b.c. and culminate in the desecration of Antiochus in 168. As is apparent, however, there are two drastic errors in this system of computation. The beginning of the seventy weeks did not begin with the Jeremiahic prophecy but with the command to restore Jerusalem, which is identified most satisfactorily as occurring in 445 b.c. The terminus of the seventy weeks does not take us to 168 b.c as would be expected, but to 104 b.c. There is an error, here, of more than sixty years which no amount of juggling can erase.

Montgomery solves the problem by conveniently determining that Daniel was in error in his calculation:

“To be sure, a similar objection may be made against our identification of the final Week of the Seventy with the period of Ant’s tyranny, for the 62 Weeks would then take us down some 65 years too far. We can meet this objection by surmising a chronological miscalculation on the part of the writer [Daniel]. For the first 49 years he had exact Scriptural information; he was profoundly conscious of the epochal character of his own age; there was the necessity of extending Jer.’s 70 years into a much larger figure in order to bring it up to date (the natural process of all interpretation of prophecy), and the 70 years became 70 Year-Weeks, 490 years, too high a figure indeed, but he was not embarrassed, in the absence of a known chronology, in squeezing these 434 years between the Return and the Anti-ochian persecution.”4

It will be noticed that the interpretation of Daniel’s seventy weeks to make them fulfilled in the Antiochian persecution involves the premises: (1) Jeremiah was wrong; (2) Daniel was in error; (3) the Christological view is not worthy of serious consideration even though it provides for a literal interpretation. For anyone having a serious view of the inspiration of the Scriptures, this non-Christological interpretation must be dismissed as being only a clumsy attempt to counter the better interpretations which provide for a literal fulfillment. It is really no solution at all.

A more interesting non-Christological view is advanced by the Jews themselves. The prevailing interpretation of the Jews after a.d. 70 was that the events of Daniel’s seventieth week have their fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem. Like other forms of the non-Christological view, they are not too concerned with a literal fulfillment of Daniel’s chronology, though their interpretation is more satisfactory than the view of the destructive higher critics. Some aspects of their interpretation find their way even into the Christological view as portrayed by some writers.

The Christological view, which finds the sixty-nine weeks of Daniel culminating in Christ, has been accepted by most conservative expositors. The Fathers from the second to the fourth century abound in explanations which bring the culmination of the sixty-nine weeks to the period of Christ’s public ministry and death.5 The most satisfactory solution of the Christological interpretation is that of Sir Robert Anderson, a view that fully honors the accuracy and authority of Daniel’s revelation.6 His conclusions embrace the following points: (1) the seventy weeks of Daniel represent 490 years, divided into three parts: forty-nine years, four hundred and thirty-four years (following the first forty-nine years), and the last week of seven years. (2) There was only one decree ever issued for the rebuilding of Jerusalem—that given to Nehemiah and its date is 445 b.c, specifically the first of Nisan or March 14 of that year. (3) The city was actually rebuilt during the time of Nehemiah at the end of the prophesied desolations of Jerusalem. (4) The sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, immediately follow the first forty-nine years, and on the basis of a prophetic year of 360 days total 173,880 days, which would end April 6, a.d. 32— the probable date when Christ rode into Jerusalem in fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9.

The chronology of Sir Robert Anderson has a number of distinct advantages over other systems. It provides a literal fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel. It is based on sound historical and chronological data. Most of all, it presents an interpretation of Scripture which fully honors the doctrine of inspiration. If a system of interpretation based on carefully established principles can bring the fulfillment of the prophecy into such accurate detail, it is ridiculous to attempt to warp Daniel’s prophecy into some sort of interpretation which admittedly does not fulfill the chronology of the passage. If Antiochus missed the proper date by more than sixty years, by occurring too soon, and the destruction of Jerusalem obviously occurred too late, undoubtedly all true scholars would immediately embrace the Christological interpretation if it were not for prejudice cither against the person of Christ, as in the case of the Jew, or against a literal fulfillment of prophecy, as in the case of the destructive critics. The case for the Christological interpretation, particularly the viewpoint of Sir Robert Anderson, stands on every point superior to other views.

The important point of the Christological interpretation is that the first sixty-nine weeks had a literal fulfillment, both as to details and as to chronology. In approaching the task of interpreting the prophecy concerning the seventieth week, we must, in all fairness to the principles approved by the fulfillment of the sixty-nine weeks, expect a literal fulfillment of the seventieth week both in its detail and in its chronology. The beginning of the seventy weeks of Daniel was marked by a definite event. At the end of the sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years, there was a definite break in the prophecy which was fulfilled literally by the death of Christ. Likewise, the final week of the prophecy, the seventieth week, apparently has a definite beginning and ends with the “full end” of the period of desolations. There are indications in the text that a considerable time period elapses between the close of the sixty-ninth week and the beginning of the seventieth week. The question naturally arises, and it is decisive: Is the seventieth week of Daniel future, or has it been fulfilled already in history? To this question we now direct our thought.

[greenbear]

Have The Events of Daniel’s Seventieth Week Been Fulfilled?

There are at least five theories in regard to the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the seventieth week of Daniel; that is, most interpretations can be classified in one of five categories. Those who find the fulfillment of the first sixty-nine weeks in the events of the Maccabean persecution usually find the fulfillment of the seventieth week in the same period of persecution. As this view has been previously found to fail in fulfilling the passage, their interpretation of the fulfillment of the seventieth week likewise fails. The view of the Jews that the seventieth week is fulfilled in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70 likewise fails in fitting the chronology of Daniel.

Three other views have commended themselves to conservative scholars. There are some who hold that the seventieth week of Daniel is an indefinite period beginning while Christ was on earth and extending to the consummation of all things. This is in harmony with Daniel 9:24, which indicates that the program of God for bringing in everlasting righteousness and cessation of Israel’s persecutions will be completed by the end of the seventieth week. This interpretation breaks down completely, however, as a literal fulfillment. The chronology of the sixty-nine weeks established the principle of literal fulfillment, and we cannot for the sake of convenience postulate an indefinite period for the final week of the prophecy. While we cannot accept this spiritual interpretation of the passage, it is an interesting confession on the part of those who accept it that history does not record events which correspond with the prophecy of the seventieth week.

One other view, however, claims our serious attention. It is advanced by a number of able expositors and claims to be a literal interpretation. In brief, the view accepts a system of chronology which allows for the termination of the sixty-nine weeks of the prophecy at the baptism of Christ. The first half of the seventieth week is, in their judgment, fulfilled by the events of the public ministry of Christ. In the middle of the week Christ is crucified, the sacrifice and oblation cease, and the events of the last half of the seventieth week are immediately fulfilled in the events which follow. The seventy weeks terminate, perhaps, in some event such as the conversion of Cornelius. In other words, the seventieth week has already been fulfilled literally, and we cannot look for any future fulfillment.

In opposition to this view, the interpretation is advanced that there is an indefinite period of time between the close of the sixty-ninth week and the beginning of the seventieth week. At some future date the seventieth week will begin, and its events will come to pass literally and will follow the chronology of the seven years of the seventieth week of Daniel. This is the only view which provides a reasonable ground for believing the final week of Daniel is future. If we accept the premise that the final week of Daniel demands a literal fulfillment, we are shut up to the last two views named: that it was fulfilled literally in the first century before a.d. 40, or that it is future and we can look for a literal fulfillment at some future date. The two explanations oppose each other; both cannot be right. Accordingly, we may well weigh the contentions of those who support each view as a basis for decision.

One of the cleverest writers to support the interpretation that the seventieth week of Daniel is already fulfilled is Philip Mauro, whose views are set forth in his volume, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation. Mauro believes that God’s purpose for Israel as a nation was finished upon their rejection of Christ and that the promises given to Israel are now being fulfilled in the church. He denies the possibility of a future millennium to fulfill the promises of a kingdom given to David and Israel. His work is accordingly prejudiced by his premises; but his appeal is to the Scriptures rather than human authority and for this reason his contentions should be weighed. He states the case in support of his position with all the force of an astute thinker and skillful debater. It is characteristic of his style, however, that he never discusses facts for which he does not have a ready solution; i.e., he selects for discussion only those points which are in favor of his viewpoint. This defect is too often overlooked by the unwary. He also has great skill in magnifying a minor point until it appears to be a decisive one, at the same time passing rapidly over material which might upset his argument. Accordingly, it is more important to consider what he does not say, on some points, than what he states.

Philip Mauro’s system of interpretation, in brief, involves the following points: (1) The first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel run from the decree of Cyrus (536 b.c.) to the baptism of Christ. As this period totals 562 years rather than 483, Mauro, while insisting on literal fulfillment, claims that there can be no certainty of the exact historic length of years between the decree of Cyrus and the baptism of Christ—in fact, he claims to find an error of eighty years which adjusts the difference.7 (2) The baptism of Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecy, “to anoint the most holy” (Dan. 9:24), the anointment being the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the “most holy” being Christ Himself. (3) The “prince that shall come” is Titus, and the one who makes the covenant of Daniel 9:27 is Christ. (4) The cessation of the sacrifices in the middle of the seventieth week is the fulfillment of Old Testament sacrifices by the death of Christ. (5) All the six elements of the decree in relation to “thy people” and “thy holy city” mentioned in Daniel 9:24 are fulfilled by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. (6) There cannot be any break between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth week of Daniel: “Never has a specified number of time-units, making up a desired stretch of time, been taken to mean anything but continuous or consecutive time-units.”8

The issue between the two literal interpretations of Daniel’s seventieth week is, then, clearly drawn. A glance at the six points enumerated will readily reveal that some of them are decisive in the interpretation. All six elements of the decree relating to Israel and Jerusalem must be fulfilled by the death of Christ. If so much as one of these was not fulfilled, then the interpretation is revealed to be faulty. If the one who makes the covenant is not Christ, it is admitted even by Mauro that the seventieth week must be still future: “Manifestly those two ideas stand or fall together; for if verse 27 relates to Christ, then the last week followed immediately after the 69th; but if it relates to antichrist, or a coming Roman prince, then it is yet future.”9 If the sacrifices actually ceased at the death of Christ, it would do much to substantiate Mauro’s contention. While the final point—i.e., that there cannot be a break between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks—is begging the question, it is well to consider what parallels the Scripture may afford on the question.

Is Titus the prince that shall come? According to Daniel 9:26, after the sixty-ninth week (sixty-two and the first seven weeks) the “anointed one” shall be “cut off,” and “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” It is clear that the “anointed one” is Christ—the Authorized translation is correct, “Messiah.” But who are “the people” and “the prince”? It is a well-established fact of history that Jerusalem was destroyed in a.d. 70 by the Roman armies, to the utter destruction of upwards of one million Jews in the area. The people represented here can be none other than those of Rome. The “prince of the people” is accordingly a Roman prince. The interpretation of Mauro is that this is clearly the character Titus who led the armies of Rome in a.d. 70 against Jerusalem. There are good reasons, however, for believing that the character thus introduced is to be identified with the future political ruler of the Mediterranean world in the time just before the second coming of Christ. Mauro flatly denies that there will be any such ruler, denies that the Roman people of the first century are to be identified in any way with the people of that future time.

It is not necessary to engage in a disputation of Mauro’s entire system to show his error in this particular. It is a plain fact of history that God is dealing with the Jews of today in a way determined by the rejection of Christ by their fathers. If this can be true, then why should it be thought incredible that a future prince should be identified as Roman and as connected with the people who destroyed Jerusalem? Mauro overlooks a most significant fact in his chronology, however. If Titus is the “prince” of Daniel 9:26, then the destruction of Jerusalem occurred after the seventieth week, rather than after the sixty-ninth week. Is it not utterly inexplicable that the prophecy of verse 26 should be stated to be after the sixty-ninth week, if in matter of fact it is during and after the seventieth week? Does not the way in which the truth is stated imply that the events occur after the sixty-ninth week before the seventieth week? If so, a parenthesis is called for, allowing for all events in their proper place and for a fulfillment of the seventieth week in the future.

Not only does the form of the prophecy imply a parenthesis between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks, but the expression, “the people of the prince,” is unusual. Normally, it would be expected that the prophecy would state that the prince would destroy the city. In Daniel 7 and 8 are found prophecies dealing with military triumphs and they are spoken of as being consummated by their leader. In Daniel 9:26, however, the usual form of statement is turned around and it is stated that “the people of the prince” destroyed the city. Now, it is clear that such would be the case if the prince had no direct connection with the event, but Jerusalem was destroyed under the personal direction of Titus. The language of the prophecy would seem to indicate that some other person than Titus was in view.

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contribute prophecies concerning the coming of a military leader who will rule the Mediterranean world. From Revelation 13:1-10, we gather that he will be the greatest military ruler in power that the world has ever seen. A comparison of Revelation 13 with the events of the destruction of Jerusalem reveals no similarity and must refer to a future event. Other passages (Dan. 7:8, 11, 24-27; 11:3645; 2 Thess. 2:1-12) apparently refer to the same person. In view of the revelation of Daniel 7, it is not strange to find another reference in Daniel 9.

Who makes the covenant for one week? Mauro strenuously objects to identifying the “prince that shall come” with a future political ruler, not so much because it contradicts the plain meaning of verse 26 but because it provides an interpretation of verse 27 which utterly destroys his theory. In verse 27 it is revealed: “And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.” It is normal exegesis for a pronoun to claim as its antecedent the nearest noun with which it could be identified. The nearest antecedent in this case is the “prince that shall come.” This could not be Titus for he did not make such a covenant, and according to Mauro’s theory the seventieth week must immediately follow the sixty-ninth—and Titus did not appear on the scene until years later. Accordingly Mauro identifies the one who makes the covenant as Christ.

In support of Mauro’s contention is the fact widely recognized by the Scriptures and expositors of the Scripture that Christ is the minister of the new covenant and that in His death on the cross the new covenant was duly executed. An attempt to connect Daniel’s covenant with the new covenant, however, is a work of desperation rather than a natural exegesis. The new covenant is expressly called an “everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20). The covenant of Daniel 9:27 continues only for one week in its intent, and if the break at the middle of the week may be so interpreted, the covenant is broken before it runs its course, i.e., at the end of the first half of the week. The two covenants have nothing in common as to their duration.

It is also widely accepted that the new covenant was enacted by the death of Christ. Mauro’s theory would require that the death of Christ occur at the beginning of the seventieth week. Because of the fact that he believes the death of Christ occurred in the middle of the week, he is forced to the conclusion that the covenant is made in the week rather than for one week—in opposition to the usual translation. It is obvious that Mauro’s interpretation requires an unnatural exegesis.

[greenbear]

A fact of great significance is that the covenant is made with “the many” which could only refer to “thy people” (Dan. 9:24), Israel. The new covenant, in so far as it relates to Israel, is connected in Scripture with their millennial blessings and the future regathering of Israel (cf. Heb. 8:8-12). Mauro, however, flatly denies that Israel has any place in God’s future program. He believes that the covenant mentioned in Daniel 9:27 is a covenant of grace toward all people as contained in the present gospel of grace. Mauro, accordingly, is faced by a dilemma. If this is indeed a covenant between Christ and Israel regarding their future blessing, then his whole system breaks down for the passage would teach a future for Israel as such. The alternative is to admit that the covenant is not the new covenant and that Christ is not the one who enters into the covenant. Mauro’s escape from this dilemma is to deny what the passage plainly teaches—that the seventy weeks refer specifically to “thy people,” Israel, and “thy city,” Jerusalem. In the last analysis, there is nothing whatever in the revelation concerning this covenant (Dan. 9:27) to connect it with Christ.

Were Old Testament sacrifices ended by the death of Christ? The argument concerning the identity of the one who makes the covenant is decisive in itself. If Christ did not make the covenant, then the last of the seventy weeks is yet awaiting fulfillment. A further question, however, has an important bearing on the issue. According to Daniel 9:27, the sacrifice and oblation are stopped in the midst of the seventieth week by the one who makes the covenant. According to Mauro, this is the event of the death of Christ which supplanted Old Testament sacrifices. Mauro quotes from Hebrews 10:8-9, where it is stated: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” Mauro asks: “What perfect agreement with the words of the prophecy, ‘He shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease’!”10

This is an important point. If indeed the death of Christ causes the sacrifice and oblation to cease, it would be a powerful argument in support of Mauro’s view. That the new covenant supplants the old and the one sacrifice of Christ supplants the many sacrifices of the old covenant is indeed the teaching of the Scriptures. It is something else, however, to state that He caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. As a matter of fact, the sacrifice and oblation did not cease until the temple was destroyed in a.d. 70. It was the ruthless work of violence of the Roman armies that cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease in the first century, and, if we interpret the passage correctly, the seventieth week of Daniel is a prophecy of a future restoration of these sacrifices under a covenant and their violent conclusion. Even the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the fact that at the time of the writing of the epistle, probably shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, the priests were still ministering in the temple—more than thirty years after the death of Christ. In Hebrews 8:4 we read: “Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to the law” (A.S.V.). The argument is that Christ is a priest in heaven, not on earth, as there are still priests on earth serving according to the law of Moses. The Scriptures themselves are careful, then, by using the present tense, are, to include evidence which makes Mauro’s interpretation inadmissible.

Have the desolations of Daniel’s seventieth week been fulfilled? Mauro is probably more embarrassed by the lack of a good explanation of the latter part of Daniel 9:27 than by any other feature of his interpretation. His system requires that the seventieth week of Daniel be a definite time period of seven years. It is therefore necessary that the desolations of the latter part of verse 27 be fulfilled within a period of three and one-half years of the death of Christ—according to his system. Mauro comes to the conclusion, however, that the desolations in this verse are those accomplished by the armies of Titus in a.d. 70. In other words, Mauro is unable to find any event within the seventieth week of Daniel to fulfill the prophecy of the latter part of Daniel’s seventieth week, and in the end is forced to abandon his major thesis that the prophecies of Daniel’s seventy weeks are subject to literal fulfillment.

In contrast to Mauro’s difficulty, we have in Matthew 24:15, from Christ Himself, the prophecy of the fulfillment of Daniel’s promised desolations. Christ said: “When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand) …” The context which follows indicates that the events are preliminary to the second coming of Christ. In fact, so direct is the connection that some who, like Mauro, connect Matthew 24:15 with the destruction of Jerusalem under Titus have attempted to find fulfillment of the promise of Christ’s return in the events of aj). 70. Instead of the desolations of Daniel 9:27 being fulfilled in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem, they are rather one of the signs pointing to the early return of Christ in glory.

The declared purpose of God for the seventy weeks. One of the decisive questions facing any interpreter of Daniel 9:24-27 is the question whether God’s declared purpose for that period has been fulfilled. In that period, according to Daniel 9:24, it is God’s purpose to (1) finish transgressions, (2) make an end of sins, (3) make reconciliation for iniquity, (4) bring in everlasting righteousness, (5) seal up vision and prophecy, (6) anoint the most holy. It is Mauro’s interpretation that points one through four were fulfilled by the death of Christ; point five is the resulting spiritual blindness which befalls Israel; point six is fulfilled by the anointing of the church on the Day of Pentecost.

There are many interesting details involved in the discussion of each of these points which in the interest of brevity we cannot consider. It is of great importance to gain a clear view of the principles which dominate the interpretation, however. Mauro must find fulfillment of all the purpose of God revealed here before the end of the period extending three and one-half years beyond the death of Christ. In his interpretation, he claims to find such fulfillment, and it is this claim we now examine.

There are many details in his system which are open to question. For instance, he claims fulfillment of the prophecy that vision and prophecy are “sealed up,” by which he means that Israel comes into permanent spiritual blindness. He perhaps overlooks the fact that God used Jews to write the New Testament after the date he claims for the close of Daniel’s seventieth weeks—Jews without an exception if Luke was an Israelite. While Paul reveals that blindness in part befell Israel because of their rejection of Christ, it is also clear that the blindness will be lifted after the fullness of the Gentiles is come in (Rom. 11:25). Mauro’s interpretation of the anointing of the most holy, that it refers to the baptism of Christ, while supported by some, is in violation of the consistent usage of the Old Testament. Tregelles states on this point, “The expression does not in a single case apply to any person.”11 It is a better interpretation that it refers to a future return of the Shekinah glory. The American Standard Version margin renders it, “a most holy place.”

All these details are significant, however, before the principal objection to Mauro’s, interpretation. According to the specific limitation of Daniel 9:24, the prophecy pertains to “thy people,” Israel, and to “thy city,” Jerusalem. To make it plain, then, transgressions must be finished in relation to Israel and Jerusalem; and end must be made to sins, and iniquity must be purged away (cf. A. S. V. margin) in relation to Israel and Jerusalem; everlasting righteousness must be brought in for Israel and Jerusalem; and so on through the prophecy.

What does Mauro do with the passage? For him the passage deals with the whole world, a general provision of salvation through the death of Christ which, according to his interpretation, does not relate to Jerusalem or to Israel as such at all. Jerusalem is scheduled only for destruction and Israel to be utterly cast off—according to Mauro’s view. To make this prophecy of coming blessing to Israel and Jerusalem—which can be fulfilled only by the return of Christ to bring in a kingdom of righteousness—a reference to the work of Christ on the cross is to confuse the work of God in Christ on the cross and its application historically. The benefits of the death of Christ will be realized by Israel only after “they shall look unto me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him …” (Zech. 12:10), and in the day when “a fountain” be “opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (Zech. 13:1)—events still future from our point in history. Sir Robert Anderson has demonstrated that none of the prophecies of Daniel 9:24 have been fulfilled: “A careful study of the Angel’s words will show not so much as one of them has been thus accomplished.”12

Is a parenthesis between Daniel’s sixty-ninth and seventieth week unparalleled in Scripture? The entire burden of Mauro’s argument is intended to support his contention that there is no break between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week of Daniel. He not only holds that the passage does not admit such an interpretation; but he states that such an interpretation would be a violation of a consistent principle in Scripture that time units are always continuous. To quote his exact words: “Never has a specified number of time-units, making a described stretch of time, been taken to mean anything but continuous or consecutive time units.”13

Fortunately, for the brevity of our own study here, there is an entirely adequate answer to this statement. Not only does the internal evidence of the passage demand it by stating certain events are after the sixty-ninth week rather than in or after the seventieth week, but there are parallel cases in the Scripture where God, as it were, stopped the clock of fulfillment only to resume the progress of fulfillment later.

The monograph of H. A. Ironside, The Great Parenthesis, is a worthy and timely contribution to the subject. Ironside shows a number of instances of parentheses in God’s program: (1) The interval between the “acceptable year of the Lord” and the “day of vengeance of our God” (Isa. 61:2)—a parenthesis already extending more than nineteen hundred years. (2) The interval between the Roman Empire as symbolized by the legs of iron of the great image of Daniel 2 and the feet of ten toes (cf. also Dan. 7:23-27; 8:24-25). (3) The same interval is found between Daniel 11:35 and 11:36. (4) A great parenthesis occurs between Hosea 3:4 and verse 5, and again between Hosea 5:15 and 6:1. (5) A great parenthesis occurs also between Psalm 22:22 and 22:23 and between Psalm 110:1 and 110:2. (6) Peter, in quoting Psalm 34:12-16, stops in the middle of a verse to distinguish God’s present work and His future dealing with sin (1 Pet. 3:10-12).

(7) The great prophecy of Matthew 24 becomes intelligible only if the present age be considered a parenthesis between Daniel 9:26 and 9:27. (8) Acts 15:13-21 indicates that the apostles fully understood that during the present age the Old Testament prophecies would not be fulfilled, but would have fulfillment “after this” when God “will build again the tabernacle of David” (Acts 15:16). (9) Israel’s yearly schedule of feasts showed a wide separation between the feasts prefiguring the death and resurrection of Christ and Pentecost, and the feasts speaking of Israel’s regathering and blessing. (10) Romans 9-11 definitely provide for the parenthesis, particularly the figure of the olive tree in chapter 11. (11) The revelation of the church as one body requires a parenthesis between God’s past dealings and His future dealings with the nation Israel. (12) The consummation of the present parenthesis is of such a nature that it resumes the interrupted events of Daniel’s last week.

To this imposing list of arguments for the parenthesis between Daniel’s sixty-ninth and seventieth week, we can add the interesting computations of Sir Robert Anderson in regard to the statement in 1 Kings 6:1, that Solomon began to build the temple in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of Egypt. A computation of the evidence indicates, that this period was, instead, 573 years.14 On the basis of a study of Judges, Sir Robert Anderson discovered a total of 93 years during which Israel was cast off as a nation—divided into five different periods of time (cf. Judges 3:8, 14; 4:2-3; 6:1; 13:1). By subtracting this from 573, the figure is corrected to 480, the exact figure stated by the writer of 1 Kings.

Conclusion

The answer to our leading question—Is the seventieth week of Daniel future?—can only be given in the affirmative. The Scriptures bear a full testimony that God has a purpose yet unfulfilled for His people, Israel. If the events of Daniel’s seventieth week are future, it is clear that the person who makes the covenant must be the wicked character who is the persecutor of all who will not worship him. The “many” with whom the covenant is made can be, on the basis of the context, only Israel, still in unbelief. The “end” of which Daniel 9:27 speaks can be only the return of Christ to bring righteousness, peace, prosperity, and universal knowledge of the Lord to this evil world. Before the world will witness these stirring events, we who are His look for that blessed moment when, caught up from this world at the return of the Lord for His own, we shall see His face and forever thereafter know one passion and one love—to worship and serve our blessed Lord.

1 International Critical Commentary: Daniel, pp. 400-1.

2 The Coming Prince, p. 71, note.

3 International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, i.e., “Abomination of Desolation.”

4 Montgomery, op. cit., p. 393.

5 Ibid., pp. 398-99.

6 Sir Robert Anderson, op. ctt.

7 Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, pp. 23-25.

8 Ibid., p. 95.

9 Ibid., p. 94.

10 Ibid., p. 85.

11 “Tregelles, Daniel, p. 98, as cited by Anderson, op. cit., p. 51.

12 Op. cit., p. 79.

13 Op. cit., p. 95.

14 “Anderson, op. tit., pp. 81 ff.

[fiftybagger]

My hope is the immanent return of the Lord Jesus Christ for his Church. Speculation about the Antichrist and the beast system's cancerous growth is interesting to speculate about, but we won't know for sure until he is revealed. Fortunately for us as believers, it is the Holy Spirit's restraining influence working through us which restrains that tide of evil from bursting forth. Soon enough we will be gone, and the world can go about setting up their system of enforced satanism, and experiencing the inevitable judgments it will cause to be unleashed. Now that's a truly Blessed Hope:

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 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; 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. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 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.

Thessalonians 2
King James Bible


http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/End%20of%20the%20World/he_who_now_withholdeth.htm

[greenbear]

Chapter 6
Will The Church Go Through The Tribulation?

By:
John F. Walvoord
Return of the Lord

Buy the Libronix Book

Thousands of Bible-believing Christians believe that the coming of the Lord for His church is imminent; that is, it could happen any day, any moment. They believe when this event takes place that Christians will be translated, receiving instantly glorious bodies suited for life in heaven. At the same moment, the dead in Christ will be raised from their graves and with those translated will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. Thus will begin an eternity of bliss in the presence of the Lord.

The hope of the imminent return of the Lord is as old as the church. The apostles anticipated the coming of Christ that could occur at any time. Early in his ministry, Paul exhorted the Thessalonians “to wait for his Son from heaven” (1 Thess. 1:10). They were told to “comfort one another with these words” (2 Thess. 4:18) when their loved ones fell asleep in Jesus. Later Paul wrote Titus that Christians should be “looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). The Apostle John records late in the first century the words of Christ to the disciples the night before He was crucified: “I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:3).

The early church fathers understood the Scriptures to teach that the coming of the Lord could occur any hour. To quote one authority, in the Didache (about a.d. 120) Christians were exhorted: “Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ye ready, for ye know not the hour in which our Lord cometh” (cf. Ante-Nicene Fathers, VII, 382). In the “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles” (Book VII, Sec. ii, xxxi) a similar quotation is found: “Observe all things that are commanded you by the Lord. Be watchful for your life. ‘Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning, and ye like unto men who wait for their Lord, when He will come, at even, or in the morning, or at cock-crowing, or at midnight. For what hour they think not, the Lord will come; and if they open to Him, blessed are those servants, because they were found watching’ …”(cf. Ante-Nicene Fathers, VII, 471). It should be clear to any impartial observer that the early church believed in the imminent coming of the Lord, but without solving many problems related to it.

The church soon became involved in problems other than the study of prophecy, however, and church councils in the fourth century and in following centuries were concerned primarily with the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of sin, and various controversies. Paganism and ritualism engulfed the church after the fourth century, and it was not until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century that Biblical doctrines began to be restored. In the period since the Protestant Reformation, attention has again been directed to prophecy. More concentrated study has been directed toward prophetic interpretation in the last hundred years than any similar period in church history.

Further study of prophecy, particularly among premillenarians, has raised some problems that had not been considered before. One of the major problems is that specific signs are given in Scripture for the coming of Christ to establish His righteous kingdom on earth as predicted by the Old Testament prophets and confirmed in the New Testament. A great period of unprecedented tribulation is described, for instance, by Christ (Matt. 24:15-26). The general period of tribulation is revealed to be seven years—a conclusion reached from Daniel’s seventieth week, equivalent to seven years (Dan. 9:27). The last half of this period is the great tribulation. The Book of Revelation devotes many chapters to the same event. Obviously, if this period of trouble must precede the coming of Christ to establish His kingdom, how then can His coming be a daily expectation?

If the coming of Christ for believers in this age is imminent, it must occur before these predicted signs and before the tribulation period. Hence, many have come to believe that the coming of Christ for His church is an event which takes place before the tribulation time while the coming of Christ to establish the kingdom on earth occurs after the tribulation. In confirmation of this conclusion, students of the prophetic Word find abundant proof to sustain these conclusions. While as many as twenty-five arguments could be advanced in support of the translation of the church before the tribulation, for the sake of this brief discussion seven principal reasons will be presented.
The Doctrine of Imminency

It is commonly recognized today by serious Bible students that if the coming of Christ is after the tribulation, then His coming cannot be imminent. Too many events are pictured as preceding His coming to allow it to be a daily expectation if He does not come for His church until after the tribulation. Exhortations to the church to “wait” and to “look” for His appearing are hard to explain if signs must be fulfilled first. We should be looking for the signs instead. The blessed hope of an imminent return would be separated from us, then, by the awful period of tribulation. To many it is a precious hope to be looking daily for the Lord. This is also one of the practical reasons why thoughtful Christians believe this doctrine is important and worth defending.
The Doctrine of God’s Purpose for the Church

Many careful Bible students distinguish the purpose of God for Israel and God’s purpose for believers in this present age. God is now supremely revealing His grace in the salvation of Jew and Gentile alike. Believers since Pentecost are regarded as the body and bride of Christ, a company distinct from Israel’s program and promises. With the beginning of the tribulation period, however, if premillenarians are right, God will resume His program for Israel in preparation for His millennial reign upon the earth.

It seems most logical to believe that His program for the present age will be finished before God resumes His announced program for Israel in the tribulation. In confirmation of this, there is no reference to the church as the body and bride of Christ in any of the tribulation passages. Believers in the tribulation are referred to only by general terms such as saints and the elect—terms used for believers all through the Bible. Thus in Revelation, chapters 4-19, describing the tribulation, there is no mention of the church as a body of believers. By contrast, Revelation, chapters 2-3, mentions the church many times.
The Doctrine of The Tribulation

The tribulation itself is of such character as to raise serious question whether the church will be required to pass through it. Those who deny the translation of the church before the tribulation usually also deny that it is going to be as terrifying as the Scriptures describe it, and make it equivalent to troubles and trials common to life now. In the Scriptures, the tribulation is described as a definite period of trouble unprecedented in all history. Daniel describes it as “a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation …” (Dan. 12:1). Christ spoke of it as “great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be” (Matt. 24:21). The Book of Revelation describes it as an outpouring of the wrath of God upon an unbelieving world (cf. Rev. 6:17), a time when apostasy and sin reach unprecedented blasphemy. It is a period which brings death to most of the earth’s population and destruction to civilization. Nothing like it has ever happened before. It seems out of keeping with the present age of grace to inflict on the last generation of believers such a series of catastrophes. In fact, there are definite promises that point to deliverance before the day of wrath comes.
Specific Promises

In John 14:1-3, in connection with the promise of Christ, “I will come again,” the purpose of His coming is revealed to be to take believers to “my Father’s house,” by which term He describes heaven. After He meets the church in the air, He will take them to the place prepared. In contrast, at His coming to establish the millennial kingdom, all believers remain in the earthly scene. In 1 Thessalonians 5:4-10, believers are assured that they are children of light, not children of darkness. They are comforted with the promise that the day of wrath will not overtake them as a thief, as it will the world. They are promised, “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:9). In 1 Thessalonians 1:10 our hope is stated: “To wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.” If believers are delivered “from the wrath to come,” why inflict upon them a day of wrath designed for the ungodly? Are not believers assured: “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him” (Rom. 5:9)? In Revelation 3:10 the godly church at Philadelphia is promised: “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.” In a word, they are promised that they will be kept “from” the period of tribulation ahead. That is different from being kept “through” this time.

This promise was true for the historic church at Philadelphia because they had the hope of the Lord’s return before the tribulation. If this church prefigures the true church as a whole, as many believe, it points to a further conclusion that all true believers in this age will have the same hope. This seems to follow a pattern found even in the Old Testament. Noah was saved from the flood. He was borne safely above it. Lot was led out of Sodom before its destruction. Rahab was saved before Jericho fell. Enoch was translated before the flood. While analogies are not conclusive, the translation of the church before the tribulation would be in keeping with these precedents.
Removal of the Holy Spirit

According to 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12, the one now restraining sin in the world will be removed from earth’s scenes before the beginning of the Day of the Lord, which includes the day of wrath. While there has been much discussion as to the identity of the restrainer, the best answer is that it refers to God’s restraining hand, more specifically to the work of the Holy Spirit resisting the rising tide of sin in the world. It is clear that this restraint is removed during the tribulation time. Obviously, the Holy Spirit cannot be taken away while resident in the church in the world as is now the case. A chronology can thus be set up— the church indwelt by the Holy Spirit removed from the earth; then, the man of sin is revealed; with his appearance the tribulation begins. While the Holy Spirit continues to be omnipresent, His work will be similar to the period before Pentecost, but with His restraint withheld.
Necessity of an Interval Between the Translation and the Establishment of the Millennial Kingdom

A number of events which seem to occur after the translation of the church and before the establishment of the millennial kingdom requires an interval of some years duration. According to John 14:1-3, the believers in this age go to heaven when Christ comes. There they will be judged for rewards (2 Cor. 5:10). There, too, the marriage will take place between the church as the bride and the Lord as the bridgegroom (Eph. 5:25-27). After His coming, they are forever together—“Where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:3). Again, “so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:17).

It is clear from Scripture that there will be a believing remnant on the earth when Christ comes back to establish His millennial kingdom. This remnant is never identified with the church and is never spoken of as translated. It is composed of believing Jews and Gentiles living at the close of the tribulation (Ezek. 20:34-38; Matt. 25:31-46). After the second coming, they are still in the flesh and are not free from death. They till the ground, raise crops, bear children, and repopulate the earth (Isa. 65:20-23; 66:20-24; Zech. 8:5; Matt. 25:31-40). Not a single passage in the Old or New Testament related to the Lord’s coming to establish His kingdom ever speaks of a translation of living believers. It should be obvious why this is true. If the translation of all believers took place at the end of the tribulation, there would be none left to fulfill these prophecies of a godly remnant still in the flesh to populate the millennial earth. Evidently, the church after the Lord’s coming is not going to raise crops in the earth, bear children, repopulate the earth, and be subject to death. An interval of time is demanded, then, during which another generation of believers will come into existence. While every believer will be translated when Christ comes for His church, a new body of believers will be formed in the awful days of the tribulation. Those of this group who escape martyrdom will be the believing godly remnant on the earth when the Lord returns with His church from heaven to establish His millennial kingdom. In view of these facts, it is impossible to make the translation of the church and the establishment of the millennial kingdom simultaneous.
Contrasts Between the Translation and the Coming to Establish the Kingdom

These can be stated as (a) translation; (b) coming to establish His kingdom:

(a) Translation of all believers;


(b) no translation at all.

(a) Translated saints go to heaven


(b) translated saints return to the earth.

(a) Earth not judged;


(b) earth judged and righteousness established.

(a) Imminent;


(b) follows definite predicted signs including the tribulation.

(a) Not in the Old Testament;


(b) predicted often in the Old Testament.

(a) Believers only;


(b) affects all men.

(a) Before the day of wrath;


(b) concluding the day of wrath.

(a) No reference to Satan;


(b) Satan bound.

These contrasts should make it evident that the translation of the church is an event quite different in character and time from the return of the Lord to establish His kingdom, and confirms the conclusion that the translation takes place before the tribulation.
Conclusion

While earnest Christians differ on the question, many Bible students who have specialized in the field of prophecy believe that the Scriptures teach a pretribulation translation of the church. A striking evidence for this is found in the manifestos issued by the International Congress on Prophecy in meetings held in 1942, 1943, and 1952, in Calvary Baptist Church, New York City. In each of these international congresses, about thirty outstanding prophetic teachers took part. In each congress a manifesto was issued setting forth their convictions regarding prophetic truth. All three congresses went on record in favor of the translation of the church before the tribulation without so much as a dissenting vote. The representative character of these congresses is illustrated by the fact that ten of the thirty-one speakers at the 1952 congress were presidents of evangelical schools—colleges, Bible institutes, and seminaries—whose orthodoxy sets a standard for evangelicalism. Many different denominations were represented. In spite of diverse backgrounds, the expressed unanimity reflects the mature conclusions reached by these leaders in prophetic study.

Before the first coming of the Lord, there was confusion even among the prophets concerning the distinction between the first and second comings (1 Pet. 1:10-11). At the present time, there is similar confusion between the translation of the church and the second coming to establish the millennial kingdom. An attitude of Christian tolerance is called for toward those who differ on this doctrine. But may we all “love his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:8 ).

[Spectrism]

My hope is the immanent return of the Lord Jesus Christ for his Church.

What a fateful day that will be, to be sure. Yes, for those being saved, it will be a wonderous reunion and an awesome revelation. The immortal will put off the mortal and the incorruptible will put off the corrupt.

But have all been saved who are to be saved? Is there no compassion for the lost? Does not the heart of God wish that more be saved and so He is patient?



Speculation about the Antichrist and the beast system's cancerous growth is interesting to speculate about, but we won't know for sure until he is revealed. Fortunately for us as believers, it is the Holy Spirit's restraining influence working through us which restrains that tide of evil from bursting forth.

I question this. The verse used to leverage the pre-trib rapture is not consistently translated. Let's look at it below.


Soon enough we will be gone, and the world can go about setting up their system of enforced satanism, and experiencing the inevitable judgments it will cause to be unleashed.

Only if there is a pre-trib rapture. For those who believe there will be NEW tribulation saints after the rapture of the church, how do they deal with the promise of delusion sent by God- that they may believe a lie? Is God ineffective?

2 Thessalonians 2


1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Pretty simple so far. But notice what day is AT HAND: the day of Christ. We all have the ability to meet Messiah personally now. We MUST meet Him personally to be saved. That day is at hand and our salvation is authored and perfected by the Messiah. The completion or perfection of that salvation occurs with our resurrection to the incorruptible. We see this in the next verse:



3 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;

Our resurrection to the new body will happen AFTER a great falling away, and THAT man of sin be revealed. Now this is simple language too... but easily misconstrued. What falls away? Let's get real simple here. It sure sounds like the "church" falls away. Does it really say that?

G646
ἀποστασία
apostasia
Total KJV Occurrences: 3
away, 1
2Th_2:3
falling, 1
2Th_2:3
forsake, 1
Act_21:21

apostasia
ap-os-tas-ee'-ah
Feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly the state), (“apostasy”): - falling away, forsake.

So the church will fall into APOSTASY.... defecting from the truth! How sad is that! But do we not see that in the western world? Today's churches SELL happy thoughts, peace, love, health and wealth for all. Is that the gospel of truth? Of course not!

But this FALLING AWAY is what is listed as the criteria for the man of sin to be revealed. Is this the same "falling away" that pre-trib rapturists "need" for the man of sin to be revealed too? Can it be that pre-tribbers are mis-defining "falling away" as being caught up? The implication is frightening, to say the least.



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. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

OK.. so we know the bad guy is one who sets himself up as if he was the true God. He is an idol... a false god. Where is the temple of God? Does God have a building He lives in? Does He inhabit the ark of the covenant? If God is on earth, where is He?

The Spirit of God indwells His Church. Want to remove the Holy Spirit from the world? You either have a rapture or a great falling away. What does scripture say?




6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

He is the man of sin. There is a restraining of the man of sin. Yes- the presence of the LIVING Church (indwelt by God's Spirit) is salt and light. But a church that is fallen away loses its saltiness and covers its light. Then darkness can do its work.



7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

This does appear to refer to the removal of the church as a restraint for the worker of lawlessness. I see another way this can be understood, but the same result. Anyway, this is caused by the FALLING AWAY of the church from sound doctrine and the love of the truth. It is the elevation of idols in the hearts of men.



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:

With boldness and no fear of light, Darkness will step onto the stage.



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.

Those who slander truth-sayers with "lack of love accusations" are tools of this darkness. I have seen this fine twist of the words, emphasizing that there is no truth without love. And the accusation is applied to anyone who brings hard truths that do not sound soft and happy.



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.

Sounds much like God hardening Pharoah's heart. When people hold to false gods, they will find it increasingly easy to believe their own desires are right.

[7th trump]

Spec wrote quoting the following:

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. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?


OK.. so we know the bad guy is one who sets himself up as if he was the true God. He is an idol... a false god. Where is the temple of God? Does God have a building He lives in? Does He inhabit the ark of the covenant? If God is on earth, where is He?

The Spirit of God indwells His Church. Want to remove the Holy Spirit from the world? You either have a rapture or a great falling away. What does scripture say?

I've always said that satan is coming to play act as Jesus Christ. satan's play acting as Jesus Christ is setting up a church revival like none other.
All the current churches will go along with this along with all the governments.......the falling away.

[Spectrism]

If you want to see a good case against the pre-trib rapture, tune in to this site.

Enjoy!

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/hot-topics/



Is the Pretribulation Rapture Biblical? by Brian Schwertley








WHAT??? You are still here? The tribulation already started. Now what are you going to do?
:imskerd: :imskerd: :imskerd: :imskerd: :imskerd: :imskerd: