First, I must wonder and ask from where this emotional outburst has come? I thought we were doing ok up to this point. What has changed since your last few posts? Yes, I will admit that some of my assertions are forceful, yet it is almost always in response to when I give scripture concerning something, I get a retort back with history or another man's literary work, and no scripture to the contrary.

My intention was never to personally attack anyone. I am sorry you feel this has been done. And if I have in my heart personally attacked someone, then I ask forgiveness from God first, then from whomever it was directed toward next.

What I do have a problem with, is when people make claims about the bible, yet do not use scripture, but rather history, to explain scripture. I have no tolerance for that. This is not in reference to you Aaron, but David.

Also, any time anyone uses some others' work to reenforce their belief instead of using an rightful division of Gods Word what they believe, then there is no place for that argument. I want to hear that person's ideas, if I wanted to read someones literary work on it, I would seek it out and read it.

The arguments that have presented to me have been based off of someone elses works and literature. My arguments have been based on my own study. You call that arrogance? My assertion is not about my own knowledge, but let me tell you this. I rely much more on what the Lord has for me in my studies into His Word than a man I have never met in my life, and never heard of before, who feels they are an authority on scriptural matters and can create a literary work on their findings.

Christians wolud do much better to stop reading all of these commentaries in place of God's Word. And if they choose to read commentaries, I would think they would compare it to God's Word every step of the way to see if it is scripturally accurate.

As I know my own heart, my accusation of being "arrogant", I am not guilty before you but before God. If the Holy Spirit convicts me of arrogance, then I will respond. I will that you will give me this however, typing/posting has it's own perceptions. It may sound one way, but entered with a totally different heart. You should know this as a person who posts and more than likely emails.

Where have I "asserted" I was correct according to scripture I have given? If scripture is given in response to either an original claim, and that scripture refutes it, then how is that an assertion that I am correct? That is God's Word asserting, not me. When I get a response back about this work, or that work, or this historical fact, etc, then what am I supposed to think? If you will notice, that just before this critical post you threw at me here, we started toning down our discussion here, even to the point of benignity. So what happened?

Folks forgive the longevity here, but Aaron, I am going to recap all your posts on this thread minus the exact quotes from works of man:

From 1537 ek { ek} or ex { ex}

a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative;; prep

Strong, J. 1996. The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.). Woodside Bible Fellowship.: Ontario

Based on this the verse could be interperated as "...I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation (onward)..."

----

Okay, I feel a little silly. I shot a little early there, but have spent the day pondering events in this forum last night (Oz time), and have consider a more feasable possibility.

Consider that Jesus' address to the seven churches were to seven literal churches that were around then and was totally wiped out at a later time by Muslim invaders.

Consider that John received his vision approx 95-96 AD. Consider that this would place it in the middle of the second "official persecution" of the church, by the Roman Empire, which was under Emperor Domitian. The first two persecutions were localised to Rome, with the precedant for empire wide persecution being set up by Pliny the Younger approx 111-113, however Trajan slowed the whole deal down.

Marcus Aurellius (161-180) began proactive persecutions during his reign.

It wasn't until Decius (249-251) that Christians were targeted widescale as the cause of all the empire's woes.

Even after all that, the worst persecutions were inflicted by "Professing Christians", and the major difference was that the heathens just wanted us to convert to their idolatry, where the "church" wanted to eradicate the heretics, recanting or not.

Considering that the letter to the Philadelphian church was sent to people who lived in 96 AD, they would not have been alive in 249 AD let alone in a future fulfillment of Jer 30 judgement upon Israel spilling over into a Church that seeks to protect it's "root".

Essentially, there doesn't need to be a rapture to fulfill this portion of scripture, as it is more likely to have already been fulfilled, than to be a message for us today.


----

I'm sorry Jim, but I believe that that statment is a little extreme. You seem to be saying that statements directed to specific people are to be taken as general statements. Do you hold that women in church should be wearing head coverings, or was that a cultural statement specifically directed to the Corintian church?


----

Jim,

I think that you missed the word "seem" in my post. Perhaps if I said "seems to me" it would have removed some heat. I wasn't "asserting" anything, I was merely stating that that was how they appeared to me.

My statement about the muslims wiping out the seven chruches, was that Christ made good on his threat to remove the Ephesian church's "...remove thy candlestick out of his place..." (Rev 2:5), and not only that, but the rest of the church.

This doesn't take away the relevance of the letters to us today, as there are principles for living contained and the promises made and exhortations the repent are universal. What I am saying is that if the statements Christ made to the church at Philadelphia were alluding to the fact that if severe persecution wouldn't break out in their lifetime, then that offers a plausible alternative to the rapture theory being described in Rev 3:10 (Consider Methuselah and the flood, and Josiah and the captivity).


----

No biggy

----

Okay, this is one consideration. Again allow me to present another one. The people who will (future tense at the time of Paul's writing of the epistle) be sent a strong delusion from God are people who are pronfessing believers who who refuse to bow their knee to the sovereignity of God (consider how God dealt with Ahab in 2 Kings 1. Why would God do this?

Allow me to put this into context, as it lies:

(quote from commentary source)

First I'll set the stage. In v3, we learn of a "man of sin" who had not been revealed, at the time of Christ, who is described with a title used to describe Judas Escariot, "son of perdition". Consider in 2 Tim 3:17 where Paul wrote of a "..man of God..." Who was the individual the he was refering to? Of course he wasn't refering to a specific man, but more a type of man. In the same way, the "man of sin" isn't necessarily a man but could be a type of man.

Considering the Judas Aescariot description, he could be a man who stands amongst "apostles" and would be consider by his peers to be one.

v4 - "...sitteth in the temple.." could hold a place of leadership in the church (remember the Paul constantly refered to the chruch as God's temple, built with living stones).
"exalting himself above all that is worshipped...shewing himself to be God..." he would reject all other modes of worship, demanding that he be considered to be God.

v6 - "..that witholdeth that he might be revealed in his time." There was something resisting the spread of the gospel, that's removal was to be a sign for them that this "man of sin" in the church was soon to be revealed. What was the thing that tried to "withold" the spread of the gospel? At the time of authorship it was Nero, and would continue through the following emperors.

v7 - "...mystery of iniquity.." How can it be that God would allow iniquity into His church? This question has dogged the church since it's begining. Considering the parable of the tares, we see that God allows the infiltration of false converts into the chruch until the judgement when they will all be harvested together. Now how's that for a "mystery". Corruption was already creeping into the ranks of the church, however their would come a time when it was widescale.

v8 - "..shall that Wicked be revealed, who the Lord shall comsume.." this "man of sin" shall remain until the "brightness of his coming", when he shall be consumed.

v9 - "...all power and signs and lying wonders." - the "man of sin" will be chacterised by illusions of miraculous power.

v10 - seesm to inply that those who have moved beyond knowing the truth, into loving it (consider Paris Reidhead's experience in Africa, as recalled in his sermon Ten Shekels and a Shirt. He knew of heaven, hell, and God's justice and mercy, but he thought that he could "improve on the injustice of God", all the while ignorant of this condition in his life).

v11 - Consider in the light of Rom 1:24, although here the lust is for independance of mind and will from God, instead of consecrated submission, as described in Gal 2:20.

Consider that the world doesn't need to have sent a "strong delusion" because it is already under one. It is only by the mercy of God that they will ever see his salvation, and I believe that he gives everyone a moment of decision, after which He pulls the curtain closed again.

It makes more sense that this is the professing church that it is refering to, and that the true church are suffering alongside of them (in the light of the parable of the tares), as the "man of sin" sitteth in the temple.

----

Don't have much time, so will have to keep this extremely. I will back up with scripture at later date.

The two witnesses are to be interperated according to Zechariah's Lampstand and Olive Tree. Historicists hold that this is a representation of the Protestant Reformers message of the "Sola Scritura (Lampstand)" and the "Priesthood of believers (Olive Tree)", over the RC message of "Church Tradition" and "Ordained Priests".

----

How about 2 Tim 3:13? "Yea, and all who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."

Can I recomend Keith Daniel as someone who describes the concept of persecution, affliction and tribulation of the believer excellently and biblically (reciting whole books of the Bible at times).
(Note that 2 Tim 3:1 puts this in the context of the "last days" while accurately describing the corrupt church leaders of the RCC in the dark ages, and describing the differences between them and Paul as an example of a godly leader, and an exhortation for Timothy to disregard their ways and to remember his mother and grandmother's teaching of the OT scriptures).

----

How about you tell us where it says that the bride doesn't go through the tribulation?

Jim,

It seems to me that you are more than happy for forceful assertions, as long as they come from your fingers. When I first came here, you and others pulled me with accusations of dogamtism and leaning on man's opinions over scripture. What I was actually doing was giving man's opinions about what scripture says (which incidently is what you are doing, except that you are quoting yourself). You have continually asserted that your stance is correct, because you have "received it from the Holy Spirit, direct", through your study times. Well sir, each of the people I have quoted and referred to would claim the same thing, only they have the humility to admit that they could be wrong.

I have only tried to present a different point of view, which I believe is plausable when weighed with scripture. As long as I have been a Christian, I have been looking for one person who will present the "pre" or "mid-trib" viewpoints that will stand up to scritpural scrutiny, and alas I still haven't found one who can, without either ignoring whole chucks of scripture, or over allegorising. One thing that I have learned in my studying of eschatology, is that many an error in the twenty-twentyfirst century church, stem back to dispensational theology, which is the "siamese-twin" of pre-trib rapture teaching.

So far every scripture that you have quoted, I could contextually prove do not cut out a post-trib or historicist viewpoint.

The funny thing is, Post-Tribbers and Historicists tend to dodge the whole issue as irrelevant, leaning on the Millenium as their focus. Personally, I can't make sence of how a rapture could occur before the first resurrection, which occurs after the tribulation and before the return of Christ (where we will reign with him), if "the dead arise first" in 2 Thess. Whether the "great tribulation" is great as in duration (Historicist) or great as in intensity (Post Trib), the rapture obivously comes after it, and results in the uniting of Christ with his bride, fulfilling Enoch's vision (as described in Jude).

Show me one verse that proves otherwise, and I'll consider a difference. But with all due respect, know has done so yet. I hope you can, because for me, I would rather be able to mis suffering. However I for one am also content to "know him, in the fellowship of his sufferings".

In Christ,

Az

PS - May I request a respectful reply to this challenge, as I have endeavoured to do so to you, in spite of seeing a continual arrogance proceeding from your keyboard.

The only use of scripture here was in bits and pieces which could loosely be used to support your viewpoint. Your focus is upon the viewpoint and mans works, with using small amounts of scripture to support it. My focus is on scriptures with some of mans viewpoints to understand it. If you look at my first three posts on this thread it is almost exclusively scripture.

I promise you that if you use scripture rightly divided (and I am not saying that to say my interpretation would be right and yours wrong), you would have a completely different reaction from me.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Amen Brother Jim! Amen, amen and amen!!! That is exactly my stance on thie situation. It appears that folks who attempt to change your or my understanding do it by the works of man. My word. If it is in the Bible then well and good. If it is not then why even mess with it?

In Christ,
George

Thank you George for the encouragement. God be the glory for His Word is perfect. I pray that my intellect does not interfere.

I can see how my thoughts on posting can be understood to be "biting" and personal. David and Aaron, I am sorry that I have responded in the way that I have sarcastically and with a critical heart.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Sir,

I assure you that my outburst is not emtional, but an attempt to have us return to a rational discussion, without digs and jibes. What my last post was trying to say, was that the only difference between what I am doing, and you are doing is that you are refering to your own conclusions, where Davo and I are doing likewise, while stating that we are not alone in our conclusions.

This whole event reminds me of an event that occured before I was a Christian, where a guy picked a fight with me at a party, warning me that if I used my Karate (at the time I was a Black Belt, since being born again, I have renounced this) he would get his friends onto me. What this fellow didn't realise was that when a person fights, they fight with all the ability that they know, because you can't unlearn something, only learn something to replace it with, at which point you reject the previous.

I use this illustration not to say that we are fighting, only to mention that you are putting rules on our converstaion that makes it impossible to discuss the topic. It's kind of like having an athiest declare in the rules of a debate, over the relevance of Christianity, that referances to Jesus Christ are banned. You say that the events of Revelation are not going to occur until the last 7 years or this age and that 3 1/2 years into it, the church will be raptured. Davo and I are suggesting that the events in Revelation are describing the unfolding history of the church, since the ascension of Christ. If our suggestion is true, how can we prove it without refering to the historical events that we claim that Revelation is refering to?

Also, there is an underlying statement that you are making that all Bible exositors throughout history are wrong, and that every generation must reinvent the wheel, when it comes to interperating scripture (I know that you are not actually saying this, but your repeated insistance on not referring to another man's interperatation of scripture implies this). I refer to another man's work for only two reasons. One, because they are able to articulate the thought I am trying to communicate far better than myself (let's just say that I spent years trying to warn people of humanism in the church, only to have my words fall on deaf ears. I have received jeers and ridcule as a result, but the moment they hear Paris Reidhead describe it in "Ten Shekels and a Shirt", referring to history and man's opinions in his sermon, they come to me saying that they thought that they were saved before hearing it, and now they know that they were kidding themselves) and secondly so that the integrity of my sources can be verified. I am very fussy who I listen to, and do not believe every word that comes out of a man of God's mouth, but test the spirit of their words to see if they are of God (as per 1 John). If I am aware of a deficiency in their theology I will say so (see my references to J Jacob Prasch).

I guess I take offense to statements like "You really believe this, don't you", "I am almost afraid to ask you" and "I believe you to have a seriously flawed interpretation of prophecy" (need I go on). Each of these are not simply forcefull, but are downright rude!!! They can be taken no other way but personally. And though these statements were directed at Davo I take them personally, because they are responses to statements that I also believe, and imply that anyone that believes them are "stupid" (first two statments) or "erroneous" (third statement) without responding to his statements scripturally.

Also, you say that you won't respond to comments that don't have scripture backing them up, and yet when I brought your interperatation of 2 Thess 2:11-12 into context with the previous verses, you changed the subject, without responding, either way. You need to make up your mind Jim.

Also Jim, I'm sorry if this seems to be nit picking, but in order to make my earlier points clear, may I refer to the openning point that you raised, inthe last post:

Mat 5:23-24 says "first be reconciled to to thy brother, and then ome and offer thy gift." Considering that this is in reference to the Levitical sin offering, it would appear that a plain reading of scripture would have you seek the forgiveness of your brother before seeking it from God (1 John and James builds on this extensively).

Please here the heart in what I'm saying. Yu seem to be concerned with Davo and I apparently disregarding scripture, and that is a healthy concern to have, however I think that in this case it is unfounded. I for one could defend every statement that I have made with scripture, but instead I challenge you to prove me wrong. If I have an issue with what you say, I have been doing likewise, only adding scriptural exposition, without necessarily offering "Chapter and Verse" although if you ran my words through a concordance, you'd find I often quote verses without using "quotation marks".

My concern is that you could be missing something due to having an issue with our style. I assure you that your every doctrinal comment that you have made I have considered and I have endeavoured to respond to them if someone else hasn't, in spite of the attitude that appears to be coming across. Perhaps I am out of line in my commenting like this, I guess that I want to keep accountable to the people of this forum, so that they know that their is no hidden animosity. Incidently, there is no animosity, simply a regret that there are false accusations of deviations of scripture, when I strive to stray within it's parameters.

I don't claim to be right all the time, far from it, however what I believe I will defend and defend in the light of scripture. I have been proven wrong time and again in forums accross cyperspace, and to be honest, the ones that I have had the most heated debates with, are now amongst my dearest friends, as we have been able to bring each other closer to the knowledge of the truth. I'm not afraid to admit that I'm wrong, when someone shows me (as displayed with my response to Jim's come back about my comment of the Greek word for "form"). I'm in this for truth. I love truth, after all Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and the chruch is meant to be the "pillar of truth".

*Edit* I just read your comment in the Revelation forum. I hope that you don't take this post as an attack. It isn't meant so, but merely as an observation of what has been occuring here. This and my last post are intended in love, with a slight tinge of frustration in the reading of responses. I'm sorry if I have crossed any lines. Feel free raise any concerns over my comments.*Edit*

No, I am saying that the 69 weeks of Daniel have passed, the Church age of Grace is almost over, the rapture is going to occur, then the 70th week of Daniel will begin when the anti-christ signs a covenant with Israel to begin the sacrifice again.

The churches in the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Revelation, I believe, are representations of the churches today and their state.

I am a premillennialist. I believe the rapture will occur before the 70th week of Daniel begins.

A parallel or relation can be used to just about anything that has happened in history for the same of the person arguing. I have no problem with history being used to support the bible as long as the bible is the first source relied upon and used. History cannot prove the bible, but rather the bible can prove history. If we do not look upon God's Word as our source of finality, then we cannot rely upon anything to be true.

David made the comment earlier that if we cannot rely upon Xenophons Cyropaedia, then Isaiah must also be mythical. How do you respond to that?

I have given specific dates in God's Word, and in history to support my belief of when the 70 weeks of Daniel will occur. Those dates and history are taken from scripture and supported in history as a second notion, not a main support.

You will jsut have to forgive me if I cannot accept man's method of using history to "prove" scripture. The bible is the final authority in my life and if we are going to use secular history and literature as a basis for argument, then our discussion just needs to end.

I will not repsond to other parts that you have raised so we can avoid further arguing.

However:

I will use this as an example. First, my reference to asking God to forgive is correct. I am not sure why you are using Matt. 5:23-24 to refute that. I am not going to give a gift to God, I am asking His forgiveness because when we sin, we first have sinned against God, then man.

Now if I go forward to give my gifts to the Lord and I have something between myself and a brother, i first need to reconcile myself to my brother(christian) so that my gift can be acceptable to the Lord.

These are the small things I guess that differentiate us in our interpretation of scripture.

My brother, I must also say that I have yet to see any evidence by either of you to prove me wrong also.

Paris Reidhead is one of my favorite preachers, along with Spurgeon, Ravenhill, Sparks, Tozer, Green, etc.

And I can say the exact same thing.

No, I do not take it as a personal attack. I must remain sanctified by the blood of Jesus Christ. But as I have read my earlier statements, while I could have said things differently, I stand even more staunchly behind my use of scripture and basis. I believe I have presented God's Word accurately and am content to remain such.

I will do my best in the future to avoid sarcastic comments like the ones you have stated. I also ask you and David to do the same.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Jim

I have tried hard not to make any sarcastic comments. If I have I apologize.

In a remarkable interpretation of prophecy, Henry Grattan Guinness, in his book "Light for the Last Days," commenting on Dan 12: 12 "Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days." Says that the 1335 days refers in some way to the reduction in power of the Turks. As Guinnes uses the historicists day to a year, he said the 1335 years were Arabic years and therefore lunar, so that would be 1917 in our callendar.

What happened in 1917? Allenby defeated the Turks and captured Jerusalem in December 1917. The Turks dropped the Arabic Script and adopted the Latin one that we use. The Turks also dropped the Arabic callendar and adopted the western one. I have seen a picture of a Turkish coin with the arabic date 1335 on one side, and the other bearing the date 1917. Henry Grattan Guinness died 21 June 1910.

Sorry, my mistake, I thought you were a "mid-tribber". My point was simply to say that one opinion states there is a rapture that occurs before Christ returns, when the "Historicist" and "Post trib" doctrines both state that the rapture occurs as Christ returns (1 Thess 4:14-1, to begin the his millenial reign. In other words, I too am a premillenialist.

I'm not saying that the Bible needs history to prove it. All I'm saying is, how can we prove a theory that says that the Book of Revalation is refering to events that have occured and are still occuring between the ascending and return of Christ, without reffering to historical accounts of the events that we believe that the prophecy is refering to? This is what David has been doing. He's been citing a passage, and then what he, or someone else believes the fulfillment to be. You can't refer to scripture alone, if the events that are prophecied occur after the last book of the Bible (which incidently is the Book of Revelation) was written.

we have first sinned against God and then man, however God would have us first be recociled to our brother before Him. The gift is for the altar, and is obviously reference to the sin offering, which wasn't done away with until Calvary (or at the latest, in practice, after the Temple's destruction in 70AD).

That's just it. I can't speak for Davo, but what I have been saying all along is that you are claiming that your opinion is correct, while I am merely claiming that you can't say that, categorically, because there are other interpretations of the scriptures that you are putting forward, that are plausable and in some cases are more watertight, contextually (eg, 2 Thess 2:11-12, which you have still not responded to).

I know this, and that is why I refer to them. Note that I can't speak to Sparks, as I haven't heard much of his preaching, but each of the others were against pre trib doctrine (with the possible exception of Keith Green, who exhorted us to "prepare for 'post' and pray for 'pre'.") I do wonder, though if you have heard muchof their preaching, or just "Ten Shekels and a Shirt", "Why Revival Tarries", and "Pursuit of God"? Perhaps you have, however I am surprise that you hold to some of the viewpoints that you do, having heard the annionted expositions of these great men of God.

Allow me to present links to the following sermons to substantiate this:
Paris Reidhead:
The Right Use of the Law - This sermon, incidently spells out some of the hidden dangers of Darby's Dispensationalism, which is the "siamese twin" to the pri-trib theory.
The Hidden Things of God - Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.
Leonard Ravenhill:
Spirit of a True Prophet - Part 1 and Part 2. - Ravenhill recounts a story of Chinese missionaries who were stunned by their converts and labelled "false prophets" for presenting a doctrine that led them to believe that they should have been protected from the attrocities of the Maoist revolution. It will send a chill up your spine.

So you are post-trib premillennialist?

I agree more along the lines of the "pre-tribulational, dispenational(sort-of), premillennialism. Yet I agree with some of the historicist theories as I do believe that the churches referred to in the 2nd and 3rd chapter of Revelation are almost complete. I do not believe we have entered into the any of the judgments yet startign in Chapter 6. this is really what I am talking about when I talk about labeling. I do not unequivocally believe in any one specific doctrine as it pertains to a label.


I differ from most in that I do not believe that any part of the synoptic gospels refer to the rapture, especially Matthew 24 and 25. I believe all that to refer to the Second Coming.

Actually I was referring to Oliver B Green.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Open question:

Whether you believe in pre, mid, post rapture or not, do you think the church(Bride of Christ) will have to go through the tribulation of the 70th week of Daniel? That is if you don't believe it has come upon us yet.

Jim

Is it just a coincidence that John is called up in chapter 4 of Revelation just prior to the judgments starting... and then we have no mention of the church on the earth again until around chapter 19 after the judgments have finished?

Coincidence or picture?

My sentiments also.

A friend loaned me a book a couple of years ago, McGhee “On the Prophecies.” I have made a few notes, and wrote to him as follows.

The author is of the school of prophetic interpretation known as futurist as they teach that apart from the seven letters in Revelation, the whole of the book is set in the future and does not in any way apply to the church. They also usually teach that prophecy is to be taken literally. They are sometimes called “dispensanionists.” This is not an accurate label as those who use it also talk of dispensations and seem to use it as a term of abuse or at least disdain. A more accurate label would be “Pre tribulation rapturists.”

A brief resume of Futurist teaching

The basic teaching is that Christ will return “to the air” for the saints who will return to heaven with him, and seven, or three and a half, years later will return with the Lord at the second coming. During the seven (or three and a half) years, the Jews will build the temple, Antichrist will appear and there will be a time of great tribulation on the earth.

Futurism seems to have begun with the teaching of a Jesuit priest called Francisco Ribiera (1537-1591). Ribeira taught that the first few chapters of Revelation related to the first century and the remainder was confined to a period of three and a half years at the end of time, during which the Antichrist would appear
Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) published a 500 page commentary on the grand points of Babylon and Antichrist, the object being to set aside the Protestant teaching that the Papacy is the Antichrist. In his commentary, he assigned the first chapters of Revelation to the first century. The rest he restricted to a literal three and a half years at the end of time. He taught that the Jewish temple would be rebuilt by a single, individual Antichrist who would abolish the Christian religion, deny Christ, pretend to be God, and conquer the world. When Thomas Brightman (1562-1607), a Protestant scholar and reformer, first saw a copy of Ribera's futurist exposition, he was aroused to indignation. "Once they would not suffer any man to scarce touch a Bible, now they produce a commentary to explain it—to point men away from the Papal Antichrist.”

For two more centuries the futurist view regarding Antichrist was rejected by the Protestant church. Then in 1826, Samuel R. Maitland (1792-1866), librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury, became the first Protestant to accept Ribera's futurist interpretation. Says Ladd: "This futurist interpretation with its personal Antichrist and three and a half year tribulation did not take root in the Protestant church until the early nineteenth century. The first Protestant to adopt it was S.R. Maitland.”

Froom sums it up in these words.
(Leroy E Froom The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers. 1945)
In Ribera's Commentary was laid the foundation for that great structure of Futurism, built upon and enlarged by those who followed, until it became the common Catholic position. And then, wonder of wonders, in the nineteenth century this Jesuit scheme of interpretation came to be adopted by a growing number of Protestants, until today Futurism, amplified and adorned with the rapture theory, has become the generally accepted belief of the Fundamentalist wing of popular Protestantism! Quoted from Ralph Woodrow - Great Prophecies of the Bible


The “Secret Rapture” theory came from another Jesuit priest, Lacunza, who wrote “The coming of the Messiah in Power and Glory” but published it under the false name of “Juan Josephat Ben Ezra, a converted Jew.” This was translated from Spanish by Edward Irving who preached on the subject. The rapture teaching was then given as a “prophecy” by Robert Baxter and by other Irvingite prophets, in 1832. From Irving and his church, later called “The Catholic Apostolic Church” the teaching was imbibed by the early Brethren and during the remainder of the 19th century was mainly confined to these two sects. Just before the end of the century it was widely considered to be a heresy. In the 20th century rapturism became the dominant teaching.

The teaching of J Vernon McGee

Futurists teach that the last week (some teach the last half week) of the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel 9 refer to the period between “the rapture” and the second coming. The “prince who is to come” is usually said to be “the Antichrist” who will appear during the “tribulation period.” Mr. McGee’s teaching on the 70th week is the same, but that this prince to come was Titus who’s armies destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. Sir Richard Anderson wrote a book called The Coming Prince, takes the view that the prince is a coming antichrist, his title emphasizes this.

Matthew 24: 37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mr. McGee takes this as the wicked taken out of the world at the second coming, not as he sees it, believers at the rapture. Page 82.

2 Thess. 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.
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;
We covered this a few Wednesdays ago. I was sorry at the time that we did not make more of this warning as it seems to me that many around us have been deceived and believe that the falling away will come after we meet the Lord. Mr. McGee gets around this warning by translating ‘falling away’ as ‘departure,’ and then says it is a double departure, a departure of the saints from the earth and a departure from the faith. The obvious failure in this teaching is in verse 1, “our gathering together unto him” will not happen till after the falling away. Although I expect he would then say that referred to the Jews Page 174.

Mr. McGee teaches that there are two elects, The Christians and the Jews. This is shown in his views of Matt. 24: 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Mr McGee says the elect spoken of here are the Jews. Page 128.

Mr McGee teaches that there are two “abominations of desolation” mentioned in Daniel. In Daniel 11.31 it refers to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes the second, in chapter 12, to the time of a future antichrist.

One of the incorrect interpretations that futurists rely on is that the 70th week of Daniel 9 is in the future. Another is that the subject of this prophecy is the antichrist, whereas in fact it is of the Messiah. This book seems to be the result of reading the bible and then teaching what you like.

Daniel 9: 24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

To finish the transgression The finishing of the transgression was putting to death the Messiah (see also Matthew 23: 32.) …and to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,. Jesus accomplished all this by his death on the cross. …and to seal up the vision and prophecy, The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Luke 16:16 ...and to anoint the most Holy. In Luke 4: 18 we read “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me…” This fulfilled Daniel 9: 24 and Isaiah 61: 1.

Many teach that the commandment to build Jerusalem was given by Ataxerxes. Isaiah 44: 23, however makes it plain that the command was given by God and verse 28 tells that it was to be issued by Cyrus. The 69 weeks extends to the baptism and annointing of Jesus at the beginning of his ministry. After seven then threescore and two weeks (69 weeks) i.e. during the 70th week, Messsiah would be cut off . “….and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” The Lord Jesus was crucified in the middle of the week and from offering himself once and for all, the sacrifice and the oblation had no purpose.

Matthew 23. 30 "........ And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 ¶ Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.


v. 32. They were to fill up the measure of their father’s guilt (who had put the prophets to death) by putting the messiah to death. v. 35 They were to bear the punishment for all of this. v. 36 is self explanatory. The temple was left desolate during that generation. And these same Pharisees, Sadducees and high priests suffered and were slain during the period of the revolt against Rome.

Matthew 24. McGee says that none of this chapter applies to the Church. Verses 9-22, he says, refer to the third question regarding the end of the age and 23-51 refers to second question regarding the coming of the Lord. The first question, he says, is not answered in Matthew 24, he then informs us that it was answered in Luke 21: 20-24. Since Matthew 24: 15 ff., Mark 13: 14 ff., Luke 21: 20 ff. All refer to the same event, this seems a bit odd. Jewish writers when talking about the Romans in prophecy seem to be wary of mentioning the word directly. “Don’t mention the Romans.” Josephus, when commenting on the dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the stone which would destroy the Roman Empire, says “If anyone is desirous of knowing the truth.......let him be diligent in reading the book of Daniel.” Paul also in 2 Thess 2: 6, etc is equally circumspect in speaking of the end of the Roman Empire. It was wise not to mention that Jewish prophecy predicted the fall of The Roman Empire.

Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ (when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.) spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand). Luke says that Jerusalem will be desolated, Mathew and Mark tell us that it would be by the ‘abomination of desolation.’ In Daniel 11: 31 and Luke 21:20, the ‘abomination of desolation.’ is connected with Armies or forces. To give an example of how the Jews viewed the Roman army's ensigns as an abomination, I quote the following from Josephus. “But as he (Vitellius) was marching very busily, and leading his army through Judea, the principal men met him, and desired that he would not thus march through their land; for that the laws of their country would not permit them to overlook those images which were brought into it, of which there were a great many in their ensigns; so he was persuaded by what they said, and changed that resolution of his, which he had before taken in this matter. Whereupon he ordered the army to march along the Great Plain, while he himself, with Herod the tetrarch, and his friends, went up to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice to God, an ancient festival of the Jews being then just approaching; and when he had been there and been honourably entertained by the multitude of the Jews, he made a stay there for three days, within which time he deprived Jonathan of the high priesthood, and gave it to his brother Theophilus.”

What was an ensign? “Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Caesar that are called Ensigns, into Jerusalem.” The ensigns were brought into the temple after it was captured and the soldiers who sacrificed to the images on them in the temple. “And now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple, and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator, with the greatest acclamations of joy.” These ensigns were described by Josephus: “Then came the ensigns encompassing the eagle, which is at the head of every Roman legion, the king, and the strongest of all birds, which seems to them a signal of dominion, and an omen that they shall conquer all against whom they march; these sacred ensigns are followed by the trumpeters. Then came the main army in their squadrons and battalions, with six men in depth, which were followed at last by a centurion, who, according to custom, observed the rest.” The Roman eagle, being their chief ensign would have been the abomination of desolation.

More than three years before Titus captured Jerusalem , Cestius Gallus besieged Jerusalem, and just as he was on the point of success, and the Jews were about to open the gates for him, he marched his armies away (Without a reason in the world, according to Josephus) and he was defeated by the Jews. This was seen by believers as a fulfilment of Matt, 24: 15-16, Mark 13:14-15, Luke 21: 20-21. And they fled from the city. Josephus describes it as “After this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most eminent of the Jews swam away from the city, as from a ship when it was going to sink.” This was not only a fulfilment of the gospels already quoted, but also of Daniel 12: 1. "At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book.” This refers to believers, not Jews as McGee maintains. It is said that not one believer died in the siege of Jerusalem, they all took notice of the prophecies given by the Lord Jesus and fled the city.

Whiston the translator of Josephus puts it thus: “There may another very important, and very providential, reason be here assigned for this strange and foolish retreat of Cestius; which, if Josephus had been now a Christian, he might probably have taken notice of also; and that is, the affording the Jewish Christians in the city an opportunity of calling to mind the prediction and caution given them by Christ about thirty-three years and a half before, that “when they should see the abomination of desolation” [the idolatrous Roman armies, with the images of their idols in their ensigns, ready to lay Jerusalem desolate,] “stand where it ought not;” or, “in the holy place;” or, “when they should see Jerusalem encompassed with armies,” they should then “flee to the mountains.” By complying with which those Jewish Christians fled to the mountains of Perea, and escaped this destruction. See Lit. Accompl. of Proph. pp. 69-70. Nor was there, perhaps, any one instance of a more unpolitic, but more providential conduct than this retreat of Cestius, visible during this whole siege of Jerusalem; which yet was providentially such a “great tribulation, as had not been from the beginning of the world to that time; no, nor ever should be.”

I’m not sure if Dan. 11:31 refers to Antiochus as is generally assumed for the following reasons. . 1. There seems to me to be only one ‘abomination of desolation,’ the definite article would suggest that. 2. At the time of Jesus, it was still in the future. 3. Antiochus did not leave Jerusalem and the temple desolate as did the Babylonians and the Romans. 4. The period of 1290 days given by the angel in Dan 12: 11, “And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days.” does not fit, as from the time that Antiochus polluted the temple till it was cleansed was 3 years to the day.

Matthew 24.34 “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” There have been many attempts to identify which “this generation” refers to. Some have said the generation that saw Allenby free Jerusalem from the Turks in 1917. Others, those that saw the setting up of the state of Israel in 1948. McGee says it is the generation which will see the future antichrist in the future tribulation. A more obvious generation would be that which the Lord addressed, “This Generation” as in Matthew 23.36.

Matthew 24: 9. “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake.” McGee says this refers to the Jews, although Jesus was speaking to believers, the disciples. Matthew 24: 9. “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet,” Again, McGee says this refers to the Jews although Jesus was speaking to believers. McGee says that the church will not go through tribulation. “.... these folk who say the church is to go through the Great Tribulation accuse us of looking for an escape mechanism. Friends, do you know that is absolutely accurate?” He goes on “I always have looked for an escape mechanism. In the past few years, I have had five major operations, and I am a coward. I don't like to go to a hospital. If there had been any way to escape, I would have escaped. And I thank God today that there is an escape mechanism from the Great Tribulation period! I do not know about these brave ones who want to go through the Great Tribulation. I think at the Rapture they will be going out with me—and they will be tickled to death that they missed the Tribulation.” What nonsense. Where is his reading of History? Has he read Foxe? Has he read about the Hugenots? At one time they consisted of nearly 50% of the population of France, but were practically wiped out by persecution/tribulation. Has he read of the Iron Virgin of Nuremburg? This vicious Pagan image that opened to allow the victims to be put inside, then as the case was closed pierced him through with built in knives.

Regarding imperial Rome, Tetullian says “(You)..rend us with your iron claws, hang us up on crosses, wrap us up in flames, take our heads from us with your sword, let loose your wild beasts upon us.” Did Tertullian believe the Church would not go through persecution? I have on my shelf, eight volumes of Foxes Book of Martyrs where each of several thousand pages is filled with descriptions of tortures of those who followed Christ. They were torn apart, thrown down walls, ripped open, gunpowder poured down their throats and then ignited, women had their limbs cut off and their babies left at their side to die together, they were burnt at the stake, and garroted, they were roasted alive, they were pierced to death in a terrible idol called “the Iron Virgin,” suffered under the inquisition, walled up in cavities and left to die, together with many other tortures. There were many more tortures too terrible to describe.

In France for two hundred years the Church was persecuted. Before the revocation edict of Nantes the Church was estimated to be about 48% of the population, but after the persecution, which followed the revocation, it was practically extinct. Dragoons, uncouth troops were billeted with Christian families who had to feed them and support them and who abused them. Minsters and preachers, who were caught were sentenced to be broken on the wheel and then hung. One eminent minister had his sentenced commuted - to being hung first and then his bones were broken on the wheel. At the executions, a roll of 20 drums stopped the condemned from giving a last word of encouragement to their brethren. Any of the congregation caught attending the services was sentenced, the men to the galleys for life, the women to the Tower of Constance for life. Just before the French revolution, among the last of these to be released, was a man of 82 from the galleys and a woman of 52 who had been sent to the Tower of Constance when she was eight for going to a service with her mother. One town where many of these tribulations took place still bears the name Aigues Mortes, that is Bitter Deaths, in the Var.

There is an area in the south of Farance, called the ‘desert,’ where the believers met secretly. There is a mueusm of the desert and a large annual service in the desert.

In Wassy in Northern France there is a Barn where believers were massacred. In Bezzieres in the south, every person was killed after troops asked how they could tell a heretic from a catholic, the priests answered “Kill them all, God knows his.” Would Mr McGee, if he were still alive, like to say to all of these, that this was not tribulation? It is estimated that well over 50,000,000 suffered death during papal persecutions.

2 Thess 2: 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. Rapturists say that “what is restraining” is the Church, (however the Church is feminine, and what is neuter. “Christ loved the Church and gave himself for her.”) and “he who now restrains,” is the Holy Spirit, they say, as do those responsible for the NKJV, as you can see from the capital letters, (He.) McGee differs slightly from this when he says that the Holy Spirit will be in the world but will be “inactive.” He then says that there will be a period of evangelism unparalleled in history with 144,000 Jewish sealed evangelists and an unknown number of sealed gentiles. During this period when the Holy Spirit is inactive, he says, there will be two different varieties of saints, the Jewish, who he calls the “Jewish elect” and those he calls “tribulation saints,” presumably the third type of elect. How all this happens while the Holy Spirit is inactive one can only guess.

Paul says “Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time.” If Paul told the Church, it would be reasonable for the early church to tell us. And they do. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Chrysostim and Jerome all said that it was the Roman Empire and the Caesars who would restrain the man of sin. Justin Martyr and Tertullian both said “We Know,” echoing Paul’s “You Know.” The reformed position is the same.

When Constantine realised that the Antichrist would be head of the Church and would reign in Rome, and thinking that it may be he, moved the seat of the empire to what was to become Constantinople, thus removing the hindrance to the rise of the Pope, who is the Antichrist. This is the reformed position. It is the position taken by those who drafted the 1689 and other confessions. The Waldensians claimed that their separation from Rome went back to Pope Sylvester, who was pontiff at the time of Constantine. If they were correct in this it would seem that at this very time the hinderance was removed, it was recognised for what it was.

When I say the reformed position, I refer to the teaching of the reformers, not those who today may call themselves ‘reformed’ but hold various odd views and fanciful interpretations.

I’ll finish with McGee’s comments on the New Jerusalem

Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. Revelation 21:2

“I rather think that at the Rapture the church will be brought to this place. I believe this city is to be our permanent home. I think that during the Millennium it will be a matter of commuting back and forth from the earth to the New Jerusalem,.”

“Now there are men today—better men than I—who believe that the New Jerusalem comes to the earth. I never have been able to see that, I cannot move it that far. I think it comes out into space, and it comes, apparently, within sight of the earth.”

And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. Revelation 21:3

“The New Jerusalem is the temple for the universe of God. This will be the place, apparently, where Israel and the gentile nations of the earth will come to worship. They will come to worship and then return to their homes on the earth.”

The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal. Revelation 21:16

“Twelve thousand furlongs is 1,378.97 miles—roughly fifteen hundred miles. It is fifteen hundred miles long) fifteen hundred miles wide, and fifteen hundred miles high. Some men have concluded that it will be a cube; others see it as a pyramid. It is difficult to conceive of either a cube or pyramid projected out in space. Cubes and pyramids are appropriate for earth's buildings but are impractical for space as spheres are impractical for earthly buildings. I cannot believe that, since God has made everything in space globe-shaped. He would make this square. I do not say this in a dogmatic fashion, for there are many fine Bible students who disagree with me, but I believe that the New Jerusalem is a sphere and these measurements that Scripture gives are the dimensions on the inside of the sphere, a cube within a crystal-clear sphere. I took this problem in solid geometry to a man in the field of theoretical engineering. He worked it out for me and came up with a sphere that is slightly larger than our moon. The diameter of the moon is about 2,160 miles, and that of the New Jerusalem sphere is about 2,600 miles. We live on the outside of the planet called earth, but if my theory is correct, our eternal home will be within the planet called the New Jerusalem.”

David

We should pay attention to Luther’s comment that “nonsense is incapable of refutation.”


Postscript (i.e. an afterthought.)

You mentioned Hendrickson. He said that the Jews being in Israel did not fulfil any biblical prophecy. This would appear to me to be incorrect. Jesus said, Luke 21:24 “..they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”

If “be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles” go together, then it would appear that the times of the gentiles have already been fulfilled. If, on the other hand, only the last clause only is intended, then he may be correct.

The Jews did return to Jerusalem during the reign of the emperor Hadrian. They attempted to rebuild the city, there was another bloody war and eventually the Jews were expelled and Hadrian forbad the Jews ever to return to Jerusalem. Hadrian stood in the senate and announced that Jerusalem had fallen. I’m not sure of the spelling, but it comes out in Latin something like Heirvsalem es perdita (Jerusalem has fallen) to which the senators chanted “Hurrah, Hurrah, Hurrah.” We still celebrate this destruction today when we give three cheers. “HEP, HEP, Hurrah,” or as we usually say, “HIP, HIP Hurray.” When I was young there was on the radio a school quiz programme called Top of the Form. At the end of the show, the winners and losers cheered each other. Posher schools used “HEP, HEP, Hurrah,” and the more common, “HIP, HIP Hurray.” So remember when you hear three cheers, they are celebrating the fall of Jerusalem.

DS. 23.10.2003


30.03.2006

The New Jerusalem is of course the Church, the company of believers:

Rev. 21: 9 ¶ And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.
There are two cities in Revelation and two women. They are each the exact opposite of each other. Mystery Babylon and The New Jerusalem. The Harlot and the Bride. They are the false Church, led by Rome and the True Church of Christ.

I believe in the Rapture of the Church.

This post was last modified: Tue Feb 19, 2008 06:04 PM by Jim.

Amen, it is a wonderful promise to have!