Prophecy and History

[RandyPNW]

What's left of Bible Prophecy after one has treated Daniel and Revelation, as well as the Olivet Discourse? Is this all there is? So much of the Bible has Prophecy that was historically fulfilled. The Promises involved Israel becoming a Chosen Nation, and Messiah coming, followed by the birth and advance of the Church. But what of Future Prophecy? Are we left with just a lot of sensationalizing about the Apocalypse? Are we left with just Fear Mongering as our Prophetic Meessage to the world?

Many years agao I became interested in Bible Prophecy, just as many do today. I became fascinated with the focus on Future Prophecy, including much that we see in Dispensationalism--a focus on Israel's restoration, and the signs of the Last Generation. But then I converted to Postribulationism, due to a Bible Memorization program I began to engage in. 2 Thessalonians seemed to be explicitly teaching against what I had been trained, in Pretribulationism, to believe!

Eventually I began to study World History to see if there was any obvious relationship between it and the little bit of Bible Prophecy that I felt still was Future Prophecy. Amazingly, just a few passages in Daniel seemed to have anticipated it all. Daniel's focus was not on an escape from Antichrist, but rather, on resignation that Antichrist does come as an essential characteristic of world history.

But Daniel seemed to see it all in just a couple chapters, chapter 2 and chapter 7. It's like a "mustard seed" of truth created the entire Tree of History for me! Daniel's picture of a 4th Kingdom, which I saw as Rome, formed into 2 halves, the Eastern and Western Roman Empire, which evolved into the Europe we have today. This is portrayed as “2 legs” in Dan 2.

At the same time the Gospel was spreading throughout the world, as promised, the world formed the very pattern that Daniel predicted. There was the Slavs joining the Greek Orthodox communion in the East, and the Germans joining the Latin Catholic communion in the West. Both followed the pattern Daniel prescribed of a 2-legged 4th Kingdom on earth. Perhaps these are the “2 horns” of the “2nd Beast,” a kind of “false pope” in Rev 13?

If you will survey history on this evolution you may see, as I did, this gradual evolution towards what Daniel saw would eventually become a 10-nation Antichristian Empire, consisting of Eastern and Western European nations. It is pure speculation on my part right now, but it appears the historical trend towards dissolving empires into states is now operating in the old Soviet territory. And this is, I think, necessary, in order to prepare for the Antichrist Empire to come. 1st there must be 10 states, East and West, and then they must be sufficiently weakened for Antichrist to assume dictatorial control over them. Just a thought....

 

[iamlamad]

The truth is, Paul wrote both letters to the Thessalonians. His rapture timing is the same in both letters. Sadly, due to poor translations by the KJV in both verse 2 and verse 3, plus their added words in verse 3, have caused many to misunderstand Paul in his second letter. I find many people have formed part of their doctrine from chapter 2 from the words added by the translators, and not by Paul's words.

First, in verse 2, they did not think that the day was "at hand." They thought the Day of the Lord had come and they were IN IT.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for, except there come [the] departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition. (Geneva Bible: words added by translator removed: "a" changed to "the" as per every Greek text.)

What great "departing" did Paul write of in his first letter? It is the rapture or catching away of the church. Paul certainly expected His readers to know what significant (the in Greek) departing he wrote about in his first letter.

Paul's argument is simple: when people see two events, then they can know that the Day has already started and they are IN IT. Of these two events, one must come before the other. The restraining force must be "taken out of the way" as the church departs, and then the man of sin will be revealed, since he is no longer restrained.

This passage is as pre-trib as it can be.

 

[RandyPNW]

The truth is, Paul wrote both letters to the Thessalonians. His rapture timing is the same in both letters. Sadly, due to poor translations by the KJV in both verse 2 and verse 3, plus their added words in verse 3, have caused many to misunderstand Paul in his second letter. I find many people have formed part of their doctrine from chapter 2 from the words added by the translators, and not by Paul's words.

First, in verse 2, they did not think that the day was "at hand." They thought the Day of the Lord had come and they were IN IT.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for, except there come [the] departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition. (Geneva Bible: words added by translator removed: "a" changed to "the" as per every Greek text.)

What great "departing" did Paul write of in his first letter? It is the rapture or catching away of the church. Paul certainly expected His readers to know what significant (the in Greek) departing he wrote about in his first letter.

Paul's argument is simple: when people see two events, then they can know that the Day has already started and they are IN IT. Of these two events, one must come before the other. The restraining force must be "taken out of the way" as the church departs, and then the man of sin will be revealed, since he is no longer restrained.

This passage is as pre-trib as it can be.

Not really. Through most of Church history, Christians never read 2 Thessalonians in a "Pretrib way." So it's apparently not as obviously Pretrib as you think?

The passage can read either a Pretrib way or a Postrib way. The Pretrib way is, "You'll know when the Antichrist is coming imminently when the departure of the Church takes place." But what value is there in knowing the Rapture precedes the Great Tribulation if Christians won't be here to see it? Is it just some kind of assurance that Christians won't suffer "God's Wrath" in this way?

Or, the passage can be read the Postrib way like, "Don't think the Kingdom can come on earth unless the Antichrist appears 1st and is actually destroyed by Christ." You have to decide what makes more sense in light of the burden Paul is expressing.

As to the Restrainer, the early Church Fathers believed that before Antichrist can arise the 4th Kingdom of Daniel had to develop and evolve in history until 10 nations form out of the old Roman Empire. Antichrist is thus being restrained until he comes after this time when the Christian Church is commanded to testify to the world.

The idea that the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit is a modern interpretation when given in a Pretrib sense. Nobody in the Early Church believed the Kingdom would arrive before the rise of Antichrist (except these false prophets, and others like them who believed that their cult was the Kingdom." And their sense of Christ's Coming was synonymous with expectation of the Kingdom's arrival.

 

[iamlamad]

Not really. Through most of Church history, Christians never read 2 Thessalonians in a "Pretrib way." So it's apparently not as obviously Pretrib as you think?

The passage can read either a Pretrib way or a Postrib way. The Pretrib way is, "You'll know when the Antichrist is coming imminently when the departure of the Church takes place." But what value is there in knowing the Rapture precedes the Great Tribulation if Christians won't be here to see it? Is it just some kind of assurance that Christians won't suffer "God's Wrath" in this way?

Or, the passage can be read the Postrib way like, "Don't think the Kingdom can come on earth unless the Antichrist appears 1st and is actually destroyed by Christ." You have to decide what makes more sense in light of the burden Paul is expressing.

As to the Restrainer, the early Church Fathers believed that before Antichrist can arise the 4th Kingdom of Daniel had to develop and evolve in history until 10 nations form out of the old Roman Empire. Antichrist is thus being restrained until he comes after this time when the Christian Church is commanded to testify to the world.

The idea that the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit is a modern interpretation when given in a Pretrib sense. Nobody in the Early Church believed the Kingdom would arrive before the rise of Antichrist (except these false prophets, and others like them who believed that their cult was the Kingdom." And their sense of Christ's Coming was synonymous with expectation of the Kingdom's arrival.

Perhaps you have not read the "Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem." It was written somewhere around 500 to 700 AD. He states very clearly that the rapture would come before the tribulation.

"All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation,
which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at
any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins." –Pseudo-Ephraem (c. 374-627)

I suspect that many of Paul's first readers, after studying his second letter, understood it as pre-trib. I agree, it has irony: the church will not be here to see the revelation of the man of sin. But then, it seems Paul was answering their questions. They had begun to believe that the tribulation they were living through was the Day of the Lord, so they believed it was God's wrath against them. Of course Paul had to straighten out that kind of thinking. So he explained how anyone (remaining behind at the rapture would know when they were IN the Day of the Lord.

Paul never got to read John's book, so perhaps Paul did not know exactly when the Day of the Lord would begin. Perhaps He only knew that when someone saw the revealing of the man of sin, then the day was already ongoing. From John and Daniel, and then from this passage, we know that the week will be divided when then man of sin enters the temple and declares he is the God of the Jews.


Paul certainly understood that such an abomination (a gentile in the Holy of Holies) would stop the daily sacrifices as Daniel told us. A big question is, why did Paul make this one of those verses that Peter wrote of: hard to understand? It is my guess that Paul wrote this so that if it fell into Roman hands they would be clueless to its meaning.

He left us clues. For example, in verse 3b, the man of sin IS revealed. Yet in verses 6-8 he makes it clear that the man of sin CANNOT be revealed until the restraining force is taken out of the way. This leaves only one conclusion: somewhere in 3a the restrainer has been removed. There is only one word that could possibly fit the restrainer being taken out of the way, and that is his word, apostasia. I have studied this compound word. I find what Strong wrote very interesting.

1. of separation…
1A. of local separation,
1B. of separation of a part from the whole

1Bi. where of a whole some part is taken
1C. of any kind of separation of one thing from another…
1D. of a state of separation, that is of distance
1Di. physical, of distance of place

At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.

Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES.

The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "stationary" or "not moving" from.

Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.

The first several translations used the word "departing."

1384 Wycliffe N.T.
That no man deceyue you in any maner / for no but departynge aweye (or dissencon) schal come firste & the man of synne schall be schewid [shewed] the sone of perdicioune.

1534 Tyndale N.T.
Let no ma deceave you by eny meanes for the lorde commeth not excepte ther come a departynge fyrst and that that synfnll man be opened ye sonne of perdicion

1535 Coverdale Bible
Let no man disceaue you by eny meanes. For the LORDE commeth not, excepte the departynge come first, and that Man of Synne be opened, even the sonne of perdicion.

1539 Cranmer Great Bible
Let no man deceaue you by any meanes, for the Lorde shall not come excepte there come a departinge fyrst, & that that synfull man be opened, the sonne of perdicion.

1549 Matthew's Bible
Let no man deceyue you by any meanes, for the Lord commeth not, except there come a departyng first, and that, that sinful man be opened, the sonne of perdicyon

1565 Beza Bible
Let no man deceiue you by any meanes: for [that day shall not come,] except there come a departing first, and that man of sinne be disclosed, [euen] the son of perdition.

1575 Geneva Bible
Let no man deceiue you by any meanes for that day shal not come, except there come a departing first, and that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne of perdition.

Then Paul left another clue: He wrote in verse 6, "and now you know what is restraining." Why would Paul write these words? It is my guess—and it is only a guess—that Paul KNEW He had hidden the restraining force being removed in his use of apostasia, so wrote this so the readers would say, "What? How can we know?" And they would re-read until they understood.

Then there is Paul's parallelism. Verses 3, and 6, with verses 7-8 form parallels. In the first half of verse three and verse 6 the restrainer is restraining until He is taken out of the way, and the last half of the verse, speaks of the revealing. For verses 7 and 8, verse 7 is the restrainer restraining and in verse 8 we read the revealing.

The correct exegesis of this verse MUST agree with Paul in 1 thes. 4 & 5. There Paul mentions the Day of the Lord just three verses after his classic rapture verse of 4:17.

Some people prefer "the day of Christ" while others think Paul wrote "the day of the Lord." I believe it is the Day of the Lord, for that fits the context and is the term Paul used in his first letter.

 

[RandyPNW]

Perhaps you have not read the "Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem." It was written somewhere around 500 to 700 AD. He states very clearly that the rapture would come before the tribulation.

"All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation,
which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at
any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins." –Pseudo-Ephraem (c. 374-627)

Of course I've heard of it. I've been arguing for Postrib for a very long time, and I've run into these claims that seminal forms of Pretrib did exist earlier in Christian history. Nonetheless, no real school of Pretribulational Theology came into existence by which we can mark our calendar as "the beginning of Pretrib belief."

It just has never been more than the thought that Christians will be given to escape God's wrath in some way, whether in the Great White Throne Judgment or at Armageddon. But it's a bit much to say that in history we have any school saying that Christ could come "at any time," and will certainly come before the rise of Antichrist. And the thought that he could come in 700 or 800 AD, more than a thousand years before Antichrist has even shown up, seems preposterous.

I suspect that many of Paul's first readers, after studying his second letter, understood it as pre-trib.

Those suspicions are groundless. You base your suspicion on *nothing?* You base it on the fact Pretrib belief came into existence in the 1800s and now you, in the 21st century, believe it also and wish to believe it was there from the start? (don't mean to be rude)

I'm just telling you the facts. Dispensationalism was the start of the school of Pretribism. Pretribism did *not* exist in the history of the Church. If there was a person or two that gave some notion of a Pretrib idea, eg Ephraem, it certainly wasn't a developed theology that evolved into a prophetic school.

I agree, it has irony: the church will not be here to see the revelation of the man of sin. But then, it seems Paul was answering their questions. They had begun to believe that the tribulation they were living through was the Day of the Lord, so they believed it was God's wrath against them. Of course Paul had to straighten out that kind of thinking. So he explained how anyone (remaining behind at the rapture would know when they were IN the Day of the Lord.

On what do you base your belief that the Thessalonians feared they were experiencing God's wrath? Paul certainly encouraged them by assuring them of their reward. But I'm not sure there is evidence these Christians were afraid they'd lost their soul or were under divine punishment?

And how does it help these Christians to know people who "miss the Rapture" will come to know they're *in the Day of the Lord?* That seems brutal and meaningless!

And where on earth are we ever told in the Bible some will be "left behind" after the Lord returns? The common passage of "one being taken and one left* is taken completely out of context. Both the "taken and the "left" were suffering appropriation by the Romans. Some were left to work the fields, and some were taken away as slaves.

Paul never got to read John's book, so perhaps Paul did not know exactly when the Day of the Lord would begin. Perhaps He only knew that when someone saw the revealing of the man of sin, then the day was already ongoing. From John and Daniel, and then from this passage, we know that the week will be divided when then man of sin enters the temple and declares he is the God of the Jews.

We have a very different way of looking at this! The Day of the Lord typically meant for the Jew the day in which they would be delivered for all time, the coming of Messiah's Kingdom.

The 70th Week of Daniel was finished at the Cross. The Abomination of Desolation was the Roman Army in 70 AD.

Antichrist is much later in history. Antichrist will try to take God's seat from Him, which means that he is metaphorically trying to unseat God in His own temple.

Paul certainly understood that such an abomination (a gentile in the Holy of Holies) would stop the daily sacrifices as Daniel told us. A big question is, why did Paul make this one of those verses that Peter wrote of: hard to understand? It is my guess that Paul wrote this so that if it fell into Roman hands they would be clueless to its meaning.

Yes, keeping the Romans ignorant was I'm sure part of it. But I think you're conflating the desecration of Antiochus 4 with the desolation of the Roman Army in 70 AD.

Antiochus' "abomination" may have been a pig sacrifice, or setting idols up in the temple. The Roman "abomination" was their presence at Jerusalem carrying eagle standards, which were pagan idols.

Being pagan, both Antiochus and the Roman Army were "abominations." One desolated by way of sacrilege, and by murdering thousands of Jews. And the other desolated by completely destroying Jerusalem, the temple, and thousands of Jews.

He left us clues. For example, in verse 3b, the man of sin IS revealed. Yet in verses 6-8 he makes it clear that the man of sin CANNOT be revealed until the restraining force is taken out of the way. This leaves only one conclusion: somewhere in 3a the restrainer has been removed. There is only one word that could possibly fit the restrainer being taken out of the way, and that is his word, apostasia. I have studied this compound word. I find what Strong wrote very interesting.

Apostasia is used for the Antichrist's departure from the faith early in 2 Thes 2. The removal of restraint from preventing his coming was believed in the Early Church to be the Roman Empire. Its government had to precede the arrival of Antichrist, and indeed kept the coalition from breaking up into 10 parts, which must take place before Antichrist can be revealed.

1. of separation…
1A. of local separation,
1B. of separation of a part from the whole

1Bi. where of a whole some part is taken
1C. of any kind of separation of one thing from another…
1D. of a state of separation, that is of distance
1Di. physical, of distance of place

At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.

Not at all. The Rapture of the Church happens when Christ comes to gather us. And Paul says that will not happen until *after* Antichrist is revealed. Ultimately, Antichrist is destroyed *at* the coming of Christ to gather his people.

Quite frankly, the disappearance of many millions of Christians from the earth before the rise of Antichrist sounds like a myth. It isn't even believable!

I think that by the time Antichrist is ready to be revealed, the number of actual practicing Christians will be down to a very low number. And when Christ does come at Armageddon, the number raised from the dead will be enormous, but the few caught up to meet him in the air will be rather few and may even go unnoticed in a time of nuclear warfare?

I've heard all of the arguments for "apostasia" meaning "departure of the Church," and it doesn't make sense. Most all of the scholars that I know of would explain "apostasia" to mean a "departure from the Faith." In the context, this is the only way it makes sense to the reader, unless you want to ignore the context altogether?

Christians are not being assured they are not yet under punishment. Rather, Paul is explaining Bible Prophecy, that history is characterized by the ultimate rise of Antichrist. The Kingdom cannot be claimed until after Antichrist arises and is destroyed. All other Kingdoms are false and offer false hope in the present age.

But I have no animosity on this question. I'm just speaking my mind.

 

[iamlamad]

Of course I've heard of it. I've been arguing for Postrib for a very long time, and I've run into these claims that seminal forms of Pretrib did exist earlier in Christian history. Nonetheless, no real school of Pretribulational Theology came into existence by which we can mark our calendar as "the beginning of Pretrib belief."

I disagree. I think those that read Paul's letters and heard him speak believed in his pretribulation rapture. However, just as salvation by faith got lost over the years, to be recovered by Martin Luther and others, so Paul's doctrines are returning to the church. Therefore the "beginning of Pre-trib belief" was Paul himself.

Look at Paul's order: he wrote of the rapture first, (1 Thes. 4:17) then three verses later wrote of the Day of the Lord. A few verses after that he wrote of God's wrath. I had to ask God, "Why would Paul include the Day of the Lord and God's wrath in His classic rapture passage?" I believe the answer is simple: the rapture will be the trigger for the start of the Day of the Lord, that day that "comes with wrath and fierce anger."

This is confirmed in the book of Revelation. As the context of the first seals, John saw (in the vision) Jesus suddenly appear in the throne room, having just ascended. The first thing He did was send the Holy Spirit down. The second thing He did was take the book from the Father's right hand. Then He began opening the seals, right then. No one can find 2000 years in any of those verses, not even trying to read between the lines. That was not God's intent. His intent was that Jesus began opening the seals as soon as He ascended and entered the throne room - so around 32 AD.

Seal 1 then, is to represent the great commission: the church taking the gospel to the world.
Seals 2, 3, and 4 are to represent Satan's attempts to stop the advance of the gospel.

Satan, as the god of this world, of course demanded of God that he be allowed to stop the advance of the gospel. God has allowed Satan to use wars, famines, pestilences and wild beasts to try and stop the gospel - hold it within that one fourth of the earth that God limited them to.

Because Satan is the god of this world, as the gospel advanced, matryrs were killed.

The 5th seal is for the martyrs of the church age. Stephen was surely one of those who cried out to God wondering how long it would be before God would avenge their murders—bring judgment. They were told that judgment (think the Day of the Lord) would not begin until the final martyr was to be killed as they all were killed—as church age martyrs. It seems God is waiting for that final number.

The pre-tribulation rapture will end the church age, and at that moment, the final martyr will have been just killed. Then judgment will be as the Day of the Lord will begin. When? At the 6th seal. The church has been waiting at the 5th seal a long time. Take note that the 6th seal is the very next event John write of after the 5th seal.

John confirmed this again because he saw the just-raptured church in heaven and wrote it in chapter 7—as the great crowd, too large to number. This will probably be billions of people: perhaps 50 generations of saints, plus all the children of the world, all in one place at one time. There will be no greater crowd mentioned in the book of Revelation. (The OT saints including those before the flood may be a larger group, but John does not mention them.)

Why did John write that this huge crowd, too large to number "came out of the great tribulation?" Most readers expect John's answer to be how this huge group got suddenly from earth to heaven—but that is not the answer John was given. Rather, the elder speaking to John explained how each member of this great crowd joined all the others. They each got born again as they washed their robes in the blood of Jesus. The elder never answered the question as to where they came from as a large crowd.

I believe God considers this life on earth as a life of tribulation. John wrote in the first chapter, "I, John, in the tribulation..." But I think God combined all this individual tribulation into one, since he was addressing one huge crowd. So "they" came out of each individual's tribulation, and added together God chose the word Mega or great.

This cannot possibly be referring to the days of great tribulation (GT) Jesus spoke of, for that will not begin until after the division point of the week, and at this point in time, John has not yet even started the week.

In summer, Paul told us his rapture would come just before the start of the DAY, John confirmed that timing with what he wrote at the 5th seal, and God confirmed it by allowing John to see the just-raptured church already in heaven before the week will begin.

This is why I believe the rapture is pre-trib: I know where the rapture is on John's timeline, and I know where the week is. The rapture is going to be pre-trib simply because 6 comes before 7 in counting, and the 6th seal will certainly be opened before the 7th seal is opened.

 

[RandyPNW]

I disagree. I think those that read Paul's letters and heard him speak believed in his pretribulation rapture. However, just as salvation by faith got lost over the years, to be recovered by Martin Luther and others, so Paul's doctrines are returning to the church. Therefore the "beginning of Pre-trib belief" was Paul himself.

That's not very scholarly. You are basing your beliefs on a hunch, rather than on known history? There is no evidence from history that a Pretrib school existed prior to the 1800s. There have been pockets of those who understood, like the Pre-Wrath people, that the Church is not the object of God's final wrath. But that's an argument over what God's "final wrath" is--is it Eternal Judgment, or is it the final conflagration of the age in which people enter into Eternal Judgment?

At any rate, Christians will not, of course, experience Eternal Judgment. I would argue that those who die in the final conflagration of the age are *not* experiencing God's Wrath. Otherwise, if it was "God's Wrath," then certainly it is true that all Christians would be raptured out before that event.

The idea that the entire set of years associated with Antichrist's Reign is "Eternal Judgment" or "Final Wrath" is to me, on its face, an error. We know from Scriptures that martyrs who die under Antichristian rule will not suffer Eternal Judgment and certainly did not experience "Final Wrath!"

Look at Paul's order: he wrote of the rapture first, (1 Thes. 4:17) then three verses later wrote of the Day of the Lord. A few verses after that he wrote of God's wrath. I had to ask God, "Why would Paul include the Day of the Lord and God's wrath in His classic rapture passage?" I believe the answer is simple: the rapture will be the trigger for the start of the Day of the Lord, that day that "comes with wrath and fierce anger."

This involves a discussion of what the "Day of the Lord" is. I don't believe that the Rapture of the Church is here being distinguished from the Day of the Lord. In my view, they are simultaneous.

This is confirmed in the book of Revelation. As the context of the first seals, John saw (in the vision) Jesus suddenly appear in the throne room, having just ascended. The first thing He did was send the Holy Spirit down. The second thing He did was take the book from the Father's right hand. Then He began opening the seals, right then. No one can find 2000 years in any of those verses, not even trying to read between the lines. That was not God's intent. His intent was that Jesus began opening the seals as soon as He ascended and entered the throne room - so around 32 AD.

Actually, this was a vision, and all 7 seals were opened in John's presence. He was seeing what is coming, and not necessarily in chronological order. The number 7 depicts a finality of the events and they lead towards the Lord's rest from sin in the world. They are not necessarily consecutive events. This was a dramatic sequence, but not a chronological sequence.

John confirmed this again because he saw the just-raptured church in heaven and wrote it in chapter 7—as the great crowd, too large to number. This will probably be billions of people: perhaps 50 generations of saints, plus all the children of the world, all in one place at one time. There will be no greater crowd mentioned in the book of Revelation. (The OT saints including those before the flood may be a larger group, but John does not mention them.)

The problem you have, though, is that the Church is viewed in heaven a number of times--and not just at one point in the Revelation account. So either there are multiple "Raptures," or what we are getting is a repeat set of events designed to confirm and magnify the importance of the Christian's goal. We are given a glimpse into our prize to motivate us while we are living now.

Why did John write that this huge crowd, too large to number "came out of the great tribulation?"

That takes place at the end of the age, at Christ's return. That is already an established belief in the Church at the time John gave this revelation. Christians surely did *not* read into this a Pretribulation event! This was the realized hope of the Church, a final deliverance from this sinful world at the coming of Christ.

I believe God considers this life on earth as a life of tribulation. John wrote in the first chapter, "I, John, in the tribulation..." But I think God combined all this individual tribulation into one, since he was addressing one huge crowd. So "they" came out of each individual's tribulation, and added together God chose the word Mega or great.

The "Great Tribulation" actually began with the fall of Jerusalem, indicating that theocratic systems are destined to fall in the present age, leaving the saints vulnerable to persecution. Those who reject God's call fall into "Great Tribulation," such as Israel did when they rejected their Messiah. And European Civilization, having been Christian, is now setting itself up for Great Tribulation as well, because God will punish them as He punished Israel.

This cannot possibly be referring to the days of great tribulation (GT) Jesus spoke of, for that will not begin until after the division point of the week, and at this point in time, John has not yet even started the week.

Actually, the Great Tribulation spoken of in Dan 12.1 and in the Olivet Discourse began in 70 AD, when God turned against the Jewish People in their rebellion against His Son. The Jews have been in Diaspora ever since.

Even after Israel was restored as a nation in 1948 the Jewish People have remained under tribulation, being regularly attacked at the UN and by Islamic forces. And as I said, the fall of Christianity is precipitating new forms of tribulation for those of European extraction.

The Great Tribulation began a long time ago for the Jews, but European Christians have entered into that Tribulation as well, with European Christians being made vulnerable to persecution by Antichristianity. It is all one "Great Tribulation" in the present age, being experienced 1st by Israel and now by the whole formerly Christian world.

 

[keras]

Why did John write that this huge crowd, too large to number "came out of the great tribulation?" Most readers expect John's answer to be how this huge group got suddenly from earth to heaven

The large crowd of people in Revelation 7:9 are on earth. Nowhere in Rev 7, is heaven mentioned, It is a wrong assumption and an error to think they are in heaven. They wave earth grown palm branches.
Those people are those who have stood firm in their faith, during the terrible Day of the Lord's fiery wrath, the just happened Sixth Seal event.

The Great Tribulation began a long time ago for the Jews,

The Great Tribulation of the 7 Trumpets and 7 Bowls, cannot start until the 'beast is in power; for the final 3 1/2 years before Jesus Returns.

Are the Jews being tribulated now? They seem to be able to manage quite well against huge odds.

 

[RandyPNW]

The Great Tribulation of the 7 Trumpets and 7 Bowls, cannot start until the 'beast is in power; for the final 3 1/2 years before Jesus Returns.

Are the Jews being tribulated now? They seem to be able to manage quite well against huge odds.

The Tribulation of the Jews is called the "Great Tribulation" due to its sheer length of time, traversing almost 2000 years, encompassing wandering and potential extermination of the Jewish race. The Jews, though they no longer are homeless, still face intifadas and threats of extermination from Iran.

 

[keras]

The Tribulation of the Jews is called the "Great Tribulation" due to its sheer length of time, traversing almost 2000 years, encompassing wandering and potential extermination of the Jewish race. The Jews, though they no longer are homeless, still face intifadas and threats of extermination from Iran.

Well, I guess what happened to the Jews over the age, their pogroms and the Holocaust, was a 'great tribulation'. But it wasn't the Great Tribulation, as we are told in Revelation; of the 7 Trumpets and the 7 Bowls, which will be directed against all who have taken the mark of the beast.

I have already pointed out to you and to all here, the many prophesies which tell of the virtual demise of the Jews. God will Judge and punish them for their continued rejection of Jesus and only a remnant will survive.
This disaster and the devastation of all the holy Land, will happen at the Sixth Seal, as over 100 Prophesies vividly describe. Zephaniah 1:14-18, +

 

[iamlamad]

That's not very scholarly. You are basing your beliefs on a hunch, rather than on known history? There is no evidence from history that a Pretrib school existed prior to the 1800s. There have been pockets of those who understood, like the Pre-Wrath people, that the Church is not the object of God's final wrath. But that's an argument over what God's "final wrath" is--is it Eternal Judgment, or is it the final conflagration of the age in which people enter into Eternal Judgment?

I look at it this way: the rapture comes just before God's wrath, which wrath begins at the 6th seal. Since the 70th week begins at the 7th seal and with the first trumpet judgment, God has placed the entire week INSIDE the Day of the Lord, so that every judgment of the Week (Every trumpet and every bowl) will come with God's wrath. I don't see any need to define God's wrath any further than what I read at the 6th seal. All we need to know is, we are not going to be here for ANY PART of God's wrath. The rapture which will remove the church will be the trigger for the start of God's wrath.

The prewrather's got mixed up on the signs in the sun and moon, so to make things fit their false theory, tried to MOVE the 6th seal to somewhere in the middle of the last half of the week. ANY theory that attempts to rearrange Revelation to fit will be proven wrong. The 6th seal cannot possibly be moved. It will most certainly be opened before the 7th seal.

 

[iamlamad]

At any rate, Christians will not, of course, experience Eternal Judgment. I would argue that those who die in the final conflagration of the age are *not* experiencing God's Wrath. Otherwise, if it was "God's Wrath," then certainly it is true that all Christians would be raptured out before that event.

I agree, All those in Christ who are caught up in the rapture will have no part in the second death or God's eternal judgment.
There will be MANY who will die as tribulation saints. I think so many that it will make the holocaust seem insignificant. I will agree that God is not angry with the tribulation saints, but since the entire 70th week is God's divine will for earth, they will be under God's wrath. His will for them was that they would have accepted Jesus before the rapture. The price for that mistake will be that they will lose their heads to save their souls.

NOT "all Christians" or all who call themselves "Christian" will be raptured pre-trib. Hebrews 9:28 tells us He will appear to those who are "looking for Him." I find it very difficult to understand how someone who believes they will see the Beast first, will be "looking for Him" tonight.

I firmly believe that all those who are in Christ and looking for HIs coming will be taken out before the 6th seal start of God's wrath.

 

[iamlamad]

The idea that the entire set of years associated with Antichrist's Reign is "Eternal Judgment" or "Final Wrath" is to me, on its face, an error. We know from Scriptures that martyrs who die under Antichristian rule will not suffer Eternal Judgment and certainly did not experience "Final Wrath!"

This involves a discussion of what the "Day of the Lord" is. I don't believe that the Rapture of the Church is here being distinguished from the Day of the Lord. In my view, they are simultaneous.

Of course the 42 month reign of the Beast is not "eternal judgment." It will be the wrath of Satan against God's people, plus the wrath of God against the Jews who have rejected him and against sinners who oppose and hate Him. I agree with your last sentence on "final wrath."

If we look in Isaiah 13, we read that the day of the Lord comes ...I will quote it.
9 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

I don't see any possible way that the rapture fits any word in this sentence. It is the start of God's wrath and the rapture must come BEFORE the start of His wrath. That is why I say that the rapture may well TRIGGER the start of God's wrath. The prewrather's have written that the rapture and the start of the Day of the Lord will be "back to back" events. There must be time for the moon to turn red and the sun to appear black—just what the sun and moon will look like during total eclipses.

Does or will the trumpet judgments "lay the land desolate?" Certainly they will. At the 6th trumpet, one third of earth's population will be killed—perhaps the parable of the tares playing out. Is this "destroying the sinners out of it?" Certainly it is. But the Day of the Lord probably includes the entire millennial reign of Christ.

 

[iamlamad]

Actually, this was a vision, and all 7 seals were opened in John's presence. He was seeing what is coming, and not necessarily in chronological order. The number 7 depicts a finality of the events and they lead towards the Lord's rest from sin in the world. They are not necessarily consecutive events. This was a dramatic sequence, but not a chronological sequence.

The number seven can certainly be used as a number after 6. I am convinced, when John numbered events, it was for their proper sequence. John used the two words, "before" and "after" 41 times in Revelation. I am convinced that John was extremely careful to write chronologically and God was the same in showing John the vision. However, John certainly used the idea of parentheses but had no marks to show them.
I believe, in general, that events in a given chapter will certainly happen AFTER the events of previous chapters and BEFORE events in later chapters, with the exceptions of parentheses and prophecy. Certainly the seals will come before the trumpets and the trumpets before the bowls. Someone once wrote that the 7th trumpet would be sounded at the 6th seal. Such a thing is impossible! The trumpets are written inside the book and the book cannot be opened until all seals are opened first.

 

[RandyPNW]

I look at it this way: the rapture comes just before God's wrath, which wrath begins at the 6th seal. Since the 70th week begins at the 7th seal and with the first trumpet judgment, God has placed the entire week INSIDE the Day of the Lord, so that every judgment of the Week (Every trumpet and every bowl) will come with God's wrath. I don't see any need to define God's wrath any further than what I read at the 6th seal. All we need to know is, we are not going to be here for ANY PART of God's wrath. The rapture which will remove the church will be the trigger for the start of God's wrath.

The prewrather's got mixed up on the signs in the sun and moon, so to make things fit their false theory, tried to MOVE the 6th seal to somewhere in the middle of the last half of the week. ANY theory that attempts to rearrange Revelation to fit will be proven wrong. The 6th seal cannot possibly be moved. It will most certainly be opened before the 7th seal.

Since I don't believe the 70th Week of Daniel fits anywhere near the end of the age, we obviously won't agree on this one. And I certainly don't believe that Christians do not go through periods of "God's Wrath."

A perfect example of this is when believing Jews went through what their entire country went through when God poured His wrath out on Jerusalem and upon the Jewish People. The language describes this as "God's Wrath," or "God's Punishment," being visited upon the Jewish People. But clearly excluded are believing Jews, who also suffer deprivation and pain, and yet are *not* the targets of God's Wrath. God simply allows them to experience the tribulation that their country, as a whole, is going through.

If you think Jeremiah the Prophet did not go through tribulation when his country was being invaded by the Babylonians, then you're not reading your Bible right. He was not personally experiencing "God's Wrath," but he certainly was experiencing the effects of a siege being placed against his people by the Babylonians, who God sent there to punish the Hebrews at that time.

But taking the "70th Week" and then trying to apply it to the "6th Seal" is a sketchy attempt to use symbolic prophecy to be able to read into it what you want to believe. You should believe what biblical doctrine teaches, and not use visions and symbolism to get what you want to see.

 

[iamlamad]

The problem you have, though, is that the Church is viewed in heaven a number of times--and not just at one point in the Revelation account. So either there are multiple "Raptures," or what we are getting is a repeat set of events designed to confirm and magnify the importance of the Christian's goal. We are given a glimpse into our prize to motivate us while we are living now.

I disagree. Only once did John mention this crowd, too large to number, in chapter 7. But yes, I think the church is there in chapter 19, at the marriage and supper. Only once does John show the church coming back to earth, if we are a part of heaven's armies.

I do believe there will be another "rapture" for the 144,000, for when John saw them the second time, they were in heaven. John does not tell us, nor does any other writer except Jesus in John 6, but I believe the Old Testament saints will be caught up at the 7th bowl (on the last day) to come to the marriage. We know they too must have their resurrection day. I believe that terrible earthquake pinpoints that moment in time. When God raises those before the flood, it will cause a GREAT earthquake!

 

[RandyPNW]

I agree, All those in Christ who are caught up in the rapture will have no part in the second death or God's eternal judgment.
There will be MANY who will die as tribulation saints. I think so many that it will make the holocaust seem insignificant. I will agree that God is not angry with the tribulation saints, but since the entire 70th week is God's divine will for earth, they will be under God's wrath. His will for them was that they would have accepted Jesus before the rapture. The price for that mistake will be that they will lose their heads to save their souls.

I hear this all the time from Pretribbers, that God is punishing Christians for having "missed the Rapture" in the 1st place. However, the biblical portrait of the Tribulation Saints is quite different from this! As opposed to the way you depicted it, God is praising them for their endurance and perseverance in faith. They are held up as exemplary, to be rewarded as "faithful." You cast shame on those who die for Christ? The mind boggles!

NOT "all Christians" or all who call themselves "Christian" will be raptured pre-trib. Hebrews 9:28 tells us He will appear to those who are "looking for Him." I find it very difficult to understand how someone who believes they will see the Beast first, will be "looking for Him" tonight.

I firmly believe that all those who are in Christ and looking for HIs coming will be taken out before the 6th seal start of God's wrath.

This is not what is meant by "looking for Christ." And "watching for the Beast" is not competing with "looking for Christ." I would argue that the Bible teaches our "watching for Christ" *requires* that we also *look out for the Beast!* Part of our "watching" and "alertness" has to do with avoiding deceptions from False Christs and False Prophets.

This is the kind of "watchfulness" Christ called us to. It was about living right for the Kingdom now so that whenever it comes we are prepared properly. And we do this by avoiding temptations and liars.

 

[iamlamad]

The "Great Tribulation" actually began with the fall of Jerusalem, indicating that theocratic systems are destined to fall in the present age, leaving the saints vulnerable to persecution. Those who reject God's call fall into "Great Tribulation," such as Israel did when they rejected their Messiah. And European Civilization, having been Christian, is now setting itself up for Great Tribulation as well, because God will punish them as He punished Israel.

Actually, the Great Tribulation spoken of in Dan 12.1 and in the Olivet Discourse began in 70 AD, when God turned against the Jewish People in their rebellion against His Son. The Jews have been in Diaspora ever since.

You are confusing "great tribulation's." "The great tribulation" of "those days" that Jesus spoke of cannot begin until the Beast and False Prophet have arrived on the scene, and they will not be on the scene until after the abomination that will divide the future week. Sorry, Randy, but these things are FUTURE.

John wrote those two words together, "great tribulation" two times, but in neither one was he talking about the days of great tribulation Jesus spoke of. We know this by timing. It seems God has called the entire church age "tribulation" and when he added the tribulation of all those caught up to heaven, He chose to call it great: the combined tribulation of millions if not billions of saints.

What will CAUSE those days of GT Jesus spoke of? It will be when they enforce worshiping the imagine and taking the mark, under threat of losing one's head.

 

[RandyPNW]

Of course the 42 month reign of the Beast is not "eternal judgment." It will be the wrath of Satan against God's people, plus the wrath of God against the Jews who have rejected him and against sinners who oppose and hate Him. I agree with your last sentence on "final wrath."

If we look in Isaiah 13, we read that the day of the Lord comes ...I will quote it.
9 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

I don't see any possible way that the rapture fits any word in this sentence. It is the start of God's wrath and the rapture must come BEFORE the start of His wrath. That is why I say that the rapture may well TRIGGER the start of God's wrath. The prewrather's have written that the rapture and the start of the Day of the Lord will be "back to back" events. There must be time for the moon to turn red and the sun to appear black—just what the sun and moon will look like during total eclipses.

Does or will the trumpet judgments "lay the land desolate?" Certainly they will. At the 6th trumpet, one third of earth's population will be killed—perhaps the parable of the tares playing out. Is this "destroying the sinners out of it?" Certainly it is. But the Day of the Lord probably includes the entire millennial reign of Christ.

1/3 of the earth sometimes means, in biblical prophecy, 1/3 of the territory the prophecy is focusing on. It may or may not be the whole world. It may just be the very large territory the Beast will control, along with the very large territory the Asian kings, who invade Israel, will control.

Regardless, this will be a large example of "God's Wrath" against the world, though obviously this would exclude a minority of Christians who are living out their faith. Let's not confuse their going through the period of time with being the objects of "God's Wrath?" This is a common language problem Pretribbers have, and they always get caught because in the end it is discovered that righteous people always do go through these periods of great tribulation, even though they are not the targets of God's Wrath.

Pre-Wrath adherents at least have it right that believers are here "to the end." So if there is any "Wrath" on earth to be avoided, it has to be only the very last outpouring of Wrath. However, I would argue that if Christians are here during the time of the Beast, and even during times when Wrath is poured out on the wicked, then there is nothing preventing believers from being here to the bitter end. Just like Jesus was here in the time when Israel was at their worst...

 

[iamlamad]

I hear this all the time from Pretribbers, that God is punishing Christians for having "missed the Rapture" in the 1st place. However, the biblical portrait of the Tribulation Saints is quite different from this! As opposed to the way you depicted it, God is praising them for their endurance and perseverance in faith. They are held up as exemplary, to be rewarded as "faithful." You cast shame on those who die for Christ? The mind boggles!

This is not what is meant by "looking for Christ." And "watching for the Beast" is not competing with "looking for Christ." I would argue that the Bible teaches our "watching for Christ" *requires* that we also *look out for the Beast!* Part of our "watching" and "alertness" has to do with avoiding deceptions from False Christs and False Prophets.

This is the kind of "watchfulness" Christ called us to. It was about living right for the Kingdom now so that whenever it comes we are prepared properly. And we do this by avoiding temptations and liars.

How can it be seen a punishment when God holds not animosity toward those that love Him? It is NOT punishement. The problem is, God has created or planned only ONE "escape" from the days of GT, and that escape is the rapture. If one missing the rapture, they are going to face the Antichrist Beast—not as a punishment but as God keeping to His written word.

Did you not read?
Matthew 24:42
Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Matthew 25:13
Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

We are told to be watching for JESUS. There is not one verse anywhere that tells us to be watching for the Beast.

There is a confirming word:
8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

I take "looking for" as literally as I can. The Amplified wrote: "[eagerly, constantly, and patiently] waiting for and expecting Him."

Can someone be waiting for and expecting Christ first, when in their heart they believe they will see the Beast first? I doubt it.