Daniel 7 helps prove when Revelation 20:4 is meaning

[Timtofly]

Randy, please go back and edit your post #63. In constructing your post, you mistakenly quoted me as saying certain things. It was not me. You got me mixed up with somebody else.

That was not even from this thread.

 

[RandyPNW]

Randy, HOW can they be "one" when the revealing cannot happen until the departing takes place FIRST. This alone proves the two cannot be one, for one is dependant upon the other.

Simple. The "apostasia" is not the removal of restraint, as you seem to suppose. Rather, it is a departure from the faith initiated in full by Antichrist. It has actually been happening in Europe for a very long time! So the departure from the faith is a reference to what Antichrist does when he is revealed. There is no 1st departure and then revelation. Antichrist is revealed and leads a complete departure from the faith.

This theory is further advanced because right after the pretrib rapture, the 70th week will take place.

I see the 70th Week as fulfilled at the 1st Advent of Christ.

Another proof that Christ will come again ONLY for the Gentile (mostly) church of today is that John SAW the church in heaven right after the start of the Day of His Wrath.

You are reading this into the text. It is not being explicitly taught: 1st the Rapture of the Gentile Church, and then the 2nd Coming. It would've been easy for the Lord to say if that's what He wanted to say. He didn't.

On the other hand, Paul explicitly taught 1st the Revelation of Antichrist, and then the 2nd Coming for the Church. Explicit Teaching means we should believe it. It is *not* reading into the text a particular doctrine we presuppose.

There are saints in heaven presently waiting to return with Christ. They are the departed saints. But before they come back Christians who survive Armageddon will be caught up with them so as to be part of Christ's glorious revelation to the earth.

This will happen in the twinkling of an eye. It will not require any space of time between the time the saints are caught up and the time they return in glorious new bodies. It will take place in a mere second.

 

[RandyPNW]

He will probably be surrounded by clouds of glory in both comings. However, when He comes pretrib FOR His church He does not continue on down to the ground. Rather, He will escort the church to heaven as John 14 tells us. It is the prefect Jewish wedding. The Bridegroom goes to prepare a home, and when the Father is satisfied, he tells the son to go and get his bride and bring her home to the home he has just prepared.

Again I agree that Revelation 19 can be compared to Matthew 24, for they both take place "after the tribulation of those days."

On the other hand, Paul tells us His coming for His Bride will be a coming just before wrath - and John tells us that God's wrath will begin just before the week begins - at the 6th seal in Rev. 6.

My axiom on Revelation: ANY theory that must rearrange John's God given chronology is immediately suspect and will certainly be proven wrong.

Pre-wrathers have always been confused on timing, as they try to force a time after the tribulation of those days with the timing of the 6th seal, which is before the tribulation. Trying to warp time to make a theory fit just doesn't work.

What the Bible tells us is that being saved through Christ we are saved from the Wrath of God. I don't see an order of Salvation, then Wrath? Where is this order?

 

[RandyPNW]

That was not even from this thread.

Yes, of course. On occasion I make this mistake. Sorry.

Something I copy onto my clipboard stays on my computer no matter what forum or thread I'm on.

 

[iamlamad]

Again, as I said, if it's talking about the departure of the church then that would mean Paul was saying that the departure of the church had to occur first before the departure of the church, which obviously does not make sense. He very clearly indicated that the departure had to occur before the day that Jesus comes and we're gathered to Him.

How do you come up with something this silly? Do you equate the rapture with the Day of the Lord? Isaiah 13 tells us the Day of the Lord will come with wrath and fierce anger. Sorry, but that does not even sound like the rapture. Indeed, it cannot be the DAY begins with the Rapture. Rather, the rapture will come FIRST and trigger the start of the DAY.

Did you not notice that in 1 Thes. 4 & 5, Paul mentions the Day of the Lord just 3 verses after His classic rapture verse of our Lord descending, calling up the dead in Christ first, then those who are alive and in Christ? Why would Paul mention the DAY just after the rapture? I submit it is because the DAY will start immediately after the rapture. Next, Paul mentioned God's wrath in the same rapture passage. That makes perfect sense because the DAY is associated and will come with Wrath. What you seem to be missing is that the DAY comes FIRST in this passage. So Paul is telling us:

Church age -> ->RAPTURE->DAY of the LORD->WRATH

So I will change your pet saying to reflect what Paul wrote in His first letter:

"Paul was saying that the departure of the church had to occur first before the Day of the Lord."

This makes perfect sense.

I fully understand that the Greek word, like most Greek words, has more than one definition. However, the only other time the Greek word apostasia is used in scripture it has to do with people falling away from the teachings of the law of Moses. That's something worth taking into consideration here.

It would be nice of God chose to explain things more fully, but we have only what He has given us, and He expects us to understand it.

The timing of the departure in relation to the revealing has nothing to do with the point I'm making. What Paul indicated is that BOTH the departure AND the revealing of the man of sin had to occur first BEFORE Christ's coming and out being gathered to Him.

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;

This couldn't be more clear. The falling away has to occur before we are gathered to Christ at His second coming. It's not a good look for you to deny something so obvious.

I'm not just going to take your word for this. Where are you getting this from? And how do you think it should read instead?

Ah, so you trust the Amplified version. Okay then, let's see what the Amplified version shows Paul as saying.

2 Thess 2:1 (AMP) Now in regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to meet Him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to be quickly unsettled or alarmed either by a [so-called prophetic revelation of a] spirit or a message or a letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive or entrap you, for that day will not come unless the apostasy comes first [that is, the great rebellion, the abandonment of the faith by professed Christians], and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction [the Antichrist, the one who is destined to be destroyed],

Where are you seeing the word "present" here? Anyway, look at this. The Amplified version calls the departure "the great rebellion, the abandonment of the faith by professed Christians". So, if you're going to rely on the Amp. version for saying "at hand" should say "present" instead, then why not accept how the Amp. version translates the meaning of the apostasia as well?

No, the church will not have to depart before the church departs. That is silly. Stick with what is written! The church must depart before the man of sin will be revealed, because the Holy Spirit is using the church to restrain or hold back the revealing. The basis of Paul's argument is simple: by the time the man of sin is revealed, the DAY will have already started and will be present.

That isn't what Paul said.

A mass falling away from the faith is what will reveal the true beliefs of some people. They will be exposed as essentially believing they are God because they will have decided they don't need God and don't want to serve God.

If that happens, great. I hope it does. But, you do understand that scripture teaches that there will be a time period of increased wickedness just before the end of the age when Christ returns, right? Jesus Himself talked about it here:

Matthew 24:10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and hall hate one another. 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

I believe in 2nd Thess 2 Paul was writing about the same thing Jesus talked about here.

You have missed two critical things here for a correct understanding.

AMP not to be quickly unsettled or alarmed either by a [so-called prophetic revelation of a] spirit or a message or a letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] come.
AMPC Not to allow your minds to be quickly unsettled or disturbed or kept excited or alarmed, whether it be by some [pretended] revelation of [the] Spirit or by word or by letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] arrived and is here.
CSB not to be easily upset or troubled, either by a prophecy or by a message or by a letter supposedly from us, alleging that the day of the Lord has come.
CEB We don’t want you to be easily confused in your mind or upset if you hear that the day of the Lord is already here, whether you hear it through some spirit, a message, or a letter supposedly from us.
CJB not to be easily shaken in your thinking or anxious because of a spirit or a spoken message or a letter supposedly from us claiming that the Day of the Lord has already come.
CEV not to be easily upset or disturbed by people who claim the Lord has already come. They may say they heard this directly from the Holy Spirit, or from someone else, or even that they read it in one of our letters.
DARBY that ye be not soon shaken in mind, nor troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as [if it were] by us, as that the day of the Lord is present.

There are more I could have posted. The Greek word is enistēmi and it is a perfect tense verb. The perfect tense shows us an action completed, NOT an action about to happen. The king James MISSED it here, translating it as "at hand. It gets worse.

A direct translation from the Greek for verse 3:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 3

The KJV translaters, having MISSED the truth of verse 2, ADDED WORDS:
[that day shall not come],

Where did they come up with these added words? From their faulty translation of verse 2: that the Day was about to come.

People read verse 3 like this:
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;

If they added words, it should be more like this:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not have arrived and be present], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Young's literal is about the only translation that does verse 3 correctly:

YLT let not any one deceive you in any manner, because -- if the falling away may not come first, and the man of sin be revealed -- the son of the destruction,

Here is a copy paste from your post:
for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first,

You underlined words that Paul did not write - and they are WRONG words that throw people off from the truth. It would have been MUCH better if they wrote, "that day shall not be present..."

I am convinced Paul did not teach a pre-wrath rapture in His first letter, and a post-trib rapture in His second letter. Neither God nor Paul would do such a thing. Since Paul's first letter is very clear on the order: rapture first, then The Day and Wrath, we should understand his second letter the same way. Read this the way Paul wrote it again:

YLT 2 that ye be not quickly shaken in mind, nor be troubled, neither through spirit, neither through word, neither through letters as through us, as that the day of Christ hath arrived;
3 let not any one deceive you in any manner, because -- if the falling away may not come first, and the man of sin be revealed -- the son of the destruction,

So what is Paul telling us? What will be the case if someone sees a departing first, then sees the man of sin revealed? What then? Fall back to verse 2 for the answer: the Day of Christ or the Day of the Lord will have arrived and be present.

It seems that Paul believed the rapture will be the trigger for the DAY, and that is just what Revelation shows us.

At seal 5, the martyrs of the church age, they were told that judgment would not begin until the full number of church age martyrs will have been killed. It seems God is looking for a certain number. Then what? Then judgment starts. John starts judgment with the 6th seal, which is the start of God's wrath or the Day of His wrath or the Day of the Lord.

So according to Paul, the rapture would have to come just before the 6th seal, and according to John, just after the 5th seal or after the final church age martyr. (Killed as they were - as church age martyrs).

John then confirms this when He saw the just raptured church in heaven shortly after the 6th seal is opened.

 

[DavidPT]

Though I don't see how the timing of the rapture has any relevance to the OP, what does have relevance to the OP is the 42 month reign of the beast since it matters as to when it begins and when it ends, in relation to the thousand years.

If we compare some of what is recorded in Revelation 20:4 with that of some of what is recorded in Revelation 13, what does this reveal about the timing of the thousand years? That it precedes the 42 month reign? Or that it follows the 42 month reign?

and I saw the souls of them----which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands(Revelation 20:4)

This raises several questions.

A) Which beast did they not worship?

B) Which image did they not worship?

C) Which mark did they not receive upon their foreheads, nor in their hands?

Obviously, thus undeniable, Revelation 13 answers all of these questions.

The following is in answer to A).

Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

D) What we have to keep in mind is this---The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit---Revelation 17:8. Verse 3 indicates---one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed. When should we assume this is meaning? During when the beast 'was', meaning before it is ever in the pit? During when 'it is not', meaning while it is in the pit? Or during when 'it shall ascend out of the bottomless pit', meaning when it is no longer in the pit? This is important, because clearly the martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4, which had not worshiped the beast, they were already martyred because of this way before satan is ever loosed from the pit.

E) Which then raises some more questions. Are they martyred for having not worshiped the beast, before the thousand years begin? Or are they martyred for having not worshiped the beast, during the thousand years itself?

Getting back to A), B), and C), let's now focus on B), in regards to this in Revelation 20:4---neither his image.

Since Revelation 13 answers this as well, let's go there and find the answer.

B) Which image did they not worship?

Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth ; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him , and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed .
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast ; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

This image does not only involve the first beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live, it also involves a 2nd beast. Since I already asked, pertaining to A), what is in the paragraph I labeled D) above, all of that applies here as well since it obviously involves the same beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And when we get to C), what I asked in D) equally applies to that as well.

As to what I labeled paragraph E), instead of just that, now this as well--- Are they martyred for having not worshiped the beast, nor it's image, before the thousand years begin? Or are they martyred for having not worshiped the beast, nor it's image, during the thousand years itself?

And finally C).

C) Which mark did they not receive upon their foreheads, nor in their hands?

Revelation 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

What I have underlined is what the saints recorded in Revelation 20:4 did not receive, thus are martyred because of it. Which then makes paragraph E) now this--- Are they martyred for having not worshiped the beast, nor it's image, and for refusing to receive a mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands, before the thousand years begin? Or are they martyred for having not worshiped the beast, nor it's image, and for refusing to receive a mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands, during the thousand years itself?

Keeping in mind that they are martyred before satan is ever loosed. Which then only leaves 2 options as to when they are martyred. They are martyred before the thousand years begin. Or they are martyred during the thousand years itself. Which then brings up something else, Revelation 13:5 and the reigning of the beast for 42 months. Since everything else I brought up in Revelation 13 is applicable to how and when the saints recorded in Revelation 20:4 are martyred, then so must this 42 months be applicable to them as well. Obviously then, they are martyred during it's 42 month reign.

If they are martyred during it's 42 month reign before the thousand years begin, the only logical place to place the the thousand years in that case, is after the 2nd coming. If they are martyred during the thousand years itself, obviously, the only logical place to place the thousand years in that case, is prior to the 2nd coming, except there is nothing logical about this at all. It causes several contradictions. It would mean they are being martyred when both satan and the beast are in the pit during the thousand years.

As if it makes sense that the world would be worshiping 2 entities depicted bound in a pit, rather than worshiping them when they are fully active in the earth. It would also mean that the 42 months parallel the thousand years, which makes zero sense. It would also mean that the 42 months can't apply to satan's little season if it already applies to the thousand years. Which then contradicts the fact that Christ returns at the end of the beast's 42 month reign.

One final point, in regards to the 42 month reign of the beast, in relation to this---The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit---Revelation 17:8---as pertaing to these recorded in Revelation 20:4---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands---the fact they are obviously martyred during the beast's 42 month reign.

Which status of the beast--was---is not--or---ascends out of the pit--does this 42 months best fit? If we answer 'was', this indicates we are placing the 42 months prior to the first advent. If we answer 'is not', this means we are placing the 42 months during the time of John seeing these visions. If we answer 'ascends out of the pit', this means that the beast either acends out of the pit before the thousand years even begin, or that it ascends out of the pit sometime during the thousand years since it can't ascend out of the pit after the thousand years if these recorded in Revealtion 20:4 have already been martyred way before that.

Obviously then, not only does the OP prove that the thousand years fit after the 2nd coming, so does everything I submitted in this post prove it as well.

 

[iamlamad]

Simple. The "apostasia" is not the removal of restraint, as you seem to suppose. Rather, it is a departure from the faith initiated in full by Antichrist. It has actually been happening in Europe for a very long time! So the departure from the faith is a reference to what Antichrist does when he is revealed. There is no 1st departure and then revelation. Antichrist is revealed and leads a complete departure from the faith.

(Emphasis added.)
Really? Let's look:

6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
Something is restraining or holding back the revealing - and we are not suppose to know

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let [restrain - hold back], until he be taken out of the way. The power restraining or holding back the revealing will continue to hold back the revealing until He is taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
And what will happen when the power restraining is taken out of the way? Then the man of sin will be revealed.

Make no mistake here: what is being restrained or held back or prevented from coming to pass is the revealing.

CEB Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way. That day won’t come unless the rebellion comes first and the person who is lawless is revealed, who is headed for destruction.

What happens when he is revealed? The next verse tells us.

CEB He is the opponent of every so-called god or object of worship and promotes himself over them. So he sits in God’s temple, displaying himself to show that he is God.

This is proof that in 3b when Paul wrote that he "is revealed," he really was (in Paul's argument) He will then proclaim himself as God.

The huge question then is, HOW in the world did he, the man of sin, get revealed in 3b in light of verses 6-8? The only possible explanation is that somewhere in 3a the power restraining or holding back had to have been "taken out of the way."

We are left with two possibilities: a falling away (from what Paul did not specify) that was the restraining power taken out of the way or else the departing of the church as in the rapture as the restraining power taken out of the way. It must be one or the other, for Paul to write that the man of sin IS revealed in 3b.

Therefore I find no other possibility that hidden in "apostasia" IS the restraining power taken out of the way. No other words in 3a could possibly be anything taken out of the way.

 

[iamlamad]

I see the 70th Week as fulfilled at the 1st Advent of Christ.

Then I don't think you are seeing it as God and John see it.
Consider what Jesus said, those in Judea must flee when they see the abomination. We find that fleeing in Revelation 12:6. According to Dan. 9:27 it will be the abomination that will divide the week. Therefore the week is divided very close to Rev. 12:6.

This is further proven by John's 5 separate countdowns from the midpoint of the week (you think is history) to the end of the week.

Have you tried to find the trumpet judgments in history?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I appreciate your congenial manner in these discussions also. Since we are not clones, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

I believe the topic Paul addresses in vs 1 "by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him". The Church will gather together with the Lord when the Church departs out of this world to meet the Lord in the air. And at that time lawless mankind will be revealed and destroyed by His coming, and this world will also be destroyed by fire. Paul says since the Church has not yet departed it is clear that Christ has not yet come, though some were apparently saying He had.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but it's not clear to me. Is it your view that Paul was saying that the gathering together of the church unto Christ can't happen until the church first departs from the earth? If so, isn't that pretty obvious? It goes without saying that meeting with Christ "in the air" (as Paul wrote about previously) would require us departing the earth, doesn't it? Was he really making such an obvious point like that in 2 Thess 2? If so, why?

I don't believe Paul is saying that men who possess the Holy Spirit will depart from the faith. If he is, we need to explain this contradiction, because I firmly believe that Scripture gives us great assurance of eternal salvation. So what does Paul mean when he speaks of some in latter times departing from the faith?

These men cannot possess the Spirit and the fruit of faith that comes from Him. I believe departing from "the" faith here is to "giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron". IOW they were being led by seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, because they were liars, and hypocrites, with seared consciences. It is in this ungodly doctrine that they had fallen away from the words (Gospel) of saving faith and good doctrine. It wasn't that they possessed saving faith and then fall away to condemnation. It cannot be!

1 Timothy 4:1-6 (KJV) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

If these who fall away had possessed the Spirit of truth they would not have fallen away from faith that saves, faith that gives all glory to God.

John 16:13-14 (KJV) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Again, I am not interested in debating OSAS vs. NOSAS here in this thread. But, regardless of what the departure from the faith in the latter times means in 1 Timothy 4, why can't that be what Paul was talking about in 2 Thess 2 as well?

Paul seems to be saying the evidence will be so clearly revealed that there will be no mistake when the Church is gathered together with the Lord in the air, it will be apparent to all the world the final day of this age has come.

In the case of the revealing of the man of sin, that may be true. I don't think the departure/falling away necessarily occurs at the exact same time as the revealing of the man of sin.

With all of this said, I'd like to get some clarification on your understanding of something. Do you believe there will be a short time period before Christ's return when wickedness is increased? Is that not what Jesus talked about in Matthew 24:10-14 and is that not what is implied in Revelation 20:7-9?

 

[RandyPNW]

Then I don't think you are seeing it as God and John see it.
Consider what Jesus said, those in Judea must flee when they see the abomination. We find that fleeing in Revelation 12:6. According to Dan. 9:27 it will be the abomination that will divide the week. Therefore the week is divided very close to Rev. 12:6.

The fleeing in the Olivet Discourse and the fleeing in Rev 12 are two separate events, in my opinion. Aside from "fleeing," I see no real connection. To think two events must be the same because of one word like "fleeing" is an interpretive fallacy.

The entire context of the Olivet Discourse concerns the time when the temple is attacked and destroyed, which could only have been 66-70 AD, when the Roman Army, the "Abomination of Desolation," made 2 separate trips to Jerusalem.

By contrast, the Woman fleeing the Dragon concerns the time of the reign of Antichrist, who reigns for 3.5 years. Two different events in two different times.

This is further proven by John's 5 separate countdowns from the midpoint of the week (you think is history) to the end of the week.

There are no "countdowns" in the book of Revelation that I know of? Such an idea would have to be an insertion, since there is no explicit connection between the book of Revelation and Daniel's 70th Week.

Have you tried to find the trumpet judgments in history?

I believe the Trumpet Judgments are future history, and have not happened yet. I said Daniel's 70th Week was fulfilled in the past--not the book of Revelation! I'm not a Preterist!

 

[iamlamad]

You are reading this into the text. It is not being explicitly taught: 1st the Rapture of the Gentile Church, and then the 2nd Coming. It would've been easy for the Lord to say if that's what He wanted to say. He didn't.

On the other hand, Paul explicitly taught 1st the Revelation of Antichrist, and then the 2nd Coming for the Church. Explicit Teaching means we should believe it. It is *not* reading into the text a particular doctrine we presuppose.

(Emphasis added.)

You are reading that into the text. What you wrote is not explicitly written.

What must come first is a significant departing that is also the power restraining being taken out of the way. That is explicitly taught. Let's look what Paul wrote.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
This is what comes first: the rapture of the church.
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Still the rapture of the church.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
The rapture is to be a comfort. It will be a comfort to ever be with the Lord.
1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.

2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
Take careful note that in Paul's mind the rapture comes before the start of the DAY.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
...
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.
In Paul's mind, immediately after those who are alive and remain (not caught up) then sudden destruction will come upon those who are NOT in Christ and NOT caught up.

Next, Paul mentions WRATH. It appears to me that Paul is associating the "sudden Destruction" with Wrath. Then notice whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. This is saying "so shall we ever be with the Lord," only using different words. This is proof Paul is still talking about the rapture events.

Paul's order then is RAPTURE->Day of the Lord->Sudden Destruction->Wrath.

In 2 Thes. We find this same progression ONLY if we consider apostasia as the departing of the church.
Apostasia first (as the departing of the church and as the restraining power taken out of the way), then the revealing and then people know the DAY has started and is present.

 

[iamlamad]

There are saints in heaven presently waiting to return with Christ. They are the departed saints. But before they come back Christians who survive Armageddon will be caught up with them so as to be part of Christ's glorious revelation to the earth.

This will happen in the twinkling of an eye. It will not require any space of time between the time the saints are caught up and the time they return in glorious new bodies. It will take place in a mere second.

This may sound good in someone's imagination, but for this to be true, one would have to MOVE the start of the Day of the Lord from Revelation 6 (where God and John put it) to Revelation 19 where Jesus comes to Armageddon. Why?

It is simple: Paul places the start of the Day AFTER the rapture or the departing. (Paul's letters MUST agree. If it seems his second letter does not agree with his first letter, then there must be a misunderstanding somewhere.)

 

[Spiritual Jew]

How do you come up with something this silly?

It's not silly at all. I find your doctrine to be silly...at best. I have other words for it besides "silly", but I'll keep those to myself.

Do you equate the rapture with the Day of the Lord?

It happens on the day of the Lord, yes. That is what Paul indicated in 1 Thess 4:14-5:9. I suppose you are one of those people who makes the mistake of thinking 1 Thess 4:14-17 and 1 Thess 5:1-3 are completely separate events that happen at entirely different times. That is not the case. Just read 2 Thess 1:7-10 and you can see that Paul talked about Jesus both gathering with His people AND destroying His enemies on the same day when He is revealed.

Isaiah 13 tells us the Day of the Lord will come with wrath and fierce anger.

It will. That is made clear in 1 Thess 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 as well. But, scripture also teaches that we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air on that day. You should not read Isaiah 13 in isolation and draw conclusions from it. We need to read all of the scriptures relating to the day of the Lord. Not all of them contain all the same details. How can you not know this?

Sorry, but that does not even sound like the rapture.

Why does the rapture need to be mentioned in every passage about the day of the Lord? It's silly to expect that.

Indeed, it cannot be the DAY begins with the Rapture. Rather, the rapture will come FIRST and trigger the start of the DAY.

How do you come up with something this silly? You need to understand that 1 Thess 4:14-5:9 is all about one event, namely the second coming of Christ and it talks about the things that will happen on the day He comes from heaven.

Did you not notice that in 1 Thes. 4 & 5, Paul mentions the Day of the Lord just 3 verses after His classic rapture verse of our Lord descending, calling up the dead in Christ first, then those who are alive and in Christ? Why would Paul mention the DAY just after the rapture?

Because the rapture occurs on the same day. He did not just completely change subjects in 1 Thess 5:1. The translators made a big mistake by putting a chapter break there.

I submit it is because the DAY will start immediately after the rapture.

But, what Paul describes in 1 Thess 5:2-3 is complete destruction from which "they shall not escape" which lines up with what Peter said will happen on the day of the Lord in 2 Peter 3:10-12. This idea of a time period of years happening after what is described there is just plain silly.

Next, Paul mentioned God's wrath in the same rapture passage. That makes perfect sense because the DAY is associated and will come with Wrath. What you seem to be missing is that the DAY comes FIRST in this passage.

Wrong. Our being caught up AND the wrath occur on the same day. That is what Paul taught here as well:

2 Thessalonians 1:6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

Read verse 10 here. On what day will Jesus come "to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed"? That will happen on the day of the rapture, will it not? Of course it will. But, look at what else Paul said will happen on that day. He will punish (take vengeance on - KJV) all who don't know God and don't obey the gospel. That's the "sudden destruction" that Paul said will occur on the day of the Lord from which "they shall not escape". He clearly taught that the rapture AND the wrath of Christ will occur on the same day. To deny this is nothing short of silly.

So Paul is telling us:

Church age -> ->RAPTURE->DAY of the LORD->WRATH

So I will change your pet saying to reflect what Paul wrote in His first letter:

"Paul was saying that the departure of the church had to occur first before the Day of the Lord."

The departure of the church will happen on the day of the Lord! You are butchering the text horribly. Look at it closely.

2 Thess 2:1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

It's obvious here that Paul equated "the day of the Lord" and "that day" with "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him". But, here you are trying to say that our being gathered to Him happens on an entirely different day than the day of the Lord. That is not what Paul taught at all!

This makes perfect sense.

It makes no sense at all. I think someone saying that 1 + 1 = 3 would make more sense than your doctrine.

You have missed two critical things here for a correct understanding.

AMP not to be quickly unsettled or alarmed either by a [so-called prophetic revelation of a] spirit or a message or a letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] come.
AMPC Not to allow your minds to be quickly unsettled or disturbed or kept excited or alarmed, whether it be by some [pretended] revelation of [the] Spirit or by word or by letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] arrived and is here.
CSB not to be easily upset or troubled, either by a prophecy or by a message or by a letter supposedly from us, alleging that the day of the Lord has come.
CEB We don’t want you to be easily confused in your mind or upset if you hear that the day of the Lord is already here, whether you hear it through some spirit, a message, or a letter supposedly from us.
CJB not to be easily shaken in your thinking or anxious because of a spirit or a spoken message or a letter supposedly from us claiming that the Day of the Lord has already come.
CEV not to be easily upset or disturbed by people who claim the Lord has already come. They may say they heard this directly from the Holy Spirit, or from someone else, or even that they read it in one of our letters.
DARBY that ye be not soon shaken in mind, nor troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as [if it were] by us, as that the day of the Lord is present.

There are more I could have posted. The Greek word is enistēmi and it is a perfect tense verb. The perfect tense shows us an action completed, NOT an action about to happen. The king James MISSED it here, translating it as "at hand. It gets worse.

A direct translation from the Greek for verse 3:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 3

The KJV translaters, having MISSED the truth of verse 2, ADDED WORDS:
[that day shall not come],

Where did they come up with these added words? From their faulty translation of verse 2: that the Day was about to come.

People read verse 3 like this:
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;

If they added words, it should be more like this:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not have arrived and be present], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Young's literal is about the only translation that does verse 3 correctly:

YLT let not any one deceive you in any manner, because -- if the falling away may not come first, and the man of sin be revealed -- the son of the destruction,

Here is a copy paste from your post:
for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first,

You underlined words that Paul did not write - and they are WRONG words that throw people off from the truth. It would have been MUCH better if they wrote, "that day shall not be present..."

What in the world are you trying to say here? I can't make any sense out of anything you're saying here. What Paul was saying is that they should not believe anyone trying to say that the day of the Lord had already come or was at hand because certain things had to occur first which had not yet happened. Since those things had not yet happened, it wasn't possible that the day of the Lord had come yet. That's clearly what Paul was saying. Your attempts to make him as saying otherwise are shameful.

I am convinced Paul did not teach a pre-wrath rapture in His first letter, and a post-trib rapture in His second letter. Neither God nor Paul would do such a thing. Since Paul's first letter is very clear on the order: rapture first, then The Day and Wrath, we should understand his second letter the same way. Read this the way Paul wrote it again:

What is clear in his first letter is that the rapture happens first and then the wrath ON THE SAME DAY. Just like he taught in 2 Thess 1:6-10. It seems that you are shamefully trying to twist what Paul said. I believe you are butchering the text horribly.

 

[RandyPNW]

(Emphasis added.)
Really? Let's look:

6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
Something is restraining or holding back the revealing - and we are not suppose to know

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let [restrain - hold back], until he be taken out of the way. The power restraining or holding back the revealing will continue to hold back the revealing until He is taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
And what will happen when the power restraining is taken out of the way? Then the man of sin will be revealed.

Make no mistake here: what is being restrained or held back or prevented from coming to pass is the revealing.

This is the problem. Of course I think the restraint of Antichrist's appearance happens before Antichrist appears! But I don't believe it anywhere says that the restraint of Antichrist's appearance is, in fact, the revelation of Antichrist!

CEB Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way. That day won’t come unless the rebellion comes first and the person who is lawless is revealed, who is headed for destruction.

What happens when he is revealed? The next verse tells us.

CEB He is the opponent of every so-called god or object of worship and promotes himself over them. So he sits in God’s temple, displaying himself to show that he is God.

This is proof that in 3b when Paul wrote that he "is revealed," he really was (in Paul's argument) He will then proclaim himself as God.

How does this prove that the restraint of Antichrist's appearance is the appearance, or revelation, of Antichrist? It only proves that once the restraint of Antichrist is lifted, the Antichrist is revealed!

The huge question then is, HOW in the world did he, the man of sin, get revealed in 3b in light of verses 6-8? The only possible explanation is that somewhere in 3a the power restraining or holding back had to have been "taken out of the way."

Again, this proves nothing. Obviously, this is cause and effect. If the restraint of someone's appearance is removed, that person may be revealed! It doesn't in the least mean or imply that the thing restraining that person is itself the person!

We are left with two possibilities: a falling away (from what Paul did not specify) that was the restraining power taken out of the way or else the departing of the church as in the rapture as the restraining power taken out of the way. It must be one or the other, for Paul to write that the man of sin IS revealed in 3b.

No, those are not the only 2 possibilities in interpreting the relationship between the Restrainer and the Antichrist! In fact, nothing at all suggests the Restraint of Antichrist is the Antichrist!

The Restrainer is, I believe, the Roman Government, the 4th Beast of Dan 7, who unites the Roman Empire, preventing the breakup of that Empire into 10 nations. Antichrist is thus prevented from appearing, since he can only come after the Empire is broken up to unify it under himself. That is explicitly what Dan 7 teaches!

My guess is that's why Paul emphasized a Restrainer, and did not name it. Naming it in the presence of Roman authority would get him jailed. And he surely knew the only prophecy in the Bible that explicitly spoke of Antichrist, the Little Horn! That was Dan 7.

Therefore I find no other possibility that hidden in "apostasia" IS the restraining power taken out of the way. No other words in 3a could possibly be anything taken out of the way.

Restraining power is not "hidden" in "apostasia." If you base your doctrine on "hidden things," you have no doctrine to stand on. The doctrine comes from Dan 7. You'd be better served to spend your time studying that. That's what I believe Paul was referring to, and he implied as much without being too specific.

2 Thes 2.5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.

 

[iamlamad]

The fleeing in the Olivet Discourse and the fleeing in Rev 12 are two separate events, in my opinion. Aside from "fleeing," I see no real connection. To think two events must be the same because of one word like "fleeing" is an interpretive fallacy.

The entire context of the Olivet Discourse concerns the time when the temple is attacked and destroyed, which could only have been 66-70 AD, when the Roman Army, the "Abomination of Desolation," made 2 separate trips to Jerusalem.

By contrast, the Woman fleeing the Dragon concerns the time of the reign of Antichrist, who reigns for 3.5 years. Two different events in two different times.

It is amazing how two people can read the same scriptures and imagine they are meaning things so apposed to each other.

Let's link all these things together:
What are they to flee from? Jesus said from the abomination. Daniel 9:27 tell us that the week will be divided in half. (The half is the definition of the Hebrew word translated as "midst."

That is why, when I was reading that passage one day, when my eyes and my mind got to the word "midst" suddenly God spoke and said, "you could find that exact midpoint clearly marked in the book of Revelation." This agrees with Daniel's meaning of midst.

God has given us nine scriptures that prove the week of 7 years will be divided in half. They are given as time, times and half of time, 42 months, and as 1260 days.

What did John write after 12:6? How about 12:14?

14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
Who is "the woman?" For this we must look at:

12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

This is John describing the constellation VIRGO at the moment Jesus was born. Mary was from Israel. The 12 stars represent the 12 tribes of Israel. The "woman" that flees will be a subset of "Israel" the nation. "Given two wings of a great Eagle" reminds us of:

Exodus 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.

WHO escaped from Egypt? Again, it was the woman, ISRAEL.

What did John write after chapter 12? He wrote that he saw the Beast rising. He will rise to power AFTER He has been revealed. Therefore, chapter 13 is proof that He was revealed before that, like chapter 12 or chapter 11. (God shows me that the 7th trumpet will sound when the man of sin enters the temple and declares he is the God of the Jews.)

Then chapter 13 tells us what the man of sin turned BEAST will do once he has risen to power. He will cause the days of Great Tribulation Jesus told us about. What did He say?

" For then shall be great tribulation..." WHEN" Right after the Abomination.

All this shows us that John is following Jesus' chronology perfectly. It also is confirmation that the fleeing in 12:6 is the very same fleeing Jesus mentioned.

There are no "countdowns" in the book of Revelation that I know of? Such an idea would have to be an insertion, since there is no explicit connection between the book of Revelation and Daniel's 70th Week.

I believe the Trumpet Judgments are future history, and have not happened yet. I said Daniel's 70th Week was fulfilled in the past--not the book of Revelation! I'm not a Preterist!

11:2 the 42 months. What is the meaning? The meaning is, starting right there at the timing of that verse, the city will be trampled for the NEXT 42 months. That is a countdown. It will end when the Week ends, at the 7th vial where John wrote, "it is done."

11:3 what is the 1260 days? The meaning is, from that moment in time, a moment after the 42 months of trampling begin, the Two Witnesses suddenly show up and begin to testify, and they will then testify for the NEXT 1260 days. Their testimony will end when they are put to death 1260 days later. Therefore, this is a COUNTDOWN from just before the midpoint to the end of the week.

12:6 The 1260 days of fleeing. The meaning is, they will BEGIN to flee the second they see the abomination - the very event that will divide the week. They have a long way to flee to stay away from the Beast, so they will be fleeing for 1260 days. This is a countdown from the timing of 12:6 to the end of the week.

13:5 42 months: what does this mean? The meaning is, from that moment in time, the timing in John's narrative where this verse is written, from that time in our future when the Beast will rise to power - right after He has been revealed at the midpoint of the week - right at that moment in time the Beast will then have 42 months of authority. As the week progresses, the Beast will have 41 months, those that flee will have 1230 days left to flee, the Two Witnesses will have 1230 days left to testify, and those Gentiles that are trampling the city will have 41 months left to trample.

In other words, John shows us 5 countdowns from the midpoint chapters of the week (11, 12, 13) to the end of the week.

It is good you believe the trumpets are future. Soon you will discover the entire 70th week is future also. ;-)

 

[iamlamad]

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

This is the problem. Of course I think the restraint of Antichrist's appearance happens before Antichrist appears! But I don't believe it anywhere says that the restraint of Antichrist's appearance is, in fact, the revelation of Antichrist!

Randy, the word "Revelation" comes from the word "reveal." What is John talking about in verse 6? I believe by "revealed" it means NO ONE WILL KNOW who the man of sin is, until He enters the temple and declares He is the God of the Jews. Without a doubt this will be broadcast on video to the entire world. At that moment in time, all will know who the Antichrist Beast will be. He is revealed to them.

Many people imagine they will know who the Beast will be at the beginning of the week. (not you, because you imagine the week is historyy.) That is when some covenant is confirmed by the man of sin. However, Jesus jumped right over the confirming of a covenant in His end time discourse. John jumped right over it in Revelation. Why? In your theory because the week is history. I think the reason is that the confirming of a covenant with the Jews will be done in secret.

I do have a question: since John shows us 5 countdowns from the midpoint of the 70th week to the end of the week, how then can you imagine the week is history and not future? Do you imagine a SECOND (perhaps 71st) "week" of 2520 days?

If the 70th week (the end of the Jewish age) was way back then, why is Revelation 20 in front of us, not behind us? John shows chapter 20 right after the week ends at the 7th vial. Why didn't Jesus return at the end of the week like Rev. 19 shows us?

 

[iamlamad]

How does this prove that the restraint of Antichrist's appearance is the appearance, or revelation, of Antichrist? It only proves that once the restraint of Antichrist is lifted, the Antichrist is revealed!

By the very definition of revealed.
"make (previously unknown or secret information) known to others."

I don't see any difference in "appearance" and revealed. When he is revealed, he will appear to all who are looking.

 

[iamlamad]

Again, this proves nothing. Obviously, this is cause and effect. If the restraint of someone's appearance is removed, that person may be revealed! It doesn't in the least mean or imply that the thing restraining that person is itself the person!

I know I am slow, but I am not getting this. Can you please explain this more fully? It seems like we are going in circles and not getting anywhere.

I understand, of course the restraining power is NOT the one being restrained.

The restraining power is the Holy Spirit and the thing being restrained or held back is the revealing (so all will know who he is) of the man of sin.

For example, chapters are 99.99999% that he is alive on earth at this point in time, but NO ONE knows who he is. Some imagine he is our former president. We won't know until he enters the temple and declares he is the God of the Jews. THEN He is "revealed."
(But this cannot happen until the Holy Spirit is taken out of the way at the rapture. He is working through the church to hold back this revealing.)

 

[iamlamad]

iamlamad said: ↑
We are left with two possibilities: a falling away (from what Paul did not specify) that was the restraining power taken out of the way or else the departing of the church as in the rapture as the restraining power taken out of the way. It must be one or the other, for Paul to write that the man of sin IS revealed in 3b.

No, those are not the only 2 possibilities in interpreting the relationship between the Restrainer and the Antichrist! In fact, nothing at all suggests the Restraint of Antichrist is the Antichrist!

You seem to be missing the point Paul made in verses 6-8. There he made it very plain that the man of sin could NOT be revealed until the power holding back that revealing was removed or taken out of the way.

Yet, in verse 3b Paul wrote that the man of sin is revealed right there in the timing of verse 3.

As I asked before: HOW could Paul have shown Him revealed in 3b UNLESS Paul showed the restraining power REMOVED or taken out of the way in verse 3a?

I will rephrase: there is only ONE (1) possibility: somewhere in verse 3a Paul has shown is the power holding back the revealing as removed. again as I said before, I can find ONLY ONE WORD in verse 3a that could possibly be anything removed or anything taken out of the way. It is hidden in the word apostsia.

Paul COULD have meant by that word, Christians turning against God. Or, He COULD have meant, the departing of the church as in the rapture.

 

[DavidPT]

Many people imagine they will know who the Beast will be at the beginning of the week. (not you, because you imagine the week is historyy.) That is when some covenant is confirmed by the man of sin. However, Jesus jumped right over the confirming of a covenant in His end time discourse. John jumped right over it in Revelation. Why? In your theory because the week is history. I think the reason is that the confirming of a covenant with the Jews will be done in secret.

I do have a question: since John shows us 5 countdowns from the midpoint of the 70th week to the end of the week, how then can you imagine the week is history and not future? Do you imagine a SECOND (perhaps 71st) "week" of 2520 days?

If the 70th week (the end of the Jewish age) was way back then, why is Revelation 20 in front of us, not behind us? John shows chapter 20 right after the week ends at the 7th vial. Why didn't Jesus return at the end of the week like Rev. 19 shows us?

This I see being relevant to the OP. The timing of the rapture, not so much.

I basically agree with what you submitted here. Except I'm assuming you are taking those things in a literal sense, while I myself am not. Revelation 11:2 and that 42 months is clearly meaning the same 42 months recorded in Revelation 13:5. Except I disagree that any of this involves the literal city of Jerusalem and a literal rebuilt temple there. I don't know how anyone could possibly read Revelation 13 and see that involving the literal city of Jerusalem and a literal rebuilt temple there? That is reading things into the text big time things not remotely found in the text.

If you argue that Matthew 24:15, for instance, proves this involves the literal city Jerusalem, the fact it indicates those in Judea are to flee, you should be interpreting that in light of what is recorded in Revelation 13 first, rather than interpreting Revelation 13 in light of what is recorded in Matthew 24:15. IOW, by interpreting Revelation 13 based on how one is interpreting Matthew 24:15 first, makes nonsense out of the entire 13th chapter in Revelation. That chapter is involving global events, not regional only events.