Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi, India’s leading Christian scholar, stated on May 2, 2011 (as reported at http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-scholar-america-could-produce-antichrist-of-the-21st-century-50078/),
“The antichrist is an invention of American eschatology,” said the India-born scholar who now resides in California. “I’m using the word antichrist exactly as the New Testament uses it, which is different than the way American eschatology uses it, which is the Antichrist.”
Notice Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi believes that the United States could produce the next Antichrist, just as Germany produced Hitler. Dr. Mangalwadi has not done his Bible study homework. There is no possible way that Antichrist could come from the United States of America. The Bible does tell us where Antichrist will come from, but apparently most Bible-reading, Bible believing Christians are unaware of this bit of information to be found in the Bible. Some of the most significant clues are furnished by a passage in Daniel (Daniel 11:40) and Micah (Micah 5:5).
The term “antichrist” appears in the following New Testament passages:
1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
The “spirit of antichrist,” the Apostle John wrote, was already in the world even at the time he wrote 1 John 4:3.
John equates the antichrist spirit with those individuals or movements that deny the fundamental Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ has come “in the flesh.”
No false cult or false religion will assert straightforwardly that Jesus Christ was God in human form. This doctrine in theology is the doctrine of the Incarnation.
This doctrine is denied by Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland in their writings. These men are or were leaders in the Charismatic Movement. They believe and assert that Jesus was God before he took on human form, and was God once again when he returned to heaven some forty days after the resurrection, but Jesus was not God in human form from the time of his birth in Bethlehem to the time of his death on the Cross.
Hagin and Copeland misunderstand Philippians 2:7 (Young’s Literal Translation),
Php 2:7 but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made,
for they believe as a man Jesus emptied himself of all the attributes of Deity. This involves what is called “The Kenosis Theory” in theology. Many in the Word of Faith church or movement have been taught this heresy. Others likewise fall into this error.
But the Bible is very clear when it states at Hebrews 13:8,
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Jesus Christ, the Messiah, has never changed in his Person, and has never given up any of his divine attributes, including the attribute of immutability or changelessness asserted of him in Hebrews 13:8.
My point is that it is apostasy and heresy, a departure from the faith, to deny that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. Such denial is the spirit of antichrist.
But a careful reading even of these few texts which directly use the term antichrist would show to every reader that antichrist is referred to as a person when John states “ye have heard that antichrist shall come” (1 John 2:18).
Beyond this solid evidence related directly to the term “antichrist” is the large body of evidence throughout the Bible which discusses this person under many different names and titles. Ignoring or denying this evidence in the Bible won’t make it go away.
Every careful Bible reader who engages in Real Bible Study surely knows that the Antichrist is a person who, as of this writing, is yet to appear.
If you agree with Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi and therefore disagree with me, let’s talk about it here!
jerry i been blessed and challenged by your post to keep b4 me berean church acts 27/11 “to search the scriptures daily to see if these things are so” thank you
Hello Jerry. I found this quote of yours interesting, particularly in light of the verses you quoted above. Example:
This verse says there not one, but many antichrists, and that “even now” in John’s time.
Yes. I agree. Then why do you make the just that “antichrist” has not yet come and is a single man? Makes no sense to me from the verses quoted. Antichrist could be all those that do not have the spirit of Christ. There are only two spirits in the world, the spirit of Christ, and the spirit of Antichrist. We all will fall under one of the two categories. Self-denial and self-sacrifice is what Jesus revealed, and John the Baptist, and Daniel and his 3 friends, in all circumstances and all surroundings. Antichrist means all who exalt themselves and work against God.
Dear A. Way,
I am most pleased to see you return with a challenging comment!
You will notice that the passage you cited, 1 John 2:18, supports the view of one Antichrist, for it says:
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as you have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
John’s readers had heard that “Antichrist shall come.”
This certainly speaks of one person, for it is in the singular, a person who has not yet appeared on the scene.
There are many titles of the Antichrist throughout the Bible, firm evidence that Antichrist is a person who is yet to come.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that there were in John’s day, and certainly are in our own day, many that John would undoubtedly classify as being in the class he designates “even now are there many antichrists.” Both individuals and groups, even whole denominations or sects or cults, because of their false doctrines, fit that category no doubt.
The safest thing spiritually to do is to study the Bible most carefully and believe what it says. That is why we must learn to do Real Bible Study.
You are the English teacher, how can I argue with you? But I do not read 1 John 2:18 is pieces, but I read it as a whole.
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as you have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
Remember also that the original “antichrist” is Satan, who has opposed Christ. Before man was created Satan sought to displace Christ (Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:12-13), and ever since has inspired all opposition to God and His Son Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:8-9).
Dear A. Way,
The story, in terms of direct Bible prophecy, starts at Genesis 3:15,
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
The seed of the woman is, of course, our Lord Jesus Christ,
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
These passages confirm the Virgin Birth, a prediction given more specifically at Isaiah 7:14,
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Satan will be behind the Antichrist. The Antichrist must be an individual, a person. He apparently will be a ruler with considerable influence and impact in the last days. He will be against Christ, against true Biblical Christianity, and against true believers.
Antichrist is depicted in Revelation 13.
I just now completed my basic work on the book of Isaiah, so I have a long ways to go before I reach either Daniel or the book of Revelation! But when John tells us to count the number of the beast, he tells us “for it is the number of a man,” clearly letting us know that the Antichrist is an individual, a person, who arises in that future day.
I’ve mentioned that the Antichrist has many titles given him in the Bible. In 2 Thessalonians 2:8 he is called “that Wicked,”
2Th 2:8 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:
2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
It is very clear in context that “that Wicked” is a person who has yet to be revealed, so is still future to us at this time.
So, you are correct that the original “antichrist” is Satan, but there is another who will be a man to whom Satan gives his power, and that person will be a man who speaks great things against God.
Revelation 13 – number of a man.
Revelation 13:17-18 AKJV (v17) 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. (v18) Here is wisdom. Let him that has understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred three score and six.
Are you going to now say that the mark of the beast represents a real animal? This verse (18) could very well be telling us that the beast represents a human organization.
Dear A. Way,
I see no cause in the text of Revelation 13:18 to suggest that the “man” referred to is an organization. The most natural sense is to understand it as a person.
Jesus spoke of the Antichrist in terms of the Antichrist being a person as much as Jesus himself is a person:
John 5:43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
So the beast is an animal then? No…
“Beast” is obviously a symbolic term, though it refers to a man who is called the or a “beast.”
“Man” in the context of Revelation 13:18 is not a symbolic term, but literal, thus clearly showing that the Antichrist is a person!
Notice that at 2 Thessalonians 2:6 we read:
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
It is clear here that “he” is a person to be revealed in his time.
We read further of this person in 2 Thessalonians 2:8,
2Th 2:8 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:
So, the he that is to be revealed (2 Thessalonians 2:6) is called by the name “that Wicked who “is to be revealed” in 2 Thessalonians 2:8.
“The Wicked” is clearly one of the names or titles of the Antichrist, and is clearly revealed by Paul to be a person, a man, who will be destroyed by our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming in power and great glory.
Is the Antichrist to be a person? Absolutely. Is the Antichrist to be a man? Absolutely. The evidence is clear when you do Real Bible Study straight out of a plain-text Bible.
Perhaps you can share why you believe the Bible does not teach that Antichrist will be a person. So far, everything I’ve read indicates Antichrist is a person.
You have a futurist view, and are convinced of it. I doubt that I will change your mind. One important method of real Bible study is to leave behind preconceived idea and opinions behind, and keep your mind free from prejudice.
John, in 1 John 2:18 talks of “many antichrists”. Plural. 1 John 2:22 says who ever is a liar and denies that Jesus is the Christ is an antichrist. Plural. 2 John 7, same thing. I’ve already mentioned Revelation 13 – you have rejected it. A symbolic book, with many symbols, and then you have the number of the beast with a number of a man. Who is the most important reference? The man, or the beast whose number is that of a man? I read it to be the beast. Revelation 13:17 tells us that no one can buy or sell unless they have the mark, name or number of the beast. We know from the prophesy of Daniel 7 that beasts represent earthly powers. The dragon is the devil, and is clearly the power behind all that opposes Christ. (Revelation 12:17) The dragon gives power to the beast, Revelation 13:4. A single man can not wield power unless a system is in place to give him support. It is the system that will trouble the earth. And the saints will be on the earth while it happens, no pre-tribulation rapture. (See Matthew 24).
Dear A. Way,
When John in 1 J 2:18 speaks of “many antichrists,” that does not cancel out what he said in the same sentence immediately before that, when he said “ye have heard that antichrist shall come.”
1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
I believe you have made this fundamental error several times in this current discussion.
I do not believe it is legitimate to deny that Antichrist shall come on the basis that there are now many Antichrists.
When the Bible speaks of the Antichrist, personal pronouns are used of him. Surely this is solid evidence that Antichrist is a person.
Then you appeal to 1 John 2:22,
1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
All the pronouns and verbs in 1 John 2:22 are singular. But this is not to say that there are not many antichrists, for John told us that in 1 John 2:18. But the many antichrists are of a different order of being than the predicted coming final Antichrist of Bible prophecy, for that future personage is indeed a man, as repeatedly proven above, and there is only one of him.
The plural “antichrists” share some element of character with the final Antichrist, such as falsehood, belief in false doctrine, denial of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, denial that at the First Advent Jesus Christ came in the flesh yet is God and in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily (Colossians 2:9), that he is returning in the flesh as a man at the Second Advent. The plural “antichrists” does not cancel the existence of a future singular Antichrist, who is a man.
2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
The rendering given by the CEV (Contemporary English Version) sheds some possibly helpful light on 2 John 1:7,
2Jn 1:7 Many liars have gone out into the world. These deceitful liars are saying that Jesus Christ did not have a truly human body. But they are liars and the enemies of Christ.
I think the JFB Commentary states it nicely also:
This is a, etc. — Greek, “This (such a one as has been just described) is the deceiver and the Antichrist.” The many who in a degree fulfil the character, are forerunners of the final personal Antichrist, who shall concentrate in himself all the features of previous Antichristian systems.
You are correct that I have a futurist view, and that I am convinced of it. I am convinced of it because I have studied contrary views at length and find them all unsatisfactory. For example, none of them take proper account of the provisions of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. Some of the contrary views fail to understand the fact that the promises God made to the nation of Israel are irrevocable, as Paul explicitly states in Romans 11:29. Having just completed checking all the reciprocal references for the book of Isaiah, one by one, reading each one carefully, I must say that Isaiah 41:9 alone absolutely refutes all contrary views, not to mention Isaiah 55:3.
You are right that the dragon is the devil or Satan. The beast in Revelation 13 is the Antichrist, who is a man. The mark of the beast is the number 666, which is the number of his name. We are told, “Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is 666” (Revelation 13:18). Therefore by the transitive property in geometry and the rule of logic, things equal to the same thing are equal to each other, so since the number of the beast is directly stated to be the number of a man, the beast must be a man.
Another rule of interpretation is frequently violated when individuals study Bible prophecy. The rule is that we must carefully distinguish things that have the same or similar name but yet are known to be very different. Some read Matthew 24 and think that it applies to the church and to believers of this age or dispensation. It does not. In an attempt to prove Matthew 24 pertains to Christians or saints of this age, many interpreters understand the term “elect” to refer to believers in Christ. That is not the reference in Matthew 24, where all references are strictly Jewish and pertain to Israel.
The Rapture of the church is not mentioned in Matthew 24.
The Rapture is not mentioned in the book of Revelation or the book of Daniel.
The Rapture is a “sacred secret” or mystery doctrine (1 Corinthians 15:51) revealed to Paul and made known only in his writings in terms of direct mention. Every mention of the Rapture is ALWAYS in context made BEFORE the mention of the Day of the Lord which includes the Great Tribulation. Never the reverse. The conclusion is obvious: the Rapture of the church of this age is a Pre-tribulation Rapture.
What mixes many interpreters up is that the Bible mentions more than one rapture. All raptures are not the same. All gatherings are not the same. All elect are not the same. All judgments are not the same. We must not violate the important rule of interpretation that we must carefully distinguish things that differ.
There will be saints on earth after the Rapture. Sometimes in discussions of Bible prophecy these are called “tribulation saints.” It is evident that after the Rapture of the church before the Great Tribulation there will be a great number who turn to true faith in Christ. This group of believers here on earth during the “Day of the Lord” during the Great Tribulation suffer much at the hands of the Antichrist, who the Bible says makes war with the saints, and overcomes them (Revelation 13:7).
We know from prophecy in Daniel 7 that there will come on the world’s stage a man described as follows:
Dan 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
This man is also mentioned in the New Testament in very similar terms:
2Th 2:3 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;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
These three passages all refer to the Antichrist. Each passage clearly states that the Antichrist is a man.
You stated,
That single man, the Antichrist, is clearly stated to be given his power from and by Satan:
Rev 13:4 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?
The dragon is Satan. The beast is the Antichrist. Satan gave power to the Antichrist. Satan, therefore, is the one who gives him support, enables him to wield his power, though he, the Antichrist, be but a single man, the “man of sin.”
Are you ignoring the fact that beasts in prophesy have always been kingdoms? (Daniel 7)
Dear A. Way,
You cannot make a universal statement like “beasts in prophecy have always been kingdoms” and regard it as true if there are exceptions to be found.
I interpreted “beast” as mentioned in Revelation 13 in the light of the immediate context, which clearly demonstrates that this instance of “beast” in the verse or verses I referred to clearly pertain to a man, not a kingdom, except and unless there might be the possibility that the Antichrist heads a kingdom. If he does, that hardly refutes my point that Antichrist is a person.
Revelation 13:4 clearly use masculine personal pronouns of the beast:
Rev 13:4 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?
Now just who is it that is grasping at straws, attempting to hold on to a favorite interpretation, despite repeated and documented from Scripture in context evidence to the contrary?
As you can see, in Real Bible Study it is good to get right down to specifics, which is why your comments and challenges are so valuable.
You only find an exception because as you say ‘I interpreted “beast”’. The fact remains, in prophesy, a beast was always a kingdom. There is no reason to expect that the Bible would change its symbolism. Of course, if you it does not fit ones preconceived idea, then then one can reject the the established pattern. The Bible interprets itself. And in the lead up to Revelation 13, a beast = a kingdom.
Is a man a man or something else?
Daniel 8:15-16 KJV And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. (v16) And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.
Daniel 9:21 “Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.”
“…even the man Gabriel…” is Gabriel a man? No. He is an angel. The original antichrist is Satan, who is also an angel. In the Reformation, the reformers knew who the beast power was which has a figurehead person.
Apparently I have successfully shown that in the book of Revelation at least one beast described there is not a kingdom, but a person, a man, the Antichrist.
To suggest that “beast” always in Bible prophecy represents a kingdom apparently has at least one exception. So, a similar error in prophetic interpretation made by some is to say that “elect” always refers to New Testament believers, the Church. But that is clearly not so.
Perhaps we can agree indeed that Gabriel is an angel. The very passage you cite from Daniel 8:15-16 alerts us by the expression “as the appearance of a man” that we are to understand this is spoken of an angel. But clearly angels are persons, and when they appear to people in the Bible, can be spoken of in context as “men,” or, when just one, “a man.”
The beast in Revelation 13 is empowered by Satan. The beast is a man. The beast is the Antichrist. The Antichrist is a man.
There are many passages which bear upon the subject of the Antichrist. In every case so far discussed here, the Antichrist, by whatever title, is a single person, one man, even called “the man of sin.”
I am afraid the Reformers cannot be shown to have done their homework on the subject of Bible prophecy. I don’t fault them for that–they had their hands full with all the issues they did deal with. The best I can say for them is they were wise to separate from the Roman Catholic Church. Even so, they retained the salvation vocabulary of the Roman Catholic Church, which has been most detrimental to a proper understanding of the New Testament teaching on the Atonement of Christ and has led to grave inaccuracy in Bible translation. Over the centuries since the time of the Reformers, careful students of the Bible have learned much that they did not know, especially on the subject of Bible prophecy.
One of the central truths learned since then is that Israel and the Church are separate entities.
The “Whitbyan Theory” is utterly false, though many of our King James Bible chapter or page headnotes reflect this most mistaken view, applying to the Church what the Bible designates is promised for Israel.
Of the various schools of prophetic interpretation, the “preterist” position is mistaken and absurd, though held by many scholars and critics (who have not done their homework)–I say absurd because they believe that all Bible prophecy as in the book of Revelation was fulfilled by AD 70; the “historicist” position is likewise generally in grave error; the “idealist” school is likewise in error, though perhaps harmless; the “futurist” position is the correct view, for it is the only view that consistently applies the grammatico-historical method of hermeneutics to all of Scripture, and interprets the language of Scripture literally.
The futurist view is fractured, and I find it untenable. The rapture is unsupported. Eternally burning hell make God out to be a evil sadistic monster. Interestingly a Michigan evangelical has made the news recently showing that hell is not Biblical. Let everyone be persuaded in their own mind…
Dear A. Way,
It appears you have never visited Robinson Crusoe’s Deserted Island for a time of truly independent Bible study!
I seriously doubt you have given any study to the futurist position.
But if you believe you have, then feel free to share your specific objections to this view.
You mention that the rapture is unsupported.
You must have a defective Bible with either missing pages or missing verses in it!
To properly understand the Bible, we must compare Scripture with Scripture. That, of course, is what cross references are for. Since I have studied the history of cross references carefully, and have used them extensively in my own Bible study, I can tell you that the cross references were assembled from the works of great Bible scholars of the past. Those scholars were not futurists in their prophetic interpretation. Because cross references have been derived from many different reputable scholars over many generations, they do not represent the “slant” or bias of any particular school of theology. In general, the links revealed by cross references are clearly there, based on a reference to the same original language word, or the same subject, or a contrasting subject, or a quotation, or a fulfillment of prophecy, or a similar turn of phrase, or a corresponding use of a figure of speech, for example.
Now apply this to the subject of the Rapture. We know from a study of Scripture in the New Testament that there is to be a resurrection of the righteous, for Jesus said so:
Luk 14:14 And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.
This statement at once shows the falsehood of the doctrine of a “general resurrection.”
This subject can be fully explored by carefully studying the cross references at Luke 14:14 given in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible.
Paul taught specifically about the resurrection in that key chapter on the subject, 1 Corinthians 15.
The cross references at Luke 14:14 include reference to 1 Corinthians 15:22, 23,
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
From this passage we learn that the resurrection of those who are in Christ takes place at his coming.
Paul returns to this aspect of his theme later in the chapter at 1 Corinthians 15:51, 52,
1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Note that Paul states that this is a “mystery.” By that he means this is a truth that had not been revealed previously.
He states “we shall not all sleep.”
In the New Testament, the term “sleep” is applied to the death of believers. Therefore, Paul here states, that not all believers will suffer physical death.
He says “we shall all be changed.” Thus, Paul teaches both those believers who have died and those believers still alive at Christ’s coming will experience bodily change from a mortal body to an immortal body, a body no longer subject to death or deterioration of any kind.
The next cross reference in the series given at Luke 14:14 is a reference to Philippians 3:11,
Php 3:11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
We know from Scripture (John 5:29) that ultimately all will be raised from the dead, the saved in the resurrection of life, the unsaved at the resurrection of damnation. This reference to John 5:29 is also given at Luke 14:14.
In Philippians 3:11 Paul tells us of his very high motivation to attain to the resurrection of the dead. The expression in the Greek text pertains to “resurrection out from among the dead,” being a reference to the resurrection of the righteous, a resurrection which leaves the unsaved dead behind awaiting resurrection at a later time. This again demonstrates the fallacy of supposing that the Bible teaches a general and simultaneous resurrection of all the dead at the same time.
Notice also Philippians 3:21,
Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
Paul clearly teaches that we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who at his coming will change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body. Thus, at his coming, we receive our “glorified bodies.”
This is confirmed in 1 Corinthians 15:52 cited above, where Paul states “we shall be changed.” Philippians 3:21 gives more detail by its reference to our glorified bodies, declaring what our transformed state will be.
Paul speaks again of this subject in another reference given at Luke 14:14, a reference to 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17,
1Th 4:16 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:
1Th 4:17 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.
In the words “we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them” we have the strictly Biblical basis for the event commonly called the Rapture, for that is the term which has been applied in our day to this event described by Paul in 1 Thessalonians. In earlier writings on this subject, the same event is sometimes called the Translation of living believers (see the probable source for this expression in the wording of Hebrews 11:5,
Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
What happened to Enoch, that he “was translated that he should not see death,” is precisely what Paul teaches takes place at the Pre-tribulation Rapture of living saints at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ for his saints, an event which Biblically and logically must precede, and clearly is different from, his subsequent coming with his saints.
That this must be the declared order of events as taught by Scripture is clear if we observe the wider context in 1 Thessalonians, for the Day of the Lord is not introduced into the discussion intended to comfort the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 4:18) until after the discussion of the Pre-tribulation Rapture has concluded, namely, 1 Thessalonians 5:2.
Just as surely as 1 Thessalonians 5:2 follows or comes after the teaching about the Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, so it is certain that the Rapture of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 comes before the events of the Day of the Lord, events which include the Great Tribulation.
Your assertion, “The rapture is unsupported,” is itself unsupported when we make a simple cross-reference Bible study directly from the cross references given at Luke 14:14.
Now, as for this “Michigan evangelical” who made news by showing that “hell is not Biblical,” I suspect that supposed evangelical has likewise failed to do his homework when it comes to Bible study. I would imagine he has never opened such a Bible study reference resource as The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible to make an independent, careful study of exactly just what the Bible teaches on this subject.
Such writers need to take care, for to declare the contrary of what God has stated in His written Word that He will do amounts to slandering the character of God, making Him a liar, which is blasphemy.
Now if you agree with the position if this Michigan evangelical on the subject of hell and eternal punishment, you need to take great care not to be in the same position of bringing Divine condemnation upon yourself.
Anyone who denies the doctrine of eternal punishment certainly demonstrates they have never studied this subject independently on Robinson Crusoe’s Island using even the cross references available in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible to make an independent, careful study of exactly just what the Bible teaches on this subject.
I just did make such a study, for having finished my basic work on the book of Isaiah just a few days ago, I just studied Isaiah 66:24 on this very subject. This is the text Jesus cites as reported in Mark 9:44-49.
We must be most careful not to redefine the character of God by our own rationalizations about Him, lest we create a god in our own image! Such a re-defined god is a false god, and is idolatry, which is punishable by the very punishments God promises in His holiness, righteousness, and justice to mete out to the unsaved.
In our study and understanding of the true God of the Bible we must not exalt one attribute, such as divine love, to the necessary exclusion of the other attributes that properly define and belong to Him as revealed in Scripture. John 3:16 must be paired with John 3:36.
Here is a better one Jerry.
A fearful warning! No? Except for those that keep the commandments of God. Oops – Revelation 4-18 – – futurists, what do they do with these chapters…
Wrath of God:
Active, present tense – is being revealed. What is it? Romans 1:24 – God gives them up; Romans 1:26 – God gave them up; Romans 1:28 – God gave them over.
God’s wrath = letting the sinner have what they want. And, the wages of sin = death, Romans 6:23. The wages of sin is not execution by God, or eternal torture. We are not immortal. Only God is immortal, 1 Timothy 6:16. The sinners suffer in hell for eternity, then God has to keep them alive to torture them. This is not a loving god. That would be a sadistic god. Jesus came not to condemn, but to save His people FROM their sins. John 3:17; Matthew 1:21.
We have nothing to fear from God, but sin will kill you.
As for Robinson Crusoe’s – I’m skeptical that what you believe you came up with all by yourself. I suspect, can’t prove, that you have read the Bible to prove your agenda. When I read the verses you think suggest the rapture, I read the resurrection at the second coming. to me, the language is clear.
Real Bible study: Some simple points to it:
– Do not read the Word in the light of former opinions.
– Do not try to make everything agree with your creed.
– With a mind free from prejudice, search the Word carefully.
– If, as you read, conviction comes, and you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the Word, do not try to make the Word fit these opinions.
– Do not allow what you have believed or practiced in the past to control your understanding.
– Open the eyes of your mind to behold wondrous things out of the Word.
– We can not obtain wisdom without earnest attention and prayerful study.
– Some portions of the Scriptures are indeed too plain to be misunderstood; but …
– There are others whose meaning does not lie on the surface, to be seen at a glance.
– Scripture must be compared with scripture.
– There must be careful research and prayerful attention. Such study will be richly repaid.
As the miner discovers veins of precious metal concealed beneath the surface of the earth, so will he who perseveringly searches the Word of God as for hid treasure, find truths of the greatest value, which are concealed from the view of the careless seeker. The words of Inspiration, pondered in the heart, will be as streams flowing from the fountain of light.
It also makes no sense to me that a 70 week prophesy of Daniel 9, would be fractured into parts that are widely separated. Make no sense. The 70 weeks – one continuous time period. 7 weeks to rebuild Jerusalem. After 62 weeks, 1 week for the Messiah which in the middle of the week He would cause sacrifice to cease because He was the sacrifice. Thus, the end of the 69 weeks shows when the Messiah would start his work and this would be at His baptism. He would work for 3.5 years then die on the cross. 3.5 years more, Stephen is stones, and now the Gospel is to go to the whole world. The 70 “determined” for the Jews had ended. Futurism breaks the backbone of the 70 week prophesy.
Dear A. Way,
You have written a marvelous and memorable comment immediately above. Thank you again for your diligent participation in discussions here!
In a comment above from several days ago, you stated:
You are exactly right. Of course, this applies to you as much as it does to me, and to every serious reader of the Bible engaged in Real Bible Study.
When there is a difference in understanding about the meaning of a Bible verse, or the teaching of the Bible regarding a particular subject, we need to explore why there is a difference.
Contradictory understandings of a Bible verse, subject, or doctrine cannot be equally true. Many times some views are absolutely false.
You have been most helpful in bringing these sometimes subtle, sometimes glaring, differences before our view.
We must be honest in handling our differences as we study their basis in our effort to determine which view, if any, is correct.
In a post above at May 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm you wrote:
To be fair, you probably should have cited more of my original statement posted on May 12, 2011 at 2:29 pm:
My fuller statement surely shows that my “interpretation” has a firm basis in fact, based upon carefully following a major principle of proper interpretation. I cited the rule of interpretation I was following when I stated that I based my interpretation of the “beast” in Revelation 13 upon the light furnished by consulting “the immediate context.”
Do you disagree with the principle of grounding interpretation of any and every Biblical statement carefully “in the light of the immediate context”?
I wrote above on May 9, 2011 regarding 1 John 2:18,
In this May 9 comment I clearly stated the basis for my conclusion: the grammar of the sentence involved. Clearly, the statement that “Antichrist shall come” is in the singular number, not plural, so the reference grammatically must be to just one person, “a person who has not yet appeared on the scene.”
But you denied my conclusion as I based it solidly on the grammar of the sentence by stating:
The problem is, you do not read the sentence in 1 John 2:18 as a whole, but in pieces, for you in your interpretation based on the second half of the verse have failed to account for or acknowledge the truth stated in the first half of the verse:
1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
In these discussions I have incorporated both portions of 1 John 2:18 harmoniously into my interpretation. It appears that you cannot do so. If this is the case, then your interpretation is clearly mistaken, for a correct interpretation always accounts for all of the information (or imagery, as I taught my students in English class when proposing an interpretation of a work of poetry) in the text.
In your latest posting, you remark:
Once again, I challenge you to visit Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island to study your Bible there apart from denominational and other misguided sources.
I carefully laid the foundation to this objection you bring against my point of view. I pointed out that I am in part (I say “in part,” only because I also appeal to context and grammar) basing my understanding of God’s Word in the Bible upon a comparison of Scripture with Scripture, as facilitated by cross reference Bible study. I named my sources: The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible. I specified exactly the verse I was consulting the cross references for, namely, Luke 14:14.
Therefore, I can hardly be charged with reading the Bible in search of proof-texts to support an arbitrary or preconceived doctrinal position. I noted in my last post that the sources of cross references found in the resources I named come from the work of great scholars of the past who were not futurists. But they did stick to the truth when they provided valid cross references. I even named the principles, one by one, upon which the validity of cross references depend when I stated:
Take a look above at my prior post. I conducted a straightforward Bible study of the subject of the Rapture using cross references derived directly from those furnished at Luke 14:14.
I concluded my study of Luke 14:14 with the comment:
From this evidence, it ought to be obvious that I really do practice what I preach about Real Bible Study, and I trust that you and every reader of these comments can see I carefully document every claim I assert about what the Bible teaches, for I really do engage in Real Bible Study!
In your latest comment you bring up many vital and exceedingly interesting matters that I hope to directly address in a forthcoming comment soon.
It occurs to me that your definition of the “rapture” and mine are different. My objection is to a pre-tribulation “rapture”.
Cross-references – these are good for studying. However, they still reflect the thoughts of those that do the compiling of the cross references. They do not necessarily reflect links in scripture which has not come to the mind of the compiler. It is necessary for all to study the Bible for themselves. And that mean one has to actually READ the Bible.
Some type/antitypes: The time prophesies of the OT vs NT; The book of Esther and the protestant reformation and advent awakening; Paul’s shipwreck on Malta and the end time church and the beast power. While cross-references are good for what they provide, they are only a part tools available. And a good search tool can search the whole Bible, in multiple versions and include Strong numbers, and has the convenience of availability, speed, no bias and there are many that are free!
Dear A. Way,
I see you have some objection to the links I find within Scripture using cross references like those supplied at Luke 14:14 which I used in a comment above about what the Bible teaches about the resurrection and the Rapture which follows immediately and accompanies it before the Great Tribulation.
You state regarding cross references, that though they are good for study,
When I expanded the references given in the original Treasury of Scripture Knowledge I used a number of unbiased scholarly resources to do so, such as
(1) Robert Young’s Concise Critical Comments, a kind of handbook to Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible. I verified Young (because I found so many printing errors in his book) with Wigram’s Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance for Old Testament passages, and for New Testament passages, I verified the references with Wigram’s Englishman’s Greek Concordance and J. B. Smith’s Tabular and Statistical Concordance to the Greek New Testament and J. Stegenga’s Greek-English Analytical Concordance of the Greek-English New Testament.
(2) Scott’s Commentary, the source of the references found in the original Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. I used both the American edition and the original London edition. I added references from Scott that were arbitrarily omitted, and found and corrected many reference errors from this source. Scott himself identified the sources he used when compiling his very extensive cross references for the margin of his commentary.
(3) The Commentary Wholly Biblical, a nineteenth century resource in three large volumes which supplied cross references by printing out the full text of each reference where it was given. This work furnished many references not found in Scott or Young. It was the stated purpose and intention of the compilers of The Commentary Wholly Biblical to provide references which were not biased in behalf of any theological viewpoint. I believe they succeeded very well.
(4) The New Testament with Fuller References compiled by Albert William Greenup and James Hope Moulton published in 1910 by Oxford University Press. This resource contributed many cross references. No one in their right mind would attribute bias, doctrinal or otherwise, to these two major Bible scholars in their selection of cross references.
(5) More references were obtained at many places in scripture when I decided to identify and reference all the figures of speech in the Bible. I made use of The Companion Bible and the work by its editor, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. There is some bias attributable to the work of E. W. Bullinger, but in the process of studying his works I made every attempt to nullify that bias, and have indicated in the Subject Index of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge exactly where and upon what basis this was done.
(6) Since there are often competing explanations of Bible doctrine and other matters, I attempted to give a fair hearing to each point of view in my explanatory notes, in the Topic Number Index, the Subject Index, and in the cross references themselves. I went so far as to carefully study works by materialists in theology from the eighteenth and nineteenth century and the works of anti-Trinitarians in search of cross references they supplied to support their viewpoint. I entered these, qualifying a few outrageous links with the symbol “x” or “?” at the mistaken reference or Topic Number (see the “Key to Symbols” given in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge).
(7) In the process of studying and compiling the cross references, I noted where it was possible to insert what are called “reciprocal references” at crucial verses where they were not given, such as Luke 21:36.
I don’t see, myself, any source of bias in the cross references I supplied, considering the scholarly resources I used.
In The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge I supplied about 300 new notes which I wrote, and several more derived from scholarly sources. These are identified in the Subject Index.
Since Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible was produced with the purpose of shrinking the size of the volume, I eliminated all chapter headings, and with few exceptions, all notes. I retained notes about divine guidance, an index to prophecy, and evidences for the doctrine of the deity of Christ and the Trinity. Therefore, as a Bible study resource it does not have any bias that I am aware of in the cross reference material.
Some have objected to my notes in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, especially those which pertain to Bible prophecy. Objectors need to go back and actually read their Bible, instead of coming to the Bible with their preconceived or denominationally taught bias, and learn what the Bible says. My notes simply state what the Bible does, for I have documented my comments with careful reference to the Scripture. I am aware of only one note, a note at Hebrews 10:4, which is a summary of James Conant’s work on the Atonement titled No Salvation without Substitution, which I would wish to revise to even more accurately reflect the teaching of the Bible on this subject.
You comment:
I’ve mentioned that there is more than one rapture named in New Testament prophecy. You are perhaps free to take your pick as to which one you plan to participate in!
Based on my careful, lengthy, meticulous, even exhaustive study of the subject, I believe true believers of this age will be taken up in the Pre-tribulation Rapture. I already proved in comments above in a careful examination of each Scripture passage involved that ALL mentions of the Rapture in the writings of Paul are Pre-tribulational. But if you miss the first bus, perhaps God in His grace will let you take the later one or ones!
I have made a study of the time prophecies in the Bible. You can follow out what I found by means of the Subject Index in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. These make for an absolutely fascinating study, and prove absolutely that our Lord Jesus Christ MUST be the true Messiah, or there won’t be one.
None of the time prophecies legitimately found in the Bible have anything to do with the Protestant Reformation or the Advent Awakening. The book of Esther does not touch upon those subjects. Not long ago I completed my basic work on Esther in my new project to expand the cross reference resources available for Real Bible Study. But it could be that I missed something, so feel free to fill me in more on this one. I am always open to learning something new if it is truly based upon what the Bible itself teaches on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island.
There are indeed types and antitypes in the Bible. My elderly friend Uncle Frank spent a lifetime of careful study on this subject. He rightly urged me to secure all the resources then (1965) available on the subject of typology in the Bible at John’s Bible and Bookstore in Detroit. Probably many of the works I bought at Uncle Frank’s advice back then could not be purchased now. I often wish, as I work on my project, that I knew anywhere near as much as he did about this subject.
So, if you know of any worthwhile studies or researches on the subject of types and antitypes, feel free to let me know about them.
There is a problem with the study of types, in that it is quite possible to go overboard in one’s imagination and find types that really were not intended to be read as such in the Bible. If the original writer of Scripture was likely not aware that what was being written by his pen was a type, the type may be invalid, unless later Scripture confirms the typical connection. But some of these connections, though technically questionable, may yet be instructive. Many things about the life of Joseph seem to be typical of the life of our Lord Jesus Christ, for example, but there is no statement in Scripture which ever explicitly makes that connection.
I heard at a “heretic conference” I attended at Spring Arbor College held by the Christian Bible Students that the reason there were six water pots at the wedding of Cana is because Pastor Russel was to write six volumes in his Studies in the Scriptures for the necessary spiritual food for God’s people to proclaim the end-time Harvest Message. That is an interesting form of typology indeed, perhaps of the same class as any types some might find in Esther pertaining to the Protestant Reformation and the Advent Awakening. So for any supposed bearing of Paul’s shipwreck on Malta and the end-time church and the beast power!
You must know that on my computer here I have both the e-Sword program and the Logos Bible study software. I am able to make searches in the manner you describe, and I do. I have been able to search for reciprocal links on doctrinally and prophetically crucial texts using the Logos program, which provides a listing from The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, which is always more complete than the original Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. I then enter the newly found reciprocal references for the verse, associating the references to the appropriate keywords.
Such search findings are indeed unbiased, and when I enter the results as new cross references in my project, they remain unbiased still.
Nevertheless, we are always wise to carefully study and verify the claims of others about Bible subjects. A good verse about this is Proverbs 18:17 in the New Living Translation:
The first to speak in court sounds right–
until the cross-examination begins.
You have shown just in your comments above, that there can be bias, even when YOU think there is not.
Yes, I read your Luke 14:14 references, and no, I do not see “the rapture” coming before the tribulation. It is not there. Matthew 24 gives a timeline, combined with the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world combined, but that evidence is there, the righteous remain on the earth until the second coming of Christ, then they are taken with Him from the earth for 1000 years. The earth will be in desolation.
Dear A. Way,
I recall you said in a comment above:
You will have to explain to me just how and why you believe that I
You made this comment with reference to potential doctrinal bias in cross references. I have affirmed there is no bias in the cross references because of the neutrality of the named sources I used to compile them, though on controversial topics I have furnished some cross references used to support false doctrine, and have clearly marked such references or topics. I provided those to assist Bible students in learning the position of the “opposition,” such as truth-claims asserted by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the answers to those mistaken claims.
As for Matthew 24, I very carefully specified in previous comments that the Rapture is NOT mentioned in that chapter.
I also mentioned that there will indeed be those who are righteous that remain on the earth until the second coming of Christ.
It is quite evident from the parables of Matthew 13 and the statements in Revelation 7 that there will be believers on the earth after the Pre-tribulation Rapture. I commented before, you will recall, that these are sometimes referred to as “tribulation saints.” This group of believers is not a part of the Church of this age, but come to faith in Christ after the Pre-tribulation Rapture. This, by the way, requires an unknown period of time after the Pre-tribulation Rapture at the first stage of Christ’s return for his saints until He returns with his saints at his triumphant return in power and great glory (Colossians 3:4!!!). This Interval is unaccounted for in the Adventist scheme of prophetic interpretation, and is missing also from mid-tribulation and post-tribulation rapture advocates, as well as those of the amillenial position, and is a major element that shows these other positions are mistaken.
How do I know this? I’ve been reading my Bible on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island for a very long time–since 1953. And I read about it in the chapters as indicated: Matthew 13, and Revelation 7.
When an author of a Bible book gives us his intended literary structure of the book, we do well to heed that structure. Not to do so results in much mistaken interpretation of that writer’s book. John on the Isle of Patmos on Sunday, the Lord’s Day (so-called because the Lord Jesus Christ arose from the dead in resurrection power on the First Day of the week; or else so-called because John in vision was placed in The Day of the Lord, the view I prefer) was commanded to write a book (Revelation 1:11). So much, then, for the false dogma of some Roman Catholic apologists who argue that Jesus Christ never commanded that the New Testament should be written.
Then John proceeds to tell us what the structure of his book is, by command of the Lord Himself:
Note the structure has three parts: (1) “the things which thou hast seen” (things which to John at that time of the command were immediately in the past); (2) “the things which are” (things which to John at that time of the command were immediately in the present); and (3) “the things which shall be hereafter” (things which to John at that time of the command to write were placed in the future).
When John wrote the book of Revelation, he placed his material in exactly that order, as commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ in his instructions to John.
That part of the book of Revelation which pertains to the future, what is elsewhere spoken of by our Lord Jesus Christ as the “age to come,” is marked by John by his wording in Revelation 4:1,
The Church of “this age” is not mentioned (the Greek word does not occur) after Revelation chapter 3. The “saints” mentioned in Chapters 4-18 are what are called by some “tribulation saints.” The “tribulation saints” belong to an age to come (Matthew 24:3, “end of the world” (KJV), or “end of the age”). They are among the righteous that you mention who will be here at the second coming of Christ in power and great glory (Matthew 24:30); they include those also spoken of in parable as “the children of the kingdom” (Matthew 13:38), as opposed to the “tares” who likewise are present until the harvest.
There is no properly interpreted Scripture that I know of to support the notion that the righteous are taken from the earth for 1000 years while the earth will be in desolation.
I understand this view of prophecy is in harmony with the 19th century Adventist view of prophecy. I believe an Adventist author whose last name is Waggoner wrote a book to teach this position. Most evangelical Christians today have unwittingly followed at least a part of Waggoner’s error: they, like he, believe that believers are to be removed from this earth to the third heaven or paradise at the Second Coming (or Rapture); they, like he, believe that this earth will be destroyed and a new earth will be created. Evangelicals today largely believe that all believers will return with Christ to this earth after the Tribulation to live in Christ’s Kingdom here on earth for 1000 years and that at the end of the 1000 years saints will either spend the rest of eternity with Christ in heaven, or, alternatively, upon this renewed earth.
Both Waggoner’s position and the position of orthodox Evangelicals are in error. First, there is no Scripture which speaks of the saints on this earth being removed from this earth to paradise or the third heaven. If you think there is, furnish chapter and verse please, and we can discuss it. Perhaps, with your help, I’ll learn something new to change my position. Second, Christ’s reign is not merely for 1000 years here upon this earth, but forever (Revelation 11:15; Daniel 7:13, 14; Luke 1:31, 32).
The Rapture is Pre-tribulational in its timing. This is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN to be the case because every passage which mentions both the Rapture and the Resurrection of those who have died “in Christ” mentions these things BEFORE mention is made of the Day of the Lord. The Great Tribulation takes place during the Day of the Lord, at its beginning. Therefore, the Rapture MUST be a Pre-tribulation event.
I carefully showed you in a comment above that the Rapture is mentioned before the Day of the Lord events (which include the Great Tribulation) in 1 Corinthians 15.
I carefully showed you that Paul’s comforting message about the Rapture occurs BEFORE he enters his discussion of the Day of the Lord (see 1 Thessalonians 4:17, 18 which mentions the Rapture and its message of intended comfort) compared to the later mention of the Day of the Lord in Paul’s subsequent discussion in 1 Thessalonians 5:2.
This order is seen also in 2 Thessalonians 2, where the Rapture is mentioned by a direct allusion to 1 Thessalonians 4:17 in 2 Thessalonians 2:1, while the events attending the Day of the Lord (the better Greek textual reading for 2 Thessalonians 2:2) are mentioned AFTERWARDS in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 with specifics regarding the Day of the Lord events given in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10.
It is most significant that Paul regards the position you take as to the order of these events as outright heresy (as seen by the Greek wording at 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where the word for “deceive” is the stronger term used of Eve when she was “deceived” but Adam was not “deceived” mentioned by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:14). This error was confusing and upsetting the Thessalonian believers, who had been misled by counterfeit writings purported to be from Paul, by messages supposedly from the Spirit of God, and by word or teachings of false teachers.
It was this confusion that prompted Paul to write the book of 2 Thessalonians to provide doctrinal clarification regarding these prophetic matters, matters he had taught them in person, and matters he had taught them in his first letter.
Notice that the Thessalonians correctly understood and assumed that the Rapture will be a virtually secret, unannounced event, which when it takes place would not be noticed by the world at large. How do we know this? Because how could the Thessalonians believe that they were already in the Day of the Lord, upset because they had missed the Rapture, if they had been taught it was a most public event? They were rightly concerned that if they were now left behind, they were about to enter the terrors of the Great Tribulation.
Paul corrects them by saying that “our gathering together unto him” (Christ, in the Rapture) will take place before the onset of the great apostasy or falling away, and before the appearance of the Antichrist or Man of Sin (designated by the title “that Wicked” in 2 Thessalonians 2:8), both events that must happen before the onset of the Day of the Lord. Since these two preliminary events had not yet taken place, Paul instructs them they can be sure that they certainly are not in the Day of the Lord. In any case, believers are again comforted and assured that they will be removed from the scene of these events before their onset by the Rapture, “our gathering together unto him.”
What I have just presented is the correct Biblical view regarding these specific end time events in their bearing upon the church of this age.
I have given specific “chapter and verse,” reasoning carefully from each context, to present this truth.
I have never yet met or encountered anyone who can refute this view from Scripture. I did my homework in searching the Scriptures. You can be sure I did not derive this from any denominational publication.
Exactly. And why is it not mentioned? Perhaps, it is because there is no pre-tribulation rapture?
Perhaps they go through the tribution, because there is no pre-tribution rapture?
Conjecture. This is not in the Bible.
If the interval does not exist, then what is there to be accounted for? Matthew 13 speak nothing about a pre-trib rapture. Ditto Revelation 7. It is not there.
We have been over this before. This is false statement Jerry. The Lord’s Day was the Sabbath, and always has been. The term “Lord’s Day” was stolen.
Has it ever occurred to you why we celebrate Easter always on Sunday? It should not be. Note that the celebration of Easter is not Biblical. The death and resurrection of Christ took place at Passover. The day of Passover changes from year to year. Making Sunday the day to honor the resurrection every year does not make sense. In fact, since Passover was based on the lunar month, those that “created” Easter took steps to insure that it would NEVER fall on the Bible date as specified by Passover, Nisan 14/15. The calculation adds a week if the proper date would fall on Sunday, to insure that Easter would be the next weekend. Incredible, don’t you think???
Change times and laws. The Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. You of course have rightly acknowledged that there is NO Biblical support for keeping Sabbath on Sunday. And changing times, Easter is an example of this.
Revelation structure: the Book of Revelation is also a chiasm. Things are not in linear order. It is a false hope that any saint will be taken before the tribulation. The only way to avoid the tribulation is to die before it happens.
The Ryrie Study Bible says that the seven-year tribulation period “is the 70th week of Daniel and is therefore of seven-years’ duration” (Daniel 9:27). Again, it is illogical to separate the 70th week from the other 69. The 70 week prophesy is direct evidence for the Messiah. Applying the 70 prophesy to the antichrist is confusing when the 70 weeks are talking about the Messiah. Daniel 9:26-27 also has a chiastic structure. The following is plucked off the web, and fits.
As for going to heaven for 1000 years before returning to the earth. There is supported in scripture. John 14:1-3 is a good example. The word mansion is described like this:
There is also the Jacob and Joseph type/antitype. Joseph is Jesus and Jacob is us. Joseph took his family to Egypt, temporarily. There is a whole LOT more to the type/antitype, but I use this point only for this discussion…
Jerry – this statement alone shows that you were not on an island with Robinson C. There is no way from the Bible to get the “Lord’s Day” to equal Sunday. Then, you turn it around and go from “Lord’s Day” to “the day of the Lord”. Plan simple reading of the Bible, Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. What day? Sabbath. See: Exodus 31:15; Leviticus 23:3ff; Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5, and this one:
Isaiah 58:13 KJV If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
Robinson could only conclude that the “Lord’s Day” is the Sabbath.
The “Lord’s Day” is so-called because it remembers and celebrates the eighth day not the seventh.
The Sabbath has been fulfilled. It was a type. Jesus completely fulfilled the type. Paul lists the Sabbath among those things “which are a shadow of things to come” (Colossians 2:17).
Jesus was raised from the dead “on the third day,” and that third day was the First Day of the week, or, looking backward to the type, the eighth day.
The Seventh Day Jewish Sabbath of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures is NEVER called the “Lord’s Day.”
That is clearly evident in each of my more than “three good Bibles,” in the plain text edition.
I think it is you who needs to take an extended visit to Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island for a good read and study of your Bible apart from denominational influence.
In your prior post I enjoyed your references to chiastic structure.
Whether Revelation has chiastic structure or not (I doubt that it does, for the carefully worked out literary structures presented in The Companion Bible and its sources reflect no such structure for the book of Revelation that I am aware of, though a remarkable chiastic structure or Introversion is presented for the book of James), such a structure, even if present, does not override the structure commanded to John by the Lord Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:19. The structure announced at Revelation 1:19 is readily noted on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island; any whole-book chiastic structure for the book of Revelation likely is not.
As for Daniel’s Seventieth Week, good scholars differ. When views clash, they can’t both be correct. If the Rules of Interpretation (I listed 21 of them for you in prior articles posted here) are consistently followed, the Seventieth Week is separate from the first Sixty-nine.
There is an unannounced time gap in the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. There are many such unannounced but very evident time gaps in Bible prophecies.
Reading just now from my plain-text Cambridge Cameo 16mo Bible, the first really good Bible (leather cover and leather lined) I ever bought back in 1954, on page 1128, I note from its King James text the following:
(1) At Daniel 9:24 I read that “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people”
This shows me the prophecy pertains particularly and exclusively to the Jews and their nation Israel;
(2) I read further in the verse “and upon thy holy city”
This shows me that the prophecy pertains to Jerusalem.
(3) I read further in Daniel 9:24 what appear to be the ultimate goals to be reached upon the completion of the prophecy regarding the Seventy Weeks:
a) “to finish the transgression”
Daniel has just been praying in his remarkable prayer regarding the persistent problem of sin:
The culmination of the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, therefore, includes a promise of total deliverance from sin for Daniel’s people. This is promised elsewhere in Scripture,
A careful study of the cross references given for Psalm 130:8 as found in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible would prove most instructive and enlightening in this regard.
b) “and to make an end of sins”
See the above comment for “a)” and my reference to Psalm 130:8.
c) “and to make reconciliation for iniquity”
This prophecy of Seventy Weeks in Daniel, remember, concerns Israel the nation and Jerusalem. As such, this prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, but is still future. The deeper one studies the language of the text here in Daniel, the more certain this becomes. I won't go into such details here, though they are given in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.
d) “and to bring in everlasting righteousness”
The city of Jerusalem shall be called “The city of righteousness.” Though Israel is now partially restored to its national geographical homeland, Jerusalem is not yet “the city of righteousness,” for the Throne of David with its eternal King has not yet been established, another evidence that this aspect of Daniel’s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks still awaits fulfillment.
e) “to seal up the vision and prophecy”
To complete the mission of revealed prophecy did not take place in Daniel’s time, nor in the time of Christ’s earthly ministry, but at the completion of the writing of the book of Revelation, which concludes with the warning:
One of the surest marks of false religion, of a false cult, as it were, is that some false religions and cults claim to have a continuing gift of revelatory prophecy. The Roman Catholics have their currently highly regarded “seers” which speak words as if from Christ or Mary. I counter all such claims with the clear teaching of Scripture:
All that God wants us to know about Himself and salvation and the future is found in One Book, the Bible: nowhere else.
f) “and to anoint the most Holy”
In the Hebrew Scriptures, our Old Testament, this expression is never applied to a person, but to the holy place (such as the Tabernacle or Temple) or to the sacrifices which were “most holy.”
Therefore, this aspect of Daniel’s prophecy remains yet unfulfilled in its relation to Daniel’s people and Jerusalem.
(4) I read further in Daniel 9:26,
Thus, in fulfillment of this prophecy, Messiah was cut off after the completion of the first sixty-nine weeks. This most definitely marks an Interval between the Sixty-ninth Week and any supposed commencement of the Seventieth Week.
(5) I read further in Daniel 9:27,
Just who is it that is to confirm the covenant with many for one week?
Here I call upon Rule 10 and Rule 11 of the 21 Rules of Interpretation I gave previously, regarding following the grammar and the context, respectively.
The grammatical reference of the pronoun “he” pertains to the nearest immediately preceding grammatical referent within the preceding verse, which is “the prince that shall come,” NOT the Messiah.
Nothing spoken further in Daniel 9:27 refers to the Messiah, but to the Antichrist.
Jerry – are you a member of a Protestant denomination? If so, what are you protesting against? This whole thread is a rejection of what the Reformation believed. All the reformers knew from prophesy, that the Pope was the antichrist. And there have been many popes. Many Reformers suffered greatly because of this belief. And now you say that ALL of them were wrong. Two main points of the reformation, 1) Salvation was in Christ, and Christ along, they knew this from the Bible, and Bible along. In fact the reformation brought the Bible to a know language, and having the Bible to read, pointed out the next main point of the reformation and that was 2) prophesy all pointed to the Papacy as the antichrist. The reformers struggled with each other on issues in point 1, but there was uniform agreement with point 2.
That said, the 70 week prophesy points directly to the Messiah, His coming and His crucifixion.
“Thy people” were God’s chosen people Israel. Seventy weeks resolves into 490 days. 490 days become 490 years. So yes, this was speaking directly about Israel. I agree with you on that point, just not the time.
The 490 years were appointed to the Jewish nation for these six reasons found in Daniel 9:24:
1. to finish the transgression
2. to make an end of sins
3. to make reconciliation for iniquity
4. to bring in everlasting righteousness
5. to seal up vision and prophecy
6. to anoint the most Holy
These six issues could only be fulfilled in and through the Messiah. Who else could make reconciliation for iniquity or bring in everlasting righteousness?
Read Daniel 9:25-27.
The angel gives a breakdown of the 70 weeks like this:
7 weeks of years for rebuilding of Jerusalem (verse 25)
62 weeks of years to the Messiah (verses 25-26)
1 week of years to the close of the period (verse 27)
The 2300-day prophecy, of which the 70-week prophecy is a small part, starting together, was to begin at the command that effected the restoration of Jerusalem. This command went forth under King Artaxerxes Longimanus in the year 457 BC (Ezra 7:12-13)
Seven weeks (49 day-years) for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and another threescore and two weeks (62 weeks or 434 day-years) brings us to “the Messiah the Prince.” Beginning in 457 BC and applying the day-year principle, we can determine the passing of 483 years from 457 BC which brings us to 27 AD (allowing for the conversion from BC to AD being one extra year).
In 27 AD, Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit on the occasion of His baptism which marked the beginning of His ministry (Luke 3:21-23). This baptism marked the event in Daniel’s prophecy “unto the Messiah the Prince.” When Christ proclaimed, “The time is fulfilled” (Mark 1:15), He was referring to this part of the prophecy.iii
The end of the prophecy is 34 AD, 7 day-years after the baptism:
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease (Daniel 9:27).
Christ would confirm the covenant made with Israel for one prophetic week (7 years), but oblation (offerings) would cease in the middle of the week (3.5 years after 27 AD). This mid-point brings us to 31 AD—the year Christ was crucified. It was at His death that he put an end to the system of offerings practiced by Israel for so many years.
I quoted the following, I’ll do it again in this context:
So – are you a Protestant? What are you protesting? It is not the same as all the reformers.
BTW – I want to thank you Jerry. I have learn a lot reading this blog of yours. I now see from my reading other sources to answer your position that futurism is really a creation of the Catholic church. Francisco Ribera developed futurism to turn away the truth that the Reformation was finding that the papacy was the antichrist. Throwing all of prophesy to the end time taking the heat off the Catholic church. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine continued the onslaught against truth. So thank you, I had not realized how the Catholic church was responsible for the origination of futurism. Makes total sense now what was and is going on. The Reformation is dead, and the Catholic church which was the target of the Reformation is the one that killed it. Very interesting… This was against point 2 I talked about above. Most Christian denominations now believe in dispensationalism and futurism, a Catholic creation. Is seems that the whole world is wondering after the beast (Revelation 13:3). Thank you!
Dear A. Way,
I am thankful that you are finding my blog informative, even if you may think some of my positions are mistaken!
I’m learning a lot too!
In a recent post you stated:
Matthew 24 pertains to Israel and the Jews. This is evident throughout the chapter to any reader who will carefully notice the frequently exclusively Jewish imagery.
Since the Pre-tribulation Rapture pertains to the church of this age, that is believers in Christ, it would not be mentioned in a context that has reference primarily if not exclusively to the nation of Israel and the Jews.
That is the reason the Pre-tribulation Rapture is not mentioned in the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 and its Gospel parallels.
Surely, it is not omitted because there is no such thing.
I pointed out in my most complete discussion above that the Pre-tribulation Rapture is mentioned in Paul’s writings three separate times in three separate books in the New Testament. That surely is enough evidence to prove there is such a thing, and that it takes place before the Great Tribulation, because this is the order in which Paul always discusses it.
Am I a Protestant? By definition that Roman Catholics would propose, indeed I am. They would argue I am Protestant in the extreme.
The Reformers believed the Pope was and/or will be the Antichrist.
I have, in my younger years, read much literature to support that point of view.
By carefully studying the Bible on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island, I have learned since then that this view is mistaken, though it was formerly held by many great, revered, and godly men.
This view of the Antichrist is mistaken, because it was based upon an incomplete study of the evidence in the Bible. To learn the truth about any controversial subject in the Bible, you MUST CONSIDER ALL THE AVAILABLE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE.
Now there may well have been some very sly Roman Catholic apologists from the past that latched on to the Futurist view of Bible prophecy in order to deflect the anti-popery thrust of the message of the Protestant Reformation. I’ve read this argument before.
To suggest that is where my Bible doctrine came from would be, of course, nonsense.
To suggest I derived my view from these clever Romanist apologists is simply an ad hominem argument.
This form of argument is generally employed by those who have not done their own study of the Biblical evidence. Since they can’t find legitimate Biblical evidence to the contrary, they resort to the ad hominem ploy.
In doing so, they surely are admitting they themselves are wrong. Or, too lazy to go back to the Bible itself to find out what it actually teaches.
I’ve had heavy discussions of this matter with Roman Catholics and Roman Catholic apologists before. This device won’t work. Anyone who employs the device has already lost the debate.
So far, I have proven that a careful reading of the Bible on Robinson Crusoe’s Island leads directly and only to the futurist viewpoint regarding Bible prophecy.
And I see from scripture, that the 70 week prophesy applies to the Jews, and it has been completely fulfilled. You deny there is a spiritual Israel which is the church. You see the these prophesies as applying to literal Israel in our day. The 70 prophesy says that this ended, and it ended in AD34. I’ve gone through your cross references. What I read is that we are changed at the second coming. Everything points to the second coming. You claim to have proven the pre-tribulation rapture. But I’ve read these texts. It is not there. You are convinced. I’m not. I’m convinced the 70 week prophesy, the 2300 day prophesy, and the 1260 day prophesy have been fulfilled. You have ignored in this discussion the start of the 70 weeks. You’ve ignored the 1260 day prophesy. and the 2300 day… You have also ignored the 4 beasts of Daniel. I hope no one is disappointed if they are not raptured before the tribulation break loose, much like those from last weekend.
Dear A. Way,
I am working on Jeremiah 5 today in my project to increase the number of cross references available for serious, Real Bible Study.
I have a ways to go before I reach the book of Daniel.
I agree with you that the 70 week prophecy applies to the Jews, you are right about that.
I would assert that it applies, chronologically, only to the Jews, and not at all to the Church of this age.
You are sadly mistaken when you affirm that the 70 week prophecy of Daniel has been completely fulfilled as of 34 AD.
The system of interpretation required to arrive at that date is flawed, because it is not true to the Scripture itself. It is not true to the Scripture because it violates Rule 1 of the 21 Rules of Interpretation I have carefully listed previously. Rule 1 pertains to the necessity of adopting a consistent method of interpretation for all of Scripture. The method required is a literal interpretation.
“Spiritual Israel” has absolutely nothing to do with the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel.
Your interpretation fails because it does not account for the unannounced time gap present in the prophecy.
The gap occurs between the 69th week and the 70th week.
Specifically, there is a gap between the close of Daniel 9:26 and the beginning of Daniel 9:27.
To suggest the 70th week itself was completed upon the event of the death of Stephen is unsupported in Scripture. It is unsupported for any time historically represented in the book of Acts. Your choice of Stephen’s martyrdom is very arbitrary and violates what you admit is the focus of the 70 weeks prophecy, namely, the Jews and the nation of Israel.
Time specified in Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy pertains to time involving the nation of Israel.
The 69th week ended at some point before the death of Christ.
This is proven by the fact that the prophecy specifies that the death of the Messiah takes place after the 69th week is complete (Daniel 9:26, “And after three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off”).
The Seventieth Week, therefore, must begin at some time future to the death of Christ.
The beginning of the Seventieth Week is specified in Daniel 9:27, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”
I pointed out in my post above that the grammar requires the “he” to be a reference to the Antichrist, not the Messiah. That is the literal interpretation (Rule 1) in accordance with the grammar of the text (Rule 10).
It is most evident to the careful student of Scripture, alert on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island, that there is a time gap in Daniel’s prophecy that occurs in the text between Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 9:27. This is no surprise: time gaps are frequent in Bible prophecy. I have listed all that I found so far in a note at Isaiah 61:2 in Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible. The note, in a very slightly less complete form, is also in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.
I have not ignored the discussion of the start of the 70 weeks. No one needs to suppose there is any great controversy about that.
You have ignored the start of Week 70, which of course has not happened yet. That will be marked when the events described in Daniel 9:27 begin to take place at some point future to our day.
You have ignored, and apparently deny, the existence of a time gap in Daniel’s 70 Week prophecy. That, of course, is a direct denial of the literal grammatical interpretation of Scripture itself, which is a very unwise procedure when it comes to truly understanding what the Bible has to say.
On another theme we have been discussing, I presented strict, literally and grammatically interpreted, Scripture to prove the Pre-tribulation Rapture in the writings of Paul, to whom alone in the providence of God was given this message of comfort to the Church of genuine believers. Indeed, I am convinced. You are not. But you should be!
Just what does it take to properly convince you?
Dear A. Way,
I am eagerly awaiting your response to my question, “Just what does it take to properly convince you?”
You commented above, challenging me as to just what denomination or church I belong to, suggesting that my position on Bible prophecy is more in line with some clever Roman Catholic apologists of the past, who allegedly are the source of the futurist interpretation of Bible prophecy:
To answer your question, I am a Bible-believing, born-again Christian who loves to carefully study the Bible. I am not a member of any church or denomination. Since there are no denominations that are correct about Bible doctrine, I’ll stay with my “Bible alone and in its entirety” (to quote a phrase I learned from listening to Mr. Harold Camping over WYFR, a point on which, back then, he was most correct).
Ken Sagely, who also often comments here, furnished me a link on the Internet to a marvelous article containing quotations from the writings of Bishop J. C. Ryle about Bibe prophecy.
Let me share this one:
(Bold emphasis added)
The link Ken furnished me is:
http://middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/rylejews.htm
You see, though I did not get my position about how badly the Reformers interpret Bible prophecy from Bishop J. C. Ryle, I agree with his assessment, so I am not the only student of the Bible to come to this conclusion. With Bishop J. C. Ryle on my side in this issue, I am in very good company indeed.
I can give you many scholars that would disagree with Ryle. You have not said when the 70 week prophesy started. I have. And it makes perfect sense, and it is strong argument for the validity of the Messiah. It is the most literal reading of the Bible, and does not create an “unannounced” break in the time line which is not there. The 70 weeks started in 457 BC. 7 weeks to rebuild Jerusalem. 62 week to the Messiah. 1 week for the Messiah, and in the middle of the week, He is cut off, Danial 9:27. 457 BC, the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, at 69 weeks which is 483 years added to 457 BC, no year 0, brings you to 27 AD. This is the year of Jesus’ baptism. He preached 3.5 years, right? Exactly, and was “cut off”, crucified in the middle of the week, this is the final 70th week. 3.5 years later, Stephen was stoned. What happened when Stephen was stoned? Read about it in Acts 8. Acts 8:4-5 NKJV Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word. (v5) Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them. The time of the Jews was over. The stoning of Stephen was no arbitrary date. Danial 9:24, 70 weeks are determined for your people. This is Israel. When the Messiah came, the Jews rejected Him and crucified Him. The stoning of Stephen, 3.5 years after the crucifixion, was the final straw. After his stoning, the scattered and when every where to every one with the Gospel. The Gospel was no longer just for the Jews. This is Biblical and fact. And the Reformers got it right. So you see, I see your interpretation as not taking the prophesy literally. My interpretation squares with the Bible and history. And the dates fit perfectly. That is its strongest proof.
What is utterly amazing with your interpretations of Daniel 9:27, is that you are saying that the antichrist will make an end to sacrifice. But it was Jesus that made and end of sacrifice. All the temple services pointed to Jesus. Jesus was the one cut off in the middle of the week. And what confirmed this is that the veil was torn top to bottom in the temple, revealing the Most Holy place. It is Jesus that put an end to sacrifice, not the antichrist.
What will it take to convince me that you are right you ask? Truth. It is not with futurism. The 70 prophesy is clear, and it has literally be fulfilled. And no finagling of the timeline was necessary.
I found an interesting website with which I do believe I agree. It is found here: http://www.daniels70weeks.com. And see the bottom of the page for the futurist view. Enjoy.
Dear A. Way,
You furnished a very helpful link in support of your position.
At that link I came upon the following paragraph:
I am working on Jeremiah 6 today, so I have not yet reached the book of Daniel. Your challenges provide much help in advance to addressing the issues presented by the prophetic material in Daniel.
Nevertheless, the cited material above seems at my first reading to work from the end of the 62 weeks, not the end of the 69 weeks, at least as stated by its author. But I may be misunderstanding his intended meaning.
That seems, at first reading, to be an error on that author’s part, I believe, because you cannot take the 62 weeks of years without also including the preceding 7 weeks of years, in accordance with the immediately preceding context in Scripture (following Rule 11 of my 21 Rules of Interpretation posted previously on this site on October 10, 2010 and October 27, 2010 available in the Archives here under October 2010):
But the crucial issue is that both you, and the author of the cited website, have neglected to account for the fact stated in the 70 Week prophecy in Daniel that Messiah is cut off AFTER the 69 weeks have transpired, and thus necessarily BEFORE the commencement of Week 70.
Both of you make the absurd claim that there is no time break in this prophecy. The Bible in plain text clearly states there is, for the death of the Messiah is declared to be AFTER the completion of the first 69 weeks. It does NOT state that the death of the Messiah takes place during Week 70. Thus, the Crucifixion of the Messiah takes place during the Interval–the unannounced Time Gap–between the conclusion of Week 69 and the start of Week 70. It is most clear that Week 70 has not started even yet, but is still as I currently write this comment future to ourselves.
And take very careful note of the fact that I am going directly to the text of Scripture as I work through my careful interpretation of this text. Furthermore, I have spelled out in specific detail exactly what Rule or Rules of Interpretation I am applying for each step in my interpretation.
It is you and the writer of material on the interesting website you reference that make use of the ad hominem argument or ploy against my strictly Biblical interpretation by trying to link my interpretation to an extra-biblical source like those apparently very clever Roman Catholic apologists of several centuries ago who allegedly devised a futurist interpretation for Week 70 of Daniel’s prophecy. Who knows–perhaps in their ignorance they happened to get something, though a very small something, right. Even if they did, they surely continued in misunderstanding of Bible prophecy regarding the future destiny of the literal nation of Israel, so their view doesn’t match mine, because they were in error on everything else.
Your referenced site declares:
And again (previous to the context just cited):
The website author and yourself are clearly in error regarding the status of natural Israel as a nation, for Scripture clearly declares that they will never be permanently cast away. Here is my strictly Biblical proof; therefore, please read all the following texts of Scripture carefully:
Because of a history of seriously mishandling the Word of God, Isaiah 41:9 is not nearly as familiar to Bible readers as the verse which follows:
And for the same reason, the verses that follow are also less well known:
Your chosen prophetic view is clearly false because it leaves nothing for Messiah to inherit if the literal nation of Israel is of no further prophetic relevance in the future plan of God:
And just how does a literal fulfillment of Luke 1:32, 33 fit in to your prophetic understanding? Apparently it doesn’t:
Paul the Apostle was well aware of these facts, and understood these things, for he affirmed that Israel as a nation has not been forsaken or cast away by God:
And on what basis does Paul make such an affirmation?
Paul knew and understood the Scriptures well, for there is much in the Old Testament which directly affirms his statement:
Any view of Bible prophecy which fails to take fully into account the sure mercies of David, the provisions of the Davidic Covenant, is mistaken.
To the best of my present knowledge (and, as you well know, I am always eager to learn something new, and to be corrected), the only prophetic view which properly accounts for the “sure mercies of David” is the view commonly referred to as the Futurist View.
The Starting Date for the Seventy Weeks Prophecy in Daniel is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether Week 70 has already transpired, or whether it is yet future. The Bible plainly shows that Week 70 is still in the future.
The First Week of Daniel’s 70 Weeks started at 454 BC, the “twentieth year of Artaxerxes” (Nehemiah 1:1. 2:1).
You said:
The author is correct and I think clear. The 70 week prophesy has 3 parts. 7 weeks + 62 weeks + 1 week. Coming at the end of the 62 weeks is referring to that segment. To get the time, you take 7 + 62 and you get 69 weeks.
This implies that the Messiah was cut off right when the 69 weeks end, but we know this is not the case because we know He was cut off in the middle of the week. The only obscured notion is that there is a break in the continuity of the 70 week prophesy.
I laugh. BTW My mis-spelling of “absurd” as “obscured” is maybe most fortunate. There is no time gap. That is the point, and the beauty of the 70 week prophesy, as it pinpoints the Messiah precisely. Did you read on on that website where it addresses futurism? Again, I think their presentation of the issues is very good.
See – literal vs spiritual Israel is the issue. You reject that we all can be part of Israel. It has nothing to do with genetics. Israel’s status as a special people had past. Christ had come, and Israel rejected Him.
Being a genetic descendant of Jacob was not enough. You had be be a descendant of the promised child, Isaac. (Romans 9:8)
Galatians 4:21-31, Paul lays it out. And specifically, Galatians 4:28, Paul says that by rebirth, Gentiles/Christians become children of the Promise.
God does not abandon any person, Jew or Gentile. The Jew had all the advantage, they were the keepers of the oracles of God. But Israel failed in their responsibility, and after the 70 weeks with the stoning of Stephen, Israel’s special place was over. The Gospel would go to the whole world, as it should have under the Jews.
Dear A. Way,
You comment immediately above:
Jesus Himself addressed the issue somewhat differently when Matthew records:
The timing of the change in relationship of natural Israel to the promised Kingdom of God was announced, and surely took place, before the Crucifixion of Christ. When the Jewish Authorities rejected the sworn testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ at his trial, they were then officially guilty of rejecting their Messiah:
Therefore, this took place a good while before the stoning of Stephen.
You have not faced the re-affirmation of Abrahamic and Davidic Covenant Scriptures I posted in detail and at length above.
Israel’s status as a special people has not passed, unless you can meet the requirements posed by God Himself to support your claim as against His claim:
Until day and night no longer come in their appointed succession, the sure mercies of David and the Abrahamic Covenant are God’s sworn and pledged guarantee that the nation of Israel will not be permanently “cast away,” but natural (not spiritual) Israel will inherit all the promises given them by God himself.
Your system of prophetic interpretation is guilty of stealing the promised inheritance from Israel and giving it (or self-appropriating it) to someone else not designated in Scripture as the proper recipients. That is why your school of prophetic interpretation is mistaken, and why only the Futurist position can be correct.
If you cannot see this yet, you really need to scroll up to the posting where I carefully presented the relevant Scripture that absolutely establishes my position regarding natural Israel as the correct understanding. Please go back and read those Scriptures again, carefully.
It is written:
Romans 2:29 NRSV Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart–it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God.
You still have not said when the 70 week prophesy started. The reason you have not, is because it can not be reconciled with history.
Dear A. Way,
Your application of Romans 2:29 is in violation of Rule 6, Rule 14, and Rule 15 of the Rules of Interpretation already posted on this site last October 10 and October 27, 2010.
Therefore, you have misapplied the verse.
You must take Romans 2:29 in the light of Romans 11:1, 2, as well as Romans 11:29, already cited in my comment with all these Scriptures and more given above at my comment of May 26, 2011 at 12:09 pm.
Paul knew his Bible very well. He managed this without the modern advantages we enjoy, like our portable printed Bibles and our electronic Bibles and software!
Notice what Paul states at Romans 11:26-27, which reflects exactly what I have posted above:
Recall my prior comment that this great truth is best conveyed by the passages given as cross references to Psalm 130:8,
For the benefit of those readers here that do not yet have access to either of my published standard Bible study reference works named at the end of this comment, here are the cross references as they are now expanded in my current project to provide even more cross references for Real Bible Study:
During this Interval between the end of Week 69 until Week 70 begins at an unspecified time still future to us is sandwiched what is commonly called this Church Age. It is also known as the Age of Grace, in reference to John 1:17,
Paul introduces this aspect of his doctrinal/prophetic discussion by calling it a mystery:
Paul makes reference to a considerable number of what he calls “mystery” doctrines; I have carefully referenced all of them which I have found in the cross references to Romans 16:25. I have enumerated 16 of these doctrines in the note I furnished for this verse in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. Romans 11:25 is number 9 on that list. The whole subject can be studied by consulting the references given at Romans 16:25 from either source, Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible (which gives only the cross references without listing the doctrines), or the NTSK, which enumerates the list and names the doctrines.
Paul calls this doctrine regarding the temporary blindness of the nation of Israel a “mystery” because its specific details were not previously clearly revealed. We know now that some Jewish people are being saved during this Interval, and they constitute “spiritual Israel” and are those Paul describes as Jews who are such inwardly (Romans 2:29). It is a new thing, hence a “mystery doctrine,” that Gentiles and Jews in Christ are One Body, during this Interval, the Age of Grace.
Paul emphatically states in this passage in Romans 11 that the provision now newly made for Jews and Gentiles to become one in Christ does not negate the Covenantal Provisions God made with Abraham and David for the natural seed of Israel, the Jewish nation, which will yet fully inherit the land of Israel:
“My covenant unto them” is a clear reference to the Davidic Covenant in particular, from which this passage is a citation from Isaiah’s discussion of that Covenant, as well as the Abrahamic Covenant. You can easily track down the specifics of Paul’s reference by means of the cross references given in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, which more specifically marks the cited Scripture.
Paul states that “all Israel” shall be saved, and all ungodliness will be removed from Jacob when the Deliverer shall come out of Zion, “as it is written.”
Paul was a Futurist. He knew his Scriptures well enough so that he got these things straight. Other prophetic positions have gotten these things wrong. Paul specifies he speaks according to Scripture, when he specifies, “as it is written.”
Consulting the cross references given in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible will direct you to the Scriptures Paul had in mind.
You must not have read carefully to the end of my important post of May 26, 2011 at 12:09 pm. I answered your question about when the 70 Weeks Prophecy started there, gave the date, and the associated Scripture proof, in the last sentence. But, you really need to go back and read that entire post again carefully, as originally requested.
You are right – I missed that date or forgot it. You said: “The First Week of Daniel’s 70 Weeks started at 454 BC, the “twentieth year of Artaxerxes”
OK – let us look at that date. You agree what the 69 weeks were contiguous. So, 69 x 7 = 483 years. Take 454 BC and add 483 takes us to AD 30. And there is a problem. The 69 weeks points to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus was Baptized in the 15 years of Tiberius Caesar, Luke 3:1. What year was this? Tiberius Caesar began to reign jointly with his step father, Augustus Caesar, in AD 12. His fifteenth year was therefore AD 27 in which year Jesus was baptized and began His work. Thus the Messiah appeared on
time. He appeared on the very year foretold hundreds of years before by divine prophecy. God Himself announced the Messiah at his baptism. So the start of the 70 weeks matches history with 457 BC being the start. Even Sir Isaac Newton studying these historical evidence concluded that Ezra took the Artaxerxes’ decree to Jerusalem in 457 B.C. This was placed in the margin of the King James Version in 1701.
Josephus wrote that the last Jubilee celebrated before the fall of Jerusalem was in AD 27. When Jesus started His ministry, he read in the Synagog (on the Sabbath day) the following, Luke 4:16-24; Isaiah 61:1-2.
Starting His ministry in AD 27, then points to His death in AD 31 according to the 70 prophesy. “Cut off in the middle of the week”, of Passover, Daniel 9:27.
Now, you state: “Paul states that “all Israel” shall be saved…” Question: Is Paul taking universal salvation for the Jews? And if this is an end-time prophesy for the 70th week, why only that generation of Jews? Does your cross-reference include Romans 11:14?
It seems evident from this that Paul believed that many would reject all efforts to save them, and that there would not be universal salvation, for Jew or Gentile. There was a faithful remnant of Jews in Paul’s time, Romans 11:5, to which would be added those Jews that accepted Christ. And not a few scholars have suggested, and I think you rejected, that “all Israel” is speaking about spiritual Israel.
So, Gentiles can be heirs, according to the promise. And the heirs were Jews…
Dear A. Way,
“All Israel” has no reference to “spiritual Israel.” Spiritual Israel is already saved.
The Israel Paul has reference to in Romans 11 is future Israel, which will be saved when the Deliverer is come out of Zion, and they then trust in their Messiah.
You are confused and confusing what is true for this age with what is predicted in the Old Testament prophecies Paul cites which pertain to “the age to come.”
Time to find that plain text Bible and take a trip for secluded Bible study on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island, the only place where you are likely to learn the truth from the Bible alone and in its entirety.