The rapture

Chris Temple Wrote:

Joseph:

Jesus never believed that this would happen in his "lifetime". Jesus also said two verses later, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." (Matt 24:36).

If Jesus chose not to know the timing of His 2nd coming, He certainly didn't expect it to occur while He was still in the First Coming!

The term generation does not mean in context a literal 40 year generation. Rather the Gk. word is genea which means race, family, generation. In context it means the evil age lived in which lasts until the 2nd Coming, when Christ will make all things new.


My reply:

Chris, did you get that definition from a Greek Lexicon or is that last part about "...evil age lived in which lasts until the 2nd Coming..." just your preferred interpretation. Because it surely isn't found within the context of that passage or within the actual definition of the Greek word "Genea". Take a look at a site that I am presently constructing a little at a time and I think you will see what I mean. Most of the Greek scholars I have read seem to agree with my interpretation of the passage.
http://communities.msn.com/TheBotwinickFamily&naventryid=113

Joseph

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikayehu:
Pastory Larry,
I'm just trying to get some clarification on your last post. First regarding the response to Rev. 3:10 being anemic, I don't think I agree. I gave the one other place where that Greek phrase was used in Scripture, and there (Jn. 17) it clearly means to guard in the midst of danger. So, I stated that that was the natural reading in the Rev. passage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, John 17 does not "clearly mean" to guard in the midst of danger. There is another legitimate interpretation as I showed. Furthermore, as I showed, James 5:20 is a parallel thought of sozo ek where it clearly means away from not in the midst of. I think John 17 is ambiguous at best. When read in the light of Rev 3:10 it could be understood another way. Where you read Rev 3:10 in light of John 17, I read John 17 in light of Rev 3:10. Who is right? I am of course (I am kidding folks). I think your case would be strong if there were multiple uses. However, there are only two and both can be disputed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I hold that at the second coming of Christ, the saints who have died will be resurrected. They, together with the saints who are alive, will be caught up to welcome the Lord in His triumphant procession to earth. Christ will come with the believers to set up His millenial kingdom on this earth. So, I do definitely see inhabitants of the earth during the millenium.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that those resurrected saints have glorified bodies which do not procreate. Therefore you still have no means by which to populate the earth with sinners, those who are deceived when Satan is released from the earth. That was the point I was bringing out. Furthermore being caught up to return to the earth with the Lord as you claim will happen does not reconcile very well with John 14:1-6 where the dead are caught up to go to the Father's house ... unless of course, you say that the Father's house is on earth. However, I don't think that is what you want to say.

For Robert:

If you have never seen a biblical refutation of the posttrib position then you live in a very small world. It has been biblically dealt with many times. You have made a number of statements that have no foundation ... such as occultic origins. To equate pretrib w/ KJVOnly shows the depths to which you will go to associate a position you disagree with that has biblical support (Pretrib) for a position that has no biblical support (KJVOnly). Have you run out of biblical arguments already? My suspicion is that you have never read much or been exposed to anyone who did anything other than demagogue about it. If you took time to read the arguments and the exegetical proof, you would not say that it rests on shaky interpretation and you certainly would not equate it with KJVonlyism.

For me to label posttribs with Arianism would be equally as accurate. It just isn't true. Here is a case where making biblical arguments and sticking to the well reasoned facts would further the discussion.

[ August 02, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

[ August 02, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Joseph:

Although all NT words have their derivative meaning, they also are defind by their context. genea ; can mean race, family, generation or kind .

It also comes from the root word ginomai; which means to come into being, to happen, to become, and is translated the followign ways in the NASB NT:— accomplished(1), appeared(3), arise(1), arises(2), arose(6), arrived(3), became(53), become(83), becomes(8), becoming(2), been(12), been brought(1), been done(1), been made(2), been...came(1), began(1), behaved(1), being(2), come into being(1), being carried(1), being done(2), being made(2), born(5), breaking*(1), came(45), came into being(2), came to pass(2), come(16), comes(1), comes to pass(1), coming(1), dawn(1), decided*(1), developing(1), done(20), drawing(1), during(1), elapsed(1), existed*(1), falling(1), feeling(1), fell(6), finished(1), followed(1), formed(3), found(2), get(4), give(1), got(1), granted(1), grown*(1), had(1), happen(6), happened(46), happening(5), happens(3), has(3), join*(1), joined(3), made(15), occur(3), occurred(18), performed(4), prove(7), proved(6), proving(1), put(1), reached(2), realized(1), results(2), show(1), spent(1), split(1), spoken(1), starting(1), take place(16), taken(2), taken place(5), takes place(1), taking place(3), there arose(1), thundered*(1), took place(7), turned(1), turns(3), would(1).

In Matt. 1:17, the word generation means a succession or series of persons from the same stock. Matt. 3:7, “Generation of vipers” = brood of vipers. Was this the only physical generation which was a brood fo vipers? No, it means here those of similar kind. 1 Pet. 2:9, uses it as “A chosen generation” = a chosen people. Was the present generation of believers the only chosen people? No, it means again fo the similar kind, ALL the chosen.

So context is very important in defining words. While much of Matt 24 is directed at the soon coming destruction of Jerusalem, it also refers to the future Second Coming. How do we know? Because Matt 24:29-41 are yet unfulfilled - Jesus did not come in the first generation - all these things will come to pass before this evil generation (race) of humans passes away means at the end of the present inter-advental time.

 

Pastor Larry:

My point is--more Christians are opposing pretrib on a larger and more controversial scale; I have yet to see pretribbers brand the postrib teaching as unbiblical, unfounded, heretical on a large and massive scale. In short, postrib advocates are usually on the defensive and receiving end.

And about the OCCULTIC side of pretrib which is pretty much documented and very well known:

"The origin of the two-phase coming of Jesus has an equally unsavory history. It was not until around the year 1830 that this view began to be taught. In the Scottish church pastored by Edward Irving, a Miss Margaret McDonald gave what was believed at the time to be an inspired utterance. She spoke of the visible, open and glorious second coming of Jesus. But as the utterance continued, she spoke of another coming of Jesus--a secret and special coming in which those that were truly ready would be raptured. It was John Nelson Darby, however, a Brethren preacher and diligent writer of the time in England who was largely responsible for introducing this new teaching on a large scale. The teaching spread to the United States in the 1850's and 1860's, where it was to received its biggest boost when Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, a strong believer in Darby's teachings, incorporated it into the notes of his "Scofield Reference Bible" which was published in 1909. Since that time, this view has been widely accepted--often by people who are completely unaware that this was not the belief held by Christians over the centuries."

I have yet to hear of a connection between postrib and the occult.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


If you have never seen a biblical refutation of the posttrib position then you live in a very small world. It has been biblically dealt with many times. You have made a number of statements that have no foundation ... such as occultic origins. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point is--more Christians are opposing pretrib on a larger and more controversial scale; I have yet to see pretribbers brand the postrib teaching as unbiblical, unfounded, heretical on a large and massive scale.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am opposing it as unbiblical though I will, for now, stop short of heretical. I think posttrib cannot deal with the exegesis of passages and you have shown no different. It seems to me that pre-tribs spend more of their time defending the biblical position. Apparently posttribs somehow feel that their position cannot stand without attempting to destroy the others. I don't really know.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"The origin of the two-phase coming of Jesus has an equally unsavory history. It was not until around the year 1830 that this view began to be taught. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a "newness" fallacy and it has already been shown that biblical revelation is the basis for pre trib, not darby or anyone else. Paul was a pretrib as you can tell from his writings. Christ was a pretrib as you can tell from his speech. Many of the passages of Scripture make no sense whatsoever if you are a posttrib.

My suspicion is two-fold:
1) You have never really studied the issue from a well-founded exegetical defender of biblical eschatology; or

2) You simply do not want to accept the biblical reasoning for whatever reason.

I lean toward the first option. I think you have never exposed yourself to an exegetical defense of it and interacted with it. I have already encountered a number of people (on this board especially) who take everything they know about dispensational theology from its critics rather than its proponents. The result is that they make totally unfounded statements and accuse dispensationalism of things that simply aren't true. I have tried in other threads to get those who denounce dispensationalism vehemently to deal with Scripture but so far they won't do it. I hope you will not prove the same.

Whether you agree with the position or not, Pretribulationism has a solid, exegetical and theological foundation that is not easily refuted. Unfortunately, it seems that there are very few here who really want to deal with the actual texts, preferring instead to simply make slams against other people. For instance, you have not dealt with John 14. I haven't seen you make hardly any comments on 1 Thess 4 or 5, 2 Thess 2, or anything in Revelation. I suggest we get to the texts and present the options and arguments. We should deal with the contexts, explain the flow of thought, deal with the various interpretive options, and draw our conclusions so that we can interact with them. Of course, that takes a little more time then checking in here to flame someone and hit the door.

Appealing to the occult is ridiculous and I think you know it. If that is the best you can come up with to refute dispensationalism, you really haven't read much. There are a great deal of legitimate objections (though I believe they have all been adequately answered). Occult connections is not one of them.

 

Pastor Larry:

Okay, let's make the discussion SCHOLARLY.

First, John 14--it just says that Jesus is going away and coming back again. No secret rapture here.

Second, 1 Thess 4,5--it just says something about Jesus coming back bringing with him Christians who have died. Of course, where do you suppose dead Christians went? No secret rapture here. This event is just ONE Second Coming. And yes, we will meet him in the air. No indication of God rescuing us from the great tribulation.

2 Thess 2--this supports postrib. It talks about A COMING, not two comings. It plainly says that we will be gathered by Jesus, and this day will not come until the man of lawlessness is revealed. In short, we will pass through the tribulation.

Now, TRY defending and explaining the following passages:

Matthew 24:4-22 -- Please put special focus on verse 22: "...In fact, unless that time of calamity is shortened, the entire human race will be destroyed. But it will be shortened for the sake of God's CHOSEN ONES."

Luke 21:36 -- "Keep a constant watch. And pray that, if possible, you may escape these HORRORS and stand before the Son of Man.

2 Thess 2:3 -- "Don't be fooled by what they say. For that day [the 2nd Coming] will not come unless there is great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed--the one who brings destruction."

Rev 7:14 -- "...these are the ONES coming out of the great tribulation. They washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb and made them white."

There are several verses which PLAINLY state that Christians undergo this great evil. Verses that are cited to support the pretrib position are often vague and precarious--and often have to be FORCED.

Let me cite Louis Berkhof in his magnum opus, Systematic Theology, "The ONLY scriptural basis for this theory is Revelations 20:1-6, after an Old Testament reading has been poured into it. This is a very precarious basis for various reasons...(2) The literal interpretation of this passage, as given by Premillenarians, leads to a view that finds no support in Scripture, BUT IS EVEN CONTRADICTED BY THE REST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. This is a fatal objection. SOUND EXEGESIS REQUIRES THAT THE OBSCURE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE CLEARER ONES, AND NOT VICE VERSA. (Caps mine.)

Brown, the great theologian, in his book The Second Advent, says, "WHAT A MONGREL STATE OF THINGS THIS IS. What an abhorred mixture of things totally inconsistent with each other!"

Pretrib is a MONGREL teaching! Christians are't supposed to be mongrels.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
My suspicion is two-fold:
1) You have never really studied the issue from a well-founded exegetical defender of biblical eschatology. For instance, you have not dealt with John 14. I haven't seen you make hardly any comments on 1 Thess 4 or 5, 2 Thess 2, or anything in Revelation. I suggest we get to the texts and present the options and arguments. We should deal with the contexts, explain the flow of thought, deal with the various interpretive options, and draw our conclusions so that we can interact with them. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First, John 14--it just says that Jesus is going away and coming back again. No secret rapture here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jesus said I am going to prepare a place for you in my father’s house and when I come I will take you there. Posttrib teaches that when Christ comes, we will go to meet him in the air and then come to earth to reign with him. The posttrib teaching is the exact opposite of what Christ said. Now who is right?

1 Thess 4-5 – 5:11 says that we will be saved from the wrath to come, elsewhere identified as the tribulation. Posttribs say we will be in the tribulation, therefore not saved from the wrath to come but rather suffering in it. Now who is right? Will we be saved from the wrath to come or will we not? 1 Thess 5 does not fit a posttrib view very easily.

2 Thess 2 – As for the two comings argument, let me only refer you to the OT as an example where the coming of the Messiah (which we now know to be two) was presented as one. In fact in Christ’s reading in the temple (Luke 4) he cites only half of a passage from Isaiah because only half of it applied to his first coming. The other half applies to his second. No DT argues that the second coming is more than one coming. At the rapture, Christ does not come to earth. It is also possible the "Second Coming" is referring to the big picture of the 1007 years and some odd days. Furthermore, this passage does not say we will pass through the tribulation. It says that the DOL has not yet come because these things haven’t happened. That is why AD 70 cannot be the tribulation. Those things had not yet happened. I am referring here to the preterist view of eschatology.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Matthew 24:4-22 -- Please put special focus on verse 22: "...In fact, unless that time of calamity is shortened, the entire human race will be destroyed. But it will be shortened for the sake of God's CHOSEN ONES." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God has chosen ones during the tribulation. They are simply not the same chosen ones as the church age. The tribulation wrath is so great that if it did not end, the whole human race would be extinct. Another reason why AD 70 does not qualify for the tribulation. This verse doesn’t help you at all. It is perfectly consistent with pretrib. Furthermore, he is speaking to the nation of Israel. Once you make the fatal (and unbiblical) mistake of equating the nation of Israel with the church, your position naturally follows. Just FYI, that will be the fatal flaw of progressive dispensationalism.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Luke 21:36 -- "Keep a constant watch. And pray that, if possible, you may escape these HORRORS and stand before the Son of Man. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure what your point is here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2 Thess 2:3 -- "Don't be fooled by what they say. For that day [the 2nd Coming] will not come unless there is great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed--the one who brings destruction."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That day is the DOL which the OT prophesies of.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rev 7:14 -- "...these are the ONES coming out of the great tribulation. They washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb and made them white."
There are several verses which PLAINLY state that Christians undergo this great evil. Verses that are cited to support the pretrib position are often vague and precarious--and often have to be FORCED.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one argues that people are saved during the tribulation. That is clear from Scripture. You have assumed that because there are saved people in the tribulation that they must have gotten there by entering it. That is a mistake. God still saves people during the trib and the people here referred to are those people. You have taken these verses and read them in light of your presupposition to say that the Christians in the trib were saved before it started. Yet the texts say nothing of the kind. In fact, the texts do not say when these people were saved. All these texts you cite are directed at the unbelieving nation of Israel and shows that the tribulation judgments are for them to bring them back to repentance. Therefore, if the church was in the tribulation, it would serve no purpose since the church has already accepted the Messiah. The tribulation is not just to pour out judgment on sin generally. These passages confirm that it serves to bring Israel back to repentance. If it were just about judgment of sin generally, surely we would just skip it and go right to the GWT where sin will be judged eternally. Evidently the trib serves the purpose of judging sin for the purpose of redemption, not for the purpose of condemnation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let me cite Louis Berkhof in his magnum opus, Systematic Theology, "The ONLY scriptural basis for this theory is Revelations 20:1-6, after an Old Testament reading has been poured into it. This is a very precarious basis for various reasons...(2) The literal interpretation of this passage, as given by Premillenarians, leads to a view that finds no support in Scripture, BUT IS EVEN CONTRADICTED BY THE REST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. This is a fatal objection. SOUND EXEGESIS REQUIRES THAT THE OBSCURE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE CLEARER ONES, AND NOT VICE VERSA. (Caps mine.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I am not mistaken you have miscited Berkhof to be talking about pre trib when he is actually talking about premill. If you want to talk premill, let’s do that. But don’t cite Berkhof about something he is not referring to. However, on millennialism Berkhof does exactly what he condemns: he fails to interpret Scripture in light of Scripture. He comes very close to denying the faithfulness and truthfulness of God, a topic that we were discussing in another thread. There, I posted a discussion of Jer 31 where a future for Israel is demanded if God is not to be a liar. Chris, who took me to task by quoting theologians such as you did, has refused to interact with Scripture. He has simply disappeared when the discussion got to Scripture. I would love for you to show me why Scripture doesn’t mean what it says. If you want to talk premill, let’s do that. Here we are talking pretrib and it would help to quote people about pretribulationism, not premillinniallism.

If Brown said such things are you quote, then you have mistakenly called him a great theologian. Of course, great is anyone who agrees with someone and mongrel is anyone who doesn’t. I haven’t read that book so I can’t comment on it. However, for this discussion let’s not cite such foolish, pejorative statements as if they represent good argumentation. Let’s stick to the issues.

[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Pastor Larry said:

Rev 3:10 was mentioned earlier but the response to it was anemic. Consider this: from may mean out from within (emergence) but can also mean away from (exclusion).

This is a bit of a tangent, but . . .

Considering that:

1. 
   <LI> most Dispensationalists seem to take the seven churches in Revelation as seven "church ages" (thus violating the principle of consistent literalism, but I digress!)
   <LI> those same Dispensationalists all seem to believe we are in the final, "Laodicean" church age

then doesn't it necessarily follow that the Rapture has already happened, at the end of the Philadelphian church age?

 

Robert .. did I read that right .. do we agree? I made an earlier post and said I would back it up with scripture. My stand seems to be the ongoing growing stronger thread .. the Christians will be here during the tribulation.

Mark 13 9-11 the elect are delivered up before the synagogue of Satan .. verse 14 .. But when ye stand before the abomination of desolation .. Satan .. verse 20 ... And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

verse 24 ... But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened .....

go down to verse 26 and 27 .. And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory .. (can you imagine? ... )
.... and shall gather his elect ..

The christians have been here up until this point.

I do not have documenttation for this next point ... it is just an opinion .. Why would the Christians be taken away before the anti-Christ returns? He doesn't want to take charge of sinners ... he wants the elect .. the Christians.

 

Finally, someone else that knows of Margaret McDonald .. I was beginning to think I was losing my mind .. (well, actually I am but who is to say? Ha!) .. Margaret was a fortune teller ... There are books out there .. not just one .. There is documentation. My post several pages ago lists several that I have read ...

 

Ransom – Most dispensationalists do not take the seven churches as church ages. Some do to be sure but such an interpretation is untenable. So your point falls on its face. For those who hold that aberrant view, you will have to talk to them.

For his name – Why do you continue to suggest that the elect of the tribulation are the same as the elect of the church age? There is no basis for such a belief. There are elect in the OT, in the church age, in the tribulation, and in the millennium. They are different people.

To answer your surmising, the church is taken from the world before Antichrist because the purpose of the tribulation is to bring the Jews to repentance. Since the church has already repented, the tribulation has no point for them. The tribulation begins when Antichrist makes a treaty with the Jews (Dan 9:27) and then at the midpoint he breaks the treaty. All of the passages you quote are of Jesus talking to the Jews and making specific points to them about them and their response during the tribulation.

You say that Antichrist wants the elect, not the world. You have mistaken Antichrist for Satan. Satan wants the elect. Antichrist wants to rule the world and everybody in it.

 

Pastor Larry:

All Christians are now spared from God's wrath--that is the wrath which is to come.

Pretribulationists are really escapist--not only do they want to escape the tribulation, they also want to escape the fact that this pretrib teaching began in 1830 when Margaret McDonald "spoke in tongues."

This is very well documented and no pretrib has successfully denied the historicity of this fact. Tsk, tsk, tsk, very, very occultic! Even today's members of the Catholic Apostolic Church in England recognize the fact that the pretrib teaching came from them.

And by the way...

Two second comings. More than two judgements. More than two resurrections.

WHAT A MONGREL STATE OF THINGS THIS IS!

 

Pastor Larry .. Even though we have conflicting interpetations .. thank you for your response. I believe the elect to be the elect .. predestined and chosen.

The Abomination of Desolation is Satan.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All Christians are now spared from God's wrath--that is the wrath which is to come.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in the context which is what you want to ignore. In the context of 1 Thess 5, the wrath to come is the tribulation. When you read how it comes, there is only one thing that qualifies.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pretribulationists are really escapist--not only do they want to escape the tribulation, they also want to escape the fact that this pretrib teaching began in 1830 when Margaret McDonald "spoke in tongues."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as you continue to propound dishonesty, you will have no chance of understanding the issue. Pretribulationism is biblically and exegetically grounded. Do the work and you will see it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Two second comings. More than two judgements. More than two resurrections.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are not two second comings. Perhaps you missed the above post where I addressed this issue.

There are more than two judgments. If you study history, there were multiple OT judgments noted as a Day of the Lord (something the eschaton is called also) culminating in 586 BC. There is clearly a judgment of the saints regardless of when you think it takes place (2 Cor 10:5); there is a judgment of the unsaved (GWT Rev 20:11-15); there is a judgment of the sheep and goats (Matt 24 which includes both saved and unsaved and thereby cannot be either of the two above).

As for the resurrection, Rev 20 does talk about a first and a second. 1 Thess 4 talks about one; Dan 12 talks about another one. The simple fact is that, while once again you do not deal with Scripture in this post, posttribs must make Scripture stand on its head to make it work. The only thing mongrel here is your failure to deal with Scripture according to its context and intention. I can handle disagreement, but let's at least use Scripture and try to understand it in its context.

For His Name: I too believe the elect to be the elect. But surely you must admit that not all of the elect are of the same time period. In other words, I don't see that "the elect being the elect" has anything to do with this argument. Even in your position, the vast majority of Christians and all the OT believers will miss the tribulation by virtue of death. What is so strange about the rapture taking the church so that God's purpose can be fulfilled?

You believe that the abomination of desolation is Satan? The Bible defines it differently. It is when Antichrist goes into the temple and interrupts the sacrifices that were guaranteed by the covenant made with Israel. (See Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). Christ says that when the Jews see it, they are to flee because they know that the worst tribulation the world has ever seen is about to come. Then he will come in the clouds of glory to set up his kingdom (Mark 13:46).

One of the main issues with posttribulationism is that according to Daniel 9, Antichrist will make a covenant with the nation of Israel and then he will break that covenant. That will be the means of God bringing Israel as a nation back to repentance. Failure to see the distinction between Israel and the church renders this passage and much of the rest of Daniel, nonsensical.

When Scripture tells us what the abomination of desolation is, we should stick with that definition.

 

I decided this morning to read this entire thread, just to see where people stood. I wish I would have followed it from the begining. But time did not allow it.

I have to admit something here, I might as well just come clean..... I am part of the Pre-Trib Pre-Mill 'cult'.
When I read that, I just shook my head. That is one of the most silliest things I read.

Wellsjs and Pastor Larry, I want to give you a great thumbs up! Great, Great post. I had written a paper on the Rapture a few years ago - that now I must consider just a rough draft! Great job.

 

FYI concerning "abomination of desolation:"

During the Maccabean revolt, the building of an altar of Zeus by Antiochus Epiphanes in the temple area of Jerusalem in his attempt at complete hellenization of Israel in the second century B.C. was such an "abomination" to the Jews that they would not go anywhere near it (caused desolation).

One of Daniel's visions prophesied: He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' (tribulation) he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." (Dan 9:27 NIV)

The antichrist will make a pact with many Jews at the beginning of the tribulation. But in the middle (3 1/2 years) he will break his covenant and desecrate the temple by demanding worship of himself:

Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. (Rev 13:14-15 NIV)

That is when and why the second half of the tribulation goes from bad to unbelievably bad! Jesus warned, "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand--" (Mat 24:15 NIV)

So the original and the final "abominations that cause desolation" are idols.

[ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: wellsjs ]

 

http://www.prophecyrefi.org/solution_02.htm

This is a pretty interesting link...check it out.

Joseph

 

Wellsj,

Good clarification. 2 Thess 2:4 also refers to this. When he stops the sacrifices, he sets himself up as the object of worship.

Joseph,

Interesting article and perhaps right in the regard that we haven't done enough work in the time reference issues. However, the solution presented in the article has a major problem. To cite:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the coming of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, instructions to flee, great tribulation, sun and moon darkened, stars falling from the sky, heavenly bodies shaken, the coming [parousia] of the Son of Man, the sign of the Son of Man appearing in the sky, all the nations of the earth mourning and the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

None of this has yet happened, especially not the last part. Christ did not come in power and great glory, testified to by the fact that the current situation in no way resembles what Scripture said it would. To attribute all this to c. AD70 would require a drastic redefinition of the occurrences to be expected, most notably the return of Christ and the worship of the nations. I hardly think that the nations today worship Christ in any way whatsoever. In short, the events of that time period do not seem to meet the stipulations of Daniel, of Matthew and Luke, or of Revelation (even if you date it early). I would be interested in you taking each of these "signs" and showing how you think they were fulfilled in AD 70.

 

But what are “all these things” that are due to take place before “this generation” passes away? Jesus was speaking in response to a question put to him by four of his disciples. They were visiting Jerusalem for the Passover, and the disciples were impressed by the architectural grandeur of the temple, so recently restored and enlarged by Herod. “Look, Teacher,” said one of them. “What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” Jesus replied, “Do you see all these great buildings? Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” This aroused their curiosity, and seizing an opportunity when they were with him on the Mount of Olives looking across to the temple area, four of them asked, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?” (Mk 13:1-4).
In the disciples’ question, “all these things” are the destruction of the temple and attendant events. It seems reasonable to regard the hard saying as summing up the answer to their question. If so, then “all these things” will have the same meaning in question and answer. The hard saying will then mean that “this generation will not pass away before” the temple is totally destroyed. It is well known that the temple was actually destroyed by the Romans under the crown prince Titus in August of A.D. 70, not more than forty years after Jesus spoke. Forty years is not too long a period to be called a generation; in fact, forty years is the conventional length of a generation in the biblical vocabulary. It was certainly so with the “evil generation” of the wilderness wanderings: “Forty years long was I grieved with this generation,” said God (Ps 95:10 Prayer Book version).
But if that is what the saying means, why should it have been thought to predict the last Advent within that generation? Because, in the discourse which intervenes between Mark 13:4 and Mark 13:30, other subject matter is interwoven with the forecast of the time of trouble leading up to the disaster of A.D. 70. In particular, there is the prediction of “the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory” and sending out his angels to “gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens” (Mk 13:26-27). Some interpreters have taken this to be a highly figurative description of the divine judgment that many Christians, and not only Christians, saw enacted in the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem; but it is difficult to agree with them.
Mark probably wrote his Gospel four or five years before A.D. 70. When he wrote, the fall of the temple and the coming of the Son of Man lay alike in the future, and he had no means of knowing whether or not there would be a substantial lapse of time between these two events. Even so, he preserves in the same context another saying of Jesus relating to the time of a future event: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mk 13:32). What is the day or hour to which this refers? Certainly not the day or hour of the destruction of the temple: what the whole context, and not only the hard saying of Mark 13:30, emphasizes about that event is its nearness and certainty. The event whose timing is known to none but the Father cannot be anything other than the coming of the Son of Man, described in Mark 13:26.
Luke, as he reproduces the substance of the discourse of Mark 13:5-30, lays more emphasis on the fate of Jerusalem, the city as well as the temple: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Lk 21:24). When “the times of the Gentiles” (the period of Gentile tion of the holy city) will be fulfilled is not indicated. But this saying, though peculiar to Luke in the Gospel record, is not Luke’s invention: it turns up again in the Apocalypse, and in a part of it which is probably earlier than that work as a whole and was subsequently incorporated into it. The outer court of the temple, John is told, “has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months” (Rev 11:2). This is a prophetic utterance communicated to John by a voice from heaven, but it has the same origin as the words recorded in Luke 21:24.
Matthew, writing his Gospel probably a short time after the destruction of the temple, could see, as Mark naturally could not, the separation in time between that event and the coming of the Son of Man. For Matthew, the one event had taken place, while the other was still future. He rewords the disciples’ question to Jesus so that it refers to both events distinctly and explicitly. Jesus, as in Mark, foretells how not one stone of the temple will be left standing on another, and the disciples say, “Tell us, (a) when will this happen, and (b) what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Mt 24:3). Then, at the end of the following discourse, Jesus answers their twofold question by saying that (a) “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Mt 24:34), while (b) with regard to his coming and “the end of the age,” he tells them that “no one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mt 24:36). The distinction between the two predictions is clear in Matthew, for whom the earlier of the two predicted events now lay in the past; but it was already implicit, though not so clear, in Mark.
-- HARD SAYINGS OF THE BIBLE by WALTER C. KAISER JR., PETER H. DAVIDS, F.F. BRUCE, MANFRED T. BRAUCH, INTERVARSITY PRESS, Downers Grove, Illinois