WATCHMAN,
I tried to address each one of your points that you laid out in your first and last post but you still have not said where I am wrong concerning the verses used to support my position. Therefore, I am reposting it again.
Nor have you said just what it is that you disagree with me on specifically.
WATCHMAN---“What I would like for us to consider is that there is going to be a period of great tribulation. Let us look at the words of the Lord Jesus Himself at the "Olivet Discourse."
"For there shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." (Mt. 24:21-22)
(Point #1) – Can it be said that anything like that has ever happened in the past? "There should no flesh be saved." What happened in 70 AD was tragic for the Jews in and around Jerusalem, but it cannot be said that all flesh, every human being, was in danger of extermination. Nor can that be said even of World War II. It can only be that this "great tribulation" spoken of by Jesus is yet future.
Matthew 24:21-22 is an example of
many recorded prophecies having both
immediate and
future fulfillment aspects to it. Just as there was
immediate fulfillment of the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah there is also
future fulfillment pictured here that is yet to come with the world being burned with fire. “Duality” is the manner of
all prophecy from the time of the first prophecy in the Garden of Eden. The “you shall die” had two aspects to it – immediate and future. The
immediate death was spiritual in nature but the
future physical aspect of dying did not occur for another 930 years.
Now, what I don’t understand is this; why is it that it seems that dispensationalists can only see ONE aspect of Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24? Why would
THE Prophet of all prophets be prophesying any differently here than with Adam and Eve? Especially, when he was answering their question about what they were to expect ahead of them. In his infinite wisdom, he also had it contain instruction for
all Christians after 70 a.d. Jesus wanted them to be able to look back at the destruction of Jerusalem as their
third example of confirming the fact that the latter destruction of the end of the world would end in fire? Thus, we have Noah and the flood, then Lot and Sodom, and lastly the remnant of apostles and believers out of the destruction of Jerusalem. This is why Jesus referred back to those two previous examples as seen best in Luke 17. With the addition of Matthew 24, all
three pictures are there for warnings for all Christians of all time – up until their future fulfillments.
So, with that in mind, the account of the immediate aspect of fulfillment, as reported in
Josephus’ History of the Wars of the Jews’ concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, 70 a.d. most definitely qualifies as the
literal fulfillment of it. Truly, nothing like that had ever been recorded in the history books up until that point….
“…in the siege of Jerusalem not fewer than “eleven hundred thousand” perished- a number almost half as great as are in the whole city of London. In the adjacent provinces no fewer than “two hundred and fifty thousand” are reckoned to have been slain; making in all whose deaths were ascertained the almost incredible number of “one million three hundred and fifty thousand” who were put to death.” (Jewish Wars, b. 6 chapter 9, sections 2- 3)
At this point, if you cannot see
both literal and future aspects of the prophecy in Matthew 24, I see no reason to continue. However, I will go through once again some of the stumbling blocks.
To continue on with your concerns of verses 21-22, you might say, “Ok, so Jerusalem 70 a.d. might qualify as a Great Tribulation, but what about the
“…nor ever shall be?” You might say that 6,000,000 Jews during the Holocaust would make that figure look rather miniscule indeed, and therefore it must be future, but the answer to that question would immediately follow.
“And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."(Verse 22)
1) If Jesus were saying that the days are going to be shortened because, otherwise
“no flesh (no man) would be saved;” then just
who is God shortening them for? For the sake of the elect! (As I said before on my previous post…”The word “saved” can either be speaking of “saved from anything or everything in general” to “the soul being saved from eternal death.” Here again,
both aspects of prophecy are visible because only the elect are ever “soul saved.” But, why would it be necessary to shorten those days for the sake of the
”flesh that needs to be saved from physical death?” Because, the gospel was in it’s infancy stages. The commandment to spread the good news of the gospel went out from Jerusalem. The great commission was given to the Jews to proclaim the gospel to the world. Had each and every Jew been killed and no remnant saved from physical death, the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles would never have occurred! For the sake of the “future Gentile elect world” those days were shortened. You and I would not be here today had God put the candle out in 70 a.d. entirely!
2) In addition to this, as I said above concerning the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, it was God’s wrath upon the ungodly just as it was God’s wrath upon ungodly Jerusalem. Had he
completely and in its entirety, poured out His wrath upon Jerusalem and
“all ungodly flesh”, He essentially would have been bringing the world to a close at that time by destroying
all mankind and the gospel age very short indeed.
And that’s primarily why you can have a Great Tribulation of 70 a.d. AND a Great Tribulation with the Christians going through
their Great Tribulation prior to the Second Coming of Christ visibly coming in the clouds with
both the just and the unjust present going through it.
WATCHMAN---(Point #2) “Also, how could it be speaking of the trials and troubles the Christian goes through in this life?”
I answered this in my last post also by posting a more learned individual than myself – Matthew Henry who was pre-Darby influence;
(quoting MH)---“…It is usual in the prophetical style to speak of things great and certain as near and just at hand, only to express the greatness and certainty of them.
…The tribulation of those days includes not only the destruction of Jerusalem, but all the other tribulations which the church must pass through; not only its share in the calamities of the nations, but the tribulations peculiar to itself; while the nations are torn with wars, and the church with schisms, delusions, and persecutions, we cannot say that the tribulation of those days is over; the whole state of the church on earth is militant, we must count upon that; but when the church's tribulation is over, her warfare accomplished, and what is behind of the sufferings of Christ filled up, then look for the end.”(end quote)
In addition to this, I listed all of the verses in the NT that had the word “tribulation” in them and it show that Christians do go through “great tribulations” indeed! But, as to the “Great Tribulation” of Revelation? Keep reading.
WATCHMAN---(Point #3) “The Book of Revelation speaks of John witnessing judgments being poured out upon the earth, from heaven. We see this in trumpet judgments and bowl judgments that speak of the wrath of God being poured out. Is it not reasonable to presume that the pouring out of God's wrath (in Revelation) is connected to the Lord's "great tribulation" of Matthew 24?”
Watchman, I cannot let this one go without serious Christian chastisement for saying that
“Is it not reasonable to presume that the pouring out of God's wrath (in Revelation) is connected to the Lord's "great tribulation" of Matthew 24?” We are NOT to determine our beliefs based on human “reasoning! We are to go to scripture and let scripture tell us what we are to believe – even if those written words are confusing to us or are displeasing to us.”
“There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Proverbs 14:12)
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord…” (Is. 55:8)
Therefore, it seems to me that this may very well be the foundation of what dispensationalism is built upon – human reasoning!
WATCHMAN---(Point #4) “So it is that the "great tribulation" is a time of God's wrath that will be poured out upon mankind, “punishment” so severe that, well, no flesh would survive if it were to continue longer than it will.”
For now, suffice it to say, that
God’s wrath or punishment is not poured out on his elect. I will address that below, so keep reading.
WATCHMAN---(Point #5) “Look now at Mt 24:37: "But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be."
The flood was the wrath of God against man. But something had to be done first. Noah was a righteous man. The wrath of God never was and never will be, meant for the righteous. Nothing could happen until… "...the day Noah entered the ark." (Mt. 24:38)
You are absolutely correct on this – except that, you miss two important facts entirely. 1) That God’s wrath was not on Noah – it was upon the unregenerate. Noah is one of the elect. 2) that Noah was
on earth and
going through his own “great tribulation”
before God shut him in and brought the rains down upon the wicked.
“And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, in his erring; he is flesh. Yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” (Genesis 6:3)
“Go into the ark…for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.” (Ge 7:1)
“For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth…” (Ge 7:4)
“Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the earth.” (Ge 7:6)
Thus, God’s allotted time for evil to exist before the flood was 120 years. Noah lived through that time of tribulation and was greatly distressed because of the sinfulness of those around him. (6:3; 7:1) And Noah’s “Great Tribulation” period? – seven days!(Ge 7:4) But scripture is very clear that God delivered Noah from his
wrath and
condemnation”on the very same day” he
“took him out (a symbolical picture of rapture)”.
This “on the same day” occurrence is stressed 3 times in Luke 17 and it was not ONE day before it.
WATCHMAN---(Point # 6) “There was another incident years after that when God determined to destroy Sodom. But there was there, in Sodom, Lot. Again, this righteous man, and his family had to be, in this case, physically removed.”
I wouldn’t disagree with you in the sense that he was physically removed at the time that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah but I think you are also missing the point here too that Lot went through his period of “great tribulation” prior to being taken out, of which “rapture” of the saints and punishment of the wicked occur at the
very same time as one major event!
“…and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds….” (Ge 2: 7-8)
Now, if you look again in Luke 17, you will see where Lot was delivered from his “Great Tribulation” period on
“the very same day” that God’s wrath and condemnation fell – not one day before it either!
WATCHMAN---(Point #7) “We now live in the Church age. It is said of us, those who trust in Christ:”
"we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Because of what the Lord Jesus did for us, we have peace with God: "No condemnation..." (Romans 8:1)
Now here, you’re have strayed when you use Romans 8:1 to imply that if the elect goes through the Great Tribulation, it means that God would be
“condemning” the just along with the unjust because that is not what Romans 8:1 is saying at all! That would be a violation of what he is here saying in Romans and you again are seriously in error of your interpretation. Earlier, in Romans 2: 15-16 Paul very clearly says;
“…and [the consciences of both the just and the unjust] bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them ”on that day” when, according to [Paul’s] gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”
But in Romans 8:35 Paul asks a rhetorical question by saying;
“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall ”tribulation”, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?”
No, no, no,….going through tribulation, even Great Tribulation, does NOT mean that God is
“condemning” his elect of church!!!
WATCHMAN---(Point #8) How could it possibly be then that the Lord's Church, His very body, His bride will go through the horrors of the great tribulation that the Lord Himself spoke of?
You ask;
“how could it be?”
“Do not at all fear what “you” are about to suffer. Behold, the Devil will cast some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful to death, and I will give you the crown of [eternal] life.” (Rev 2:10)
Once again, GREAT can either mean intensity or a great period of time or it can mean BOTH.
(TO BE CONTINUED ON THE NEXT POST)
