Posted on 01/04/2015 11:18:55 AM PST by wmfights
Well, I for one don’t have to wonder whether or not you read the entire series of articles. Even parts of you post contradict other parts of your post.
At the rapture Christ doesn't return to earth so your entire scenario of "second coming" doesn't work.
You seem to want to make “the day of the Lord” into a single 24 hr day. It’s not. It’s a period of time.
It is actually both ... you are both right ... however, you cannot force the one into the other or you get aberrant positions like the pre-wrath view.
There is a narrow sense use of the term "Day of the Lord" and there is a wide sense use of the term "Day of the Lord."
There are some passages that depict the day of the Lord as a single event occurring on a single day ... we call this the narrow sense use of the term. But there are others that describe it as an extended period of time, the wide sense usage. This is a source of constant confusion ... and it has actually led to the pre-wrath view.
Determining which usage is involved in a particular passage is paramount to good interpretation.
I will post a few scriptures later ...
Showers has a good section in his book "Maranatha, Our Lord Come" that highlights the usage of the term. I found this very helpful.
“You seem to want to make ‘the day of the Lord’ into a single 24 hr day. It’s not. It’s a period of time.”
I regard the Day of the Lord as the latter part of Daniel’s seventieth week. It could be a year, but it is not specifically defined as a length of time. When Christ quoted from Isaiah in the temple, He stopped short of quoting the part about the Day of the Lord:
Isaiah 61:2
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,
And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,
Isaiah also makes a more specific reference here:
Isaiah 34:8
For it is the day of the Lord’s vengeance,
The year of recompense for the cause of Zion.
I infer from this that it could be a year or happen within a year. But I would not be dogmatic other than to agree that it is not a single day but a period of time.
I believe that the second coming encompasses two time periods: the Day of the Lord and the millennial reign. However, both the second coming and the Day of the Lord arrive suddenly, unexpectedly (for those who are not watching), and in a moment in time. So the arrival will happen in a single day.
I hope this clarifies any comments that I made from which you or anyone might infer I define this time period any differently.
“wonder whether or not you read the entire series of articles”
No, you do not wonder and just speculate that I must not have. But you could actually confirm that I have commented on many, if not all of them, with specific details which indicate that I not only read the articles but also looked up the references and provided many others in defense of my position.
“parts of you[r] post contradict other parts”
All of my posts on this subject were thought out and explained in detail. Your comment (in #21) does not reflect any effort or thought. It is meaningless and pointless to make general, broad statements like this without providing one single solitary example. So, I contradict myself multiple times? Name three. I am not trying to be argumentative, but it is difficult to have a reasoned discussion without specifics.
I can only speculate as to your reason for posting to me since you did not address anything specific. From your other posts, perhaps you are offended at my comments that argue how the pre-trib view is also guilty of the date-setting problem.
If I am wrong about the examples I give to support my argument (in post #8), then I would like to see how I have erred. No one has, at any point that I am aware of, offered a single counter argument.
The pre-trib position has the same exact date-setting problem that the mid-trib and post-trib views have, because Christ describes His second coming AFTER the Great Tribulation as being like a thief and on a day when no one expects. (See Matthew 24, as above.) The pre-trib view regards this as distinct from the rapture, but how can no man know the time of His return if all they need to do is count seven years from the anti-Christ treaty or three-and-a-half years from the abomination of desolation? How is that not a date-setting problem?
Methinks you make the day of the Lord more complicated than it actually is.
Simply put, man has had his “day,” the Lord (Jesus Christ) is going to have his. But man is not going to turn over power and control to Christ without a fight. The Lord, depicted in a number of places in scripture as a “man of war,” is well up to the task. He comes IN PERSON to defeat the enemies of his reign. He comes as Lord, the “Lord” part of “the day of the LORD.”
Once again, the references from Hebrews. He is in heaven now, and will remain so, until he has his enemies - enemies of his coming reign - just where he wants them, i.e., gathered nicely together in a bunch, Rev. 19:19. At that point, and only at that point, does he leave heaven to take care of his enemies...IN PERSON.
Not until then is power shifted from man to the Lord, not until then does he come as the Lord. On HIS day, the day of the Lord.
That’s when he comes “the second time,” Heb. 9:28. The incarnation marked the first time he came, what we see described in Rev. 19 marks “the second time.”
The first time he came as a Lamb, “once offered to bear the sins of many,” he comes “the second time without sin,” in other words, NOT to bear the sins of many as he did the first time, this time he comes as a lion. (See Heb. 9:28, Rev. 5:5)
When Christ comes again, he comes as Lord or King, the kingdoms of this world become his at that point, Rev. 11:15, he remains in heaven until THEN.
The rapture is our great hope to be sure, but it is but incidental to the greater purpose mentioned above, the emphasis in scripture is always his coming Lordship. That great day is HIS day, the day of the Lord.
“you get aberrant positions like the pre-wrath view”
It is funny to me to see it described as aberrant. It is the only view I have ever seen supported through exegetical, expository study. Daniel’s seventieth week has been explained so. Pre-millenialism has been explained so. But beyond this, I have only seen paradigms on the timing of the rapture superimposed onto Bible passages and using them as proof texts, the way cults argue false doctrines.
So I really would appreciate any exegetical study of the Day of the Lord that identifies any errors I may have in this regard. But what I have read from the pre-wrath camp, and my own personal studies have all come out conclusively in support of the pre-wrath view.
I spent many years believing the pre-trib view because that is what I was taught. But when I tried to study and defend it for myself, I found there were some passages that just do not harmonize. I was unable to find any satisfactory solution to these problems until Marv Rosenthal (who, after years of teaching and defending the pre-trib view) wrote why he changed his position. I carefully studied out his basis for this.
While I do not think his views solve every mystery of end time prophecy, and there is much left to learn, pre-wrath solved all of my dilemmas. And the more I studied since, the more I see it as correctly explaining prophetic passages regarding Christ’s return and end times events.
I don’t see how anyone can argue against pre-millenialism or a literal seven-year period defined by Daniel’s seventieth week. Likewise, I don’t see how anyone can argue against Christ’s return being simultaneous with the onset of the Day of the Lord. The only question this leaves, which I think settles the argument between pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, and pre-wrath, is a precise definition and explanation of the Day of the Lord.
The phrase "about the hour or the day no one knows" has to be about the beginning of that time period. Once the anti Christ signs the treaty (which cannot happen until the "church" is gone) we know specifically the number of days to the battle of Armageddon. We also know the number of days to the middle of that time period when the anti Christ will set himself up in the Temple.
Therefore, if the "church" were on earth at the time of the signing of the peace treaty we could easily set a date for the Lord's return. Those who believe in mid trib would be able to count the days as would those who believe in post trib. Neither of those views work with Christ's words that no one would know the day or the hour.
Now look what you’ve done, true to your screen name, wmfights, you’ve got the three premill views, pretrib, prewrath, and post-trib in a fight. You knew your series would ocme to this some day didn’t you.
By the way, what does the “wm” part of screen name mean?
>>Revelation 6 describes identical events Christ spoke of to His disciples in Matthew, Mark and Luke.<<
Matthew 24:5 - Many have already come claiming they are the Messiah. That is not restricted to the events of Revelation.
Mark 13:9/Luke 21:12 - That is the people of the nation of Israel. Reflect on what has happened to them in the last 2000 years. Again, not restricted to Revelation. In fact, for the first 3 1/2 years there is peace for the people of Israel and the last 3 1/2 years the chosen 144,000 are protected by God.
I appreciate your feedback. I think you have a very good point about Christ waiting in Heaven until the time His enemies become His footstool. Yet I do not see any specific support from the passages in Hebrews that requires defining Revelation 19 as when this happens. I take it that this conclusion is more generally drawn from the idea that His second coming is a singular event.
Revelation clearly does not specify a particular time or sequence for either a resurrection of all the righteous to eternal life or the translation of living saints. All of the various views are inferred. (Revelation 20 describes the “first resurrection” but only mentions those beheaded during the time of anti-Christ.)
I do agree that Revelation 19 describes Christ and His armies coming to destroy His enemies. But there His armies have already been gathered together. Your position seems to be that these armies include resurrected saints and translated living saints. But when does that occur? Why do you believe it has to happen immediately before this final battle? How would the events from Revelation 8 and onward NOT qualify as Christ putting His enemies under His feet?
As an aside, I am curious as to how you explain Christ being on the Mount of Olives in Revelation 14:1.
“The incarnation marked the first time he came”
In one sense this is true. He became a man and came into the world in one sense at the incarnation. He also entered the world in another sense at His birth. In yet another sense He became a man by maturing and growing into manhood. I am not trying to be argumentative, because I agree with your point. I am just referring back to our earlier discussion that both His first and second coming involve a time period.
2 Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
See how Peter includes the transfiguration as part of His first coming?
I believe that Christ’s second coming marks the beginning of the Day of the Lord and continues through the millennial reign. While I appreciate the points you have made regarding Christ waiting for His enemies to be made His footstool, these passages only seem to further reinforce the concept of His return coinciding with the Day of the Lord.
If it can be supported that the Day of the Lord does not begin until Revelation 19, I think that would be an overwhelming argument for a post-trib rapture. The scriptures I read regarding the Day of the Lord seem to indicate otherwise. It appears to me this time period begins after the sixth seal in Revelation 6 and continues until the thousand year reign begins in Revelation 20.
The tribulation saints are not part of the "church". The wrath of God has already begun by Revelation 6:17. The faithful believers of this age of grace are promised to never suffer the wrath of God. The "church", the bride of Christ will be with Christ for that entire 7 year period. If you study the ancient Jewish wedding customs you will see that the bride and groom are sequestered alone for 7 days prior to coming out to the world. It's at that point that the wedding feast is held. That corresponds to the wedding feast we find in Revelation 19 at the end of that 7 year period.
It's rather simple really. The "Day of the Lord" is that period of time during the last seven years of Daniel's 490 year prophecy for Israel. John writes at the beginning of Revelation that he found himself "in the spirit in the Lord's day". Now you may think it says "on" the Lord's day but consider this. First of all the Greek word used for both of the instances where my quote says "in" is ἐν (en) and is used 2775 times in the New Testament. Nearly all of them are translated "in" and when not could be. Here is Strong's definition.
1722 en (a preposition) – properly, in (inside, within); (figuratively) "in the realm (sphere) of," as in the condition (state) in which something operates from the inside (within). [http://biblehub.com/greek/1722.htm]
We see that all of the events of Revelation happen within that time frame.
Singular event, yes, I’d say that all right. I’ll try to break this down for you. On each point, I’m not going to look up all the passages, I think I am conversing with someone well versed in eschatological passages to know what I am talking about.
1. This is the book of Hebrews, to interpret it rightly we need to know the prophetic background of the Hebrews. They weren’t amillennialists, they had a future premill kingdom hope, as reflected in the OT and their inter-testament literature. Neither were they pretribs or prewraths, the OT and inter-testament literature shows they looked to a grand singular event that would close out this age while ushering in the age to come (an earthly Messianic kingdom).
2. One of the central eschatological themes developed in the inter-testament period was “this world (or age), and the world (age) to come.” Since this is cited in numerous places in the NT, Christ and the apostles must have continued in the same expectation. Heb. 6:5 alludes to it, it says, even in this age we have tasted of “the powers of the world/age to come.”
3. In the book of Hebrews, “the end” had a particular meaning to them, 6:11, for instance, amidst apostatizing, they were continually admonished to keep faith in Christ “stedfast unto the end.” What end? The end of “this world,” or this age.
4. The passages I have been citing from Hebrews, 9:28, 10:12,13, are in perfect agreement with my previous three points. Christ’s appearing “the second time,” and him not leaving heaven until his enemies are in position to be destroyed, to the readers of Hebrews was to occur at the “end” of this world/age. In one event, the closing out of this world while ushering in the next.
5. Hence, the passages I have been citing are not stand alone, they are in perfect agreement with the rest of Hebrews, with the commonly held end "of this world – beginning of the next” prophetic expectation of the Hebrews.
6. Is the prophetic expectation of the Hebrews one thing, while Rev. 19 presents something altogether other? I see no conflict, I’m quite confident the same expectation in Hebrews is what we see depicted in Rev. 19 – though in very apocalyptic language.
7. Not only Revelation, but the rest of prophetic scripture has the expectation I have tried to bring out in Hebrews.
8. Instead of reading NT prophecy through the prism of prewrath theory, try reading it as if they only believed in one event. It harmonizes very well.
“We see that all of the events of Revelation happen within that time frame.”
Does this include the message to the seven churches? Does it also include the millennial reign?
Because John had the visions on the Lord’s day, that is supposed to conclusively prove that ALL of the events of these visions are part of the Day of the Lord? I’m sorry, but that argument carries no weight at all. This appears to be a case of trying to cite verses as proof texts and then forcing a meaning into them.
There are many passages describing the Day of the Lord. I do not see any that describe the seal judgments. I do see several indicators that the seal judgments lead up to and are prior to the arrival of the day of the Lord.
I have yet to hear a single solitary argument as to why the Day of the Lord cannot be the latter part of Daniel’s seventieth week, immediately following the Great Tribulation (which is cut short by the arrival of the Day of the Lord). The only counter arguments I have even heard are essentially saying this does not fit the pre-trib paradigm. Could you provide just one reason why this cannot be the case?
“That is not restricted to the events of Revelation.”
True, but the events of the Olivet discourse and Revelation 6 are a set of specific events in a precise order that serve as “signs” of the coming end of the age. Note the questions the disciples asked Christ:
Matthew 24:3
Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
Note also how these events are connected with the imminence of His return:
Luke 21:28
Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.”
This is in contrast to the beginning of the church age in which Christ’s return was not imminent.
Acts 1:11
Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.
The Olivet discourse also references Daniel’s seventieth week and the abomination of desolation.
“If you study the ancient Jewish wedding customs you will see that the bride and groom are sequestered alone for 7 days prior to coming out to the world. It’s at that point that the wedding feast is held. That corresponds to the wedding feast we find in Revelation 19 at the end of that 7 year period.”
I agree that this sounds nice, but it is not actually in the Bible. There is no scripture that says there is a marriage at the beginning of this time frame or that the church will be in Heaven after the rapture for seven years. I have a hard time accepting Jewish traditions as the basis for Bible prophecy. It would fit nicely with a pre-trib view, but that is not an authoritative basis for accepting a pre-trib view, nor is an internal consistency of that view.
“The wrath of God has already begun by Revelation 6:17. The faithful believers of this age of grace are promised to never suffer the wrath of God.”
I agree that believers will not go through God’s wrath. This verse marks the arrival of the Day of the Lord or Day of Wrath in Revelation. It is when the rapture occurs. In chapter 7 we see a great multitude that came out of the Great Tribulation. How? And in chapter 8 we see the fiery destruction of earth begins. The signs in the heavens during the sixth seal match those that mark the end of the Great Tribulation and beginning of the Day of the Lord.
Joel 2:31
The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
Matthew 24:29
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Where does this event occur in the Revelation?
Revelation 6:12
I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood.
What makes all of the people of the earth suddenly realize that the Day of Wrath has arrived? How do they know it is from the Lamb? How do they go from persecuting believers during the fifth seal to trembling and crying out in fear of “Him Who sits on the throne”? Perhaps it is because they witness Christ returning in great power and glory and the rapture of living saints to Him.
Revelation 1:7
Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.
Can you find any similarly described event in Revelation other than in 6:16-17?
“The ‘Day of the Lord’ is the time period from the rapture of the ‘church’ the body of Christ to the end of that period which climaxes in the battle of Armageddon.”
I agree with your definition. I think this definition works regardless of a pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, or pre-wrath view.
“Christ does not return to earth but we meet Him in the air.”
I agree. The only view that does not agree is post-trib.
“He is not seen by all the people on earth.”
What us your basis for this? I do not see any Biblical support for this view.
2 Thessalonians 1:6-8
since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Is this referring to the rapture or not? If not, then how is it when believers receive their rest with the apostles? If so, then how can it be a hidden rapture? And how is their a period of relative peace at the beginning of Daniel’s seventieth week if angels coming with Christ are executing judgments of flaming fire?
“That event begins the seven years that God again deals with the nation of Israel as He did prior to Christ’s death.”
Why would God return to the “weak and beggarly elements” of the Law? You should take another look at Daniel 9 as to what God is going to accomplish in that final week. Israel is going to be brought to repentance and salvation during this time, but it will be done through their realization that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah and that the anti-Christ they trusted at the beginning of that week, if false.
“The phrase ‘about the hour or the day no one knows’ has to be about the beginning of that time period.”
It only has to be in order to force the passage to fit preconceived views. Look at the context:
Matthew 24:36-44
But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.
How can His coming at the end of the tribulation be like a thief and at an unexpected time if it is exactly seven years from the signing of the anti-Christ treaty and exactly three-and-a-half years from the abomination of desolation?
The only view that avoids this date-setting problem is the pre-wrath view, because the Great Tribulation begins at the abomination of desolation but is cut short by the sudden and unexpected return of Christ, followed by the onset of the Day of the Lord which completes the remainder of Daniel’s seventieth week.
Thanks for taking the time to present a well-thought out argument. It makes these discussions so much more interesting and a better learning experience.
“as reflected in the OT and their inter-testament literature”
It is certainly valuable to look at this background, but the scriptures prior to Paul do not discuss the rapture of living saints because it was a mystery revealed by Paul. It is the timing of this event that is most crucial because it has a practical, real-world impact on how we live and prepare ourselves for future events.
Further, it appears that Daniel was not properly interpreted by the generation of Christ’s earthly ministry because they did not recognize the “time of their visitation”. Particularly, a proper understanding of Daniel 9 would have caused them to be aware that Christ had to be there during this exact generation. Further, Christ alludes to the abomination of desolation as a future event and adds “let him who reads understand” indicating that they apparently did not understand it correctly. Paul further elaborates on Daniel’s prophecies and alludes to this in 2 Thessalonians 2. Revelation does also.
The OT also provides rich details about the coming Day of the Lord which is mentioned in Hebrews as well as by Paul, Peter and John.
I am assuming that we share a similar understanding of Daniel’s seventieth week, and that it is agreed that Christ return will occur simultaneously to the onset of the Day of the Lord. Can you indicate if this is not so?
But if it is so, how do you define the Day of the Lord and how it fits into the order of events described in Revelation?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.