Is The End Nigh? We'll Know Soon Enough (World to end May 21)

Maybe you might want to expand your choice of Bibles .... ones where you won’t be LED to arrive at certain conclusions. :),

My path is from traditional Amill conservative Lutheran to where I am today. When I was a teenager I thought the only people saved must attend my local church! I think I have had a conviction about the rapture and 1000 year reign since 1985 or so. It started by me asking the Holy Spirit for the truth no matter what with me trying to give up my preconceived notions. I have had a fun faith journey ride. It has been about 5 years since I gave up my approval needs. I do not need you or anyone to agree with me.

I also love Blue Letter and Bible Gateway on the computer. It is good at times to look at multiple translations of the text including Greek and Hebrew.

don’t you believe that the Jews will be “left behind”?

If they or anyone does not believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ they will be left behind. IMHO there is always a remnant of Jews with faith in Christ. After the rapture God turns his focus back on Israel and Daniels 70th week.

It is so cool and so pure and so simple, Maybe even Gagdad Bob will appreciate this. IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO FAITH IN OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.

"There is an invisible church of true believers that transcends denominations."

Yes, the INvisible (true) church as only God can see it; both those living and those who have died. ie: "The Body of Christ" is comprised only of regenerate individuals (in whom dwells the Spirit of God) - The Elect Lady - The Bride of Christ - The Sheep - The Wheat. ie: The "new temple" not built with literal stones but built with Christian individuals who are "living stones" (form with substance). (1 Pet.2:5) ie: Each regenerate individual is "God's house". [Heb. 3:6] and Jesus Christ is viewed as "the builder" of that individual house [Heb.3:3] which collectively are called a "holy priesthood" ..." [1 Pet. 2:5] -- "the pillar and the bulwark of the truth." [1 Tim 3:15] , etc., etc. If we are willing to stipulate the foregoing, could we not also legitimately then say that the invisible church is (and always was) scattered throughout the earth inside and outside of all sorts of organizations of men?

Then we have the visible (temporal) church as Christians and others on earth see it. ie: It is comprised of those who profess faith in Christ - both the regenerate and the unregenerate, ALL currently living. ie: The sheep and the goats - the believers and the unbelievers - wolves among the sheep, the wheat and the tares growing together of which only God knows the difference. He will seperate the true from the false when he returns and makes the new heaven and the new earth at his second coming; ie: The Last Day.

I think I agree with the first paragraph. The second paragraph has some issues for me.

The sheep and the goats

IMHO my understanding this is after Armageddon at the second coming.

wheat and the tares growing together

IMHO To me this is the church and the separation would come at the rapture.

"Oh I agree Ryrie is just a man. I try to put his comments in context. Its just when I get to something like Revelation 20 it is nice for me to take it literally with notes that do as well."

Rev. 20:1-3: And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

What now of the millennium?

Literalists see an actual thousand year reign; those who know OT imagery see merely "a very long time" indicated by a round number.

Ps. 50:10, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills." The cattle on the 1001st hill belong to God also; this only means that all cattle are His. So how long is the 1000 years? It cannot be said.

HERE: A "thousand years" / a "thousand hills"

<>

"Revelation 20 is the ONE AND ONLY place in ALL of Scripture that suggests a thousand year reign of Christ. And it happens to appear in the MOST FIGURATIVE book in all of the Bible. The thousand year reign of Christ is simply another image for the kingdom of Christ - - and in a book FILLED with non-literal images.

All interpreters recognize abundant symbols in Revelation. Do we not see creatures filled with eyes (Rev 4:6)? Locusts with faces of men, teeth of lions, crowns of gold, and tails like scorpions (9:6)? Lion-headed, scorpion-tailed horses belching fire and smoke (9:17)? Fire breathing prophets (11:5)? A seven-headed red dragon with ten horns and seven crowns who pulls stars down from heaven (12:3-4)? A woman with eagles’s wings standing on the moon (12:14)? A serpent vomiting a river of water (12:15)? The seven-headed beast compounded of four carnivores (13:2)? Frogs coming out of the mouth of a dragon (16:13)? A prostitute riding the seven-headed beast while she is drunk on blood (17:6)? Christ returning with a sword in his mouth and on horse from heaven (19:15)? A city the size of a 1500 mile high cube floating down out of heaven (21:10, 16)?

THIS is the type of book establishing the premillennial construct!

The thousand year reign of Christ is another image for the kingdom of Christ. After all, it is the KINGDOM that is prophesied by the Old Testament prophets; it is the kingdom that is declared by Christ and the Apostles. Neither the Old Testament prophets nor the New Testament apostles speak of a "millennium" (except in the single, debated, figurative passage in Revelation). AND the thousand year reign of Christ is most definitely a "kingdom," in that Christ "rules and reigns" in it. Why is the millennium not the kingdom prophesied in the OT and declared in the NT? Why not the very kingdom that Christ himself established in the first century?

In fact, this connection is virtually assured by comparing Christ’s teaching in Matthew 12 and John’s in Revelation 20. The "binding" of Satan in Revelation 20 issues forth in the kingdom rule of Christ. But Jesus informs us in the first century that he has ALREADY bound Satan and therefore has ALREADY established his kingdom rule. Indeed, the binding of Satan is the PROOF the kingdom has come: "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the KINGDOM of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first BINDS the strong man? And then he will plunder his house" (Matt. 12:28-29).

And if this is not enough, the very opening verses of Revelation declare the PRESENT rule of Christ with his kingdom of priests. Revelation 20:6 informs us of the millennial rule: "Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years." But Revelation 1:6 informs us: "He HAS MADE us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen."

The Bible speaks only of a "second" eschatological coming. Hebrews 9:28 says: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the SECOND time without sin unto salvation." In regard to His physical coming to earth, the Bible speaks of His coming again (Acts 1:11), not of His "comings" or His "coming again and again" or of a "third coming."

And there are various angles whereby we may see that the Bible allows for only one eschatological resurrection at the end of history, a resurrection of both the saved and the lost.

(1) The resurrection is to occur on the last day. "And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:39-40). Christ says the resurrection will be simultaneously of "all who are in the graves" (John 5:28). John’s gospel record is quite clear on this matter (John 6:44, 54; 11:24). The resurrection occurs in conjunction with "the end" and at the "last trump" (1 Cor. 15:23-24, 52).

(2) The Lord’s teaching in the Kingdom Parables demands a general resurrection. "But he said, `No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. `Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn" (Matt. 13:29-30; see also vv. 49-50). If anything this parable teaches that the resurrection of the wicked precedes that of the righteous!

(3) Since there is but one resurrection, there is no resurrection centuries from the end. "There will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust" (Acts 24:15). "The hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth; those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation" (John 5:28-29).

(4) The resurrection is that which signals the destruction of death: "But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death" (1 Cor. 15:23-26). Clearly the "last enemy" is destroyed at "the end," and both occur in conjunction with the resurrection. ..." Kenneth Gentry

"When I was a teenager I thought the only people saved must attend my local church!"

Looks as if you were LED to believe a lie. :)

Resurrections are interesting and a bit of a mystery to me yet. IMHO I read three of the living and one resurrection of the dead. I am not as good with cutting and pasting as you are but I'll try a bit.

1) Christ obviously

2)comma (I like the comma) the firstfruits church rapture

3)when he comes, those who belong to him after Armageddon when the kingdom come to earth. Old testament and tribulation saints.

During the millennium I am a bit confused. Only those who rebel die probably at 100 years old. When do the millennial saints get their glorified bodies? I do not know.

This concludes the first resurrection

Revelation 20:6 (King James Version) Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

The second resurrection is at the end of time when death is defeated finally and all the dead unbelievers from all time are judged and sent to the lake of fire.

Looks as if you were LED to believe a lie. :)

I agree, BTW Is LED also an acronym for something?

Revelation 20 is the ONE AND ONLY place in ALL of Scripture that suggests a thousand year reign of Christ.

There was a neat discussion recently on FR why this was the case. Maybe I can find it. It had to do with God fulfilling all his promises to Israel.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2709853/posts

Here it is.

You wrote: “After the rapture God turns his focus back on Israel and Daniels 70th week.”

For your consideration:

Daniel and Daniel’s 70 weeks

[snip]

.......With this Daniel 7 comes to a close, but there are a few more verses we need to consider. Our study continues in Daniel 9, with part of the “70 weeks” prophecy. Daniel 9:24-27 is of concern:

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Many have written on the subject of how the coming of Jesus precisely fulfilled the timing of this passage on terms of the first 69 weeks, and we have no reason to dispute or discuss that here. What is at issue is the last or 70th week. The dispensational paradigm holds that this 70th week is on hold until a future time called the Tribulation. I disagree.

The 70th week, or last 7-year period, transpired around the crucifixion of Jesus (ending around the time of Paul’s conversion), giving the Jews time to accept him as Messiah (during which the punishment for this rejection was determined). The war on the Jews from 66-73 AD (which some preterists argue is the 70th week, and may have allowed a 40 year gap, programmatic of the Exodus, for Jesus to still be accepted, between 30-70) need not be part of Daniel’s 70 and indeed likely is not (a point Ice, in his book noted below, fails to grasp).

Gerhard Hasel in a study for Andrews University Seminary Studies titled “The Hebrew Masculine Plural For ‘Weeks’...” notes that the grammar of the verse is done in a way that is “purposeful and by design so as to stress the unitary whole, the totality, and the completeness” of the 70 week block. The weeks “cannot be split apart in such a way as to separate the final ‘one week’ “ as dispensationalists require.

Recently in response to this view, futurist Thomas Ice in The End Times Controversy defended the dispensational view against specific preterist arguments; we will comment only where Ice addresses claims that we hold to, which turns out to not be much. The first point needful to address is how the list of six requirements relates to the first century:

“to finish the transgression” — It can be agreed with Ice that this refers to a specific sin of the Jewish people. Ice must see this in his view as the rejection of the Messiah and does not even ask what a preterist would suggest; we would say that it is the broader sin of rejecting YHWH as He really is and for what He really offered. Rejection of YHWH was the hallmark of Jewish history.
“to make an end of sins” — Without any explanation, Ice says that this can only be after the installation of Messiah in the millenial reign; so he thus admits that even by his view, this is not something that Israel will realistically accomplish in that future period he sees. Thus it is just as well to say that it is a deadline given to Israel of the ancient world, to stop sinning or else.
“to make reconciliation for iniquity” — Ice makes no specific dispensational application here; it is little more than a restatement of “clean up your act” in the phrase above. However, Ice makes a critical error [315] in saying, “if [these three phrases] are descriptive of elements that have yet to be fulfilled, then the seventy weeks of Daniel have yet to be fulfilled” and week 70 is yet in the future. This misses the salient point that these are but goals for Israel to meet, and there is nothing to say that they will succeed in meeting them prior to the Messiah’s arrival. In other words Ice begs the dispensational question yet again.
“to bring in everlasting righteousness” — Ice once again merely states what he thinks this must be in his futurist view; for the preterist, this is as well to say that warning is given of the need to recognize and honor the Messiah when he comes in the first century AD.
“to seal up the vision and prophecy” — Ice notes Gentry’s view that Christ did this on earth, and offers a response that this cannot be since there were later visions and prophecies in the New Testament. What this fails to note (again!) is that the six phrases are contingent upon Israel “doing it right” and recognizing the Messiah. As I note here, “Plan A” would have Jesus recognized as Messiah and enthroned as King of Israel — and thus, there would be no need for any more prophecy. Because we have “Plan B” instead, the need for prophecy continued a bit longer.
“to anoint the most Holy” — Gentry relates this to Jesus’ baptism; I would say it would relate to the anointing of Jesus as king that should have happened under “Plan A”. Ice objects to Gentry in a way that relates to my own view, noting that “most holy” is “never used of a person, only of things” — but then turns right around and quotes someone else who says that it refers to “Daniel’s people Israel”! We are constrained to ask what about the words “most holy” keeps it from being applied to the person of Jesus. That it was used before only to apply to the Temple means nothing against such an identification.
In defense of the idea of a “gap” separating the 70th week, Ice’s bibliography is notably missing Hasel’s article (which defeats his weak plea that because it says the seventieth week come “after” the 62, a “gap” is implied).
He presents a defense for a gap that is so absurd as to be comical. He claims that “Israel had violated the sabbatical year 70 times” — based on a deductive reading of 2 Chron. 36:20-1, which says that the land “enjoyed its sabbaths” while the Jews were gone 70 years!
It’s bad enough that he bases this logic on deduction alone, but he argues that since Judah was in the land about 800 years (1400 BC-c.600 BC), and they must have ignored the Sabbath during only 490 of those years to earn that punishment, there must have been “gaps” in their observation of the Sabbath!
Even if this numerological fantasy could be substantiated with actual data showing that the Israelites historically failed to observe exactly 490 years of Sabbaths, it ignores the point that this did not make for any sort of “gap” in the punishment (!) of 70 years in exile, which is the only number that is actually declared by God!
It is not as though we have a prophecy that says, “you will be disobedient about the Sabbath for a period of 490 years” (not, “a period that adds up to 490 years”!) is dated to 1400 BC and from which we can look forward and say, “ah, they failed to observe Sabbaths for 5 weeks in 1010 BC, then 3 weeks in 1009,” etc.!
An irony in this is that Ice quotes Wood as noting that Daniel would see the 70 weeks as represented in the 70 years of Exile — a period which was NOT an exile of 69 years, followed by a “gap”, and a remaining year that was not served for years afterwards! His own quoted analogy only reinforces the preterist position denying that a gap can be allowed!

“The people of the prince that will come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” — obviously this is fully interpretable as the Romans under Vespasian (with Titus perhaps, as Vespasian’s son, qualifying as the “prince”) destroying Jerusalem and the Temple. It was so interpreted by Josephus, by ancient rabbis, and by medieval rabbis [Miller, 268]. It’s also possible to see Jesus as the “prince” using Rome’s armies to judge Israel (as God used Assyria and Babylon previously) and noting Jewish responsibility for the war, thus making the Jews the “people”. Amusingly, Ice disdains this identification because Christ was earlier “cut off” — as if Jesus had no power to do anything in heaven!
“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” — the dispensational paradigm sees this as a case of the Antichrist (”he”) signing a peace treaty with the Jews, and then halfway through the Tribulation period putting a stop to re-established Jewish sacrifices. But this interpretation works its way by applying the pronoun “he” back to the “prince” of the people who will come. “Prince” is of course the most obvious antecedent, if placement is all that is to be considered, but the object of the phrase is the people, not the prince.
The week here may or may not be identical with the 70th week. Whatever the case, we have two possible interpretations: 1) it was in the midst of the 7-year war — in 70 — that “he”, meaning not the prince of the people, but rather, the Messiah in verse 26 — confirmed (which is to say, verified — the word here means to strengthen or prevail, not merely make or create) the covenant with “many” (if the Jews are in mind, why not say the “your people”? — on the other hand, cf. Matthew 26:28, “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”) by delivering the promised judgment against Jerusalem, predicted in more detail in the Olivet Discourse. In the middle of this week — in 70 — this God-ordained judgment “cause[d] the sacrifice and the oblation to cease”. Ice [338] calls upon Hebrew lexicologists who note that by the rules of Hebrew, the closest antecedent is the one that is referred to, and here, that cannot be the “Messiah” but the prince, in his view, the Antichrist. For what it is worth, liberal commentators who make the “Messiah” out to be Onias III or another Maccabbean-era priest see the “Messiah” as the one who confirmed the covenant; see Hartman and DiLella, 251, and Lacocque, 993, who presumably are not dunderheads when it comes to Hebrew. Ice lets the cat out of the bag though when he admits that a sound “contextual reason” overrules that rule. Knowing that this traps him, he alleges that only “theological bias” will make the move, and in a sense he is right — just as “bias” compels him to reject it, and also compels him to on the one hand admit that the “people” of the prince to come were indeed the Romans under Titus, but the “prince” himself is not Titus, but a future Antichrist! In this light, let it be asked who is doing the less tortuous gymnastics to satisfy their “bias”!
There is one final point that shows Jesus to be the one who “confirms the covenant”: The NT thought so! Compare:
“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week...” (Dan. 9:27)
“Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Matt. 20:28; cf. Matt. 26:28, Mark 10:45, 14:24)
Ice misses this because he again vets preterist thought through a dispensational lens, thinking that we believe that Christ here makes a covenant with the Jews! He also clearly does not recognize Matthew’s adaptation of Daniel’s “many” to Christians [340]. It is also amazing that Ice can quote Wood as saying that Christ cannot be the one referenced because Christ did not “make” a covenant; God did. Daniel says that the person will confirm (not make) the covenant, which is exactly what Christ did in his role as broker of the covenant, and would also be what he did in calling down judgment on Jerusalem in 70.

On the side now, what of claims that Daniel 9:24-27 was fulfilled in the time of Antiochus? Attempts to prove this are rather labored and overstated. A typical example tells us:

That the “anointed one” who is “cut off” is one of many of Anticohus’ rivals whom he killed;
That Antiochus’ invasion of Israel amounts to the “destruction” of Jerusalem and the Temple, when in fact he was let into Jerusalem by his own supporters without a fight (Jos. Ant. 12.5.3) and only plundered money from it, and later also plundered the Temple and profaned it, but did not destroy it;
Thereby also read into these events a “desolation”
In short, to meld Daniel 9:24-27 into the Maccabbean era requires making a rose garden out of a weed and vastly overstating the events of 167-164 BC.
This leaves Daniel 12:1-3:

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

The last resurrection? No, for what is referred to is many being raised — and this matches Matthew’s resurrected saints. Indeed Matthew’s use of “many” implies a hearkening back to Daniel (though he does not mention those resurrected to shame and contempt, who would probably not be eligible to walk around anyway).

HERE: http://www.tektonics.org/esch/danman.html

<>

The Authenticity of Daniel: A Defense
http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.html

Maybe EVEN???

"Revelation 20 is the ONE AND ONLY place in ALL of Scripture that suggests a thousand year reign of Christ.

Here is the text I was thinking of from the long article.

It is, of course, true that the figure of one thousand years is only found in Revelation 20. But it is recorded six different times in this one text, and if repetition tries to do anything, it certainly endeavors to make a point. While it is true that the millennium (that is, one thousand years) is found only in Revelation 20, the belief in the Messianic Kingdom does not rest on this passage alone. In fact, it hardly rests on it at all. The basis for the belief in the Messianic Kingdom is twofold. First: there are the unfulfilled promises of the Jewish covenants, promises that can only be fulfilled in a Messianic Kingdom. Second: there are the unfulfilled prophecies of the Jewish prophets. There are numerous prophecies of the Old Testament that speak of the coming of the Messiah Who will reign on David's Throne, and rule over a peaceful Kingdom. There is a great amount of material in the Old Testament on the Messianic Kingdom, and the belief in a Messianic Kingdom rests on the basis of a literal interpretation of this massive material. The only real contribution that the Book of Revelation makes to the knowledge of the Kingdom is to disclose just how long the Messianic Kingdom will last-namely one thousand years-for which the term Millennium is used. This is the one key truth concerning the Kingdom that was not revealed in the Old Testament. It is in light of this that it is possible to understand why so much of the book is spent on the Great Tribulation and so little on the Millennium. While much of the material in Revelation 4-19 is found scattered in the pages of the Old Testament, it is impossible to place these events in chronological sequence using only the Old Testament. The Book of Revelation provides the framework by which this can be done. A great portion of the Book of Revelation was used to accomplish this goal. On the other hand, all of the various features and facets of the Messianic Kingdom have already been revealed in the Old Testament. It portrays the general characteristics of life in the Kingdom, which do not raise the problem of an order of sequence. Hence, there was no reason to spend a great deal of time on the Messianic Kingdom in the Book of Revelation. Most of what was needed to be revealed was already known from the Old Testament. However, there were two things about the Messianic Kingdom which were not revealed in the Old Testament. The first was the length of the Messianic Kingdom. While the Old Testament prophets foresaw a long period of time of a peaceful messianic reign, they did not reveal just how long this would last. To answer this question, the Book of Revelation states that it will be exactly one thousand years. A second thing that was unknown from the Old Testament prophets was the circumstances by which the Kingdom would come to an end and how this would lead into the Eternal Order. This is also revealed by the Book of Revelation. These two items are all that Revelation 20 added to the knowledge of the Messianic Kingdom. The belief in a Messianic Kingdom does not rest on this passage, but is based on the numerous prophecies of the Old Testament prophets.

"To me this is the church and the separation would come at the rapture."

I know. :)

Maybe EVEN???

I assumed since you are such a big fan of Bob I thought you might know him and tell him.

I know I don’t agree with Thomas Ice about something but I don’t remember what it is.

Wow, Where does this leave the Jews of today? IMHO I get a feeling of anti semitism reading this.

bttt

Camping is holding up Christians to such ridicule with these predictions.

But not for much longer.