HOW SIGNS OF THE TIMES RELATE TO THE RAPTURE AND THE SECOND COMING [PLUS RELATED ARTICLES N THRD]

from:

http://www.according2prophecy.org/literal.html

THE FIRST FOUNDATION:

CONSISTENT LITERAL INTERPRETATION

by Thomas Ice

Consistent literal interpretation is essential to properly understanding what God is saying in the Bible. Yet some believe that consistent literal interpretation is either impossible or impractical. One critic believes it to be a "presumption" that "is unreasonable" and "an impossible ideal."1 In spite of false characterization, what do we mean by consistent literal interpretation?

A DEFINITION OF LITERAL INTERPRETATION

The dictionary defines literal as "belonging to letters." Further, it says literal interpretation involves an approach "based on the actual words in their ordinary meaning, . . . not going beyond the facts."2 "Literal interpretation of the Bible simply means to explain the original sense of the Bible according to the normal and customary usages of its language."3 How is this done? It can only be accomplished through an interpretation of the written text which includes consideration of the grammatical (according to the rules of grammar), historical (consistent with the historical setting of the passage), contextual (in accord with its context) method of interpretation. This is what literalists mean by consistently literal interpretation.

GRAMMATICAL, HISTORICAL,

CONTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION

Grammatical

The grammatical aspect of literal interpretation considers the impact that grammar plays on a passage. This means that a student of the text should correctly analyze the grammatical relationships of words, phrases, and sentences to one another. Literal interpreter Dr. Roy Zuck writes,

When we speak of interpreting the Bible grammatically, we are referring to the process of seeking to determine its meaning by ascertaining four things: (a) the meaning of words (lexicology), (b) the form of words (morphology), (c) the function of words (parts of speech), and (d) the relationships of words (syntax).4

Dr. Zuck has been teaching biblical interpretation for many years at Dallas Seminary and I believe his recent book Basic Bible Interpretation is the best place to start for anyone interested in learning how to interpret the Bible. Dr. Zuck gives further amplification of the four areas he noted above:

In the meaning of words (lexicology), we are concerned with (a) etymology-how words are derived and developed, (b) usage-how words are used by the same and other authors, (c) synonyms and antonyms-how similar and opposite words are used, and (d) context-how words are used in various contexts.

In discussing the form of words (morphology) we are looking at how words are structured and how that affects their meaning. For example the word eat means something different from ate, though the same letters are used. The word part changes meaning when the letter s is added to it to make the word parts. The function of words (parts of speech) considers what the various forms do. These include attention to subjects, verbs, objects, nouns, and others, as will be discussed later. The relationships of words (syntax) are the way words are related or put together to form phrases, clauses, and sentences.5

The grammatical aspect of literal interpretation lets us know that any interpretation conflicting with grammar is invalid.

Historical

Proper interpretation of the Bible means that the historical context must be taken into account. This aspect means that one must consider the historical setting and circumstances in which the books of the Bible were written. Dr. Paul Tan explains:

The proper concept of the historical in Bible interpretation is to view the Scriptures as written during given ages and cultures. Applications may then be drawn which are relevant to our times. For instance, the subject of meat offered to idols can only be interpreted from the historical and cultural setting of New Testament times. Principles to be drawn are relevant to us today.6

Contextual

"A passage taken out of context is a pretext." This slogan is certainly true! Yet, one of the most common mistakes made by those who are found to have misinterpreted a passage in the Bible is that of taking a verse out of its Divinely ordered context. Even though a sentence may be taken from the Bible, it is not the Word of God if it is placed into a context which changes the meaning from that which God intended in its original context. Dr. Zuck says:

The context in which a given Scripture passage is written influences how that passage is to be understood. Context includes several things:

the verse(s) immediately before and after a passage

the paragraph and book in which the verses occur

the dispensation in which it was written

the message of the entire Bible

the historical-cultural environment of that time when it was

written.7

A widely used example of a verse taken out of context is 2 Chronicles 7:14: "and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray . . . " Usually this is quoted as an explanation for why America is in decline. Because "My people" are addressed, it is said that the success of a nation is dependent upon the obedience of Christians to the Lord. Thus God blesses or curses a nation in accordance with Christian obedience. Then 2 Chronicles 7:14 is cited as a formula for national restoration because the passage says to "humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

I believe that this is an illustration of a passage taken out of context because of the following contextual factors:

"My people" are said in 2 Chronicles 6:24 to be "Israel" as is also indicated by the flow of the historical context.

Solomon is preparing to dedicate the just completed Temple and 7:14 is God's renewal of the Mosaic Covenant under which Israel and only Israel operates.

Since this passage involves Israel and not the church it is improper to speculatively relate it to present day American Christianity. Proper contextual interpretation would allow for the general observation that God delights in a humble and obedient people, but obedience and pray should be offered according to His plan for the church.

FIGURES OF SPEECH

Literal interpretation recognizes that a word or phrase can be used either plainly (denotative) or figuratively (connotative). As in our own conversations today, the Bible may use plain speech, such as "He died yesterday" (denotative use of language). Or the same thing may be said in a more colorful way, "He kicked the bucket yesterday" (connotative use of language). An important point to be noted is that even though we may use a figure of speech to refer to someone's death, we are using that figure to refer to an event that literally happened. Some interpreters are mistaken to think that just because a figure of speech may be used to describe an event (i.e., Jonah's experience in the belly of the great fish in Jonah 2), that the event was not literal. Such is not the case. A "Golden Rule of Interpretation" has been developed to help us discern whether or not a figure of speech was intended by an author:

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.8

Literalists understand that a figure of speech is employed by Isaiah teaching that the Adamic curse upon nature will be reversed in the millennium when he says, "And all the trees of the field will clap their hands" (Isa. 55:12d). This figure is discerned by specific factors in the context in which it was written, all dealing with the removal of the curse upon nature at this future time. Even though figurative language is employed, it will literally happen in history.

LITERAL VERSES LITERAL

Dr. Elliott Johnson of Dallas Seminary has noted that much of the confusion over literal interpretation can be removed when one properly understands the two primary ways the term has been used down through church history: "(1) the clear, plain sense of a word or phrase as over against a figurative use, and (2) a system that views the text as providing the basis of the true interpretation."9 Thus, literalists, by and large, have used the term literal to refer to their system of interpretation (the consistent use of the grammatical-historical system; Johnson's #2), and once inside that system, literal refers to whether or not a specific word or phrase is used in its context in a figurative or literal sense (Johnson's #1).

Johnson's second use of literal (i.e., systematic literalism) is simply the grammatical-historical system consistently used. The grammatical-historical system was revived by the Reformers. It was set against the spiritual (spiritualized) or deeper meaning of the text that was a common approach during the Middle Ages. The literal meaning was used simply as a springboard to a deeper ("spiritual") meaning, which was viewed as more desirable. A classic spiritualized interpretation would for example, see the four rivers of Genesis 2-the Pishon, Havilah, Tigris and Euphrates-as representing the human body, soul, spirit and mind. Coming from such a system, the Reformers saw the need to get back to the literal or textual meaning of the Bible. For instance, Martin Luther wanted to debate John Eck from the text of the Bible.

The system of literal interpretation is the grammatical-historical or textual approach to interpretation. Use of literalism in this sense could be called "macroliteralism." Within macroliteralism, the consistent use of the grammatical-historical system yields the interpretative conclusion, for example, that Israel always and only refers to national Israel. The church will not be substituted for Israel if the grammatical-historical system of interpretation is consistently used because there are no indicator in the text of Scripture that such is the case. Therefore, one must bring an idea from outside the text by saying that the passage really means something that it does not actually say. This kind of replacement approach is a mild form of spiritualized, or allegorical, interpretation. So when speaking of those who do replace Israel with the church as not taking the Bible literally and spiritualizing the text, it is true, since such a belief is contrary to a macroliteral interpretation.

Consistently literal interpreters, within the framework of the grammatical-historical system, do discuss whether or not a word, phrase, or the literary genre of a biblical book is a figure of speech (connotative) or is to be taken literally/plainly (denotative). This is Johnson's first use of literal which could be called "microliteralism." Thus, within microliteralism, there may be discussion by literalists as to whether or not a given word or phrase is being used as a figure of speech, based on the context of a given passage. Some passages are quite naturally clearer than others and a consensus among interpreters develops, whereas other passages may find literal interpreters divided as to whether or not they should be taken as a figure of speech. However, this is more a problem of application than of method.

Reconstructionist Ken Gentry, in his attack on consistent literal interpretation, argues that "consistent literalism is unreasonable."10 One of the ways he attempts to prove his point is by arguing that, since literalists take some words and phrases as figures of speech, they are not consistently literal.11 He asserts that, "the dispensational claim to 'consistent literalism' is frustrating due to its inconsistent employment."12 Gentry seeks to discredit literalism by giving examples of literalists who interpret certain passages as containing figures of speech, citing this as inconsistent with the system of literal interpretation. According to Gentry, the literalist has to abandon literal interpretation when he realizes that Jesus refers figuratively to Himself as a door in John 10:9.13 Gentry is not defining literal interpretation the way literalists do. Therefore, his conclusions about literal interpretation are misguided because he commonly mixes the two senses described by Johnson. When speaking of the macroliteralism, he uses an example from microliteralism, and vice versa, therefore appearing to have shown an inconsistency in literal interpretation. In reality, the examples cited fall within the framework of how literalists have defined what they mean by literal interpretation.

CONCLUSION

God's Word is to be understood through literal interpretation. It is an important foundation stone supporting the Pre-Trib Rapture, because when the Bible is consistently interpreted literally, from Genesis to Revelation, the Pre-Trib position is hard to avoid. W

Endnotes

1 Kenneth Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), pp. 148, 146.

2 Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Second Edition, p. 1055.

3 Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Winona Lake, Ind.: Assurance Publishers, 1974), p. 29.

4 Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1991), p. 100.

5 Ibid., pp. 100-01. 6 Tan, Interpretation of Prophecy, p. 103.

7 Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 77.

8 David L. Cooper, The World's Greatest Library: Graphically Illustrated, (Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1970), p. 11.

9 Elliott E. Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), p. 9.

10 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, p. 148.

11 For examples of his approach see Gentry, pp. 153-58.

12 Ibid., p. 153. 13 Ibid., p. 148.

from:

http://www.according2prophecy.org/datesett.html

Pre-Trib Perspectives Articles

PREMILLENNIALISM: THE SECOND FOUNDATION

by Thomas Ice

At least six passages (eight if parallel passages are included) specifically warn believes against date-setting. Yet down through church history there has been an amazing amount of date-setting. About every two years there is usually someone who makes headlines proclaiming that they know the date of the Second Coming or the Rapture. The most recent incident involved Family Radio's Harold Camping, who said that Christ would return sometime in September 1994. Interestingly, Camping comes from an amillennial, covenant theology framework.

Many may be surprised that there is actually less date-setting today than there was 100 to 300 years ago. This is because in previous times so many prophecy teachers held to the historicist interpretive approach as opposed to the futurist systems that dominate the scene today. However, there are still some prominent personalities who engage in the biblically forbidden practice of date-setting.

Biblical Prohibitions Against Date-Setting

It is enough for something to be stated only once in the Bible for it to be true, but when God says something many times the emphasis should make such assertions even clearer. I am listing the specific passages below so that we can readily see these important biblical admonitions:

Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Mark 13:32 is an exact parallel.

Matthew 24:42 "Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming.

Matthew 24:44 "For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.

Matthew 25:13 "Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour. Mark 13:33-37 is a parallel passage.

Acts 1:7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;

1 Thessalonians 5:1-2 Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.

These passages are absolute prohibitions against date-setting. They do not teach that it was impossible to know the date in the early church, but in the last days some would come to know it. They do not say that no one knows the day or the hour, except those who are able to figure it out through some scheme. No! The date of Christ's coming is a matter of God's revelation and He has chosen not to reveal it even to Christ in His humanity during His first advent (Mt. 24:36).

The Bible teaches that God's Word is sufficient for everything needed to live a life pleasing unto Christ (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3-4). This means that if something is not revealed for us in the Bible then it is not needed to accomplish God's plan for our lives. The date of Christ's return is not stated in the Bible, therefore, in spite of what some may say, knowing it is not important for living a godly life. The Lord told Israel "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law" (Deut. 29:29). The date of Christ's coming has not been revealed, thus it is a secret belonging only to God.

But What About . . . ?

Some believe that there are passages in the Bible which teach that believers will be able to know the date of Christ's return. I will examine some of these passages to show how those who advocate date-setting have misused various passages in their attempts to legitimize date-setting. The Bible does not contain internal contradictions. It is wrong to think that on the one hand Scripture says "no man can know," but then on the other hand that some will be able to figure it out.

1. Luke 21:28 "But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." Some have taught that this passage implies a license to date-set. However, important contextual indicators include the fact that it refers to Jewish believers during the future seven-year tribulation, who right before the Second Coming are told to watch, not date-set, as they endure the final period of severe persecution. This does not relate to date-setting but is a general command to watch for the unknown time of the Lord's return.

2. Hebrews 10:25b "but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near." Some teach that this implies that believers are able to see or know that "the day" (i.e., the Second Coming) is drawing near. While some do interpret "the day" as a reference to the Second Coming, I think that the immediate context and the context of the book of Hebrews is one that is a warning to Jewish believers before the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple not to return (i.e., apostatize) to Judaism, since the immediate future only contained wrath for those Jews who reject Jesus as their Messiah. Therefore, "the day" is not a reference to the Second Coming, instead it refers to Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans in A.D. 70.

3. 1 Thessalonians 5:4 "But you, brethren , are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief." It has been taught from this passage that believers would have to know the timing of "the day" (i.e., "the day of the Lord," see 5:2) in order to not be overtaken by it. This date-setting interpretation attaches the wrong sense to Paul's teaching. Paul is saying that they will not be overtaken because they are prepared by virtue of the fact that they are believers. All believers will be taken care of by the Lord (I believe through the Pre-Trib Rapture) so that unlike the unbeliever who will be unprepared and caught off guard, the believer is prepared.

4. Israel's Feast Cycle. The Bible teaches a cycle of seven feasts which Israel was to celebrate yearly. The seven feasts are Passover, Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Feast of Weeks, Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles. The first four feasts are celebrated in Spring, while the remaining three are commemorated in the Fall. A common interpretation concludes that the feasts also are prophetic of the career of the Messiah. The Spring cycle is said to have been fulfilled by Christ at His first coming, while the Fall cycle will be fulfilled in the future through events surrounding the Second Coming. Up to this point, I have no problem with this scheme. However, I do have a problem with those who teach that the fifth feast (Trumpets) is a reference to the Rapture. Since Rosh HaShannah (Hebrew for Feast of Trumpets) is yearly celebrated on Tishri 1 according to the Hebrew calendar (this day usually falls in September according to our contemporary calendar), and it is argued that trumpets are related to the Rapture (1 Cor. 15:52), therefore, the Rapture will occur on Tishri 1 as the Spring cycle begins to be fulfilled. This scheme argues that if the year of the Rapture can be determined, then we would know that it would occur in the fall of the year. It seems that many of the more recent and popular date-setting schemes have implemented Israel's feast cycle in some way.

There is one major problem with this approach that disqualifies any use of it for date-setting. Israel's feasts relate to Israel and Israel alone. True, the fulfillment of Israel's feasts relate to salvation for all mankind, but the precise fulfillment relates exclusively to national Israel. The Rapture is a new event related only to the church and thus could not have been predicted through Old Testament revelation such as Israel's feast. Thus, any use of the feasts of Israel in an attempt to date-set is invalid.

If Not Date-Setting, What?

Since the Bible prohibits date-setting, what does it teach? Many of the same passages which prohibit date-setting, at the same time instruct us what to do until the Lord returns. For example, Matthew 24:42 not only warns "for you do not know which day your Lord is coming," but also admonishes believers to "be on the alert." Matthew 24:44 tells us to "be ready" because "the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will." Also, Matthew 25:13 admonishes us to "be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour."

The alert to which believers are called is not to date-setting, but one of looking for the Savior, since we do not know when He will return. We are to be alert, in contrast to unbelievers who are pictured as sleeping in regard to the things of God. We are to be alert for the purpose of godly living until the Lord does return because we are in the dark night of this current evil age, which requires an active alertness toward evil.

If the church knew the day or the hour of the Rapture then imminence, the posture Christians have in relation to the Rapture, would be destroyed. Biblical imminence teaches that Christ can, but does not have to, come at any moment. It also means that there are no signs which have to be fulfilled in order for the Rapture to occur. Thus, Christ could literally come today, or this hour or moment. Thus, date-setting destroys imminence. How? If someone taught that the Rapture will happen on September 22, 1995, then it would mean that Christ could not come before that time. This would mean that the Rapture could not be imminent, since Christ could not come today if we knew the Rapture would occur on a specific date. Since imminence is often related to commands to holy living, date-setting would also have a negative impact upon ethics.

Signs of the Times and Date-Setting

While date-setting is prohibited in God's Word, I believe that it is valid to realize that God is setting the stage for His great end-time program. What does that mean? As we stated in a previous issue, the Rapture is a signless event, thus it is impossible to identify any signs that indicate the nearness of the Rapture. This is why all attempts to date the Rapture have had to wrongly resort to an application of passages relating to God's plan for Israel to the church. An example of this misuse would be those who say Israel's feasts (i.e., Rosh HaShannah) relate to dating the Rapture as noted above. However, since the Bible outlines a clear scenario of players, events and nations involved in the end-time tribulation, we can see God's preparation for the final seven-years of Daniel's seventy weeks for Israel.

For example, the fact that ethnic Israel has been reestablished as a nation and now controls Jerusalem is a strong indicator that we are near the end of the church age. This can only be a general indication, since no time table is specifically given for current preparation. Therefore, we cannot know for certain that we are the last generation before the Rapture since God may choose to "stage set" for another 100 years or longer. Dr. John F. Walvoord correctly says,

"There is no scriptural ground for setting dates for the Lord's return or the end of the world. . . . As students of the Bible observe proper interpretation principles, they are becoming increasingly aware of a remarkable correspondence between the obvious trend of world events and what the Bible predicted centuries ago." (Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974, 1976, 1990), 21-22.)

from:

http://www.according2prophecy.org/future.html

FUTURISM: THE THIRD FOUNDATION

These articles are available for your edification, and research. The Pre-Trib Perspectives Journal is a publication of the Pre-Trib Research Center. These articles are made available courtesy of Evangelist Donald Perkins and According To Prophecy Ministries.
By: Dr. Thomas Ice

" The third biblical foundation for a systematic understanding of the pretribulation rapture is futurism. An important, but seemingly little-recognized aspect of proper interpretation of Bible prophecy is the role of timing. When will a prophecy be fulfilled in history? There are four possibilities. The four views are simple in the sense that they reflect the only four possibilities in relation to time-past, present, future, and timeless..

The third biblical foundation for a systematic understanding of the pretribulation rapture is futurism. An important, but seemingly little-recognized aspect of proper interpretation of Bible prophecy is the role of timing. When will a prophecy be fulfilled in history? There are four possibilities. The four views are simple in the sense that they reflect the only four possibilities in relation to time-past, present, future, and timeless.

The preterist (past) believes that most, if not all prophecy has already been fulfilled, usually in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The historicist (present) sees much of the current church age as equal to the tribulation period. Thus, prophecy has been and will be fulfilled during the current church age. Futurists (future) believe that virtually all prophetic events will not occur in the current church age, but will take place in the future tribulation, Second Coming, or Millennium. The idealist (timeless) does not believe either that the Bible indicates the timing of events or that we can determine their timing in advance. Therefore, idealists think that prophetic passages mainly teach great ideas or truths about God to be applied regardless of timing.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FUTURISM

Of the four views noted above, the only one that logically and historically has supported the pre-trib position is futurism. Why? Because, the timing of the rapture relates to when the tribulation will occur in history. Preterism declares that the tribulation has already taken place. Historicism says that the tribulation started in the fourth century with events surrounding Constantine's Christianization of the Roman Empire and continues until the second coming. Idealism denies that there is a timing of events. Thus, only futurism, which sees the tribulation as a yet future event could even allow for a rapture before the beginning of that seven-year period. This does not mean, however, that all futurists are pre-trib; they are not. But to be a pretribulationist, one must be a futurist.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF FUTURISM

While not as consistently developed as modern futurism, the early church would have to be classified as inconsistent futurists, more than any of the other three possibilities. With a few exceptions, the early church believed that events of the tribulation, millennium, and second coming were to take place in the future. As anti-millennial views begin to arise in the third century, and the Christianization of the Roman Empire through Constantine spread in the fourth century, futurism began to be displaced. As the fourth century turned into the fifth, Jerome and Augustine's influence against futurism drove it underground during the thousand-year era of medievalism. But there remained during this time pockets of futurist interpretation scattered throughout a number of the groups who refused to come under Roman Catholic authority. Further, there have been discoveries of medieval apocalypticism during this time which wrote from varying degrees of futurism.

The Reformation brought a return to a study of the sources. In Northern Europe those sources included the early church writers and aided in a renewal of the study of prophecy from a futurist perspective within the Roman Catholic and then the Protestant churches. The Jesuit, Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was one of the first to revive an undeveloped form of futurism around 1580. Because of the dominance of historicism, futurism made virtually no headway in Protestantism until the 1820's through Church of England scholar S. R. Maitland in 1826. In the late 1820s, futurism began to gain converts and grow in the British Isles, often motivated by a revived interest in God's plan for Israel, during which time it gained one of its most influential converts in John Nelson Darby. Through Darby and other Brethren expositors, futurism spread to America and throughout the evangelical world. The last one hundred years have seen for the first time, the full development of consistent futurism. This has lead in turn to the formulation of dispensationalism and a clearer understanding of the pretribulational rapture of the church.

SUPPORT FOR FUTURISM

A defense of futurism can be developed from the Bible by comparing and contrasting futurism with the other three approaches. For example, futurism instead of preterism can be shown by demonstrating from specific texts of Scripture that "coming" in the debated passages refer to a bodily return of Christ to planet earth, not a mystical coming mediated through the Roman Army. One area that supports futurism over historicism is demonstrated by the fact that numbers relating to days and years are to be taken literally. There is no biblical basis for days really meaning years. A major argument for futurism over idealism is the fact that numbers do count. In other words, why would God give hundreds of chronological and temporal statements in the Bible if He did not intend to indicate such?

Let's look at some general support for the futurist approach. First and foremost, only the futurist can interpret the whole Bible literally and having done so harmonize those conclusions into a consistent theological system. Just as the people, places, and times were meant to be understood literally in Genesis 1-11, so are the texts that relate to the end-times are to be taken literally. Days mean days; years mean years; months mean months. Thus, the only way that the book of Revelation and other prophetic portions of the Bible make any sense is if they are taken literally, which means that they have not yet happened, and thus, they are future.

Another proof for futurism is found in the Bible's understanding of who Israel is and God's plan for His people. If, whenever we see the Bible using the term "Israel" we remember that it always refers to the same people throughout the whole of the Bible, then it follows that many passages referring to Israel have never been fulfilled and for them to be fulfilled they will have to occur in the future. The fact of the matter is that an outline Israel's history was written in advance, before they ever set one foot into their land. One passage that illustrates this is Deuteronomy 4:25-31.

"When you become the father of children and children's children and have remained long in the land, and act corruptly, and make an idol in the form of anything, and do that which is evil in the sight of the Lord your God so as to provoke Him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that you shall surely perish quickly from the land where you are going over the Jordan to possess it. You shall not live long on it, but shall be utterly destroyed. "And the Lord will scatter you among the peoples, and you shall be left few in number among the nations, where the Lord shall drive you. "And there you will serve gods, the work of man's hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell. "But from there you will seek the Lord your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul. "When you are in distress and all these things have come upon you, in the latter days, you will return to the Lord your God and listen to His voice. "For the Lord your God is a compassionate God; He will not fail you nor destroy you nor forget the covenant with your fathers which He swore to them.

I have put in bold-faced type those major events that even a schoolchild would know as key elements in the history of Israel. If the first three events have happened to Israel, an no one would deny that they have, then it is clear from the text that the final two highlighted events will also happen to the same people. This is most clear from the context. The Bible does not "change horses in midstream" so that suddenly Israel who has received the curses is dropped out of the picture and the church takes over and receives the blessings. Any literal reading of this text will have to admit that the same identity is referred to throughout the whole text. If it is true that the same Israel is meant throughout the text, then the last two highlighted events have yet to be fulfilled for Israel in the same historically literal why in which the first three events have clearly taken place. Thus, a fulfillment of the final two events in the life of Israel will have to happen in the future. This is an argument for a futurist view of prophecy, since this kind of argument can be applied throughout the rest of the Bible. (See also Deut. 27-32 for an expansion of 4:25-31).

CONCLUSION

The Bible is one third prophecy and the majority of that is future prophecy. Since a consistently literal approach to the whole Bible, including prophecy is the proper way of understanding God's revelation to man, then the futurist approach is the correct way of looking at the timing of biblical prophecy. Only the futurist understanding of biblical prophecy can support the pre-trib rapture position.

Dr.Thomas Ice, is a good friend of Evangelist Perkins and this Ministry. Tommy's page will be up-dated on a regular basis, so keep visiting his page. You can respond to his articles via his email given below.

Dr. Thomas Ice: Heads up The Pre-Trib Research Center. The Pre-Trib Research Center is a "think tank" committed to the study, proclamation, teaching and defending of the Pretribulational Rapture (pre-70th week of Daniel) and related end-time prophecy. Editor: Thomas Ice, : Send correspondence to Rev. Thomas Ice, Executive Director, Address: Pre-Trib Research Center, P. O. Box 14111, Arlington, TX. 70694-1111

from:

http://www.according2prophecy.org/rapsec.html

THE RAPTURE AND THE SECOND COMING:

AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION

by Thomas Ice

In previous issues we have given a biblical basis or foundation for pretribulationism. In this issues I will begin by laying out specific biblical evidence for the pre-trib rapture. The first place to start is with the biblical notion that the rapture of the church is distinct from Christ's second coming to the earth.

John Feinberg notes that distinguishing between the rapture and second coming is important in establishing pretribulationism against the non-pre-trib claim that the Bible does not teach such a view.

The pretribulationist must show that there is enough dissimilarity between clear rapture and clear second advent passages as to warrant the claim that the two kinds of passages could be speaking about two events which could occur at different times. The pretribulationist does not have to prove at this point . . . that the two events must occur at different times, but only that the exegetical data from rapture and second advent passages do not make it impossible for the events to occur at different times. If he can do that, the pretribulationist has shown that his view is not impossible. And, he has answered the posttribulationist's strongest line of evidence.1

A key factor in understanding the New Testament's teaching of the pretribulational rapture revolves around the fact that two future comings of Christ are presented. The first coming is the catching up into the clouds of the church before the seven-year tribulation and the second coming occurs at the end of the tribulation when Christ returns to the earth to begin His 1,000 year kingdom. Anyone desirous of insight into the biblical teaching of the rapture and second advent must study and decide whether Scripture speaks of one or two future events.

FRAMING THE ISSUE

Posttribulationists usually contend that if the rapture and the second coming are two distinct events, separated by about seven years, then there ought to be at least one passage in Scripture which clearly teaches this. However, the Bible does not always teach God's truth in accordance with our preconceived notions or in such a way that answers directly all of our questions. For example, a Unitarian could design a similar kind of question regarding the Trinity. "Where is at least one passage in Scripture which clearly says that the Persons of the Godhead are distinct?" We who believe the Trinity reply that the Bible teaches the Trinity but in a different way.

Many important biblical doctrines are not given to us directly from a single verse, we often need to harmonize passages into systematic conclusions. Some truths are directly stated in the Bible, such as the deity of Christ (John 1:1, Titus 2:13). But doctrines like the Trinity and the incarnate nature of Christ are the product of biblical harmonization. Taking into account all biblical texts, orthodox theologians, over time, recognized that God is a Trinity and that Christ is the God-Man. Similarly, a systematic consideration of all biblical passages reveals that Scripture teaches two future comings.

Posttribulationists often contend that the pre-trib position is built merely built upon an assumption that certain verses 'make sense' if and only if the pre-trib model of the rapture is assumed to be correct. However, they often fail to make it clear to their readers that they are just as dependent upon assumptions as they say pre-tribers are. Their error stems from failure to observe actual biblical distinctions.

For example, Christ's ministry has two phases which revolve around His two comings. Phase one took place at Christ's first coming when He came in humiliation to suffer. Phase two will begin at Christ's second coming when He will reign on earth in power and glory. Failure to distinguish these two phases was a key factor in Israel's rejection of Jesus as Messiah at His first coming. In the same way, failure to see clear distinctions between the rapture and second advent lead many to a misinterpretation of God's future plan.

THE NATURE OF THE RAPTURE

The rapture is most clearly presented in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. In verse 17 the English phrase "caught up" translates the Greek word "harpázô," which means "to seize upon with force" or "to snatch up." Latin translators of the Bible used the word "rapere," the root of the English term "rapture." At the rapture living believers will be "caught up" in the air, translated into the clouds, in a moment of time.

The rapture is characterized in the Bible as a "translation coming" (1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thes. 4:15-17) in which Christ comes for His church. The second advent is Christ returning with His saints, descending from heaven to establish His earthly kingdom (Zech. 14:4-5; Mat. 24:27-31). Ed Hindson observes:

The rapture (or "translation") of the church is often paralleled to the "raptures" of Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2: 12). In each case, the individual disappeared or was caught up into-heaven. At His ascension, our Lord Himself was "taken up" into heaven (Acts 1:9). The biblical description of the rapture involves both the resurrection of deceased believers and the translation of living believers into the air to meet the Lord (1 Thess. 4:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:51 52).2

Differences between the two events are harmonized naturally by the pre-trib position, while other views are not able to account comfortably for such distinctions. (Notice the graphic on page four that lists passages that speak of the rapture and those referring to the second coming.)

RAPTURE AND SECOND COMING CONTRASTS

Rapture/Translation 2nd Coming/ Estab. Kingdom

1 Translation of all believers 1 No translation at all

2 Translated saints go to 2 Translated saints return to

heaven earth

3 Earth not judged 3 Earth judged & righteous-

ness established

4 Imminent, any-moment, 4 Follows definite predicted

signless signs including tribulation 5 Not in the Old Testament 5 Predicted often in Old

Testament

6 Believers only 6 Affects all men

7 Before the day of wrath 7 Concluding the day of

wrath

8 No reference to Satan 8 Satan bound

9 Christ comes for His own 9 Christ comes with His own

10 He comes in the air 10 He comes to the earth

11 He claims His bride 11 He comes with His bride

12 Only His own see Him 12 Every eye shall see Him

13 Tribulation begins 13 Millennial Kingdom begins

John Walvoord concludes that these "contrasts should make it evident that the translation of the church is an event quite different in character and time from the return of the Lord to establish His kingdom, and confirms the conclusion that the translation takes place before the tribulation."3

ADDITIONAL DIFFERANCES

Paul speaks of the rapture as a "mystery" (1 Cor. 15:51-54), that is a truth not revealed until its disclosure by the apostles (Col. 1:26), making it a separate event, while the second coming was predicted in the Old Testament (Dan. 12:1-3; Zech. 12:10; 14:4).

The movement for the believer at the rapture is from earth to heaven, while it is from heaven to earth at the second advent. At the rapture, the Lord comes for his saints (1 Thess. 4:16), while at the second coming the Lord comes with His saints (1 Thess. 3:13). At the rapture, the Lord comes only for believers, but His return to the earth will impact all people. The rapture is a translation/resurrection event where the Lord takes believers "to the Father's house" in heaven (John 14:3), while at the second coming believers return from heaven to the earth (Matt. 24:30). Hindson says, "The different aspects of our Lord's return are clearly delineated in the scriptures themselves. The only real issue in the eschatological debate is the time interval between them."4

POST-TRIB PROBLEMS

One of the strengths of the pre-trib position is that it is better able to harmonize the many events of end-time prophecy because of its distinction between the rapture and the second coming. Normally, posttribulationists do not even attempt to answers such objections and the few that try struggle with the biblical text. Yet, pretribulationists do not encounter difficulties in providing answers. What are some post-trib problems?

First, posttribulationism requires that the church will be present during the 70th week of Daniel (Dan. 9:24-27) even though it was absent from the first 69. This is in spite of the fact that Daniel 9:24 says that all 70 weeks are for Israel. Pretribulationism is not in conflict with this passage, as is posttribulationism, since the church departs before the beginning of the seven-year period.

Second, posttribulationism must deny the New Testament teaching of imminency-that Christ could come at any-moment. Pretribulationism does not have a problem with these New Testament passages, since they believe that no signs must precede the rapture.

Third, premillennial posttribulationism has no answer to their problem of who will populate the millennium if the rapture and second coming occur at the same time. Since all believers will be translated at the rapture and all unbelievers judged, because no unrighteous shall be allowed to enter Christ's kingdom, then no one would be left in mortal bodies to start the population base for the millennium. The pre-trib viewpoint does not have a problem at this point.

Fourth, posttribulationism is not able to explain the sheep and goats judgment after the second coming in Matthew 25:31-46. As in the previous problem, how would there be any believers in mortal bodies, if they were raptured at the second coming, who would be available to enter into Christ's kingdom? Pretribulationism does not have such a problem.

Fifth, since Revelation 19:7-8 indicates that the church, Christ's Bride, is made ready to accompany Christ to earth (Rev. 19:14) before the second coming, how could this reasonably happen if part of the church is still on earth awaiting Christ's Advent? If the rapture of the church takes place at the second coming, then how does the Bride (i.e., the church) also come with Christ at His return? There would not be sufficient time for this to happen within a posttribulational sequence, but the pre-trib position has no such problem.

CONCLUSION

The distinctions between Christ's coming in the air to rapture His church are too great to be reduced into a single coming at the end of the tribulation. These biblical distinctions provide a strong basis for the pre-trib rapture teaching. W

ENDNOTES

1John S. Feinberg, "Arguing for the Rapture: Who Must Prove What and How" in Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, editors When The Trumpet Sounds (Eugene, Org.: Harvest House Publishers, forthcoming July 1995).

2Edward E. Hindson, "The Rapture and the Return: Two Aspects of Christ's Coming" in Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, editors When The Trumpet Sounds (Eugene, Org.: Harvest House Publishers, forthcoming July 1995).

3The quotation and the first six contrasts in the graphic above are taken from John F. Walvoord, The Return of the Lord (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1955), 87-88.

4Hindson, Ibid.

from:

http://www.according2prophecy.org/lastimes.html

On the Last Times, the Anti-Christ, and the End of the World

A Sermon by Pseudo-Ephraem

In recent years many opponents of the pre-trib rapture have made an issue out of the relativly recent recovery of this biblical truth since the time of J.N. Darby. However, Grant R. Jeffrey, a member of the Pre-Trib Study Group, has found an ancient citation from the following sermon by Pseudo-Ephraem which clearly teaches that believers will be raptured and taken to heaven before the tribulation. Grant Jeffery ran across this historically important citation in Paul J. Alexander's The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), p. 210. Below we are reproducing an English translation of the Latin, which is also included, so that those interested in this matter can examine the text for themselves. The English translation of the Latin was provided by Cameron Rhoades, instructor of Latin at Tyndale Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, Texas. Pseudo-Ephraem's rapture statement occurs twice in Section 2, which we have highlighted in bold-faced type. The Latin text is produced (from four manuscripts) in C.P. Caspari's Briefe, Abhandlungen und Predigten aus den zwei letzten Jahrhunderten des kirchlichen Altertums und dem Anfang des Mittelater, Christiania, 1890, pp. 208-20.

Section 1

Dearly beloved brothers, believe the Holy Spirit who speaks in us. We have already told you that the end of the world is near, the consummation remains. Has not faith withered away among mankind? How many foolish things are seen among youths, how many crimes among prelates, how many lies among priests, how many perjuries among deacons! There are evil deeds among the ministers, adulteries in the aged, wantonness in the youths--in mature women false faces, in virgins dangerous traces! In the midst of all this there are the wars with the Persians, and we see struggles with diverse nations threatening and "kingdom rising against kingdom'' (Matt. 24:7). When the Roman empire begins to be consumed by the sword, the coming of the Evil One is at hand. It is necessary that the world come to an end at the completion of the Roman empire.

In those days two brothers will come to the Roman empire who will rule with one mind; but because one will surpass the other, there will be a schism between them. And so the Adversary will be loosed and will stir up hatred between the Persian and Roman empires. In those days many will rise up against Rome; the Jewish people will be her adversaries. There will be stirrings of nations and evil reports, pestilences, famines, and earth quakes in various places. All nations will receive captives; there will be wars and rumors of wars. From the rising to the setting of the sun the sword will devour much. The times will be so dangerous that in fear and trembling they will not permit thought of better things, because many will be the oppressions and desolations of regions that are to come.

Section 2

We ought to understand thoroughly therefore, my brothers, what is imminent or overhanging. Already there have been hunger and plagues, violent movements of nations and signs, which have been predicted by the Lord, they have already been fulfilled (consummated), and there is not other which remains, except the advent of the wicked one in the completion of the Roman kingdom. Why therefore are we occupied with worldly business, and why is our mind held fixed on the lusts of the world or on the anxieties of the ages? Why therefore do we not reject every care of worldly business, and why is our mind held fixed on the lusts of the world or on the anxieties of the ages? Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time. Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: "Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!" For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins. And so, brothers most dear to me, it is the eleventh hour, and the end of the world comes to the harvest, and angels, armed and prepared, hold sickles in their hands, awaiting the empire of the Lord. And we think that the earth exists with blind infidelity, arriving at its downfall early. Commotions are brought forth, wars of diverse peoples and battles and incursions of the barbarians threaten, and our regions shall be desolated, and we neither become very much afraid of the report nor of the appearance, in order that we may at least do penance; because they hurl fear at us, and we do not wish to be changed, although we at least stand in need of penance for our actions!

Section 3

When therefore the end of the world comes, there arise diverse wars, commotions on all sides, horrible earthquakes, perturbations of nations, tempests throughout the lands, plagues, famine, drought throughout the thoroughfares, great danger throughout the sea and dry land, constant persecutions, slaughters and massacres everywhere, fear in the homes, panic in the cities, quaking in the thoroughfares, suspicions in the male, anxiety in the streets. In the desert people become senseless, spirits melt in the cities. A friend will not be grieved over a friend, neither a brother for a brother, nor parents for their children, nor a faithful servant for his master, but one inevitability shall overwhelm them all; neither is anyone able to be recovered in that time, who has not been made completely aware of the coming danger, but all people, who have been constricted by fear, are consumed because of the overhanging evils.

Section 4

Whenever therefore the earth is agitated by the nations, people will hide themselves from the wars in the mountains and rocks, by caves and caverns of the earth, by graves and memorials of the dead, and there, as they waste away gradually by fear, they draw breath, because there is not any place at all to flee, but there will be concession and intolerable pressure. And those who are in the east will flee to the west, and moreover, those who are in the west shall flee to the east, and there is not a safer place anywhere, because the world shall be overwhelmed by worthless nations, whose aspect appears to be of wild animals more than that of men. Because those very much horrible nations, most profane and most defiled, who do not spare lives, and shall destroy the living from the dead, shall consume the dead, they eat dead flesh, they drink the blood of beasts, they pollute the world, contaminate all things, and the one who is able to resist them is not there. In those days people shall not be buried, neither Christian, nor heretic, neither Jew, nor pagan, because of fear and dread there is not one who buries them; because all people, while they are fleeing, ignore them.

Section 5

Whenever the days of the times of those nations have been fulfilled, after they have destroyed the earth, it shall rest; and now the kingdom of the Romans is removed from everyday life, and the empire of the Christians is handed down by God and Peter; and then the consummation comes, when the kingdom of the Romans begins to be fulfilled, and all dominions and powers have been fulfilled. Then that worthless and abominable dragon shall appear, he, whom Moses named in Deuteronomy, saying:-Dan is a young lion, reclining and leaping from Basan. Because he reclines in order that he may seize and destroy and slay. Indeed (he is) a young whelp of a lion not as the lion of the tribe of Judah, but roaring because of his wrath, that he may devour. "And he leaps out from Basan." "Basan" certainly is interpreted "confusion." He shall rise up from the confusion of his iniquity. The one who gathers together to himself a partridge the children of confusion, also shall call them, whom he has not brought forth, just as Jeremiah the prophet says. Also in the last day they shall relinquish him just as confused.

Section 6

When therefore the end of the world comes, that abominable, lying and murderous one is born from the tribe of Dan. He is conceived from the seed of a man and from an unclean or most vile virgin, mixed with an evil or worthless spirit. But that abominable corrupter, more of spirits than of bodies, while a youth, the crafty dragon appears under the appearance of righteousness, before he takes the kingdom. Because he will be craftily gentle to all people, not receiving gifts, not placed before another person, loving to all people, quiet to everyone, not desiring gifts, appearing friendly among close friends, so that men may bless him, saying;-he is a just man, not knowing that a wolf lies concealed under the appearance of a lamb, and that a greedy man is inside under the skin of a sheep.

Section 7

But when the time of the abomination of his desolation begins to approach, having been made legal, he takes the empire, and, just as it is said in the Psalm:-They have been made for the undertaking for the sons of Loth, the Moabites and the Ammanites shall meet him first as their king. Therefore, when he receives the kingdom, he orders the temple of God to be rebuilt for himself, which is in Jerusalem; who, after coming into it, he shall sit as God and order that he be adored by all nations, since he is carnal and filthy and mixed with worthless spirit and flesh. Then that eloquence shall be fulfilled of Daniel the prophet:-And he shall not know the God of their fathers, and he shall not know the desires of women. Because the very wicked serpent shall direct every worship to himself. Because he shall put forth an edict so that people may be circumcised according to the rite of the old law. Then the Jews shall congratulate him, because he gave them again the practice of the first covenant; then all people from everywhere shall flock together to him at the city of Jerusalem, and the holy city shall be trampled on by the nations for forty-two months, just as the holy apostle says in the Apocalypse, which become three and a half years, 1,260 days.

Section 8

In these three years and a half the heaven shall suspend its dew; because there will be no rain upon the earth, and the clouds shall cease to pass through the air, and the stars shall be seen with difficulty in the sky because of the excessive dryness, which happens in the time of the very fierce dragon. Because all great rivers and very powerful fountains that overflow with themselves shall be dried up, torrents shall dry up their water-courses because of the intolerable age, and there will be a great tribulation, as there has not been, since people began to be upon the earth, and there will be famine and an insufferable thirst. And children shall waste away in the bosom of their mothers, and wives upon the knees of their husbands, by not having victuals to eat. Because there will be in those days lack of bread and water, and no one is able to sell or to buy of the grain of the fall harvest, unless he is one who has the serpentine sign on the forehead or on the hand. Then gold and silver and precious clothing or precious stones shall lie along the streets, and also even every type of pearls along the thoroughfares and streets of the cities, but there is not one who may extend the hand and take or desire them, but they consider all things as good as nothing because of the extreme lack and famine of bread, because the earth is not protected by the rains of heaven, and there will be neither dew nor moisture of the air upon the earth. But those who wander through the deserts, fleeing from the face of the serpent, bend their knees to God, just as lambs to the adders of their mothers, being sustained by the salvation of the Lord, and while wandering in states of desertion, they eat herbs.

Section 9

Then, when this inevitability has overwhelmed all people, just and unjust, the just, so that they may be found good by their Lord; and indeed the unjust, so that they may be damned forever with their author the Devil, and, as God beholds the human race in danger and being tossed about by the breath of the horrible dragon, he sends to them consolatory proclamation by his attendants, the prophets Enoch and Elijah, who, while not yet tasting death, are the servants for the heralding of the second coming of Christ, and in order to accuse the enemy. And when those just ones have appeared, they confuse indeed the antagonistic serpent with his cleverness and they call back the faithful witnesses to God, in order to (free them) from his seduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 10

And when the three and a half years have been completed, the time of the Antichrist, through which he will have seduced the world, after the resurrection of the two prophets, in the hour which the world does not know, and on the day which the enemy of son of perdition does not know, will come the sign of the Son of Man, and coming forward the Lord shall appear with great power and much majesty, with the sign of the wood of salvation going before him, and also even with all the powers of the heavens with the whole chorus of the saints, with those who bear the sign of the holy cross upon their shoulders, as the angelic trumpet precedes him, which shall sound and declare: Arise, O sleeping ones, arise, meet Christ, because his hour of judgment has come! Then Christ shall come and the enemy shall be thrown into confusion, and the Lord shall destroy him by the spirit of his mouth. And he shall be bound and shall be plunged into the abyss of everlasting fire alive with his father Satan; and all people, who do his wishes, shall perish with him forever; but the righteous ones shall inherit everlasting life with the Lord forever and ever.

Section 1

Fratres karissimi, spiritui sancto credite, qui loquitur in nobis. Iam antea diximus, quia mundi finis in proximo est, et consummatio superest. Numquid non in hominibus prima fides emarcuit? Quam uidentur in pueris . . . . . . . ., in antistibus criminosa, in sacerdotibus falsidici, in leuitis periuria, in ministris maleficia, in senioribus adulteria, in iuuenibus luxuria, in mulieribus falsus aspectus, in uirginibus adulter affectus! Et in his omnibus bella Persarum sunt, ac diuersarum gentium inminere et regnum aduersus regnum insurgere . . . . . . .; et cum coeperit regnum Romanorum gladio consummari, adest aduentus mali. In expletione enim Romani regni necesse est saeculum consummari. In illis diebus ueniunt ad regnum Romanum duo fratres, et uno quidem animo praesunt, sed quoniam unus praecedit alium, fiet inter eos scidium. Soluitur itaque aduersarius et excitabit odium inter regna Persarum et Romanorum. In illis diebus multi consurgunt contra regnum Romanum, et populus Iudaeorum aduersarii eius erunt. Erunt enim commotiones gentium et auditiones malae, et erunt pestilentiae et fames et terrae motus per loca, et captiui ducentur in omnes gentes, et erunt poelia et opiniones proeliorum, et multa comedet gladius a solis ortu usque ad occasum. Et erunt tempora periculosa nimis, quae non sinunt mentem de melioribus cogitare prae timore et perturbatione, cum multae pressurae et desolationes regionum aduenerint.

Section 2

Debemus itaque, fratres mei, intellegere, quid inmineat uel incumbat. Iam facta sunt fames et pestilentiae, commotines gentium et signa, quae a Domino praedicta sunt, iam consummata sunt, et non est aliud, quod superest, nisi aduentus mali in expletione regni Romani. Quid ergo occupamur in terrenis negotiis, et mens nostra adfixa tenetur in concupiscentiis mundi uel sollicitudinibus saecularium? Quid ergo non proicimus a nobis omnem actuum terrenorum sollicitudinem et nosmet ipsos praeparamus in occursum domini Christi, ut nos eruat a confusione, quae uniuersum obruet mundum? Credite mihi, fratres karissimi, quia aduentus Domini prope est, credite mihi, quia mundi finis in proximo est, credite mihi, quia nouissima hora est. Aut, nisi oculis uestris uideritis, non creditis? Uidete, ne in uobis conpleatur prophetae illa sententia dicentis: Uae his, qui concupiscunt uidere diem Domini! Omnes enim sancti et electi Dei ante tribulationem, quae uentura est, colliguntur et ad Dominum adsumuntur, ne quando uideant confusionem, quae uniuersum propter peccata nostra obruet mundum. Itaque, fatres karissimi mihi, undecima hora est, et finis huius mundi ad metendum peruenit, et angeli, accincti et praeparati, falces in manibus tenent, Domini expectantes imperium. Et nos caeca infidelitate mundum ad occasum peruenientem mane putamus existere. Commotiones gignuntur, bella diuersarum gentium proeliaque et incursiones barbarorum inminent, et regiones nostrae desolabuntur, et nos nec auditum, nec aspectum pertimescimus, ut poenitentiam utique agamus; etiam nobis metum incutiunt, et nec sic conuerti uolumus, cum indigeamus utique poenitentia pro nostris facinoribus!

Section 3

Cum ergo aduenerit mundi finis, consurgunt bella diuersa, commotiones undique, terrae motus horribiles, perturbationes gentium, tempestates per loca, pestilentiae, fames, sitis per itinera, pericula magna per mare et aridam, persecutiones assiduae, occisiones atque iugulationes ubique, timor in domibus, pauor in urbibus, tremor in itineribus, suspectiones in mari, sollicitudo in plateis. In deserto obstupescunt homines, in ciuitatibus liquefiunt animae. Non dolebit amicus super amicum, nec frater pro fratre, nec parentes pro filiis, nec seruus fidelis pro domino, sed una necessitas operiet uniuersos, nec quisquam potest reperiri in tempore illo, qui non totus ad periculum [proprium intentus] sit, sed omnes, timore constricti, tabescunt ob incumbentia mala.

Section 4

Cumque igitur concutietur terra a gentibus bellicis abscondent se homines in montibus et saxis, per speluncas et cauernas terrae, per sepulchra et monumenta mortuorum et illic a pauore contabescentes spirant, quia non est quoquam fugere, sed erit undique concessio et pressura itolerabilis. Et qui in oriente sunt, fugient ad occidentem, qui autem sunt in occidente, fugient ad orientem, et non est locus tutior usquam, quia operietur mundus a nequissimis gentibus, quarum aspectus ferarum magis quam hominum esse uidetur. Gentes enim illae horribiles nimis, profanissimae et coinquinatae, quae nec uiuis parcunt, nec mortuis uiuos conterent, mortuos comedent, carnem morticinam edunt, sanguinem iumentorum bibunt, terram polluunt, uniuersa contaminant, et qui resistere possit, non est. In illius diebus non sepelientur homines, nec Christianus, nec haereticus, nec Iudaeus, nec paganus, quia prae pauore et formidine non est, qui humet eos; omnes namque fugientes semet ipsos ignorant.

Section 5

Cumque conpleti fuerint dies temporum gentium illarum, postquam terram conrumperint, requiescet; et iam reqnum Romanorum tollitur de medio, et Christianorum imperium traditur Deo et Petri; et tunc uenit consummatio, cum coeperit consummari Romanorum regnum, et expleti fuerint omnes principatus et potestates. Tunc apparebit ille nequissimus et abominabilis draco, ille, quem appellauit Moyses in Deuteronomio, dicens: Dan catulus leonis, accubans et exiliens ex Basan. Accubat enim, ut rapiat et perdat et mactet. Catulus leonis uero non sicut leo de tribu Iuda, sed propter iram rugiens, ut deuoret. Ex Basan autem exiliet. Basan quippe interpretatur confusio. Ex confusione iniquitatis suae consurget. Qui sicut perdix colliget sibi filios confusionis, et multiplicabit agere, et uocat, quos non genuit, sicut dicit Hieremias propheta. Etiam in nouissimo die relinquent illum uelut confusum.

Section 6

Cum ergo uenerit mundi finis, ille nefandus, mendax et homicida de tribu nascitur Dan. Ex semine uiri et ex inmunda uel turpissima uirgine, malo spiritu uel nequissimo mixto, concipitur. Sed nefandus ille conruptor potius animarum quam corporum, dumque adulescens, subdolus draco sub specie institiae uidetur uersari, antequam sumat imperium. Erit enim omnibus subdole placidus, munera non suscipiens, personam non praeponeus, amabilis omnibus, quietus uniuersis, xenia non appetens, affabilis apparens inter proximos, ita ut beatificent eum homines, dicentes: Iustus homo hic est, nescientes, lupum latere sub specie agni, et rapacem esse intrinseeus sub pelle ouili.

Section 7

Sed cum coeperit adpropinquare tempus abominationis desolationis eius, factus legitimus, sumet inperium, et, sicut dicitur in psalmo: Facti sunt in susceptionem filiis Loth, occurrent ei primi Moabitae et Ammanitae tamquam suo regi. Cum ergo regnum acceperit, iubet, sibi reaedificari templum Dei, quod est in Hierusalem; qui ingressus in eo sedebit ut Deus et iubet, se adorari ab omnibus gentibus, cum sit carnalis et inmundus et nequissimo spiritu et carne commixtus. Tunc conplebitur illud eloquium Danielis prophetae: Et deum paturm suorum nescibit, neque desideria mulierum cognoscet. Omnem enim cultum ad se conuertet nequissimus serpens. Proponet namque edictum, ut circumcidantur homines secundum ritum legis antiquae. Tunc gratulabuntur ei Iudaei, eo quod eis reddiderit usm prioris testamenti; tunc confluent ad eum in ciuitatem Hierusalem undique omnes, et calcabitur a gentibus urbs sancta menses quadraginta duo, sicut sanctus apostolus in Apocalypsi dicit, qui fiunt anni tres et dimidium, dies mille CCLX.

Section 8

In his tribus annis et dimidio suspendet caelum rorem suum; pluuia enim super terram non erit, et nubes discurrere per aërem cessabunt, et stellae difficile uidebuntur in caelo prae nimia siccitate, quae fit in tempore saeuissimi draconis. Siccabunt enim uniuersa flumina magna et fontes inundantes sibi ualidissimi, torrentes aridabunt uenas suas propter

intolerabilem aestum, et erit tribulatio magna, qualis non fuit, ex quo homines coeperunt esse super terram, et erit fames et sitis inportabilis. Et tabescent filii in sinu matrum suarum, et coniuges super genua uirorum suorum, non habentibus escas ad comedendum. Erit enim in illis diebus penuria panis et aquae, et nemo potest uenundare uel emere de frumento caducitatis, nisi qui serpentinum signum in fronte aut in manu habuerit. Tunc iacebunt aurum et argentum per plateas et indumenta pretiosa uel lapides pretiosi, nec non et omne genus margaritarum per uicos et plateas urbium, et non est, qui manum extendat et tollat uel concupiscat, sed pro

nihilo contemplantur uniuersa prae nimia penuria et inedia panis, quia non tuetur terra ab imbribus caeli, nec ros, nec aurarum humor erit super terram. Illi autem, qui per deserta uagantur, fugientes a facie serpentis, curuant genua sua ad Deum, quemadmodum agni ad ubera matrum, salutare Domini sustinentes, errantes per solitudines edunt herbas.

Section 9

Tunc, cum ista necessitas operuerit uniuersos, iustos et impios, iustos, ut domino suo probentur, impios uero, ut cum suo auctore diabolo in aeternum damnentur, aspiciens Deus humanum genus periclitantes et afflatu draconis horribilis fluctuantes, mittit eis consolatoriam praedicationem per famulos suos, prophetas Enoch et Heliam, qui, necdum mortem gustantes, ad pronuntiandum secundum aduentum Christi, et ut arguant inimicum, seruati sunt. Cumque iusti apparuerint illi, confundunt quidem aduersarium serpentem cum eius calliditate et reuocant aduocatos fideles ad Deum, ut ab eius seductione . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 10

Cumque peractum fuerit triennium et dimidium, tempus Antichristi, per quod seduxerit mundum, post resurrectionem duorum prophetarum, in hora, quam ignorat mundus, et in die quem nescit inimicus uel perditionis filius, adueniet filii hominis signum, et prodiens apparebit Dominus cum uirtute magna et maiestate multa, signo praeeunte eum salutaris ligni, nec non et omnibus uirtutibus caelorum cum uniuerso choro sanctorum signum sanctae crucis gestantibus humeris, praecedente ante illum tuba angelica, quae intonabit et dicet: Surgite, dormientes, surgite, occurrite Christo, quia uenit hora iudicii eius! Tunc superueniet Christus et confundetur inimicus, et interficiet eum Dominus spiritu oris sui. Alligabitur et demergetur in abyssum ignis aeterni uiuus cum patre suo Satan; et omnes, qui illius uoluntates perficiunt, cum eo in aeternum peribunt; iusti autem cum Domino haereditabunt uitam aeternam in saecula saeculorum.

from:

http://www.according2prophecy.org/help.html

LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF BIBLE PROPHECY: HELP OR HINDERANCE?
by Thomas Ice

About the time of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation in the midst of much clamor and opposition.

-Sir Isaac Newton

Dr. John Walvoord was asked about a year ago "what do you predict will be the most significant theological issues over the next ten years?" His answer includes the following: "the hermeneutical problem of not interpreting the Bible literally, especially the prophetic areas. The church today is engulfed in the idea that one cannot interpret prophecy literally."1 While millions of evangelicals still believe and practice literal interpretation of the Bible, including prophecy, there is nevertheless, a noticeable trend by some who are "engulfed in the idea that one cannot interpret prophecy literally."

CLAMOR AND OPPOSITION

The last few years have witnessed the rise of a new growth industry within evangelicalism relating to Bible prophecy. There has been an ever- increasing wave of materials warning evangelicals against the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy and perceived implications that could follow from such practice. Increasingly, from outside the church (and some from within), those who believe in the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy are being pictured as a danger and threat to the progress of modern society. In the past, those who took Bible prophecy seriously were often ignored, since it was believed that their views did not impact in any significant way society at large. However, a reassessment by some secularists appears to attach great significance and blame to such beliefs.

The recent assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has set off a new flurry of criticism in the media of conservative religious beliefs that the Bible gives Israel a divine right to the land. Since many evangelicals share this view, I expect some will attempt to link this ungodly act with a literal belief in Bible prophecy. The last decade has increasingly seen an attempt by some to link a literal interpretation of the Bible to extremism. Some critics have tried to blame such activities as the threats of nuclear war, Islamic terrorism, American cult extremists, and the bombing in Oklahoma City, as all identical in nature and inflamed by a literal interpretation of the Bible. Such false linkage is then presented as proof that beliefs of this kind are a dangerous threat to society and that steps must be taken to control such views and preempt supposed actions that might follow from them.

SECULAR PROPHECY PHOBIA

Since they reject the Bible as a whole, especially the supernatural implication required for fulfillment, secularists have always thought that belief in Bible prophecy was weird, In recent years a number of books and articles have appeared attempting to explain to secularists biblical prophecy beliefs in an attempt to assess the impact of such beliefs on the thinking of society in general. Some of the books include: Apocalypse: On the Psychology of Fundamentalism in America by Charles Strozier; Naming the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession by Robert Fuller; and the most widely-heralded When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture by Paul Boyer.2

Why, apart from pure academic exercises, would secularists (who believe that life should be lived apart from religious influence) be interested in the prophetic beliefs of biblical literalists? Apparently some secularists believe that one is not properly enlightened if he or she is ignorant of the prophetic beliefs of a large segment of the common people. In this way, Robert Fuller speaks of "my insistence that religion can and should be made the subject of intellectual inquiry."3 Likewise, Paul Boyer contends that "Much evidence (some direct, some inferential) suggests that, despite gradual erosion in the twentieth century, prophetic belief remains deeply rooted in the United States as the century ends."4

The December 19, 1994 issue of U.S. News & World Report ran a cover-story on Bible prophecy. Interestingly,it was run not in the religious section, but in the science and society section, and entitled "Waiting for The Messiah: The new clash over the Bible's millennial prophecies."5 This article reduces belief in biblical prophecy as the fulfillment of a psychological drive to find meaning in life, even though it is said to have great "destructive potential" (p. 71). What is interesting about the article is its focus on a departure by some evangelicals from the literal interpretation of prophecy and a new openness to less literal alternative approaches. The tone of the article seems to be that finally, even some of those crazy literalists are waking up and realizing that Bible prophecy cannot be taken literally in these enlightened and modern times.

EVANGELICAL PHOBIA

Among evangelicals, who believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, a significant stream of criticism by those who are withdrawing from a literal interpretation of Bible prophecy has come forth. These criticisms can be divided into two camps; 1)those who disagree with the literal interpretation of prophecy and 2) those who may agree to some extent with literal interpretation but whose focus on prophecy often relates to warning against extremism.

Interpretative Differences

It is to be expected that those who do not interpret prophecy literally would disagree with those of us who do. It can be proper and honorable to sincerely disagree with another Christian on the basis of interpretation. I believe that this should be done on the basis of our differences in the understanding of the biblical text and honest dialogue should focus on these issues of biblical interpretation. However, some adopt ridicule and sarcasm, similar to the mocking secularist, in an attempt to gain an advantage in the disagreementor to win the approval of others listening to the dialogue.

Within any system of belief there is always a spectrum of those holding a viewpoint. This is true within our camp of literal interpreters. I have written in the past about our own who I believe are wrongly involved in date-setting and improper speculation. I have tried to make the case that such approaches really conflict with the principles of consistent literal interpretation of Bible prophecy. I admit that we do have some who are vulnerable to criticism, but this does not justify many of the false characterizations of some of our opponents. Instead, they often work very hard in taking examples of the extreme and making them out to be the norm in representing our beliefs and their outworking. They often delight in putting the worst face possible on our views and often wrongly implicate with extremist views those within the mainstream of our tradition.

Examples of such ridicule can be found in books by Reconstructionists like Gary DeMar's Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church and Gary North's Rapture Fever: Why Dispensationalism is Paralyzed. Others attempt to smear the literal interpretation of prophecy by saying it was derived from spurious historical origins. Dave MacPherson has taken this approach in his many editions of his booksThe Incredible Cover-Up, The Great Rapture Hoax, and his latest The Rapture Plot. Others have tried to paint the literal interpretation of prophecy as just plain weird as in Robert L. Pierce's The Rapture Cult: Religious Zeal and Political Conspiracy or John Noe's The Apocalypse Conspiracy.

Internal Differences

There are some who say they believe in the literal interpretation of prophecy, but yet it seems that the only time they write about the subject is to warn against extremists. During the last year many articles and editorials about prophecy have appeared in Christianity Today . Regrettably, almost all of them have been warnings of some kind focused on the potential abuses of extremism instead of a positive presentation and application of the literal interpretation of prophecy.

Along this same line, are recent books such as B. J. Oropeza's 99 Reasons Why No One Knows When Christ Will Return and C. Marvin Pate and Calvin B. Haines' Doomsday Delusions: What's Wrong with Predictions About the End of the World. Many literal interpreters of prophecy agree with the overall thrust of these books (it is wrong to date-set or speculate wildly), but I wonder if their tone and approach does not have more in common with the above mentioned prophecy nay-sayers.

HISTORY BEFORE IT HAPPENS

I believe that Bible prophecy is history written before it happens (cf. Isa. 46:8-48:11). Just as it is right and necessary to interpret the early chapters of Genesis literally in order to build a biblical framework of origins, so it is right and necessary to interpret prophecy literally in order to build a biblical framework of the future. Just because a speculation based upon a literal interpretation of Genesis may prove to be wrong is not a sufficient basis to reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. So also, improper speculation about the future is not a legitimate basis for the rejection of the literal interpretation of prophecy. Thus, prophecy should play an important role in the life of a Christian, since it is a dominant subject throughout the Bible, especially in the New Testament. As with the biblcal text in general, we should endeavor to study and relate prophecy to our lives in a responsible manner.

Prophecy has always played a central role in the life of the church during her 2,000-year history. Prophetic study and speculation have been a constant down through church history. What has changed at times over the years is the rise and fall of various interpretative approaches to prophecy. Few, if any, question the early church focus on prophecy. I doubt if any modern emphasis on prophecy could rival the impact upon the medieval church as a whole by various prophetic interpreters and speculators such as Joachim of Fiore. Only those with a surface knowledge of the Reformation can question the central role that eschatology played in the minds of such leaders as Martin Luther and John Knox. But something is different in our day. Prophecy is seen by many in the church as something that is non-essential. Many see it as a secondary issue merely reflecting preferences that cannot be ultimately resolved by Bible study. Yet, to think that about 25% of Scripture can be viewed this way should be an unacceptable approach for any evangelical. Since prophecy deals with real history, then it is as important as any other portion of the Bible.

ENLIGHTENMENT INFLUENCE

Why would many evangelicals, who otherwise take literally other portions of Scripture, be tempted to relegate secondary importance to so much of the Bible? I think Paul Boyer has given us some insight when he notes:

Down to the Enlightenment, biblical apocalyptic was read with seriousness throughout Christendom, at all social and educational levels, for the clues it offered to God's divine plan. But as skepticism and rationalism gained ground in the eighteenth century, the academic and popular views of these texts gradually diverged. . . . At the popular level, particularly in America, the apocalyptic texts remained what they had always been: a vital source of doctrine, reassurance, and foreknowledge. Ordinary believers continued to pore over their pages and to look expectantly for the events they found predicted there.6

Marjorie Reeves, the leading historian of prophecy during the later Middle Ages echoes Boyer's thoughts:

Today much decision is based on a type of prediction which is being evolved under sets of rules deriving from scientific method. . . . The medieval concept of prophecy presupposed a divine providence working out its will in history, . . . Although obviously different ways of looking at the future were forming in the sixteenth century, they existed side by side with the old assumptions in the minds of rulers, churchmen, and scholars. Only reluctantly in the seventeenth century was prophecy as an attitude towards the future acknowledged to be outmoded. . . .

But prophecy has now ceased to be of importance except on the fringes of modern civilization. . . . Perhaps we might say that only when intelligent and educated men ceased to take prophecy seriously were the Middle Ages truly at an end. The contention here is that this change hinges on a change in our whole attitude to history and to our own participation in it.7

Just as many were influenced by Enlightenment thought and abandoned a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis , it appears that a similar dynamic has been at work in assaulting prophcey or "future history." We know that secularists disdain prophecy because it gives a person a clear and certain view of the future, which clashes with the Enlightenment view of science and knowledge. However, a proper view of science does not clash with Scripture, just as the literal view of Bible prophecy will not be at odds with history. Thus, we can take Bible prophecy literally, develop a scenario of the future, and at the same time interact responsibly with current events as they foreshadow and lead up to a time when God will literally fulfill His Word. W

ENDNOTES

1 "An Interview: Dr. John F. Walvoord Looks at Dallas Seminary," Dallas Connection (Winter 1994, Vol. 1, No. 3), p. 4.

2 Charles Strozier, Apocalypse: On the Psychology of Fundamentalism in America (Boston: Beacon Press, 1994). Robert Fuller, Naming the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992).

3 Fuller, Naming the Antichrist, p. v.

4 Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More, pp. 1-2.

5 "Waiting for The Messiah: The new clash over the Bible's millennial prophecies," by Jeffery L. Sheler, U.S. News & World Report (December 19, 1994), pp. 62-71.

6 Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More, p. 45.

7 Marjorie Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. vii-viii, 508.

Literal Interpretation of Bible Prophecy: Help or Hinderance?

LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF BIBLE PROPHECY: HELP OR HINDERANCE?

by Thomas Ice

About the time of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation in the midst of much clamor and opposition.

-Sir Isaac Newton

Dr. John Walvoord was asked about a year ago "what do you predict will be the most significant theological issues over the next ten years?" His answer includes the following: "the hermeneutical problem of not interpreting the Bible literally, especially the prophetic areas. The church today is engulfed in the idea that one cannot interpret prophecy literally."1 While millions of evangelicals still believe and practice literal interpretation of the Bible, including prophecy, there is nevertheless, a noticeable trend by some who are "engulfed in the idea that one cannot interpret prophecy literally."

CLAMOR AND OPPOSITION

The last few years have witnessed the rise of a new growth industry within evangelicalism relating to Bible prophecy. There has been an ever- increasing wave of materials warning evangelicals against the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy and perceived implications that could follow from such practice. Increasingly, from outside the church (and some from within), those who believe in the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy are being pictured as a danger and threat to the progress of modern society. In the past, those who took Bible prophecy seriously were often ignored, since it was believed that their views did not impact in any significant way society at large. However, a reassessment by some secularists appears to attach great significance and blame to such beliefs.

The recent assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has set off a new flurry of criticism in the media of conservative religious beliefs that the Bible gives Israel a divine right to the land. Since many evangelicals share this view, I expect some will attempt to link this ungodly act with a literal belief in Bible prophecy. The last decade has increasingly seen an attempt by some to link a literal interpretation of the Bible to extremism. Some critics have tried to blame such activities as the threats of nuclear war, Islamic terrorism, American cult extremists, and the bombing in Oklahoma City, as all identical in nature and inflamed by a literal interpretation of the Bible. Such false linkage is then presented as proof that beliefs of this kind are a dangerous threat to society and that steps must be taken to control such views and preempt supposed actions that might follow from them.

SECULAR PROPHECY PHOBIA

Since they reject the Bible as a whole, especially the supernatural implication required for fulfillment, secularists have always thought that belief in Bible prophecy was weird, In recent years a number of books and articles have appeared attempting to explain to secularists biblical prophecy beliefs in an attempt to assess the impact of such beliefs on the thinking of society in general. Some of the books include: Apocalypse: On the Psychology of Fundamentalism in America by Charles Strozier; Naming the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession by Robert Fuller; and the most widely-heralded When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture by Paul Boyer.2

Why, apart from pure academic exercises, would secularists (who believe that life should be lived apart from religious influence) be interested in the prophetic beliefs of biblical literalists? Apparently some secularists believe that one is not properly enlightened if he or she is ignorant of the prophetic beliefs of a large segment of the common people. In this way, Robert Fuller speaks of "my insistence that religion can and should be made the subject of intellectual inquiry."3 Likewise, Paul Boyer contends that "Much evidence (some direct, some inferential) suggests that, despite gradual erosion in the twentieth century, prophetic belief remains deeply rooted in the United States as the century ends."4

The December 19, 1994 issue of U.S. News & World Report ran a cover-story on Bible prophecy. Interestingly,it was run not in the religious section, but in the science and society section, and entitled "Waiting for The Messiah: The new clash over the Bible's millennial prophecies."5 This article reduces belief in biblical prophecy as the fulfillment of a psychological drive to find meaning in life, even though it is said to have great "destructive potential" (p. 71). What is interesting about the article is its focus on a departure by some evangelicals from the literal interpretation of prophecy and a new openness to less literal alternative approaches. The tone of the article seems to be that finally, even some of those crazy literalists are waking up and realizing that Bible prophecy cannot be taken literally in these enlightened and modern times.

EVANGELICAL PHOBIA

Among evangelicals, who believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, a significant stream of criticism by those who are withdrawing from a literal interpretation of Bible prophecy has come forth. These criticisms can be divided into two camps; 1)those who disagree with the literal interpretation of prophecy and 2) those who may agree to some extent with literal interpretation but whose focus on prophecy often relates to warning against extremism.

Interpretative Differences

It is to be expected that those who do not interpret prophecy literally would disagree with those of us who do. It can be proper and honorable to sincerely disagree with another Christian on the basis of interpretation. I believe that this should be done on the basis of our differences in the understanding of the biblical text and honest dialogue should focus on these issues of biblical interpretation. However, some adopt ridicule and sarcasm, similar to the mocking secularist, in an attempt to gain an advantage in the disagreementor to win the approval of others listening to the dialogue.

Within any system of belief there is always a spectrum of those holding a viewpoint. This is true within our camp of literal interpreters. I have written in the past about our own who I believe are wrongly involved in date-setting and improper speculation. I have tried to make the case that such approaches really conflict with the principles of consistent literal interpretation of Bible prophecy. I admit that we do have some who are vulnerable to criticism, but this does not justify many of the false characterizations of some of our opponents. Instead, they often work very hard in taking examples of the extreme and making them out to be the norm in representing our beliefs and their outworking. They often delight in putting the worst face possible on our views and often wrongly implicate with extremist views those within the mainstream of our tradition.

Examples of such ridicule can be found in books by Reconstructionists like Gary DeMar's Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church and Gary North's Rapture Fever: Why Dispensationalism is Paralyzed. Others attempt to smear the literal interpretation of prophecy by saying it was derived from spurious historical origins. Dave MacPherson has taken this approach in his many editions of his booksThe Incredible Cover-Up, The Great Rapture Hoax, and his latest The Rapture Plot. Others have tried to paint the literal interpretation of prophecy as just plain weird as in Robert L. Pierce's The Rapture Cult: Religious Zeal and Political Conspiracy or John Noe's The Apocalypse Conspiracy.

Internal Differences

There are some who say they believe in the literal interpretation of prophecy, but yet it seems that the only time they write about the subject is to warn against extremists. During the last year many articles and editorials about prophecy have appeared in Christianity Today . Regrettably, almost all of them have been warnings of some kind focused on the potential abuses of extremism instead of a positive presentation and application of the literal interpretation of prophecy.

Along this same line, are recent books such as B. J. Oropeza's 99 Reasons Why No One Knows When Christ Will Return and C. Marvin Pate and Calvin B. Haines' Doomsday Delusions: What's Wrong with Predictions About the End of the World. Many literal interpreters of prophecy agree with the overall thrust of these books (it is wrong to date-set or speculate wildly), but I wonder if their tone and approach does not have more in common with the above mentioned prophecy nay-sayers.

HISTORY BEFORE IT HAPPENS

I believe that Bible prophecy is history written before it happens (cf. Isa. 46:8-48:11). Just as it is right and necessary to interpret the early chapters of Genesis literally in order to build a biblical framework of origins, so it is right and necessary to interpret prophecy literally in order to build a biblical framework of the future. Just because a speculation based upon a literal interpretation of Genesis may prove to be wrong is not a sufficient basis to reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. So also, improper speculation about the future is not a legitimate basis for the rejection of the literal interpretation of prophecy. Thus, prophecy should play an important role in the life of a Christian, since it is a dominant subject throughout the Bible, especially in the New Testament. As with the biblcal text in general, we should endeavor to study and relate prophecy to our lives in a responsible manner.

Prophecy has always played a central role in the life of the church during her 2,000-year history. Prophetic study and speculation have been a constant down through church history. What has changed at times over the years is the rise and fall of various interpretative approaches to prophecy. Few, if any, question the early church focus on prophecy. I doubt if any modern emphasis on prophecy could rival the impact upon the medieval church as a whole by various prophetic interpreters and speculators such as Joachim of Fiore. Only those with a surface knowledge of the Reformation can question the central role that eschatology played in the minds of such leaders as Martin Luther and John Knox. But something is different in our day. Prophecy is seen by many in the church as something that is non-essential. Many see it as a secondary issue merely reflecting preferences that cannot be ultimately resolved by Bible study. Yet, to think that about 25% of Scripture can be viewed this way should be an unacceptable approach for any evangelical. Since prophecy deals with real history, then it is as important as any other portion of the Bible.

ENLIGHTENMENT INFLUENCE

Why would many evangelicals, who otherwise take literally other portions of Scripture, be tempted to relegate secondary importance to so much of the Bible? I think Paul Boyer has given us some insight when he notes:

Down to the Enlightenment, biblical apocalyptic was read with seriousness throughout Christendom, at all social and educational levels, for the clues it offered to God's divine plan. But as skepticism and rationalism gained ground in the eighteenth century, the academic and popular views of these texts gradually diverged. . . . At the popular level, particularly in America, the apocalyptic texts remained what they had always been: a vital source of doctrine, reassurance, and foreknowledge. Ordinary believers continued to pore over their pages and to look expectantly for the events they found predicted there.6

Marjorie Reeves, the leading historian of prophecy during the later Middle Ages echoes Boyer's thoughts:

Today much decision is based on a type of prediction which is being evolved under sets of rules deriving from scientific method. . . . The medieval concept of prophecy presupposed a divine providence working out its will in history, . . . Although obviously different ways of looking at the future were forming in the sixteenth century, they existed side by side with the old assumptions in the minds of rulers, churchmen, and scholars. Only reluctantly in the seventeenth century was prophecy as an attitude towards the future acknowledged to be outmoded. . . .

But prophecy has now ceased to be of importance except on the fringes of modern civilization. . . . Perhaps we might say that only when intelligent and educated men ceased to take prophecy seriously were the Middle Ages truly at an end. The contention here is that this change hinges on a change in our whole attitude to history and to our own participation in it.7

Just as many were influenced by Enlightenment thought and abandoned a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis , it appears that a similar dynamic has been at work in assaulting prophcey or "future history." We know that secularists disdain prophecy because it gives a person a clear and certain view of the future, which clashes with the Enlightenment view of science and knowledge. However, a proper view of science does not clash with Scripture, just as the literal view of Bible prophecy will not be at odds with history. Thus, we can take Bible prophecy literally, develop a scenario of the future, and at the same time interact responsibly with current events as they foreshadow and lead up to a time when God will literally fulfill His Word. W

ENDNOTES

1 "An Interview: Dr. John F. Walvoord Looks at Dallas Seminary," Dallas Connection (Winter 1994, Vol. 1, No. 3), p. 4.

2 Charles Strozier, Apocalypse: On the Psychology of Fundamentalism in America (Boston: Beacon Press, 1994). Robert Fuller, Naming the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992).

3 Fuller, Naming the Antichrist, p. v.

4 Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More, pp. 1-2.

5 "Waiting for The Messiah: The new clash over the Bible's millennial prophecies," by Jeffery L. Sheler, U.S. News & World Report (December 19, 1994), pp. 62-71.

6 Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More, p. 45.

7 Marjorie Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. vii-viii, 508.

from:

http://www.according2prophecy.org/church2.html

Israel / Church Distinction: The 4th Foundation
by Thomas Ice

The fourth biblical foundation upon which the pre-trib rapture is built is the fact that God has two peoples-Israel and the church. What do we mean by this distinction and how does it impact pretribulationism?

The Distinction Between Israel and the Church

"The New Testament consistently differentiates between Israel and the church," claims Arnold Fruchtenbaum.1 Fruchtenbaum supports this conclusion through a powerful twofold argument in which he first demonstrates the biblical view of Israel and secondly, by showing that the church is viewed in the New Testament as a separate entity.

Belief that God's single plan for history includes the two peoples of Israel and the church does not imply that there are thus different ways of salvation. When it comes to the issue of salvation there is only one way, since all peoples down through history descend from a single source-Adam. Christ's saving work is the only way of salvation for anyone, whether they are a member of Israel or the church.

Israel

Fruchtenbaum notes that "the term Israel is viewed theologically as referring to all descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, also known as Jews, the Jewish people, Israelites, Hebrews, etc." (113). He notes that national election distinguishes Israel from those peoples who were not chosen that we know as Gentiles (113-14). Fruchtenbaum outlines four reasons for Israel's election: 1) they were "chosen on the basis of God's love . . . to be 'a kingdom of priests and a holy nation' (Ex. 19:6) . . . to represent the Gentile nations before God." 2) "God chose Israel to be the recipient of His revelation and to record it (Deut. 4:5-8; 6:6-9; Rom. 3:1-2)." 3) Israel "was to propagate the doctrine of the One God (Deut. 6:4)." 4) Israel "was to produce the Messiah (Rom. 9:5; Heb. 2:16-17; 7:13-14) (115)."

No biblically oriented christian would deny these purposes relating to Israel. The differences begins to emerge when we consider Israel in relation to the church. "Some theologians insist," notes Fruchtenbaum "that at some point the church receives the promises given to Israel and thus become the 'New Israel' (known as replacement theology). Some believe the terms church and Israel are used virtually 'interchangeably,' most citing Galatians 6:16 and some Romans 9:6." (116).

However, those commonly known as dispensationalists interpret the Bible literally and thus do not confuse the terms Israel and the church, since there is no basis in the text of any biblical passage for supporting such an approach.

Having noted important aspects of the biblical use of Israel, I will now examine the nature of the church.

The Church

Six reasons are given by Fruchtenbaum from the Bible supporting the notion that the church is a distinct work in God's household from His people Israel.

1) "The first evidence is the fact that the church was born at Pentecost, whereas Israel had existed for many centuries" (116). This is supported by "the use of the future tense in Matthew 16:18 shows that it did not exist in gospel history" (116). Since the church born at Pentecost is called the "Body of Christ" (Col. 1:18), and entrance into the body is through "Spirit baptism" (1 Cor. 12:13), in which Jew and Gentile are united through the church. It is evident that the church began on the Day of Pentecost since Acts 1:5 views Spirit baptism as future, while Acts 10 links it to the past, specifically to Pentecost.

2) "The second evidence is that certain events in the ministry of the Messiah were essential to the establishment of the church-the church does not come into being until certain events have taken place" (117). These events include the resurrection and ascension of Jesus to become head of the church (Eph. 1:20-23). "The church, with believers as the body and Christ as the head, did not exist until after Christ ascended to become its head. And it could not become a functioning entity until after the Holy Spirit provided the necessary spiritual gifts (Eph. 4:7-11)" (117).

3) "The third evidence is the mystery character of the church (117)." A mystery in the Bible is a hidden truth not revealed until the New Testament (Eph. 3:3-5, 9; Col. 1:26-27). Fruchtenbaum lists "four defining characteristics of the church [that] are described as a mystery. (1) The body concept of Jewish and Gentile believers united into one body is designated as a mystery in Ephesians 3:1-12. (2) The doctrine of Christ indwelling every believer, the Christ-in-you concept, is called a mystery in Colossians 1:24-27 (cf. Col. 2:10-19; 3:4). (3) The church as the Bride of Christ is called a mystery in Ephesians 5:22-32. (4) The Rapture is called a mystery in 1 Corinthians 15:50-58. These four mysteries describe qualities that distinguish the church from Israel" (117-18).

4) "The fourth evidence that the church is distinct from Israel is the unique relationship between Jews and the Gentiles, called one new man in Ephesians 2:15" (118). During the current church age God is saving a remnant from the two previous entities (Israel and Gentiles) and combining them into a third new object-the church. This unity of Jews and Gentiles into one new man covers only the church age, from Pentecost until the rapture, after which time God will restore Israel and complete her destiny (Acts 15:14-18). 1 Corinthians 10:32 reflects just such a division when it says, "Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God."

5) "The fifth evidence for the distinction between Israel and the church is found in Galatians 6:16" (118). "It appears logical to view 'the Israel of God' (Gal. 6:16) as believing Jews in contrast to unbelieving Jews called 'Israel after the flesh' (1 Cor. 10:18)" (124).2 This passage does not support the false claim of replacement theologians who claim that Israel is supplanted by the Church. Instead, the Bible teaches that a remnant of Israel is combined with elect Gentiles during this age to make up a whole new entity the New Testament calls the church (Eph. 2).

Replacement theology tries to teach that because Gentiles believers are described as the "seed of Abraham" (Gal. 3:29) that this is equivalent to saying that they are Israel. This is clearly not the case. Paul's description of Gentile believers in Galatians 3:29 simply means that they participate in the spiritual (i.e., salvation) blessings that come through Israel (Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:11, 14). "Those who are the spiritual seed are partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings but are never said to become partakers of the physical, material, or national promises" (126). Therefore, Israel's national promises are left in tact awaiting a yet future fulfillment.

6) "In the book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty time and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct" (118).3 Thus, the replacement theologian has no actual biblical basis upon which he bases his theological claim that Israel and the church have become one.

The Significance of the Distinction

If Israel and the church are not distinguished then there is no basis for seeing a future for Israel or for the church, as a new and unique people of God. If Israel and the church are merged into a single program, then the Old Testament promises for Israel will never be fulfilled and are usually seen by replacement theologians as spiritually fulfilled by the church. The merging of Israel's destiny into the church not only makes into one what the Scriptures understand as two, it removes a need for future restoration of God's original elect people in order to fulfill literally His promise that they will one day be the head and not the tail (Deut. 28:13).

The more that the believer sees a distinct plan for Israel and a distinct plan for the church, the more they realize that when the New Testament speaks to the church it is describing a separate destiny and hope for her. The church becomes more distinct in the plan of God. Israel's future includes the seven-year tribulation and then shortly before Christ's return to Jerusalem she will be converted to Jesus as her Messiah as the veil is removed and then she looks upon the one Who was pierced and is converted. On the other hand, the distinct hope (the rapture before the 70th week of Daniel) for the church is Christ's any-moment return.

Thus, a distinction between Israel and the church, as taught in the Bible, provides a basis of support for the pre-trib rapture. Those who merge the two programs cannot logically support the biblical arguments for the pre-trib position.

ENDNOTES

1 Fruchtenbaum, "Israel and the Church" in Wesley Willis, John Master, and Charles Ryrie, ed., Issues in Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 129. This article by Fruchtenbaum is a highly regarded defense of the Bible's distinction between Israel and the church and should be read by all interacting with this subject. The remaining citations of Fruchtenbaum's article will appear in brackets after a quotation in the rest of this essay.

2 For an extensive and convincing treatment of Galatians 6:16 see Fruchtenbaum's article, 120-26.

3 Fruchtenbaum lists all 73 times Israel is used in the New Testament and demonstrates that Israel always is used to refer to ethnic Jews and never is used of the church (118-20). For an exhaustive and definitive study of the word for church and how it is never merged with Israel in the New Testament, see Earl Radmacher, What the Church is All About (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), 366-84, 389-93.

from:

http://www.according2prophecy.org/1israel.html

What do you do with a future National Israel in the Bible?
by Thomas Ice

I suspect that most of you have been at a theological crossroad at least once in your Christian life. I have stood at several over the years. Let me tell you about one such instance, since it is one that many have faced down through church history. It involves the question of "What do you do with a future national Israel in the Bible?" The decision one makes about this question will largely determine your view of Bible prophecy, thus greatly impacting your view of the Bible itself and where history is headed.

A Personal Crossroad

Back in the early '80s I lived in Oklahoma and was in my first pastorate after getting out of Dallas Seminary in 1980. I had been attracted for about a decade to the writings of those known as Christian Reconstructionists. Most reconstructionists are preterist postmillennial1 in their view of Bible prophecy. Up to this point in my life I considered myself a reconstructionist who was not postmillennial, but dispensational premillennial. Through a series of events, I came to a point in my thinking where I believed that I had to consider whether postmillennialism was biblical. I recall having come to the point in my mind where I actually wanted to switch to postmillennialism and had thought about what that would mean for me in the ministry. I remember thinking that I was willing to make whatever changes would be necessary if I concluded that the Bible taught postmillennialism.

I went on a trip to Tyler, Texas (at the time a reconstructionist stronghold) and visited with Gary North and his pastor Ray Sutton. I spent most of my time talking with Ray Sutton, a Dallas graduate who had made the journey from dispensationalism to postmillennialism. As I got in my car to drive the 100 miles to Dallas where I would stay that night, I expected to make the shift to postmillennialism. In fact, I spent the night in the home of my current co-author, Tim Demy, who told me later that he said to his wife after talking with me, "Well Lynn, looks like we've lost Tommy to postmillennialism."

The next morning as I drove from Dallas to Oklahoma, my mind was active with a debate between the two positions. About two-thirds of the way home, I concluded that to make the shift to postmillennialism I would have to spiritualize many of the passages referring to a future for national Israel and replace them with the church. At that moment of realization, which has been strengthened since through many hours of in-depth Bible study, I lost any attraction to postmillennialism.

Since that time, more than fifteen years ago, further Bible study has continued to strengthen my belief that God has a future plan for national Israel. It was the Bible's clear teaching about a future for national Israel that kept me a dispensationalist. What the Bible teaches about national Israel's future has been a central issue impacting the action of Christians on many important issues. It is hard to think of a more important issue that has exerted a greater practical impact upon Christendom than the Church's treatment of unbelieving Jews during her 2,000 year history. As we will see, treatment of the Jews by Christendom usually revolves around one's understanding of Israel's future national role in God's plan.

Chrisendom's Anti-Semitism

Over the years I have been asked many times, "How can a genuine, born-again Christian be anti-Semitic?" Most American evangelical Christians today have a high view of Jews and the modern state of Israel and do not realize that this is a more recent development because of the positive influence of the dispensational view that national Israel has a future in the plan of God. Actually, for the last 2,000 years, Chrisendom has been responsible for much of the world's anti-Semitism. What has been the reason within Chrisendom that would allow anti-Semitism to develop and prosper? Replacement theology has been recognized at the culprit.

What is replacement theology? Replacement theology is the view that the Church has permanently replaced Israel as the instrument through which God works and that national Israel does not have a future in the plan of God. Some replacement theologians may believe that individual Jews will be converted and enter into the church (something that we all believe), but they do not believe that God will literally fulfill the dozens of Old Testament promises to a converted national Israel in the future. For example, reconstructionist David Chilton says that "ethnic Israel was excommunicated for its apostasy and will never again be God's Kingdom."2 Chilton says again, "the Bible does not tell of any future plan for Israel as a special nation."3 Reconstructionist patriarch, R. J. Rushdoony uses the strongest language when he declares,

The fall of Jerusalem, and the public rejection of physical Israel as the chosen people of God, meant also the deliverance of the true people of God, the church of Christ, the elect, out of the bondage to Israel and Jerusalem, . . .4

A further heresy clouds premillennial interpretations of Scripture--their exaltation of racism into a divine principle. Every attempt to bring the Jew back into prophecy as a Jew is to give race and works (for racial descent is a human work) a priority over grace and Christ's work and is nothing more or less than paganism. . . . There can be no compromise with this vicious heresy.5

The Road to Holocaust

Replacement theology and its view that Israel is finished in history nationally has been responsible for producing theological anti-Semitism in the church. History records that such a theology, when combined with the right social and political climate, has produced and allowed anti-Semitism to flourish. This was a point made by Hal Lindsey in The Road to Holocaust, to which reconstructionists cried foul. A book was written to rebut Lindsey by Jewish reconstructionist Steve Schlissel. Strangely, Schlissel's book (Hal Lindsey & The Restoration of the Jews) ended up supporting Lindsey's thesis that replacement theology produced anti-Semitism in the past and could in the future. Schlissel seems to share Lindsey's basic view on the rise and development of anti-Semitism within the history of the church. After giving his readers an overview of the history of anti-Semitism through Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Jerome, Schlissel then quotes approvingly Raul Hilberg's famous quote included in Lindsey's Holocaust.

Viewing the plight of the Jews in Christian lands from the fourth century to the recent holocaust, one Jew observed, "First we were told 'You're not good enough to live among us as Jews.' Then we were told, 'You're not good enough to live among us.' Finally we were told, 'You're not good enough to live.'"6

Schlissel then comments approvingly upon Hilberg's statement,

This devastatingly accurate historical analysis was the fruit of an error, a building of prejudice and hate erected upon a false theological foundation. The blindness of the church regarding the place of the Jew in redemptive history is, I believe, directly responsible for the wicked sins and attitudes described above. What the church believes about the Jews has always made a difference. But the church has not always believed a lie.7

The truth, noted by Schlissel, is what his other reconstructionist brethren deny. What Schlissel has called a lie is the replacement theology that his preterist reconstructionist brethren advocate. Their form of replacement theology is the problem. Schlissel goes on to show that the Reformed church of Europe, after the Reformation, widely adopted the belief that God's future plan for Israel includes a national restoration of Israel. Many even taught that Israel would one day rebuild her Temple. For his Reformed brethren to arrive at such conclusions meant that they were interpreting the Old Testament promises to Israel literally, at least some of them. This shift from replacement theology to a national future for Israel resulted in a decline in persecution of the Jews in many Reformed communities and increased efforts in Jewish evangelism. Schlissel notes:

the change in the fortune of the Jews in Western civilization can be traced, not to humanism, but to the Reformed faith. The rediscovery of Scripture brought a rekindling of the Biblical conviction that God had not, in fact, fully nor finally rejected His people.8

Yet Schlissel is concerned that his Reformed brethren are abandoning this future national hope for Israel as they currently reassert a strong view of replacement theology.

Whatever views were maintained as to Israel's political restoration, their spiritual future was simply a given in Reformed circles. Ironically, this sure and certain hope is not a truth kept burning brightly in many Christian Reformed Churches today, . . . In fact, their future conversion aside, the Jews' very existence is rarely referred to today, and even then it is not with much grace or balance.9

This extract establishes that the "spiritualized" notion of "Israel" in Rom 11:25, 26, was known to and rejected by the body of Dutch expositors. . . .

Since the turn of the century, most modern Dutch Reformed, following Kuyper and Bavinck, reject this historic position.10

Reconstructionist Schlissel seems to think that part of the reason why many of his Reformed brethren are returning to replacement theology is due to their reaction to the strong emphasis of a future for Israel as a nation found within dispensational premillennialism. Yet, dispensational premillennialism developed within the Reformed tradition as many began to consistently take all the Old Testament promises that were yet fulfilled for Israel as still valid for a future Jewish nation. Schlissel complains:

just a century ago all classes of Reformed interpreters held to the certainty of the future conversion of Israel as a nation. How they have come, to a frightening extent, to depart from their historic positions regarding the certainty of Israel's future conversion is not our subject here. . . . the hope of the future conversion of the Jews became closely linked, at the turn of the century and beyond, with Premillennial Dispensationalism, an eschatological heresy. This, necessarily, one might say, soon became bound up and confused with Zionism. Christians waxed loud about the return of the Jews to Israel being a portent that the Second Coming is high. It thus seemed impossible, for many, to distinguish between the spiritual hope of Israel and their political "hope." Many Reformed, therefore, abandoned both.11

Historical Development

As it should be, the nature of Israel's future became the watershed issue in biblical interpretation which caused a polarization of positions that we find today. As Schlissel noted, "all classes of Reformed interpreters held to the certainty of the future conversion of Israel as a nation." Today most Reformed interpreters do not hold such a view. Why? Early in the systemization of any theological position the issues are undeveloped and less clear than later when the consistency of various positions are worked out. Thus it is natural for the mature understanding of any theological issue to lead to polarization of viewpoints as a result of interaction and debate between positions. The earlier Reformed position to which Schlissel refers included a blend of some Old Testament passages that were taken literally (i.e., those teaching a future conversion of Israel as a nation) and some that were not (i.e., details of Israel's place of dominance during a future period of history). On the one hand, as time passed, those who stressed a literal understanding of Israel from the Old Testament became much more consistent in applying such an approach to all passages relating to Israel's destiny. On the other hand, those who thought literalism was taken too far retreated from whatever degree of literalness they did have and argued that the church fulfills Israel's promises, thus there was no need for a national Israel in the future. Further, non-literal interpretation was viewed as the tool with which liberals denied the essentials of the faith. Thus, by World War II dispensationalism had come to virtually dominate evangelicals who saw literal interpretation of the Bible as a primary support for orthodoxy.

After World War II many of the battles between fundamentalism and liberalism began to wane. Such an environment allowed for less stigma attached to non literal interpretation within conservative circles. Thus, by the '70s, not having learned the lessons of history, we began to see the revival of many prophetic views that were returning to blends of literal and spiritual interpretation. As conservative postmillennialism has risen from near extinction in recent years, it did not return to the mixed hermeneutics of 100 years ago, which Schlissel longs for, but instead, it has been wedded with preterism in hopes that it can combat the logic of dispensational futurism. Schlissel's Reformed brethren do not appear to be concerned that, in preterism, they have revived a brand of eschatology which includes one of the most hard-core forms of replacement theology. And they do not appear convinced or concerned that replacement theology has a history of producing theological anti-Semitism when mixed with the right social and political conditions. In fact, Schlissel himself preached a sermon a few years ago in which he identified James Jordan, a Reformed preterist, as advancing an anti-Semitic view of Bible prophecy.12

Conclusion

What one believes about the future of Israel is of utmost importance to one's understanding of the Bible. I believe, without a shadow of doubt, that Old Testament promises made to national Israel will literally be fulfilled in the future. This means the Bible teaches that God will return the Jews to their land before the tribulation begins (Isa. 11:11-12:6; Ezek. 20:33-44; 22:17-22; Zeph. 2:1-3). This has been accomplished and the stage is set as a result of the current existence of the modern state of Israel. The Bible also indicates that before Israel enters into her time of national blessing she must first pass through the fire of the tribulation (Deut. 4:30; Jer. 30:5-9; Dan. 12:1; Zeph. 1:14-18). Even though the horrors of the Holocaust under Hitler were of an unimaginable magnitude, the Bible teaches that a time of even greater trial awaits Israel during the tribulation. Anti-Semitism will reach new heights, this time global in scope, in which two-thirds of world Jewry will be killed (Zech. 13:7-9; Rev. 12). Through this time God will protect His remnant so that before His second advent "all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:36). In fact, the second coming will include the purpose of God's physical rescue of Israel from world persecution during Armageddon (Dan. 12:1; Zech. 12-14; Matt. 24:29-31; Rev. 19:11-21).

If national Israel is a historical "has been," then all of this is obviously wrong. However, the Bible says she has a future and world events will revolve around that tiny nation at the center of the earth. The world's focus already is upon Israel. God has preserved His people for a reason and it is not all bad. In spite of the fact that history is progressing along the lines of God's ordained pattern for Israel, we see the revival of replacement theology within conservative circles that will no doubt be used in the future to fuel the fires of anti-Semitism, as it has in the past. Your view of the future of national Israel is not just an academic exercise. I beg everyone influenced by this article to cast your allegiance with the literal Word of God lest we be found fighting against God and His Sovereign plan. W

Endnotes

1 For a definition of terms and labels used in this article consult the Glossary in Thomas Ice & Timothy Demy, editors, When the Trumpet Sounds: Today's Foremost Authorities Speak Out on End-Time Controversies (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995), pp. 473-4.

2 David Chilton, Paradise Restored (Tyler, TX: Reconstruction Press, 1985), p. 224. 3 Ibid.

4 Rousas John Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation (Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press, 1970), p. 82.

5 Ibid., p. 134.

6 Steve Schlissel & David Brown, Hal Lindsey & The Restoration of the Jews (Edmonton, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, 1990), p. 47. For a survey of the history of anti-Semitism in the Church see David Rausch, Building Bridges: Understanding Jews and Judaism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988), pp. 87-171. 7Ibid., pp. 47-48. 8Ibid., p. 59. 9Ibid., p. 42. 10Ibid., pp. 49-50. 11Ibid., pp. 39-40.

12 Steve Schlissel, The Jews/Jordan & Jerusalem, an audio tape obtained from Still Waters Revival Books, 4710 - 37A Ave., Edmonton, AB T6L 3T5, CANADA.

from:

http://www.according2prophecy.org/apredarby.html

Pre-Trib Perspectives Articles
MORGAN EDWARDS: ANOTHER PRE-DARBY RAPTURIST

by Thomas Ice

Opponents of pretribulationism have often tried to "poison the well" by contending that a pre-trib understanding of the Bible is novel and/or has sprung from a polluted source. However, the last few years have witnessed the discovery of voices from the past testifying to a two-stage return of Christ. The latest pre-Darby voice to join the chorus is that of an early American Baptist pastor and educator, Morgan Edwards (1722-95).

WHO IS MORGAN EDWARDS?

Morgan Edwards was born May 9, 1722 in Trevethin parish, Wales, and after education at Bristol College, began preaching in 1738. He served several small Baptist congregations in England for seven years, before moving to Cork, Ireland, where he pastored for nine years. Edwards emigrated to America, and in May 1761, became pastor of the Baptist Church in Philadelphia.1 After the Revolutionary War (he was the only known Baptist clergy of Tory persuasion), Edwards became an educator and the premier Baptist historian of his day. His major work Materials Toward A History of the Baptists is an important seminal work outlining American Baptist history of the era. Edwards founded the first Baptist college in the Colonies, Rhode Island College, which we know today as Brown University of the Ivy League.

As was typical of early American Colonists, Edwards experienced significant tragedy in his life. He outlived two wives and most of his children. During a "dark period" in his life, he ceased attending church, took to drink and was excommunicated from his church. "After making repeated efforts to be restored, he was received into the church on October 6, 1788, and thereafter lived an exemplary life."2 Baptist historian Robert Torbet described Edwards as

a man of versatility, being both a capable leader for many years and a historian of some importance. In temperament he was eccentric and choleric. . . . With all of his varied gifts, he was always evangelistic in spirit.3

Another historian similarly says of Edwards:

Scholarly, laborious, warm-hearted, eccentric, choleric Morgan Edwards, one of the

most interesting of the early Baptist ministers of our country and one of those most deserving of honor. His very faults had a leaning toward virtues side, and in good works he was exceeded by none of his day, if indeed by any of any day. . . . He was an able preacher and a good man, but not always an easy man to get on with.4

EDWARDS AND THE RAPTURE

During his student days at Bristol Baptist Seminary in England (1742-44), Morgan Edwards wrote an essay for eschatology class on his views of Bible prophecy. This essay was later published in Philadelphia (1788) under the following title: Two Academical Exercises on Subjects Bearing the following Titles; Millennium, Last-Novelties. (This is actually one of the shorter titles for a book published in his day.) The term in the title "Last-Novelties" refers to what we would call today the eternal state; "novelties" refers to the new conditions of the future new heavens and new earth. Upon reading the 56 page work, it is clear that Edwards published it unchanged from his student days. Thus, it represents a view developed by the early 1740s.

Morgan Edwards taught some form of pretribulationism as can be gleaned from the following statement in his book:

II. The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years.

I say, somewhat more --; because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ's "appearing in the air" (I Thes. iv. 17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many "mansions in the father's house" (John xiv. 2), and so disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for "now the time is come that judgment must begin," and that will be "at the house of God" (I Pet. iv. 17)... (p. 7; the spelling of all Edwards quotes have been modernized)

What has Edwards said? Note the following:

He believes that at least 1,003.5 years will transpire between resurrections.

He associates the first resurrection with the rapture in 1 Thess. 4:17, occurring at least 3.5 years before the start of the millennium (i.e., at least 3.5 years before the second coming of Christ at the start of the millennium.

He associates the meeting of believers with Christ in the air and returning to the Father's house with John 14:2, as do modern pretribulationists.

He sees believers disappearing during the time of the tribulation, which he goes on to talk about in the rest of the section from which the rapture statement is taken.

He, like modern pretribulationists, links the time in heaven, during the tribulation, with the "bema" judgment of believers.

The only difference, at least as far as the above statements go, between current pretribulationism and Edwards is the time interval of 3.5 years instead of 7. In fact, anti-pretribulationist John Bray wonders,

It would be interesting to know what, in those early years at the Academy, led Edwards to his concept of a pre-tribulation rapture. One could almost think he had been studying at one of our modern dispensational-entrenched schools, the teaching is so similar to that which is being taught today.5

It would be interesting to know what he studied at Bristol, but Edwards makes it clear in the introduction that his views are not those normally held in his day and that he was approaching eschatology with a literal hermeneutic. Such an approach is said by modern pretribulationists to be the primary determinative factor leading to pretribulationism. This is what J.N. Darby claimed6 and so does Edwards before Darby.

I will do my possible: and in the attempt will work by a rule you have often recommended, viz. "to take the scriptures in a literal sense, except when that leads to contradiction or absurdity." . . . Very able men have already handled the subject in a mystical, or allegorical, or spiritual way. (pp. 5-6)

Historian John Moore, quoting from Rev. William Rogers' sermon at Edwards funeral: "There was nothing uncommon in Mr. Edwards' person; but he possessed an original genius."7 Thus, as an original thinker, Edwards, like Darby, apparently saw his views flowing from a literal reading of the Bible. Also, like Darby, Edwards developed these views early in life. Edwards was between the age of 20-22, while Darby was about 26 years old.

Edwards adds to his earlier rapture statement later when he says,

Another event previous to the millennium will be the appearing of the son of man in the clouds, coming to raise the dead saints and change the living, and to catch them up to himself, and then withdraw with them, as observed before. [i.e., p. 7] This event will come to pass when Antichrist be arrived at Jerusalem in his conquest of the world; and about three years and a half before his killing the witnesses and assumption of godhead. . . . (p. 21)

It is clear that Edwards separates the rapture and the second coming from the following statements:

8. The last event, and the event that will usher in the millennium, will be, the coming of Christ from paradise to earth, with all the saints he had taken up thither (about three years and a half before) . . . (p. 24)

millions and millions of saints will have been on earth from the days of the first Adam, to the coming of the second Adam. All these will Christ bring with him. The place where they will alight is the "mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east." Zech. xiv, 4. (p. 25)

Of interest is the fact that Edwards wrote 42 volumes of sermons, about 12 sermons per volume, that were never published. Other than his historical writings and ecclesiastical helps, his essay on Bible prophecy was his only other published work. It is significant that this essay, from his youth, was published and not something else. This evidences that there was some interest in his views on this subject. Such an interest would have surely risen out of his bringing it to the attention of those to whom he ministered. Yet, on the other hand, the book only went through one printing, showing that all books on the rapture do not automatically become a number one best seller. It could also reflect the fact that Baptists were not a large denomination at this time in America. Nevertheless, Edwards' work on Bible prophecy did have some circulation and exposed early Americans to many of the ideas that would come to dominate Evangelicalism a century later.

CONCLUSION

Detractors of pretribulationism often want to say or imply that our view cannot be found in the pages of the Bible and must have come from a deviant source. Of course, we strongly object to such a notion and have taken great pains over the years to show that the New Testament not only teaches pretribulationism, but holds it forth as our "Blessed Hope"-a central focus of faith. The bringing to light of Morgan Edwards' views of the rapture do demonstrate (again) that a consistently literal approach to Bible interpretation leads many to distinguish between Christ's coming in the air for His bride and His return to earth with His saints. Edwards, along with Pseudo-Ephraem's fourth century sermon8 (and perhaps others) make it clear that, while Darby may have restored the pretrib rapture, he did not originate it. Pretribulationism is found first in the New Testament and at times throughout the history of the church. Maranatha!

ENDNOTES

1 "Edwards, Morgan" in John McClintock & James Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981 [1867-87]), XII vols, III:69.

2 John S. Moore, "Morgan Edwards: Baptist Statesman," Baptist History and Heritage (VI:1; January 1971), p. 31.

3 Robert G. Torbet, A History of the Baptists (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1950), pp. 243-44.

4 Henry C. Vedder, A Short History of the Baptists (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publishing Society, 1907), p. 232.

5John Bray, Morgan Edwards & the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Teaching (1788) (Lakeland, FL: John L. Bray Ministries, 1995): 8

6 See Floyd Elmore, "J. N. Darby's Early Years," in Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, When The Trumpet Sounds (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995), pp. 127-50.

7 John Moore, "Morgan Edwards," p. 33.

8 For information about the Pseudo-Ephraem material see Grant R. Jeffrey, "A Pretrib Rapture Statement in the Early Medieval Church," in Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, When The Trumpet Sounds (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995), pp. 105-25. Timothy Demy and Thomas Ice, "The Rapture and an Early Medieval Citation" Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (July-September 1995), pp. 306-17.

from:

http://www.according2prophecy.org/seventy-weeks-pt1.html

THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF DANIEL Part I

These articles are available for your edification, and research. The Pre-Trib Perspectives Journal is a publication of the Pre-Trib Research Center. These articles are made available courtesy of Evangelist Donald Perkins and According To Prophecy Ministries.
By: Dr. Thomas Ice

"One of the most important prophecy passages in the whole Bible is that of God's prophecy given to Daniel in Daniel 9:24-27. This passage constitutes one of the most amazing prophecies in all the Bible. If worked out logically, this text is both seminal and determinative in the outworking of one's understanding of Bible prophecy".

Let the postmillennial and amillennial commentators look long and steadily at this fact. This prophecy is a prophecy for Daniel's people and Daniel's city. No alchemy of Origenistic spiritualizing interpretation can change that.

-Robert Culver

It has been well observed by various writers that if the seventy weeks are to end with the death of Christ and the incoming destruction of Jerusalem, it is simply impossible-with all ingenuity expended in this direction by eminent men-to make out an accurate fulfillment of prophecy from the dates given, for the time usually adduced being either too long to fit with the crucifixion of Christ or too short to extend to the destruction of Jerusalem.
-George N. H. Peters

One of the most important prophecy passages in the whole Bible is that of God's prophecy given to Daniel in Daniel 9:24-27. This passage constitutes one of the most amazing prophecies in all the Bible. If worked out logically, this text is both seminal and determinative in the outworking of one's understanding of Bible prophecy. Especially for those of us who believe that prophecy should be understood literally, it is essential that a right understanding of this central text be developed and cultivated. Thus, with this article, I am beginning a series that examines Daniel's prophecy for the purpose of providing a consistently literal interpretation of the passage.

Enemies of Literal Interpretation

Critics of the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy must strike down the plain meaning of Daniel's prophecy in their failed attempts to strike down the prophetic precision found in biblical prophecy. Critic, Gary DeMar declares:

While nearly all Bible scholars agree that the first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel's prophecy refer to the time up to Jesus crucifixion, only dispensationalists [literal interpreters like myself, T.D.I.] believe that the entire seventieth week is yet to be fulfilled. Without a futurized seventieth week, the dispensationalist system falls apart. There can be no pretribulational rapture, great tribulation, or rebuilt temple without the gap. How do dispensationalists find a gap in a text that makes no mention of a gap?

I agree with DeMar that much rides on Daniel's prophecy. I hope to demonstrate in this and coming articles that the only interpretation of Daniel's seventy-weeks that explains all aspects of this great prophecy is the consistently literal approach. Should the overall approach of this prophecy be literal or allegorical? If literal, then this would mean that the numbers should be taken literally and do count. Yet some think that numbers don't count.

This facilitates the adoption of the symbolical interpretation of the numbers, which, . . . we regard as the only possible one, because it does not necessitate our changing the seventy years of the exile into years of the restoration of Jerusalem, and placing the seven years, which the text presents as the first period of the seventy weeks, last.

Harry Bultema observes:

The angel himself gives a literal explanation and it would be nonsensical to insist on giving a symbolical interpretation of a literal explanation. If the exegetes had always obeyed the angel's interpretation as is evident from practically every word he speaks, then this text would never have been so obscured by all kinds of human conjectures and imagined deep; insights.

Reasons For Literal Numbers

There are solid reasons why the numbers in Daniel's prophecy should be taken literally. First, chapter 9 opens with Daniel realizing from Jeremiah's writings that Israel's captivity would last 70 years. These were literal years. Since the prophecy delivered by Gabriel to Daniel in 9:24-27 is related to the 70-year captivity, it follows that the 70 weeks of years are equally literal. Second, since definite numbers are used in the prophecy (7, 62, and 1 weeks), it would be strange indeed for such odd numbers to not have literal meaning. Leon Wood asks, Why should definite numbers be applied to periods of indefinite lengths? Nothing in the context suggests a non-literal use of numbers in this prophecy.

Setting the Context

We know from the beginning of chapter 9 (verse 2) that Daniel had read about the number of years which was revealed as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. The two passages which Daniel surely studied were Jeremiah 25:11-12 and 29:10-14. Both texts clearly speak of Israel's Babylonian captivity as limited to a 70-year period. Both passages also blend into their texts, statements that look forward to a time of ultimate fulfillment and blessing for the nation of Israel. This is why Daniel appears to think that when the nation returns to their land, then ultimate blessing (the millennial kingdom) will coincide with their return. Daniel's errant thinking about the timing of God's plan for Israel occasioned the Lord's sending of Gabriel to give you insight with understanding (Dan. 9:22).

God was not yet ready to bring history to its destined final climax. Thus, He told Daniel that He was going stretch out history by seventy times seven years (i.e., 490 years). Dr. David Cooper wrote the following paraphrase that I think accurately captures the sense of the passage:

Daniel, you have been thinking that the final restoration will be accomplished and the full covenant blessings will be realized at the close of these seventy years of exile in Babylon. On this point you are mistaken. You are not now on the eve of the fulfillment of this wonderful prediction. Instead of its being brought to pass at this time, I am sent to inform you that there is decreed upon your people and the Holy City a period of "seventy sevens" of years before they can be realized. At the conclusion of this period of 490 years the nation of Israel will be reconciled and will be reinstated into the divine favor and will enter into the enjoyment of all the covenant blessings.

The Meaning of Weeks

One of the Hebrew classes I took while a student at Dallas Theological Seminary was called Exegesis of Old Testament Problem Passages, taught by Dr. Kenneth Barker. Dr. Barker thought that Daniel 9:24-27 had more problems for an interpreter to solve than any other passage in the entire Old Testament. Dr. Barker did not mean by the term problem that these made the text unknowable, but that an item was difficult and required great care and skill to determine the meaning. He thought that there were 14 problems that an interpreter needed to solve in order to correctly understand the passage. The first issue that needs to be dealt with was the meaning of the term weeks, found at the beginning of verse 24.

For those aquatinted with Hebrew, they will notice that the same word appears twice at the beginning of verse 24. That twice used word is s bu m meaning seventy sevens. This Hebrew word appears first as a plural noun, followed by the participle form, functioning as an adjective. That this Hebrew phrase should be rendered as seventy sevens, is unanimously agreed upon by representatives of all interpretative schools. There is also great consensus that the seventy sevens refers to years, since this is what Daniel was contemplating in Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10-14, as evident in Daniel 9:2. Thus, our Lord has in mind seventy weeks of years, or 490 years.

The next word appearing in the Hebrew text in verse 24 is a verb translated have been decreed. This word appears only here in the entire Old Testament. This verb has the basic meaning of cut,cut off, and came to mean divide, or determine. It appears that Gabriel choose this unique word to emphasis that God was carefully choosing or determining the length of Israel's history. Just as a wise person never cuts or snips at random, the Lord as the all-wise God does so even less. All His works are determined form eternity, and the times also are only in His hands. Wood adds, The thought is that God had cut off these 490 years from the rest of history through which to accomplish the deliverances needed for Israel. G. H. Lang declares:

Decreed means divided or severed off from the whole period of world-empire in the hands of the Gentiles, as to which Daniel was already well informed. It points to a fixed and limited period, of definite duration, forming part of a longer period the duration of which is not fixed, or at least not declared.

Daniel's People and City

For whom did God reveal this period of prophetic destiny? The text says that they have been decreed for your people and your holy city. This is such an obvious statement, yet too many interpreters attempt to shoehorn in a people not mentioned in the passage. In the sixth century b.c., when Daniel wrote, who were Daniel's people and holy city? Clearly it can only refer to Israel as Daniel's people and Jerusalem as Daniel's holy city. Yet many interpreters insist that it means something more, something different than what the text actually says. For instance, H. C. Leupold says, Here, as so often in prophecy, terms like God's people and God's holy city broaden out to the point where they assume a breadth of meaning like that found in the New Testament (cf. Gal. 6:16).

Another non-literalist, E. J. Young, says, It is true that the primary reference is to Israel after the flesh, and the historical Jerusalem, but since this very vs. describes the Messianic work, it also refers to the true people of God, those who will benefit because of the things herein described.

Notice that both allegorizers appeal to reasons that are outside of the text. They just believe that it refers to individuals beyond Israel because that's what they believe. Therefore, the text must have in mind some beyond what it actually does say. This is a clear example of reading meaning into the text from one's own belief system, which is not what the Bible wants us to do. Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 4:6, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written. Gabriel goes out of his way to inform Daniel that the seventy weeks of years are decree for Israel and Jerusalem. Lang notes, The endeavour to apply this prophecy, in general or in detail, to others than Daniel's people, Israel, and Daniel's city, Jerusalem, is an outrage upon exegesis, being forbidden in advance by the express terms used. Gabriel says that God has specifically cut away those 490 years for Israel and Jerusalem, which would not include the addition of anyone else. Wood expands upon this idea and notes:

It should be noted that Gabriel said the 490 years will be in reference to the Jewish people and the Jewish capital city, which would seem to exclude any direct concern with Gentiles. That this concern is to be with the city, as well as the people, militates against the idea that the 490 years carry reference only to Christ's first coming and not to His second. It is difficult to see how the physical city of Jerusalem was involved in the deliverance from sin which Christ then effected but it will be in the deliverance from the destructive oppression which the Antichrist will bring prior to Christ's second coming.

The Six Prophetic Purpose Clauses

As we delve more deeply into the meaning of this text, let's drop back and note a few structural observations about the passage as a whole (Dan. 9:24-27). Verse 24 is the general statement from Gabriel, while the final three verses provide a particular explanation of the general point. Thus, verses 25-27 will help us understand the main statement of verse 24.

There are six infinitives that tell us when the seventy weeks that have been decreed for Israel and Jerusalem will be fulfilled in history. These six goals are 1) to finish the transgression, 2) to make an end of sin, 3) to make atonement for iniquity, 4) to bring in everlasting righteousness, 5) to seal up vision and prophecy, and 6) to anoint the most holy place. Usually, when a list appears in Scripture, it is important to see if the items should be grouped in subsets.

I believe that these six items are arranged in two groups of three, instead of three groups of two. The first triad has to do with sin, and interestingly these are the exact words that Daniel used in his prayer in 9:5. God is speaking to Daniel’s prayer through the first three goals. The second set of three goals for the 490 year period have to do with God’s righteousness. This was a matter that Daniel was also inquiring about in his earlier prayer (9:7). G. H. Lang agrees when he notes, ‘for the first three are concerned with the removal of sin, and the last three with the bringing in of righteousness.’ ‘The first three are negative in force, speaking of undesirable matters to be removed; and the last three are positive, giving desirable factors to be effected.’

Division of these six statements into two groups of threes appear to be supported by a structural observation from the Hebrew text. The first three goals are all made up of two word units in Hebrew. The second group of descriptives all use three word phrases. This structural arrangement would lend literary support to the grouping suggested above.

Before we can determine when these six items will be fulfilled, we must first ascertain their purpose. This we will now pursue as we inspect each phrase.

1) To Finish the Transgression

The verb ‘to finish’ looks to bring something to its culmination. It has the idea of ‘to close, shut, restrain.’ Here it has the idea of ‘firmly restraining’ the transgression, thus the specific idea of restraint of sin. ‘Examination of the use of this word shows that it means the forcible cessation of an activity. It always points to a complete stop, never to a mere hindrance.’ In this context it is ‘the transgression’ which is being firmly restrained. As I hope to demonstrate throughout this series, I believe that ‘finish’ looks toward the completion of the 70 weeks at the second coming of Christ to set up His millennial kingdom.

The noun ‘transgression’ in Hebrew is derived from the verbal root with the basic meaning of ‘rebel, revolt, transgress.’ Transgression is the idea of going beyond a specific limit or boundary. ‘From all the definitions given we may be certain that it emphasizes the idea of rebellion against God and disobedience to His will.’ Gabriel has in mind, in verse 24, more than just sin in general, but a specific sin since the definite article is attached to this word-’the transgression.’ ‘The article in Hebrew, as in Greek, is very definite and points clearly to some outstanding thing or object,’ notes David Cooper. ‘Thus the expression ‘the transgression’ seems to indicate some specific, outstanding, national sin of the Chosen People.’ Since the emphasis in this phrase is upon the finishing of Israel’s transgression, then this leads to the conclusion that it will occur at the second coming of Jesus, Israel’s Messiah. Arnold Fruchtenbaum points out that ‘when speaking of the basis of the second coming of Christ that there are two facets to this basis: first, there must be the confession of Israel’s national sin (Lev. 26:40-42; Jer. 3:11-18; Hos. 5:15) . . .’ The emphasis in this first goal is upon when Israel’s national sin-rejection of her Messiah-will be brought to an end. ‘This passage assumes, therefore,’ notes Cooper, ‘that the whole nation repents and turns to God for mercy and forgiveness. Thus this first phrase implies the conversion of the nation. But what is assumed here is stated specifically in the third phrase.’

2) To Make an End of Sin

The second goal to be completed at the end of the 70 weeks is to make an end of sin. In the Hebrew, the word ‘to make an of’ literally means ‘to shut, close, seal; to hide, to reveal as a secret,’ and has the primary meaning of bringing a matter to a conclusion. Cooper explains:

This word was regularly used to indicate the closing of a letter or an official document. When the scribe had finished his work, the king placed his royal seal upon it, thus showing that the communication was brought to a close and at the same time giving it the official imprimatur.

The Hebrew root word for ‘sin’ is the most commonly used word for sin in the Hebrew Old Testament. Its core meaning is ‘to miss the mark, to be mistaken’. This is illustrated in Judges 20:16 where it says, ‘Out of all these people . . . each one could sling a stone at a hair and not miss.’ This word itself conveys the basic meaning of ‘to miss, to be mistaken.’ Interestingly, the only other uses of this word in Daniel occur in 9:20 (twice). Daniel speaks of ‘my sin and the sin of my people Israel.’ Since this Hebrew word does not have the definite article as did ‘transgression’ in the previous phrase, and since ‘sin’ is plural, it seems refer to the sins in general of the nation. ‘The sealing up of sins, consequently, signifies their restraint under safe custody.’ ‘Since the cause of sin must be removed before the cure can be effected, this expression assumes that at the time here foreseen the nation will have turned to the Lord, and that by His Spirit a new heart and spirit will have been given to all the people.’ Clearly the scene only after the second coming followed by the installation of the millennial reign of Jesus the Messiah.

3) To Make Atonement for Iniquity

The third infinitive ‘to make atonement for iniquity’ is the translation of two Hebrew words. Taking the second one-iniquity-first, we see that it is one of the most common Hebrew words for sin. It has the core idea of twisting or defacing something beyond its intended purpose. While speaking of a sinful act, this word, at the same time, looks to the fact that the reason why one commits iniquity is due to the perverted sinful nature inherited from Adam’s fall. According to The Oxford English Dictionary, ‘iniquity’ means ‘the quality of being unrighteous, or (more often) unrighteous action or conduct.’ Its core meaning is ‘uneven, unequal, wrong, wicked.’ Thus, the idea of iniquity is used here to speak of that most aggressive nuance of sin flowing from human willful disobedience. This paints a picture of the worst kind of offense before God.

Such an offense requires a heroic response from God. Just such a provision is taught in the verb ‘to make atonement.’ Many are familiar with the word ‘atone’ since it takes a prominent place in Israel’s Old Testament sacrificial system. It is used in Genesis 7:14 as both a noun and a verb and carries with it the idea of covering the wood of Noah’s Ark with pitch. When applied theologically to salvation, it communicates ‘the act functioned to cleanse, wipe away, or purify objects contaminated by sin or uncleanness or make k ’per on behalf of persons. This act of purgation served to propitiate Yahweh, thus enabling Him to dwell among His people to work out His purpose through them in the world.’ The significance of this third phrase is noted by Cooper who says, doubtless is a clear reference to the time when all Israel in genuine penitence shall acknowledge her departure from God and her national sin. At the same time each individual, of course, will acknowledge his own wrongs and all will call upon God for pardon. Then that which was foreshadowed by the annual atonement will become a reality. At that time the nation will be brought back into fellowship with God and become a blessing in the earth.

3) Summary

The first three of the six goals in Daniel 9:24 have to do with the sin of Daniel’s people, Israel. The basis for dealing with Israel’s sin was provided during the first coming of Jesus when He died on the cross and rose again from the dead to pay for the sin of the Jews and for the sins of the entire human race. However, the application of this wonderful provision for sin will not be realized for Daniel’s people until the end of the 70 weeks. This will be fulfilled by the second coming of Messiah at the end of the tribulation period, which is yet future to our day. Leon Wood has an excellent summary of the first three goals.

The first introduces the idea of riddance, saying that the coming 490-year period would see its firm restraint. In other words, God was about to do something to alleviate this basic, serious problem. The second speaks of the degree of this restraint: sin would be put to an end. The third indicates how this would be done: by atonement. Though Christ is not mentioned in the verse, the meaning is certain, especially in view of verse twenty-six, that He would be the One making this atonement, which would serve to restrain the sin by bringing it to an end. It is clear that reference in these first three items is mainly to Christ's first coming, when sin was brought to an end in principle. The actuality of sin coming to an end for people, however, comes only when a personal appropriation of the benefit has been made. Since Gabriel was speaking primarily in reference to Jews, rather than Gentiles . . . this fact requires the interpretation to include also Christ's second coming, because only then does Israel as a nation turn to Christ (cf. Jer. 31:33, 34; Ezek. 37:23; Zech. 13:1; Rom. 11:25-27).

These clauses are prophetically important, because if they are descriptive of items that have yet to be fulfilled, then the seventy weeks of Daniel have yet to be fulfilled. This means that the final (70th week) has to be future to our day since all of the purposes must be brought to completion by the end of the prescribed time period. The first three clauses had to do with the sin issue in relation to Israel, while the second triad relate to God’s righteousness. I will now examine prophetic purpose clauses four through six.

4) To Bring in Everlasting Righteousness

The first of the three Hebrew words that compose the fourth purpose clause is the infinitive which is usually translated into English as ‘bring in.’ This is a widely used Hebrew verb that has the primary meaning of ‘come in, come, go in, or go.’ Since this occurrence of the verb is in the causative Hebrew stem known as hiphil, it has the sense that ‘everlasting righteousness’ will be caused to come in. The righteousness to be brought in is the same word Daniel uses during his initial prayer in 9:7, where righteousness is said to belong exclusively to the Lord. David Cooper explains:

The English word, righteousness, primarily refers to the correct and proper motives and dealings of man with man. God’s righteousness would, therefore, consist of His correct attitude and actions towards His creatures and His standards for them. . . . It also carries that idea.

Thus, the righteousness to be brought in will not be the twisted and volatile standards of human invention. Instead, God’s righteousness will be a changeless measure of God’s enviable code.

The Hebrew Lexicon of Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB) says that the Hebrew noun holamim has the core meaning of ‘long duration, antiquity, futurity,’ The Lexicon specifically says that the use in Daniel 9:24 is a plural intensive and thus renders it with the specific sense of ‘everlastingness, or eternity.’ Cooper provides a literal translation of ‘righteousness of the ages,’ which captures its precise English meaning and notes that it signifies that there are rules or formulas of attitude and conduct that are right and will be reckoned as correct throughout all ages- past, present, and future. . . When, however, the 490 years are completed and the Almighty brings in His great regim’ of righteousness, these eternal principles of justice and equity will be in force; therefore, Gabriel said that at this future time God will bring in the righteousness of the ages

I believe that this clause is a prophecy concerning the future time we know as the kingdom or millennial reign of Christ (see Rev. 20:1-9). This means that it is yet future to our own day. In contrast to Israel’s many failures of the past to live up to God’s righteous standards (cf. Dan. 9:3-19), this time the Lord will provide everlasting righteousness for the nation. Randall Price points out that Gabriel has. . . in view a theodicial ‘age of righteousness’ (cf. Isa. 1:26; 11:2-5; 32:17; Jer. 23:5-6; 33:15-18) that resolves the theological scandal (note Dan. 9:15-16) of the former age characterized by ‘the rebellion’ (i.e., Israel’s rejection of the Messiah). Therefore, this age will be vindication of God’s promise to national Israel (Ezek. 36:17-23) and a reversal of her condition and fortunes with respect to Messiah, hence a ‘messianic age’ or the messianic kingdom.

5)To Seal Up Vision and Prophecy

This triad of Hebrew words commences with the same infinitive used above in the second clause which was ‘to make an end of sin.’ The notion of this Hebrew word ‘seal up,’ carries the idea of completion. In this context it is rendered ‘seal up’ since the last thing done by a writer as he completes a letter or document is to seal up the finished product. Charles Feinberg expounds that this refers to giving the seal of confirmation to Daniel and his vision by fulfilling his predictions. In Isaiah 8:16, this phrase meant that the prophecy was complete, and the command was given to bind it up, to roll it up like a scroll and seal it. Again, in Daniel 8:26 the thought was to seal up the prophecy and make a permanent record of it, so that when it is fulfilled the event can be compared to the prophecy to show how completely the one corresponds to the other.

The dual nouns, which are singular, are literally translated ‘vision’ and ‘prophet.’ Prophet is a concrete noun put for the abstract thing that the prophet produces, which is prophecy. Vision is a prophetic vehicle (cf. Dan. 7), while the human instrument is the prophet who produces the prophecy. Both are collective nouns for the sum total of all vision and prophecy. Some think that this clause was completed during the first coming of Jesus. Preterist Ken Gentry advocates this view:

The fifth result . . . has to do with the ministry of Christ on earth, which is introduced at His baptism: He comes ‘to seal up vision and prophecy.’ By this is meant that Christ fulfills (and thereby confirms) the prophecy (Luke 18:31; cf. Luke 24:44; Acts 3:18).

Gentry’s naked assertion is typical of those who advocate such a position, which is lacking any exegetical support. Allan MacRae rightly concludes that there ‘is no Scriptural warrant for saying that the functions of the Old Testament vision and prophecy came to an end at the time of Christ’s first advent or that these terms do not also include visions and prophecies of the New Testament.’ Harry Bultema declares,

‘Prophecy’ does not refer to Christ here but to prophecy in general. The ‘vision’ this verse speaks of is not a reference to this vision nor to any of the other visions Daniel received, but together with the word ‘prophecy’ refers to all predictions. A scroll was not complete until it was completely filled. Thus this sealing of a scroll became a symbol of fulfillment (Isa. 8:16). So also here it indicates a complete fulfillment of all prophecy.

This fifth prophetic declaration, like the previous can only refer to a future time when all prophecy will be fulfilled relating to Israel. There are yet hundreds of future prophecies relating to Israel and Jerusalem that await a future fulfillment.

6) To Anoint the most Holy

The sixth and final prophetic clause begins with the Hebrew verb usually translated as ‘anoint’ means to pour oil on something or someone. BDB says that it is used specifically in Daniel 9:24 to ‘anoint or consecrate to religious service.’

This much debated phrase usually translated in English as ‘most holy’ is a dual use of the same Hebrew word. This is a common occurrence in Hebrew when the superlative of a noun is intended and such is the case here. The first use of the word is singular, while the second one is plural and can literally be rendered ‘most holy,’ or ‘a most holy place.’ The German commentator C. F. Keil notes that the same exact phrase is used in Ezekiel 45:3 of a future temple and concludes that ‘the reference is to the anointing of a new sanctuary, temple, or most holy place.’ Specific reasons for this interpretation of the sixth clause is stated well by Leon Wood.

The phrase ‘holy of holies’ (qodesh qadash’m) occurs, either with or without the article, thirty-nine times in the Old Testament, always in reference to the Tabernacle or Temple or to the holy articles used in them. When referring to the most holy place, where the Ark was kept, the article is regularly used (e.g., Ex. 26:33), but it is not when referring to the holy articles (e.g., Ex. 29:37) or to the whole Temple complex (e.g., Ezek. 43:12). In view of these matters, it is highly likely that the phrase refers to the Temple also here, which, in view of the context, must be a future Temple; and, since the phrase is used without the article, reference must be to a complex of that Temple, rather than its most holy place.

Without exegeting any of the details of Daniel 9:24, Ken Gentry, like many non-literal interpreters, simply declares that this clause refers to Jesus, ‘at His baptismal anointing that the Spirit came upon Him (Mark 1:9-11).’ As Leon Wood documented above, this expression is never used of a person, only of things. ‘So it is not a reference to the Messiah. Nor to the church, for the church is nowhere mentioned or found in the whole prophecy of Daniel,’ declares Harry Bultema. ‘It refers to Daniel’s people Israel. . . . It refers to the state of bliss and holiness of all Israel after the Savior has come to Zion and has turned away the ungodliness from Jacob (Rom. 11:26).’ Thus, we see that this final prophetic purpose clause also awaits a future fulfillment.

Conclusion of the Six Clauses

As we survey the lessons from all six prophetic purpose clauses, we find that none of them have yet to be fulfilled in their entirety. Therefore, we know from the goals that our Lord set for His people (Israel), and for His city (Jerusalem), that there remains a time of future fulfillment.
‘Therefore, this twenty-fourth verse of our chapter,’ notes David Cooper, ‘read in the light of the various predictions of the prophets, is obviously a forecast of the establishment of the kingdom of God upon earth in all its glory.’ G. H. Lang echoes Cooper’s thoughts when he concludes:

We have now before us an outline of the whole prophecy. And, after considering the statement of results which are to follow God disciplinary dealings, we cannot but conclude that the close of the Seventy Sevens must coincide with the end of the present order of things and the beginning of the Coming or Millennial Age.

Even C. F. Keil, the German scholar, cannot resist the clear implications of this prophecy when he states: ‘From the contents of these six statements it thus appears that the termination of the seventy weeks coincides with the end of the present course of the world.’

Israel's Sabbatical Year

In reaching a correct understanding of Daniel 9:24-27, it is most helpful to understand the circumstances that occasioned the giving of this revelation by God to Daniel. No one questions that the occasion relates to Israel’s Babylonian captivity for failure to observe the sabbatical year in their calendar that was given to the nation by the Lord. But how does that relate to the 70-weeks prophecy? That is what I want to examine next. As part of the stipulations in the Mosaic Law Code, Israel was to let her land lay fallow every seventh year. Scripture says,

‘Speak to the sons of Israel, and say to them, ‘When you come into the land which I shall give you, then the land shall have a sabbath to the Lord. Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather in its crop, but during the seventh year the land shall have a sabbath rest, a sabbath to the LORD; you shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard. Your harvest’s aftergrowth you shall not reap, and your grapes of untrimmed vines you shall not gather; the land shall have a sabbatical year. And all of you shall have the sabbath products of the land for food; yourself, and your male and female slaves, and your hired man and your foreign resident, those who live as aliens with you’’ (Lev. 25:2-6).

Leviticus 26 provides the sanctions that God would impose upon His nation for the years that Israel did not obey the specifications of a sabbatical year.

Then the land will enjoy its sabbaths all the days of the desolation, while you are in your enemies’ land; then the land will rest and enjoy its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it will observe the rest which it did not observe on your sabbaths, while you were living on it (Lev. 26:34-35).

For the land shall be abandoned by them, and shall make up for its sabbaths while it is made desolate without them. They, meanwhile, shall be making amends for their iniquity, because they rejected My ordinances and their soul abhorred My statutes (Lev. 26:43).

The Lord provided a Divine commentary to the nation on how they were keeping or not keeping His Law in the historical book of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Thus, the Lord explains why Israel was sent away to Babylon for 70 years in the following passage:

And those who had escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon; and they were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. all the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seventy years were complete (2 Chr. 36:20-21).

What passage in Jeremiah was the statement in Chronicles referring to? The following two references provide the answer.

And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years (Jer. 25:11).

For thus says the Lord, ‘When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place’ (Jer. 29:10).

It is clear from the above passages that God had a specific reason behind the deportation of the Southern Kingdom (Judah) to Babylon for 70 years. This would mean that Israel violated the sabbatical year 70 times. The Jews entered the Promised Land around 1400 b.c. and were deported to Babylon around 600 b.c. This means that they were in the land about 800 years before the Babylonian deportation. Had they disobeyed the sabbatical year commandment every seventh year, it would mean that they should have been in captivity for about 114 years. Instead, they were held captive for 70 years, meaning that they were disobedient for only 490 of the 800 years in the land. This would mean that there were breaks or gaps in the accumulation of the 490 years, during the 800-year period, that resulted in Israel’s 70-year captivity. Why is this important? Because many of the critics of the literal interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 insist that it is unreasonable to have gaps in that 490-year period. Of course, it is not since there were many gaps in the 490-year period related to the Babylonian Captivity.

Critics of a Future 70th Week

Preterist Gary DeMar is one of the most outspoken critics of a yet future 70th week of Daniel. DeMar argues that there are never any gaps in any time periods in Scripture that he examines. He declares, ‘If we can find no gaps in the sequence of years in these examples, then how can a single exception be made with the ‘seventy weeks’ in Daniel 9:24-27?’ Interestingly, DeMar does not examine the 490-year period that took place during the 800 years of Israel’s occupation of the land as mentioned above. As I have noted, there are all kinds of gaps within this sequence. There were roughly 310 years of gaps interspersed throughout the 800-year period. This makes it directly related to the 70-weeks prophecy given to Daniel. DeMar acknowledges that Daniel’s 70-weeks are related to the violation of the sabbatical year laws of Leviticus 25 and 26, and connected to 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25. But he fails to observe the fact that the 490 years of Daniel 9:24-27 are derived from the 490 years of Israel’s violation of the sabbatical years prescribed by God in His covenant with the nation.

Dr. Harold Hoehner answers critics like DeMar when he notes that ‘The seventy-year captivity was due to the Jews having violated seventy sabbatical years over a 490-year period and Daniel now saw seventy units of sevens decreed for another 490 years into Israel’s future.’ Hoehner has diagramed this relationship as noted in the ‘Units of Seventy’ chart below.

Unit of Seventy

We also know that Daniel himself was familiar with the reason why God had sent His people into the Babylonian captivity from the first part of Daniel 9.

In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of Median descent, who was made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans-in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. So I gave my attention to the Lord God to seek Him by prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes (Dan. 9:1-3).

Dr. Leon Wood explains this matter as follows:

since Daniel was here thinking in terms of the seventy-year captivity, he, as a Hebrew, could have easily moved from the idea of one week of years to seventy weeks of years. This follows because, according to 2 Chronicles 36:21, the people had been punished by this Exile so that their land might enjoy the sabbath rests which had not been observed in their prior history (cf. Lev. 26:33-35, Jer. 34:12-22). Knowing this, Daniel would have recognized that the seventy years of the Exile represented seventy sevens of years in which these violations had transpired; and he would have understood Gabriel to be saying, simply, that another period, similar in length to that which had made the Exile necessary, was coming in the experienced of the people.

Even though DeMar recognizes the cause for Daniel’s prayer and the subsequent revelation of the angel Gabriel to Daniel of the 70-weeks prophecy, he fails to recognize that the 70-year captivity was based upon a 490-year period that contained multiple gaps of time. DeMar argues that a gap of time between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel is not justified because there are not other examples of this in Scripture. This appears to justify such a gap if an example of other gaps could be found. We have not only found an example, but it is an example directly related to the 70-weeks prophecy of Daniel. Thus, using DeMar’s standard, he should recognize that a gap in Daniel 9:24-27 is justifiable. I will show other reasons for a future 70th week in forthcoming installments in this series, but thought it important to make this point at this time in the development of the series.

Gary DeMar goes on to insist that it is impossible to have any kind of gap or chronological postponement of time between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel.

As has already been noted, the text says nothing about "a period between the sixty-ninth and seventieth-weeks." There can be no "period between" any time period, whether seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, or years unless a period of time is expressly given. It is impossible to insert time between the end of one year and the beginning of another. January 1st follows December 31st at the stroke of midnight. There is no "period between" the conclusion of one year and the beginning of the next year. Culver, therefore, begs the question. He first must prove that a period of time should be placed between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks before he can maintain that there is a "period between" the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. The "simple language of the text" makes no mention of a gap.

I believe that there is clear evidence why the 70th week of Daniel is yet future and, thus, the necessity of a gap of time between the 69th and 70th week. Just as Gary DeMar and others who do not think that Daniel 9:24-27 can be taken literally are mistaken, I will demonstrate in future articles in this series why this is the correct way to handle this passage. Daniel 9:24-27 allows for a gap of time between the 69th and 70th week because the advancing of God’s program relating to His people Israel was put on hold and will be postponed until a future time. Apparently critics like DeMar are not able to see the time gaps of the past, like the one I demonstrated in this article, so it is not surprising that they do not understand how there is one in God’s future plan for His people Israel.

This paper continues in part two of "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel.

Click here to view: The Seventy Weeks of Daniel Part 2

Dr. Thomas Ice: Heads up The Pre-Trib Research Center. The Pre-Trib Research Center is a "think tank" committed to the study, proclamation, teaching and defending of the Pretribulational Rapture (pre-70th week of Daniel) and related end-time prophecy. Editor: Thomas Ice, : Send correspondence to Rev. Thomas Ice, Executive Director, Address: Pre-Trib Research Center, P. O. Box 14111, Arlington, TX. 70694-1111

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.