Prophecy Pundits are at it Again

Calvary Chapel of Chino California held “ The Southern California Prophecy Conference” last week (Feb. 20–22, 2009). I wonder if those who came to hear speakers like Tim LaHaye, Mark Hitchcock, Paul McGuire, David Hocking, David Reagan, and Ed Hindson were aware that Chuck Smith, the founder of the Calvary Chapel network of churches, made some very definite predictions about when the “rapture” was going to take place.

While cleaning up my office, I came across a cassette tape of a sermon Chuck Smith preached on December 31, 1979. He told his very accepting audience on that day that the rapture would take place in 1981. The former Soviet Republic going into Afghanistan in August of 1978 was the prelude to what Smith considered to be a full-force invasion of the Middle East. It would not be long before “Russia” would invade Israel, Smith told his audience. All of this was said to have been “predicted” by Ezekiel 2600 years ago.

Smith went on to claim in his end-of-the-year message of 30 years ago that because of ozone depletion Revelation 16:8 would be fulfilled during the soon-coming Great Tribulation: “And the fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun; and it was given to it to scorch men with fire.” According to Smith, Halley’s Comet would pass near the earth in 1986 and would wreck atmospheric havoc for those left behind as debris from its million-mile tail pummeled the earth. Halley’s Comet did appear in 1986 with no damage done to our planet. (A similar prelude to the end had been predicted based on the so-called Jupiter Effect.[1]) ...

“Chuck Smith preached on December 31, 1979. He told his very accepting audience on that day that the rapture would take place in 1981.”

In the 1970’s there was allot of this going on from the pulpits and from Christian writers. Christian book stores had shelves full of end-time prophecy books. Many of us got caught up in reading those books. Nothing wrong with that, after all we could see it was a rapidly changing world and things did seem to be lining up for the great conclusion of world events. Picking dates things were to happen though was not a smart move and Smith joined many others who did so. Which leads me to this question. Why are we picking on him these many years later?

Try that again, I left some words in during an edit...

In the 1970’s there was allot of this going on from the pulpits and from Christian writers. Christian book stores had shelves full of end-time prophecy books. Many of us got caught up in reading those books. Nothing wrong with that, after all we could see it was a rapidly changing world and things did seem to be lining up for the great conclusion of world events. Picking dates though was not a smart move, and Smith joined many others who did so. Which leads me to this question. Why are we picking on him these many years later?

I don't want to get caught up in this useless debate on exactly what was prophecy saying about how the end times would play out. We come from different churches, and its not expected that we all think the same way on this subject. As long as we believe in the essentials of what being a Christian is. Seems every time the subject of Bible prophecy comes up on FR, we get in this win less battle of who's right. That's pretty sad.

I do want to say though, that back in the 1970’s and early 80’s when I got caught up into reading the shelves full of Bible prophecy books, some of the things being written about was very obvious, but other things like a cashless society where you could use one card to purchase from any country in the World, and the coming Antichrist. How could one person be so popular he would be accepted around the world and by all but the strongest Christians will be fooled? Both seems far fetched at the time. Both were mysteries.

Not any more. I now go around all the time with no paper cash in my wallet, and with Obama coming out of nowhere to being literally worshiped by millions, thought the world, that mystery has been solved. Not saying Obama is the Antichrist, but it does show you how quickly and easily the real One can enter the World stage.

Actually, it doesn't say that at all. Some people interpret the phrase “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” to be a reference to the millennium or some such era, but the text does not plainly or literally say that. Some people interpret this to speak of some time in the future, but, again, that is purely an interpretation based partly on some preconceived ideas of what ought to happen to Jews in the future.

OK, I'll play...What then does it mean???

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel,

What's that mean??? Blindness in part has come to Israel...

until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

Until obviously means future...Did it happen??? When??? Will it happen??? Or does it mean something else entirely???

There is a lot of symbolic language that some folks falsely interpret literally to refer to Jesus reigning in body on the earth. Problem is there is absolutely nothing in the NT to support that idea. Jesus and His apostles were not literalists, in the modern sense. They interpreted most of the OT prophecies about Messiah symbolically to refer to the present reign of Christ over the nations. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:23-25.

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Is this symbolic??? Or did Jesus show up like you guys claim in 70 A.D.??? And did all dead folks come alive at that time???

1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

According to this, the Kingdom doesn't get delivered until Jesus puts down all rule, power and authority...And put ALL His enemies under his feet...So what's up with all this stuff??? And what about blinding Israel, and the fullness of the Gentiles???

OK, I'll play...What then does it mean???

It could mean any number of things depending on whether or not you interpret it in the light of the rest of Scripture. I’ll just point out that there is nothing about the millennium in the passage. There is nothing about a distinct period of time after “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in”. In fact it is not even clear from the passage that the phrase “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” is intended to denote a period of time as opposed to, say, some condition then present within the covenant community. It’s impossible to interpret the phrase “all Israel” without reference to Paul’s earlier arguments (cf. Rom. 9:6,7).

The point of my comment was to show how your earlier claim of not interpreting but rather just plainly reading the text is simply not the case.

I don't want to get caught up in this useless debate on exactly what was prophecy saying about how the end times would play out.

But that’s what pop futurism is all about.

I do want to say though, that back in the 1970’s and early 80’s when I got caught up into reading the shelves full of Bible prophecy books, some of the things being written about was very obvious,

I grew up with the same 70s pop prophecy stuff and I must admit they seemed “obvious” as well, until I started reading the Bible and thinking for myself. I soon discovered all this obvious stuff held no biblical weight. It was better suited for fiction. Tim LaHaye proved correct on that score.

How could one person be so popular he would be accepted around the world and by all but the strongest Christians will be fooled? Both seems far fetched at the time. Both were mysteries.

Both still seem far fetched to me. Just look at how quickly the Dems turn on Obama when they perceive they are not getting all they were promised. Besides, the futurist version of antichrist is characterized by popularity. That does not at fit the biblical description. The futurist antichrist is a myth, as are most of the scenarios pushed by futurists, whether in fiction or in their teaching materials.

It’s easy to find prophetic fulfillment in current events if your framework -- your starting point -- is a myth.

In the 1970’s there was allot of this going on from the pulpits and from Christian writers. Christian book stores had shelves full of end-time prophecy books. Many of us got caught up in reading those books. Nothing wrong with that, after all we could see it was a rapidly changing world and things did seem to be lining up for the great conclusion of world events. Picking dates though was not a smart move, and Smith joined many others who did so. Which leads me to this question. Why are we picking on him these many years later?

Well, to begin with, to the best of my knowledge Smith and Hal Lindsey have never apologized for their mistake and have never said why they were wrong. Folks with a sort memory think all is well when it is not.

Also, the interpretative methodology that leads folks like Smith and Lindsey to conclude 1988 would be the year of Christ’s return has never been repudiated by the larger futurist camp. All folks are doing is adjusting the starting date. It’s moved from 1948 (the establishment of Israel) to 1967 (the six day war and recovering of Jerusalem) to ???, and the length of time of a generation has undergone an (unjustified) expansion from 40 years to 70 years to ???.

It is the methodology that is flawed. Hence the rise of progressive dispensationalists who are trying to rework the methodology to be more biblical. What they are telling us is that covenant theology has been closer to the truth than folks have wished to admit. In many ways the progressives are closer to covenant theologians than they classic dispensational brethren (they have toned down the rhetoric on the radical distinction between Israel and the Church).

The fundamental problem is placing any prophetic significance on modern Israel. As long as futurist as wedded to modern Israel they will always get it wrong. And they will keep writing and selling books every time the conditions requires. And they will keep finding a new boogeyman. And they will continue to miss the mark.

And then there is the fact that these fundamental flaws appear regularly in this forum.

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

The text is quite plain. Christ first (aka “the first resurrection”, that, we know is past), and those who are Christ’s at His coming (Second coming that is, not “rapture”), and then “the end” when the kingdom is delivered up to the Father. At this point all rule and authority has been put in subjection to the Son. “For He must reign” – in Paul’s mind this was a present, not future reality. Christ is reigning and subduing the nations (Rom. 15:11,12). That’s the point of the passage. Cf. Matt. 28:18ff, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth”.

Most futurists want to insert between 1000 and 1007 years somewhere into that passage, in spite of the fact that the apostle Paul knows of no such chronology. Now, you tell me whether that is the true reading of the passage, or a forced interpretation based on preconceived ideas of the millennium.

The text is quite plain. Christ first (aka “the first resurrection”, that, we know is past),

and those who are Christ’s at His coming (Second coming that is, not “rapture”),

and then “the end” when the kingdom is delivered up to the Father.

in Paul’s mind this was a present, not future reality.

How could you possibly say that in view of the surrounding scripture??? The second coming of Jesus has NOT taken place...Paul KNEW the 2nd coming had not taken place...He certainly would have been preaching a different message had he believed that...

Paul would have been preachin that Jesus was here for the 2nd time and now we are waiting for the the Kingdom to be delivered up to the Father...And that is NOT what Paul is preaching...

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Were all men made alive in Christ, at His 2nd coming in 70 A.D.??? Of course not...

1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God,

Paul is talking future...That's clear...

even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

At this point all rule and authority has been put in subjection to the Son. “For He must reign” –

Paul just disagreed with you...There is no 'at this point'...The END must first come...

1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

SHALL BE...FUTURE...Paul did not believe nor teach the Kingdom had been delivered to God nor did he teach Jesus was reigning over the nations...

Paul says this happens after the END...

And the END hasn't happened yet...

I suspect part of the trouble is your bad cut and paste job on my comments. I never said the Second Coming has already taken place. I said this:

“For He must reign” – in Paul’s mind this was a present, not future reality.

I said that the first resurrection (i.e., Christ's resurrection) has already taken place, and that Christ is presently reigning over the nations bringing them into subjection.

Christ has been raised from the dead. Thus the phrase, “Christ, the firstfruits.” Our resurrection is still in the future, “those who are Christ's at His coming.” All believers from all time are raised to newness of life at the Second Coming. “Then comes the end.” Not, “then there is a thousands years of quasi-peace with Jesus reigning in Jerusalem and then comes the end.” “The end” means the end when He delivers “the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.”

The rest of your comments are all based on your faulty reading of what I wrote, so I'll let them slide.

I’m not sure that a “whole Bible” follower of Messiah” is. Do you know any Christian who would deny being a “whole Bible” follower of Messiah”? Or is that code for something specific?

We don't cut the Bible into parts:

--As the Supercessionist does: Before: Israel; Now: the REAL Israel the "Church"

--As the Dispensationalist does: Before: Israel; Now: the "Church"; in the Future: Israel

We don't think Abraham, Moses, and David were Christians (or proto-Christians).

We know the "saving" faith of those listed in Hebrews 11 is identical to the "saving" faith that those who follow the Messiah of Israel have today.

We know that Messiah did not abolish any part of Scripture, and we don't think "fullfilled" (Matthew 5:17-18) means "done away with" or "rendered moot."

Most of all, we know that disciple is to imitate his Teacher - and when perfectly trained will be like Him. Which means, if He is a humble, merciful, and observant Jew - (even if we are Gentile) we should strive to be and live like Him... all at the expense of humanly contrived creeds, statements of "I believe" etc.

You wrote:

Humility and grace are the characteristics of truth. And for the record, I am neither Supercesionist or Dispensationalist. I am a “whole Bible” follower of Messiah.”

And now you speak with humility and grace when you claim:

We don't cut the Bible into parts:

Of course you do. When was the last time you killed an animal and spread the blood on the doorposts or your house according to the Law of Moses? When was the last time you stoned an adulterer to death according to the Law of Moses? When was the last time you went to a Levite to have your skin disease investigated? When was the last time you observed any of the Levitical holy days according to the Law of Moses?

In light of this, it's a bit disingenuous to say you don't cut the Bible into parts, don't you think?

We don't think Abraham, Moses, and David were Christians (or proto-Christians).

Abraham was a Christian. Jesus said so Himself when He told the unbelieving Jews, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." (John 8:56).

We know the "saving" faith of those listed in Hebrews 11 is identical to the "saving" faith that those who follow the Messiah of Israel have today.

As do most Christians.

We know that Messiah did not abolish any part of Scripture, and we don't think "fullfilled" (Matthew 5:17-18) means "done away with" or "rendered moot."

Of course you do. Thre is much in the Law that you do not observe according to Moses. See above.

Which means, if He is a humble, merciful, and observant Jew -

But you are confused. Jesus never asked anyone to be an “observant Jew” like Him. In fact it is impossible to be an “observant Jew” like Jesus. There is no temple. There are no Levites. There is no sacrifice. None of the conditions that made keeping the Law possible in the days of Jesus exist today. The temple is gone, destroyed forever by God's will. The new covenant is the operative basis for coming to God today. Jews and Greeks on equal standing.

Best you can do today is to be an “observant Jew” according to the rules of the rabbis who know not Jesus. Jesus never told anyone to be like that.

Everyone is a “supersessionist” or “dispensationalist” to a certain degree.

Of course you do. When was the last time you killed an animal and spread the blood on the doorposts or your house according to the Law of Moses?

First, what is the "Law of Moses" - I will assume you are speaking categorically, and not prejoritively since the most often repeated phrase in all of Scripture is, "The L-RD spoke to Moses, speak to the children of Israel saying..." It is the "Law of the L-RD."

If you knew the Torah, you would know that to offer animals outside of the confines and protocols of the Tabernacle/Temple is against the Torah. And yes, when the Temple is rebuilt I would hope to go and draw near. In fact, the way the commandment is given, it is obedience to NOT make offerings outside of the Temple. Also, if you knew the Torah, then you would know that individual offerings are voluntary, with few exceptions... so you won't have to go... But the first Apostles would quibble with you over it. They went, and offered offerings as long as 20 years after Jesus ascended. Read Acts 21-22.

The temple is gone, destroyed forever by G-d's will.

But of course a Supercessionist would completely ignore whole chapters of the holy Scripture if they do not fit with their prepackaged theology. Ezekiel 4-48. Ezekiel 37, Zexchariah 14. Isaiah 2, Malachi 4, etc.

Everyone is a “supersessionist” or “dispensationalist” to a certain degree.

I can assure you, we are not. Not even the slightest. It is quite refreshing to read Scripture as valid, and timeless... as eternal words of life coming from the Eternal G-d. You should try it. It will make you a happier and more contented person. Certainly, there is something to learn from the "most humble of all men" - Moses (Numbers 12).

First, what is the "Law of Moses" - I will assume you are speaking categorically, and not prejoritively since the most often repeated phrase in all of Scripture is, "The L-RD spoke to Moses, speak to the children of Israel saying..." It is the "Law of the L-RD."

“Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord.” (Luke 2:22)

There are many NT references to the Law of Moses.

If you knew the Torah, you would know that to offer animals outside of the confines and protocols of the Tabernacle/Temple is against the Torah.

Well, yes and no. The first Passover was not in the context of the tabernacle/temple. And it is impossible to have a Passover today without imposing the traditions of men on the activity. God left no rules for how to keep an ersatz Passover.

The fact is that you are not “observant” according to the command of God, but according to the traditions of men. That is what you are left with for the last 2000 years since Jesus

So, it's pretty clear that you divide the Bible, now isn't it?

Best you can do today is to be an “observant Jew” according to the rules of the rabbis who know not Jesus. Jesus never told anyone to be like that.

I apologize, I did not know that you also removed Matthew 23 from your Bible. If you followed well-documented First Century history, you would know that the Pharisee party is what reconstituded Judaism in 70 CE in Yavneh under Yochanan ben Zachia [John son of Zacheus].So, there is an unbroken line from 30 CE to modern times. You may want to order a set of Talmud, you have some catching up to do < grin >.

Matthew 23:1-3: When Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

In all seriousness, the Talmud records Jewish believers in Messiah living among and worshipping with normative Judaism well into the Sixth Century CE. They sure weren't welcome in normative Christianity... John Chrystostom and ilk made sure of that (you know John, the "Doctor of the Church" - he learned his hatred of Jews from the most noted Justin Martyr's theology).

And it is impossible to have a Passover today without imposing the traditions of men on the activity. God left no rules for how to keep an ersatz Passover.

If you knew those "traditions of men" you would know what Matthew 27 is all about. And yes, "keeping Passover" is impossible in its fullest sense, but if you knew the Torah you would know that remembering what cannot be observed because of obedience to another command (not offering outside of the Temple) is considered obedience. I am assuming that you never read Numbers 9? G-d is well-pleased with those who make every effort to obey Him.

And if you knew the Torah (yes, it is called the Law of Moses, but most often outside of the biblical context it is used to promote the idea that it is NOT the Law of G-d), you would know that after the first Passover is where G-d made it clear that it would never be permitted again outside of the Tabernacle/Temple.

As for "observance" - we do make every effort to keep the commandments of G-d. Do we fail in that sometimes? Of course. So did David, and yet his love for the Law of Moses is an embarrassment that must be recast by Supercessionists when read in Psalms 1, Psalms 19, Psalms 119 etc.

So when was the last time you kept the eternal Feast of the L-RD of Yom T'ruah? [Feast of Trumpets"]. It isn't a tradition of men - but an eternal appointment with the Almighty. So, tell me why don't you keep that? No Temple needed for that... And after all, Jesus kept it... Why don't you honor Scripture that way? Did Jesus tell you not to?

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.