Egypt's Judgments & Post Tribulation Redemption

The redemption and deliverance of the Jews out of Egyptian bondage is a type of that final redemption that is to come at the end of this age and it shows that the resurrection (redemption, rapture, translation) of believers will occur at the end of the great tribulation and its judgments.

The following citations are from "Post Tribulation Rapture V" (here).

Through Tribulation

"Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God."  (Acts 14: 22)

The idea of entering the kingdom of God through tribulation is what is vividly portrayed in the Apocalypse.  It is also in keeping with the prayer of Christ.

"I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil."  (John 17: 15)

The pre-tribber believes that it is the will of the Lord to take believers "out of the world" so that they be kept from the evil of the great tribulation, but this is just exactly what Christ prayed would not be.  It is the will of the Lord that believers be present during the coming great tribulation and that they be kept amidst it.  

This is seen in type in the old testament, in the judgments meted out on the land of Egypt just prior to the Exodus.  The elect of God were indeed taken out of Egypt, were delivered from the plagues of judgment, but it was not until the judgments had been sent upon the land.  If the pre-trib view were correct, we would expect that the Israelites would have been taken out of Egypt prior to the judgments being sent, but this is not what actually happened.  Further, the Lord's keeping of the Israelites from the evil of the judgments upon Egypt was not by taking them out, but by preserving them in the midst of it.

God is going to get his elect out of the Egypt of this world, but before that happens, he will send judgments of the Apocalypse upon Egypt (world) and will have his "two witnesses" then as he had Moses and Aaron as witnesses to Pharaoh and Egypt.

 

 

Elijah & John - Tribulation Prophets

The following is from a series I did a few years ago on my case for Elijah and John the apostle being the "two witnesses" of the Apocalypse. (here) The view that the apostle John is one of the two prophets is a minority view. That, however, should be no reason to discard it. I firmly believe the evidence for him being one of the two is immense, far more than is the evidence for Moses or Enoch. 

The Case For The Apostle John

There are several reasons why the Apostle John is to be identified as one of the two witness prophets of the Revelation prophecy. I believe a much stronger case can be made for John than can be made for either Enoch or Moses, or for any other. I believe that there is almost as much evidence for him as there was shown to be for Elijah the Tishbite. Further, it is surprising to me that this view is in fact a minority view, given the evidence for it.

I believe that we are living in the time of the end and that things are happening so rapidly. Soon Babylon will be rebuilt and become the economic capital of the world. Soon, the end time political realignment of the nations will be completed and we will have that long expected world government so much warned about in scripture, and which Antichrist will assume the lead over with the ten kings, mentioned by Daniel the prophet and by John in the Apocalypse.

We are living on the verge of the opening of the seals of the book, as described in the Apocalypse. We are on the verge of that time foretold by the Lord when

"there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken." (Luke 21:25-26 kjv)

You Must Prophesy Again

"And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth. And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings." (Rev. 10: 8-11 kjv)

These verses clearly demonstrate that John is to be one of the two prophet witnesses. The proof of it is right there in plain sight. The angel, who is doubtless Christ, says to John "you must prophesy again." And, such fresh prophesying will be "before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings." If the prophesying of the two witnesses does not fulfill this prophesy regarding John, then what is the meaning? What do those who reject John as being one of the two witnesses say about this clear prophesy concerning John's future? How and when did John prophesy "again"? Why is there widespread opposition from interpreting these words in the common ordinary sense? Why, even among those who promote the literal interpretation of the bible, and of the Book of Revelation, deviate from that rule and want to interpret the words "you must prophesy again" in a non-literal and uncommon way? Can it not be said of the two witnesses, if they be either Elijah, Enoch, or Moses, that they will "prophesy again"?

It seems so obvious that John will "prophesy again" as one of the two witness prophets that it is bewildering that so many miss it, or refuse to believe it. Why is it so hard to believe that the prophesying again of the apostle is literal and to be fulfilled in the time of the great tribulation? To accept one of the several explanations given by commentators, who do not believe John is one of the two prophets, requires one to understand the words and the language of the angelic prophesy concerning John in an abnormal manner.

To "prophesy" means to "utter" new revelation divinely given. How then can it be made to mean to write? Or, to simply preach or testify? Further, why deny what is intended by the word "again"? Whatever kind of "prophesying" John was to do in the future, after the angelic commissioning, it must be of the same kind as that which was done at the first. Further, how can anyone apply the prophesy to any other than to John? When the Angel says "you (John) must prophesy again," how can we say that by "you" that the Angel intends someone other than John?

Further, look at the context and the flow of the verses. "You must prophesy again...And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth." It was John who was told that he must prophesy again and it was he who was immediately given the rod by which to measure the temple. Besides answering the question - "when did John prophesy again," we must answer this one - "when did John measure the temple, altar, and the worshippers"? Doubtless he will do this during those 42 months.

To read the other arguments made for John and Elijah, read the whole short series.

What think ye?

 

The Two Witnesses of The Apocalypse are Persons

I am bewildered by how any serious bible student or teacher can say that the two witness prophets of Revelation chapter eleven are not individuals, but are symbols of groups. The same is true with the prophecies about the Antichrist, or man of sin, or the beast. Some try to say he is not an individual but a personification of a group. I was taught such idiocy when I was a Hardshell and yet even then I saw that it was not right. It is clear to any unbiased mind that the two witnesses are individuals. 

J.A. Seiss in his famous work titled "The Apocalypse" said this about the view that says the two witnesses of Revelation chapter eleven are not individual specific persons. (See here emphasis mine)

"These witnesses are persons. Primasius says, though somewhat equivocally, "The Two Witnesses represent the Two Testaments preached by the Christian Church to the world," and Bede, and Bishop Andrews, and Melchior, and Affelman, and Croly, and Wordsworth, and some others, have taken this view. But it is altogether a mistaken view, necessitated by the embarrassment occasioned by wrong conceptions of the Apocalypse, rejected by the overwhelming majority of interpreters ancient and modern, and utterly irreconcilable with the text. It is not true that the Old and New Testaments are preached to the world only 1260 days, or years, and then end their testimony;--that they are arrayed in sackcloth all the days they are preached;--that fire issues out of their mouths and kills those who will to injure them;--that there is no rain upon the earth during the days of their prophesying;--that they have power over waters to convert them into blood, or at will to smite the earth with plagues;--that they are capable of being killed by man;-or that indignity can be offered them, being dead, by refusing to allow them to be put into a sepulchre. Yet all these things are affirmed of these Witnesses. Nor is either the Old or the New Testament ever called a μαρτυρ (martyr - SG). Ten times do we find this word in the New Testament, and in every other place but this, no one questions that it denotes persons. In more than fifty places in the Old Testament, the corresponding Hebrew word denotes persons only. These Witnesses prophesy. This is the work of a person. More than one hundred times does this word (προψητευω) occur in the Bible, and never, except once by metonymy, but of persons. These Witnesses wear clothing of sackcloth, of which we read much in the Scriptures, but always of persons. They work miracles and execute judgments, but nothing of the sort is ever predicted of anything but personal agents. Not without the greatest violence to language and fact, therefore, can we regard these Witnesses as other than real persons. The conclusion may be very damaging to some men's cherished theories, but the integrity of God's word requires it, and it is impossible to escape it with any just regard to the laws of language and the nature of things."

 

These witnesses are individuals. No reader of the account, having no preconceived theory to defend, would ever think of taking them for bodies, or successions of people. All the early fathers, from whom we have any testimony on the subject, regarded them as two individual men. Two distinct and conspicuous bodies of witnesses for Christ, all prophesying in sackcloth through 1260 years, or even days, and all dying martyrs, as here represented, expositors have searched in vain to find in the history of the Christian ages. Such bodies of men, with such powers, and with such a history, have never existed. Modern writers have flattered themselves that they have found successions of people scattered through the middle ages, whom they would have us accept as The Two Witnesses of the text; but they have been obliged to purchase their conclusions at the expense of explaining away every distinct feature of the record, doing violence to the facts of history, and super-exalting almost every species of obscure and even heretical sects and sectarists as God's only acknowledged prophets. This is by far too great a cost at which to accept a theory, which, even if true, would be totally unworthy of a place in so solemn and momentous a book as this Apocalypse. Good and able men have satisfied themselves with it; but, on the same principles of interpretation, there is not a chapter in the Bible, nor a doctrine of our holy religion, which could not be totally explained away. By a happy inconsistency they do not so treat other portions of Scripture, or they would transmute the whole Revelation of God into uncertainty and emptiness. And whilst we give them credit for their learning, industry, and good intentions, and admit that a dim and imperfect correspondence to these Two Witnesses may perhaps be traced in the past history of the Church, yet, as we value the literal truth and certainty of the Divine Word, we cannot accept their expositions as exhaustive, or even as approximative to the revelation here given us."

I agree with this scholarly analysis completely.

Pre Trib & The 1000 Years

Pre Trib Premillenialists agree with all other Premillenialists that exactly 1000 years separate the first resurrection of the just from the second resurrection of the unjust, as Rev. 20 says. I say they "agree" but do they really? Can they say this and be consistent? No, they cannot. Here is why.

If the rapture comes seven years before the beginning of the Millennium, then the resurrection of the just, or "first resurrection," comes not 1000 years, but 1007 years, before that of the second resurrection. Don't you see? The rapture has to take place at the end of this age, which point in time is also when the Millennium begins. Thus, to put exactly 1000 years between the resurrection of the just and the unjust uproots the pre trib rapture view.

Consider also the fact that Jesus and the scriptures put the resurrection of the righteous "at the last day." But, if it occurs seven years before the last day, as the pre trib view affirms, then it is not the last day.

Consider also the fact that all the righteous are resurrected and raptured at the same time. But, no pre trib advocate affirms this. They affirm that some are saved after the rapture and resurrection, in the seven year tribulation period, and therefore these must undergo a translation and resurrection separate from the others. Thus, they deny that all are resurrected and translated at the same time.

Tribulation Period - 7 Yrs. Or More?

It is commonly believed today by Christians that the events of the Apocalypse, occurring under the opening of the seven seals, takes place within a predestined time period of seven years. This belief is not based upon anything stated in the Book of Revelation, for as we will see, the events that transpire on earth during events connected with the seals take in far more than seven years. This is so obvious that one wonders why a seven year limit for those events is imposed upon the Apocalypse record.

Those who espouse a time period of seven years for the events of the seals do so because they think the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy (Dan. 9: 24-27) is to be imposed upon the timeline of events in the Apocalypse. But, there is absolutely no warrant for doing this, and the fact that it has been done has created much confusion and contradiction.

More Than Seven Years

Revelation's time line takes in more than seven years. There is not a single verse from Revelation that says there will be a seven year tribulation period. Although there are lots of sevens in Revelation (the number appears more than fifty times), there is no mention of seven years. There are two forty-two-month periods (11:2; 13:5), two 1,260-day periods (11:3; 12:6), and one “a time and times and half a time” (12:14), each adding up to three and one-half years. If they are added up, the result is seventeen and one-half years. This is besides those references to "five months," "a year, a month, and a day," and also excludes all those events that occur and in which no time period is given for their occurrence.

In the Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible the division is explained this way: “John in Revelation divides [the Tribulation] into two periods of three and one-half years each or 1,260 days each, a total of seven years.” 

But where in Revelation does it say this? Consider the fact that all the three and a half year periods appear more than halfway through Revelation.

Now, let me give a time line up to the sounding of the seventh trumpet of the seventh seal.

First Seal (white horse)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it

Second Seal (red horse)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it
- there is worldwide civil war and no peace (nothing but conflict) nor safety
- assume that this period encompasses months, perhaps years, but at least weeks rather than days

Third Seal (black horse)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it
- Scarcity and famine
- world's food supply is rationed
- assume that this period encompasses months, perhaps years, but at least weeks rather than days

Fourth Seal (pale horse)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it
- death everywhere by famine, conflict, pestilence
- assume that this period encompasses months, perhaps years, but at least weeks rather than days

Fifth Seal (activities around the altar in heaven)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it
- petitions for justice and vengeance by the martyrs and persecuted ones
- the martyrs in heaven are told to "rest yet for a little season"
- we cannot determine exactly how much time is calculated therein

Sixth Seal (earthquake)

- no indication of a time period for the events connected with it

- sealing of 144,000
- assembling and equipping of saints and angels in heaven
- the catastrophes connected with this seal's opening show that it must encompass weeks, if not months and years

No indication for how much time the events of the first six seals takes.

Seventh Seal (destruction of vegetation)

- seven trumpet angels prepare to sound
- activity around heaven's altar by departed saints

- 1st trumpet sounds and brings destruction of vegetation by fiery hail
- no indication of a time period for the events
- assume months or weeks

- 2nd trumpet sounds and brings destruction of 1/3rd sea creatures and ships by turning water to blood
- no indication of a time period for the events
- can assume weeks or months

- 3rd trumpet sounds and brings wormwood (bitter or poisonous) toxins to rivers, streams, fountains and causing widespread death
- no indication of a time period for the events
- assume months or weeks

- 4th trumpet sounds and brings abnormal darkness over earth via sun, moon, and stars
- no indication of a time period for the events
- assume months or weeks

No indication for how much time the events of the first four trumpeters takes.

- 5th trumpet sounds and brings opening of the bottomless pit and release of infernal locusts
- the torment upon unbelievers by the locusts goes "five months"
- "One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter"

- 6th trumpet sounds and brings the freeing of the four angels and their hellish armies from Euphrates River imprisonment.
- "a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men" (13 months)
- the angel with the rainbow head covering, feet of brass, and face as the sun, sets his foot on land and sea and makes announcement
- the two witnesses appear in Jerusalem and begin their mission of judgment
- the period of the two witnesses is given as 1260 days (42 months)
- the period when the Gentiles are occupying Jerusalem is 42 months
- these periods seem to be the same time period
- killed by the Antichrist
- "the second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe comes quickly"
- how much time then under the 6th trumpet?
- it seems clear that the 13 months precedes the 42 months, and even if the 42 month periods run concurrently, there still is a total of 55 months.

- 7th trumpet sounds and begins with announcements among heaven's grand assize
- "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth"
- battle between the heavenly woman and her seed and the Dragon and his seed envisioned
- the woman in her seed are protected for 1260 days and as "time, times, and half a time" (42 months)
- battle in the heavens between Michael and his angels and the Devil and his angels
- the victory of Michael and the casting down of the Devil to the earth
- battle between saints on earth with the beast's military police
- Antichrist comes to power and "continues 42 months" along with the false prophet
- it is probable that the 1260 days or the woman's protection is simultaneous with the 42 months of the beast's reign of terror
- Lamb appears on Mt. Zion with the 144,000
- the appearance of Christ in the clouds preparing to harvest
- the appearance of the seven plague angels

Allowing no time to be allotted for what happens during the opening of the first six seals, and allotting no time for the sounding of the first four trumpets of the seventh seal, there is still more than seven years time involved in the events occurring under the sounding of the 5th, 6th, and 7th trumpets of the seventh seal. We begin with the stated "five months" under the 5th trumpet. Next, under the 6th trumpet, we have three time periods given. First, the 13 months and a day and hour, second, two references to 42 months, one for the prophesying of the two witnesses, and one for the reign of the Antichrist. It is clear that the 42 month reign of Antichrist begins with his killing of the two witnesses. Thus, the 42 month period of the witnessing is followed by the 42 month period of the beast's reign. This all being so, we have but to add 13 months + 5 months + 42 months + 42 months to get 102 months (eight years and six months)! And that excludes so many time periods not stated.

So, there is without a doubt more than seven years involved in the timeline of events for the opening of the seals, from Rev. 6 through Rev. 19.

Things That Must "Come First"

“for these things must come to pass first, 

but the end will not come immediately.” 

(Luke 21: 9)

In keeping with the words of Christ from his sermon on the mount of Olives (called his "Olivet Discourse"), I affirm that there are certain things that must come to past first before the second coming (his parousia, epiphany, apocalypse). I certainly do believe that "the great tribulation" (Rev. 7: 14; See also Rev. 3: 10) will precede his second coming, will precede the rapture and resurrection of believers. I believe the second coming is described in Revelation chapter nineteen and it occurs after the seven seals have been opened and the seven trumpet angels have sounded their trumpets and this harmonizes with the above words of Jesus. Tribulation must come first, along with several other things. 

Elias Must First Come

"And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." (Matt. 17: 10-13)

Just as the old testament on the surface seemed only to have spoken of a singular coming of the Messiah so it also seemed to speak of a singular coming of Elijah (Elias). However, as we see from new testament revelation, Christ has two comings (with an inter advent period). One has occurred and the second is yet to occur. Likewise, we also see from new testament revelation that the coming of Elijah has two comings. Further, in each case, Elijah comes before Christ.

The following are citations from an old posting of mine in the Baptist Gadfly (See here) in which I cited from J.A. Seiss and his work "The Apocalypse." 

"Here, then, we would seem to come upon solid Scriptural ground. If Elijah means Elijah, and the great and terrible day of the Lord is the day of Christ’s final coming in judicial majesty to crush out Satan and his seed, there is no alternative left to believers in God’s word, but to receive the doctrine that Elijah is to come again to prophesy and execute works of judgment upon earth, and just in that period of time to which the Apocalypse assigns these Two Witnesses. Whatever else may be compassed by the prediction, and in whatever narrower circles it may have been fulfilled, if words are not utterly deceitful, and certainty can at all be predicated of God’s very specific promises, this prophecy cannot be considered fulfilled or accomplished in the past, nor until Elijah the Tishbite, in propria persona, returns again to the earth."

"On the mount of Christ’s glorious Transfiguration Elijah appeared. The disciples saw him and knew him. And, as they were coming down from the mount, they asked the Master about this very point, alleging the doctrine of the scribes that “Elias must first come.” And He answered and said unto them: “ELIAS TRULY SHALL FIRST COME, AND RESTORE ALL THINGS.” (Matthew 17:11.) This passage is decisive. “The great Interpreter of prophecy gives right to that interpretation of the prophetic word which the scribes maintained,” says Trench. It cannot refer to John the Baptist, for John was then dead, while every part of it specifically relates to the future. “Elias truly shall come, and shall restore all things.” Besides, the restoration or “restitution of all things” (ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων), in the which it is affirmed that the coming Elias is to take part, is specifically referred by the Apostle Peter to the time of Christ’s second coming. (Acts 3:19.) In all its terms and relations, therefore, we are compelled to accept this solemn declaration of the Saviour as looking to the future, and meant to set forth what yet awaited fulfilment. John the Baptist is here out of the question, unless indeed he is to come again. Dr. Stier has rightly said: “Whoever, in this answer of Christ, would explain away the manifest and striking confirmation of the fact that a coming of Elias was yet to take place, must do great violence to the words, and will never be able to restrain the future of their form and import so as to be applicable to John the Baptist.”

But, it may be asked, Did not Christ say in the same connection, that Elias had come already, leaving it to be understood that He spoke of John the Baptist? The answer is, Yes; but in a way entirely distinct from the declaration we have just been considering. Elsewhere also he says of John: “If ye will receive [it, him, or something else] this is Elias, which was for to come.” (Matthew 11:14.) This proves that there is a sense in which John the Baptist was Elias, but certainly not such a sense as that in which the Jews were expecting Elias, nor yet such a sense as that in which He declared, after John was dead: “Elias truly shall first come and restore all things.” John was not the literal Elias. This we are compelled to admit, or else he did not tell the truth; for when the priests and Levites asked him, “Art thou Elias? “he answered, “I AM NOT.” (John 1:21.) And this clear and positive denial is further sustained by the facts

(1) that he did not restore all things as was predicted of Elias, and
(2) that the great and terrible day, which was to be ushered in immediately upon the finishing of the Elijah ministry, did not succeed the ministry of John, but is even yet future."

"Whilst, therefore, there is a sense of much importance in which John was Elias, there is another, more literal, and equally important sense, in which he was not Elias, and in which Elias is still to be expected, according to the Saviour's own word."

"There was a twofold ministry embraced in the ancient promise to send Elijah, just as there was a twofold advent in the predictions concerning the Messiah. In neither case did the Old Testament clearly distinguish between these two, but viewed them both as if they were but one. And as the two Messiah-comings are widely separated in time, though belonging to one and the same work, so there are two Elijah-comings, equally separated in time, and equally comprehended in the predictions. Hence, John, as the forerunner of Christ in the first advent, was Elias, that is, he filled the Elijah place, operated in the Elijah spirit and energy, did for that occasion the Elijah work, and so far fulfilled the Elijah promise. As the angel said of him before he was born, he went before Christ “in the spirit and power of Elias” (Luke 1:15-17); which implies that he was not Elias himself. The Saviour could, therefore, truly say of him while living, “If ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come, “and so likewise after he was dead,” Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.” John the Baptist operated in the spirit and energy of Elias, and performed the Elijah mission for the first advent, and so far “was Elias,” but, according to the word of the angel, only the virtual, and not the literal Elias. He could accordingly answer the Jews, who had in mind the literal Elias, that he was not Elias, while yet, in another respect, he was Elias. In him the prediction in Malachi concerning the sending of Elijah had a true and real fulfilment, but only a partial, germinant, preliminary fulfilment, whilst the highest and ultimate fulfilment respects another advent of the Messiah, and the coming of the literal Elijah as the herald of it."

"Such also is the view which the fathers took of the matter, and so they held and taught on the subject with great unanimity.

Justin Martyr says, “If Scripture compels you to admit two advents, shall we not allow that the word of God has proclaimed that Elijah shall be the precursor of the great and terrible day, that is, of His second advent? Accordingly our Lord in His teachings proclaimed that this very thing would take place, saying, that Elijah would also come. And we know that this shall take place when our Lord Jesus Christ shall come in glory from heaven; whose first manifestation the Spirit of God who was in Elijah preceded as herald in John.”

So, who came first, John the Baptist or Christ? Answer: John. Who will come first when Christ comes the second time? Answer: Elijah (Rev. 11) 

I am excited to think that I might live to see the coming of Elijah as one of the two "witnesses" of Revelation chapter eleven. (See my post on the two witnesses, where I show that they are Elijah the prophet and John the Apostle are the two, here in the Old Baptist Blog and here, here, here, and here in The Baptist Gadfly Blog) 

Tribulation Must Come First

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matt. 24: 29-30)

Clearly this text shows that tribulation shall precede the coming again of the Lord.

Falling Away Must Come First

"Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." (II Thess. 2: 3-4)

These verses destroy the idea that Christ will come before Antichrist, or before the great falling away and time of tribulation. 

Antichrist Must Come First

The above text says Antichrist (or "Man of lawlessness" and "son of perdition") will come before Christ comes. The verses following show this and they read as follows:

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."  (II Thess. 2: 8-10)

By "that wicked" and "him whose coming is after the working of Satan" is the one mentioned in verses 3-4, the "man of lawlessness" (or sin, Greek anomia) and "son of perdition." If the Lord destroys him at his coming, then he must already be present on earth before the coming of the Lord to destroy him. This Antichrist is mentioned by the apostle John in his first epistle and is also the one described in the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation). In fact he is seen in chapter eleven as killing the two witnesses after they have prophesied in sackcloth for 42 months. 

So, I am looking for the two prophets (John and Elijah) and for the Antichrist to come before Christ comes. This same truth is revealed in the Book of Daniel, who also spoke of the Antichrist as "the little horn."

"I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened...I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." (Dan. 7: 8-10, 13-14)

These verses also show that the little horn comes before Christ and that it is the coming of Christ "the Son of man," who destroys the little horn thereby.

Since Christ does not come till Revelation chapter nineteen, all the events of Revelation's first eighteen chapters comes before his coming. This chronology also puts the second coming at the sounding of the seventh and final trumpet of the Apocalypse and is in keeping with what Paul said about the time of the resurrection, it occurring at the sounding of "the LAST trumpet." (I Cor. 15: 52)

"How Long Is The "Coming" of Christ?" (II)

This posting will be a follow up to my previous posting "How Long Is The "Coming" of Christ?" (here)

J.A. Seiss in "The Apocalypse" (pg. 578-79, here) elaborates on what I presented in that posting, showing how the "coming" of Christ is no singular event nor encompassed within a particular moment or 24 hour day. He said (emphasis mine):

"When we speak of the day of the Lord, or the judgment period, many have the notion that it is but one day, or a very brief space of time. They are consequently led to wonder how we can speak of the impending nearness of that day, and yet look for the rebuilding of a great city then to be destroyed. The difficulty, however, does not lie in the nature of the things, but in the popular misapprehensions of what the day of the Lord means, and the length of the period which it covers. The mistake is in taking the day of the Lord, or the coming again of our Savior, as if one particular moment of time, and one single event or scene were to be understood. What the Scriptures describe as the day of the Lord, and the second coming of Christ, is no more limited to a single event or moment of time than was the day of his first coming, which extended over more than thirty years, and embraced various stages and successive presentations. If we take the prophecies concerning the first advent, we find it impossible to apply them to any one day, year, or scene, in the evangelic history. Micah said that Christ should “come out of Bethlehem” (Ephratah), but Hosea said that he would come “out of Egypt.” Malachi said that he should “suddenly come to his temple,” and Zechariah that he would come to Zion “riding upon an ass, upon a colt the foal of an ass;” whilst, according to Isaiah, “the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali” were to see the “great light.” All these presentations were his coming. He did come when he was born at Bethlehem; he did come out of Egypt; he did come when he announced himself at Nazareth; he did come as a great light among the people of Northern Galilee; he did come riding into Jerusalem on the ass; he did come suddenly to his temple when he twice drove out the money changers; and he came when he reappeared after his resurrection. Each one of these particular incidents is alike called his coming; but they were only so many separate presentations, at different dates, extending through a period of thirty-three years, all of which together are required to make up the first advent as a whole. And just as it was then, so it will be again. The second coming, like the first, is complex and distributive, extending through a variety of successive and diverse scenes, stages, events, and manifestations, requiring as many, if not still more, years." 

I think that any bible believer should be able to understand and accept as true these words of Seiss even though it goes against the "popular" shallow thinking of many upon this subject. 

Seiss wrote:

"The Antichrist does not appear at all amid the scenes of the Apocalypse until after the seven seals have been opened, and six of the succeeding trumpets have been sounded. How many years those seals and the six trumpets may consume we are not informed, but we have every reason to believe that they may be counted by tens, if not by scores, subsequent to the opening of the door in the heaven and the taking up of the saints, which is the first act in the great drama. The space occupied in narrating what occurs under the seals and trumpets would indicate this. The long waiting of the Ten Virgins for the coming of the Bridegroom, which is subsequent to the first translation, indicates the same thing. Forty years, at least, perhaps a whole jubilee period of fifty years, or even a full seventy years, answering to the period during which the judgment was upon Israel for its sins, are likely to be embraced in what the Scriptures call the day of the Lord, and the second coming and revelation of Jesus Christ."

Seiss is a Pre Tribulation Premillenialist. He has Dispensational leanings. Yet, he did not, like many of them, believe that Antichrist would come into the world till late in the great tribulation. Many today want to put the appearance of the Antichrist in Rev. 6: 1 in the appearing of the white horse rider. But, in this they are wrong. Though Seiss is wrong on his putting the rapture in Rev. 4: 1, yet he is right in where he chronologically puts the rise of Antichrist.

When he says that "many years" take in the time of the seals and trumpets of the Apocalypse he is correct. Though he does fit Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy of the seventieth week (7 years) into the time period of the day of judgment (great tribulation) he does not limit the entire time period of the tribulation to those seven years, but sees it as much longer, as I do. See my posting "Tribulation Period - 7 Yrs. Or More?" (here). Though I do not think the great tribulation, or the day of wrath and judgment, will be twenty to fifty years, yet I do believe it will be longer than seven years as does Seiss. 

Seiss wrote:

"Supposing, then, that Babylon should not even begin to be rebuilt until after the day of the Lord has commenced in the rapture of the eagle-saints (Luke 17:34-37; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17; Revelation 4:1), there still would be ample time for it to come up in all the grandeur and force indicated before the great acts of destruction in which that day reaches its consummation. Much can be accomplished in forty, fifty, or seventy years."

Seiss wrote this in the latter part of the 19th century. Were he alive today he would see how the world has the technology today to build a new mammoth city in quick time, especially when all the world is united in its construction.

But, the rapture does not take place before the building of Babylon. Babylon will be built either immediately before the great tribulation or at its commencement.

We do not have two comings of the Lord in Revelation, one in Rev. 4: 1 (rapture) and the other in Rev. 19. There is only one second coming. There are so many arguments to prove this. We have mentioned them many times.

In closing let me say that the main point of this posting is to see how the "coming" of the Lord, or his "day," is not to be limited to a single day but rather encompasses years, just as did his first coming. 

On the building of the commercial city of Babylon (Rev. 18) I will have more to say in an upcoming post, the Lord willing.