The False Doctrine of a 7-year Tribulation

[Eleanor]

Back to this again.

Imagine that. . .back to Scripture again!
Evidently you do not understand what is plainly being said in Nu 12:7-8.

Numbers 12:8 is telling Miriam that anyone they chose to lead instead of Moses would only get riddles from God. God would only deal with Moses.

"“Now hear My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, will make Myself known to him in a vision.
I will speak with him in a dream.
7 It is not this way for My servant Moses;

He is faithful in all My household;
8 With him I speak mouth to mouth,
That is, openly, and not [a]using [b]mysterious language,
And he beholds the form of the Lord.
So why were you not afraid
To speak against My servant, against Moses?”"

It's not hard to understand the above, which meaning is in no way altered by
God speaks to all prophets in visions and dreams and "dark speeches" (Nu 12:7-8) (hard sayings, riddles), except Moses.
And it is your personal eschatological interpretation, of what God calls "dark speech" (riddles), that is in contradiction of NT apostolic eschatological interpretation; e.g., 2 Th 1:6-10, 2:1, 3, 8, Ac 3:21, Heb 9:28, 1 Pe 1:5, 13, Lk 17:29-37.

God tells Miriam and Aaron that if there is actually a prophet among them, God will make Himself known to him...in a dream. Not like Moses where God speaks to Moses face to face, mouth to mouth. Directly without mysterious language. He is saying that if God, whom we are to fear, holds Moses as such, then where is the fear when they speak against God's servant, against Moses. God is making it clear exactly where HE stands with Moses. He has no problem with what Moses did. So they need to not have a problem with Moses, for then their problem is with God. I'm not sure where in the world you got "Your question is premised in your personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:8)" You need to stop ripping verses out of context.

What part of God "speaks to Moses without mysterious language, while he speaks to all other prophets in mysterious language". . .i.e., "God gives prophecy in riddles," do you not understand?

And your eschatology is built on your personal interpretation of those riddles, rather than on NT apostolic interpretation of those riddles given in the NT, for example:

NT apostolic teaching specifically
1) locates the rapture with the second coming of Jesus in final judgment (2 Th 1:6-10, 2:1-8), and
2) states there will be no appearance (Ac 3:21, Heb 9:28) nor revealing (1 Pe 1:5, 13) of Jesus until that coming in final judgment (Lk 17:29-37,
2 Th 2:1, 3, 8).

And there are more of your personal eschatological interpretations in disagreement with NT apostolic eschatological interpretations.

 

[Arial]

The early church was not amillennial until Augustine, as he was the one who came up with amillennialism. Prior, he was with the chiliasts, who were premillennialists. They had a falling out because Augustine believed in austerity, and the chiliasts were throwing garish parties because they believed Jesus second coming was at the door. They believed that Jesus would return after 6000 years (I believe, it may be 7000), with the millennium being a thousand years, and an analog to the seventh day that God rested. The accepted chronology for how many years after creation Jesus was born, put this at/near the time of Augustine. Prior to Augustine you were a premillennialist, or a heretic. (The other belief at the time was an eschatology based on gnosticism. There was going to be no physical second coming of Jesus, because Jesus didn't physically come to Earth the first time. This is because the flesh is evil, and anything dealing with flesh is evil. Therefore God would never come to Earth in the flesh. Some early premillennialists were Polycarp (disciple of the apostle John), Papias (student of Polycarp), Ignatius (another disciple of John), and Irenaeus (another student of Polycarp I believe.) If you want to read a martyrdom story that moves the heart, read about Polycarp's martyrdom.

Augustine came up with non-preterist amillennialism. Preterism came from a Jesuit during the counter reformation, to entice protestants back into the Catholic Church. They also didn't believe Jesus was physically coming back to Earth, which is why many say that preterism is a heresy. Then there is partial preterism that tries to right that wrong.

Did you notice, as I did, that the only part of my post you addressed, was the end of it that I said was not part of my argument?

It does not matter who thought what and when. That neither proves or disproves a single thing. The early church consisted of both pre and a. Augustine did not remain a premillennialist. I used to be a "we get to choose our eternal destination" charismatic. With the passage of time and study and checking all things against His word, I jettisoned those beliefs in what I found to be more consistent with Reformed theology. I used to be a pre-mil, rapture, seven year trib, believer, and for the same reasons already given, now lean amil, no secret rapture and no three or four comings of Christ, one that no one sees, one for geographic Israel, and another to judge.

Are you going to do the things I pointed out that need to be done in order for what you preach to be anything more than the OT interpreting the NT and presuppositional beliefs obtained from outside the Bible, being read into it. I say outside the Bible, not because you don't find all your proofs in the Bible, but because your position is the predominant teaching in Christianity since Darby, and so it is no doubt all that you heard from the beginning, and those teaching it have read it into the Scripture. Though I realize, they have no idea that they are doing this. We all think we are right. Some are willing to recognize when they might not be, and investigate the other side of the story. Some are not. No one is perfect but Christ. And that Dispensational view of the rapture, because of its promise of escapism from the way in which the judgments have been interpreted by Dispenasationalists, is very hard to let go of. When in fact, if amil is a more accurate view, humanity has been living in the midst of them historically since Adam and Eve, God issued the curse, and right along with it, the promise. (Gen 3)

Historically, in the OT, God's arch enemy attempted to destroy that Seed of the woman. Now in the New Covenant, after the coming, death, and resurrection of that Seed, he is after Christ's church. And I have little doubt that the world wide persecution of the church will come, for a short time before His return, when Satan is loosed to do what he is bound from doing as Christ gathers His people from all nations through the gospel. And that is, to deceive the nations.

The main purpose of Revelation is not foretelling, It is strengthening and encouragement for the people of God to stand firm, and be strong, and trust is Him. The promise of the new heaven and the new earth is coming, and not even tribulation or death can remove His people from His hand. It is not a message of escape from suffering, but one of being kept by Him through it.

 

[TMSO]

Imagine that. . .back to Scripture again!
Evidently you do not understand what is plainly being said in Nu 12:7-8.

No, I go with context. Consider that God didn't speak to Elijah in riddles. Or Samuel, to whom God also spoke with directly. There were others spoken to directly. The passage in Numbers was not the basis of a prophetic system. It was about God dealing with Aaron and Miriam's lack of fear when approaching the servant of God, and planning out their actions. They never once considered God. Not once. Their focus was set directly on Moses. They never considered that as God's servant, by going after Moses, they were going after God. And God wasn't too pleased. (Miriam was struck with leprosy for this incident.)

It's not hard to understand the above, which meaning is in no way altered by
God speaks to all prophets in visions and dreams and "dark speeches" (Nu 12:7-8) (hard sayings, riddles), except Moses.
And it is your personal eschatological interpretation, of what God calls "dark speech" (riddles), that is in contradiction of NT apostolic eschatological interpretation; e.g., 2 Th 1:6-10, 2:1, 3, 8, Ac 3:21, Heb 9:28, 1 Pe 1:5, 13, Lk 17:29-37.

Except God didn't speak to all prophets in visions and dreams. He spoke directly with Samuel, right down to audibly calling for Samuel. He spoke directly to Elijah. Apparently God had Elijah give a prophcy before he was translated to paradise and Elisha delivered it to the king some time later. If you read the prophecies given to Elijah they were very direct. If you, oh king, do this... you will die. There was no riddle. Consider King Hezekiah when he was told that he was going to die. Did Hezekiah get some riddle response from Isaiah (I think that is who it was.) No. The answer was direct. I have heard you, and you will not die. Consider the famine with Elijah. There was no riddle. God said directly that He would seal up the sky and He did.

What part of God "speaks to Moses without mysterious language, while he speaks to all other prophets in mysterious language". . .i.e., "God gives prophecy in riddles," do you not understand?

Except God didn't speak in riddles to all other prophets. He was very directly with Elijah, Elisha and others. Again, the passage is one of history, but there is a lesson in it. Don't fail to give God proper reverence, and mistreating His servants is not only not giving proper reverence, you actions are actually directed towards God by proxy.

And your eschatology is built on your personal interpretation of those riddles, rather than on NT apostolic interpretation of those riddles given in the NT, for example:

Consider this. Amillennialism came from Augustine. Preterism came from the Jesuits during the counter reformation, to lure protestants back into the Catholic Church. Premillennialism came from the first century. You had Polycarp, the disciple of John the apostle. You had Ignatius, a disciple of John the apostle. You had Papias, a student of Polycarp, who spoke often to those who knew the apostles. You had Irenaeus, a studen of Polycarp. What were their beliefs? Premillennial with the kingdom in Israel. I didn't say futurist. There was Simon of Cyrene who simply said that a belief in the millennial kingdom was the belief/feelings of orthodox believers of the day. There was a sermon written between the third and sixth centuries I believe, that speaks of a rapture, a gathering up of believers. All this means is that such a belief was circulating through the church. It did not develop in a vacuum.

NT apostolic teaching specifically
1) locates the rapture with the second coming of Jesus in final judgment (2 Th 1:6-10, 2:1-8), and
2) states there will be no appearance (Ac 3:21, Heb 9:28) nor revealing (1 Pe 1:5, 13) of Jesus until that coming in final judgment (Lk 17:29-37,
2 Th 2:1, 3, 8).

If it is apostolic, then why didn't Irenaeus, who learned eschatology from a disciple of the apostle John write about it? Why did Papias not write/talk about it? Eusebius was pretty clear that Papias was a premillennialist like Polycarp. Ignatius as well, who was a disciple of John the apostle. Why didn't he write about it? When the early church father's spoke about it, there was a great tribulation that would occur 3 1/2 years before the end. They didn't talk about seven years.

And there are more of your personal eschatological interpretations in disagreement with NT apostolic eschatological interpretations.

Don't project yourself on the apostles... just don't. They too were servants of God, and as such, you drag God into the situation which makes things worse if you are wrong. And you so so without fear, apparently. I may be wrong. I give opinion/feeling and in general conversation, I am clear and say so. I may be wrong. I think this whole Trump situation could put a real twist on eschatology. Probably not, but I do pay a little more attention as to what is happening... just in case.

 

[Tambora]

That is not the wrath that comes upon the world prior to its destruction. The seven bowls of God's wrath. The second death is PUNISHMENT. There is not wrath in death, only torment. God isn't speanding His time after the end of the world visiting wrath upon people who are already facing their earned punishment.

I don't assume that God's wrath cannot be eternal anymore than God's blessing cannot be eternal.

 

[TMSO]

Did you notice, as I did, that the only part of my post you addressed, was the end of it that I said was not part of my argument?

It does not matter who thought what and when. That neither proves or disproves a single thing. The early church consisted of both pre and a. Augustine did not remain a premillennialist. I used to be a "we get to choose our eternal destination" charismatic. With the passage of time and study and checking all things against His word, I jettisoned those beliefs in what I found to be more consistent with Reformed theology. I used to be a pre-mil, rapture, seven year trib, believer, and for the same reasons already given, now lean amil, no secret rapture and no three or four comings of Christ, one that no one sees, one for geographic Israel, and another to judge.

There is only the second coming... to Earth. The event in Thessalonians is in the air. This does not match what the young men told the disciples would be Jesus second coming, in that in the second coming, Jesus is coming to Earth. He will return as He left. Revelation 19 puts it best. Jesus is revealed in heaven with His armies, and has come to face the armies of the beast and his image, and his allies. From heaven to Earth.

Are you going to do the things I pointed out that need to be done in order for what you preach to be anything more than the OT interpreting the NT and presuppositional beliefs obtained from outside the Bible, being read into it. I say outside the Bible, not because you don't find all your proofs in the Bible, but because your position is the predominant teaching in Christianity since Darby, and so it is no doubt all that you heard from the beginning, and those teaching it have read it into the Scripture.

I don't follow Darby. Also, someone wrote a whole book on mid-trib premillennialism over a century before Darby. Who have you been listening to in saying that it is all from Darby? That is like saying that Calvinism came from Calvin. It started with Augustine (and others) and Calvin basically sytematized all of that, which was then changed with TULIP. That is generally how doctrine in the church moves. The trinity wasn't fleshed out until Nicea. The ideas are present, but it wasn't systematized or packaged up until later. Premillennialism was the original eschatology. Granted, it should be because it was based on Jewish (Old Testament) eschatology. All the questions the disciples asked were from their knowledge of Jewish eschatology. When will you be revealed as King and setup your kingdom. "What will be the sign of your coming." Will you now restore the kingdom to Israel? All from their prior knowledge of eschatology.

Though I realize, they have no idea that they are doing this. We all think we are right. Some are willing to recognize when they might not be, and investigate the other side of the story. Some are not. No one is perfect but Christ. And that Dispensational view of the rapture, because of its promise of escapism from the way in which the judgments have been interpreted by Dispenasationalists, is very hard to let go of. When in fact, if amil is a more accurate view, humanity has been living in the midst of them historically since Adam and Eve, God issued the curse, and right along with it, the promise. (Gen 3)

I don't know if I am right. I don't present what I am saying as truth, but a point of view. Of course, I believe my point of view is more harmonious with scripture, however, it is PROPHECY, and we can't be sure until it comes to pass. There are preterists who say all of these things have already been fulfilled and it was all allegorical. (Considering that this would make eschatology the only prophecies in the whole Bible that had allegorical fulfillment, I find that difficult to believe.) Consider that perhaps John really was seeing the end times, and was explaining what he saw in language that people could understand. 100 lb hail stones. Could those possibly (again possibly) be satellites falling from the sky? Starlink has a lot of satellites up there now. Could those also be the stars falling to Earth. (Probably not, but consider the possibilities before shirking it off. We are told to be watchful. There is nothing wrong in keeping a wary eye on events around us. You might find that prophecy was again, rather on point. For instance, people had trouble accepting the prophecy about the two witnesses, because there was no way that the whole world could see it. But wait... we can now. We have the technology. It is proliferating through the whole world. It could happen exactly as written.

Historically, in the OT, God's arch enemy attempted to destroy that Seed of the woman. Now in the New Covenant, after the coming, death, and resurrection of that Seed, he is after Christ's church. And I have little doubt that the world wide persecution of the church will come, for a short time before His return, when Satan is loosed to do what he is bound from doing as Christ gathers His people from all nations through the gospel. And that is, to deceive the nations.

He is still shown to be after the woman. Why? If Satan can destroy Israel, then he wins. God fails. Israel is His target, the chosen people of God's promise. God's promise fails if Israel fails. This is why they have been the target of genocide and persecution for millennia. No one asks how the Jews were treated during the crusades...

The main purpose of Revelation is not foretelling, It is strengthening and encouragement for the people of God to stand firm, and be strong, and trust is Him. The promise of the new heaven and the new earth is coming, and not even tribulation or death can remove His people from His hand. It is not a message of escape from suffering, but one of being kept by Him through it.

It is foretelling what is to come for the strengthening and encouragement for the people of God. It is not a message of escape and never has been. I find more intriguing/acceptable with a mid trib rapture, as that is more in line with what the early church fathers taught. They didn't talk about seven years, they talked about 3 1/2 years.

 

[TMSO]

I don't assume that God's wrath cannot be eternal anymore than God's blessing cannot be eternal.

We have examples of God's wrath in the Bible. It wasn't eternal. God judgment and punishment are. There is a difference. If God's wrath is eternal, then anger/wrath would be a part of God's nature, and not a reaction. God would be forever looking for a reason to be angry and to lash out.

 

[Tambora]

We have examples of God's wrath in the Bible. It wasn't eternal. God judgment and punishment are. There is a difference. If God's wrath is eternal, then anger/wrath would be a part of God's nature, and not a reaction. God would be forever looking for a reason to be angry and to lash out.

I do not assume that God's nature does not include wrath anymore than God's nature does not include blessing.

 

[Arial]

I don't follow Darby. Also, someone wrote a whole book on mid-trib premillennialism over a century before Darby. Who have you been listening to in saying that it is all from Darby?

I didn't say it was all from Darby.

He is still shown to be after the woman. Why? If Satan can destroy Israel, then he wins. God fails. Israel is His target, the chosen people of God's promise. God's promise fails if Israel fails.

I don't have time right now to go through all your post, but this is a shocking statement. Israel is not the Savior. Christ is. Christ has already won. He did so on the cross. God is bigger than Israel and redemption is about more than Israel. It is about reconciling ALL THINGS in Christ. The plan of redemption begins with the curse and promise in Gen 3. It is not a broken story in which God is reacting to the failures of men. The two testaments are all one story. The old is the working out of the promises, foretelling the promises of a redeemer, often in types and shadows. It is impossible to be fully revealed until the promise of the redeemer is realized. Then, and only then, can/does the NT remove the veil from what came before. That is why the NT interprets the OT instead of the other way around----which is what dispensationalism largely does.

 

[TMSO]

I didn't say it was all from Darby.

You said pretrib rapture was all from Darby, the rapture itself in general.

I don't have time right now to go through all your post, but this is a shocking statement. Israel is not the Savior.

I read what I wrote, and I'm still dumbfounded. Nowhere did I say Israel is the Savior. I said they were the chosen people of promise. Jesus is the promise in the flesh, and He came out of Israel. He was Jewish. He was also God, but in the flesh, He was Jewish. He was also a carpenter, but that isn't important. With Israel being the chosen people of promise, God made a lot of promises. If Israel is destroyed, then God failed. God would show Himself unfaithful. Israel will not fail. (Understand, there are two parts of Israel. The nation of Israel [secular], and the remnant of God in the nation of Israel. It is the remnant that will be saved.

Christ is. Christ has already won. He did so on the cross. God is bigger than Israel and redemption is about more than Israel. It is about reconciling ALL THINGS in Christ.

I never said Jesus wasn't the Savior. All I said is that Israel is the chosen people of promise. Why does God say He doesn't destroy Israel? For the sake of the fathers. He made promises and covenants, and if Israel fails, then it is God who broke those promises and covenants with the forefathers. (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.)

The plan of redemption begins with the curse and promise in Gen 3. It is not a broken story in which God is reacting to the failures of men. The two testaments are all one story. The old is the working out of the promises, foretelling the promises of a redeemer, often in types and shadows. It is impossible to be fully revealed until the promise of the redeemer is realized. Then, and only then, can/does the NT remove the veil from what came before. That is why the NT interprets the OT instead of the other way around----which is what dispensationalism largely does.

I see redemption as a total plan. The New Testament does not interpret the Old, just as the Old doesn't interpret the new. They are, technically, one book, and one story. The Old Testament is God dealing with the chosen people of promise, Israel. He tells of a Messiah, and the Jews believed Him. However, they twisted the passages to make the Messiah into a conquering hero, and not a suffering servant. They did not accept that idea.

What did Jesus tell the Cushite women n the gospels? He did not want to talk to her, saying that He has come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It wasn't until their rejection of Him as their Messiah that, as planned, the gospel went out to the Gentiles. While Jesus had said this to the Cushite women, later there is talk of another flock that is not His. The Gentiles. Paul put it best when He said that the rejection of Israel was a blessing to all. Through their disobedience, the gospel went to the Gentiles who accepted it. Paul says in this way, Israel would receive mercy and be saved by the obedience of the Gentiles. For God has locked up all in disobedience that He might have mercy on all. Israel was "obedient" (loosely stated) until they rejected Christ. It is that rejection that Paul is referring to when he says Israel became disobedient. They went from hoping and waiting for the Messiah to rejecting Him. However, in the end, the remnant of God within the nation of Israel will be saved.

 

[Arial]

You said pretrib rapture was all from Darby, the rapture itself in general.

No. I said it was the predominant teaching in Christianity since Darby.

I read what I wrote, and I'm still dumbfounded. Nowhere did I say Israel is the Savior. I said they were the chosen people of promise. Jesus is the promise in the flesh, and He came out of Israel. He was Jewish. He was also God, but in the flesh, He was Jewish. He was also a carpenter, but that isn't important. With Israel being the chosen people of promise, God made a lot of promises. If Israel is destroyed, then God failed.

This is what happens when two points of view are being presented. And your view as stated above presumes that national geographic Israel, and the promises in that covenant, are locked into national geographic Israel. The Jews themselves had that same problem. They turned what was meant to be a witness to the nations of the One true and living God, and a witness to His righteousness that mankind was created to bear (summarized in the Ten Commandments), into a political national issue only. It became about power and resulted in great apostasy. They separated their personal lives and behaviors from their religion---their worship. Many Christians do the same thing.

Though you acknowledge that it is one story of redemption, you do not treat it as such. In Israel are two covenants running alongside each other. The primary covenant is the one made in Gen 3, continued through Noah, and then Abraham. "In you all nations shall be blessed." The other is also made with Abraham and concerns the land of Canaan. The first is unilateral, meaning it is promise only, God being responsible for its fulfillment with nothing required of those in the covenant. This is stated as "His faith was counted to him as righteousness."

Paul interprets this Gen passage in Romans 4:9-25; Gal 3. Listen to this which clearly gives the purpose of the other covenant made with Abraham's descendants, a bilateral covenant in which God fulfills His promises on the condition that they keep His Law.

Gal 3:21-22 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
24. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

That is what is meant by one story of redemption. It is the continuity from beginning to end. Israel is not a separate aspect of the covenant of redemption, but a part of it. All the promises stated in the old covenant with national Israel are fulfilled in Christ. Some are yet to be fulfilled, but not as a return to Israel as a political power. The fulfillment is a new heaven and a new earth, the death of death and the death of sin and all its consequences on, not only the human race, but all of creation.

 

[Arial]

I never said Jesus wasn't the Savior. All I said is that Israel is the chosen people of promise. Why does God say He doesn't destroy Israel? For the sake of the fathers. He made promises and covenants, and if Israel fails, then it is God who broke those promises and covenants with the forefathers. (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.)

Jesus is true Israel. Faithful Israel who is what national Israel failed to be, what they were called to be. A royal priesthood and a light to the nations. (Ex 19:5-6; Is 42:6) Hosea 11 shows the failure of Israel and that God would provide a renewed Israel and also in Hosea 2:14-23. This new Israel, true Israel, would embody all that God called Israel to be.

This was provided with the incarnation of God's true son by nature, Jesus. The second Adam who undoes what the Covenant of Law could never do because it did not, and could not, make anyone righteous. Matt 2:13-15 tells us that Jesus fulfills Hosea 11. (NT interpreting OT.) Like ancient Israel, He came out of Egypt, passed through the waters, and was tested in the wilderness. Jesus dealt with the issue of sin and death and conquered them. This is what the Covenant of Redemption is about----not national Israel. Israel is important but it is only a part of the endgame. All the promises made to national Israel are fulfilled in faithful, new Israel, made up of all believers in all nations.

I see redemption as a total plan. The New Testament does not interpret the Old, just as the Old doesn't interpret the new. They are, technically, one book, and one story.

Did you not read what I said? There are things spoken of and prophesied in the OT that remain a mystery to those of historical Israel. They can only be prophesied but not fully understood until that which is prophesied appears. When He has appeared, teaches, preaches, obeys all righteousness---not JUST the Law, dies on the cross, is resurrected, ascends back to heaven, sends the Holy Spirit first to the apostles to teach them the meaning of these mysteries, and then all believers; only then is it possible to reveal the shadows in the OT Law and Prophets. Therefore, whatever the NT writings say concerning that Law and Prophets, is the new interpreting the old---shining the light of understanding on it. And always, always, centered on the person and work of Christ. And the story begins with Gen 3, and is always about, "He will crush your head, and he will bruise your heel." Israel is a progression towards that. It is not the whole story, and it is not a separate story from the goal. Which is reconciling ALL things to God in Christ.

But to pull things back more to the OP----why do you believe the tribulation spoken of in Rev is seven years? You may have already said. I have not read the entire thread. If you have said and want to direct me to that post, that is fine.

 

[Arial]

I do not assume that God's nature does not include wrath anymore than God's nature does not include blessing.

Being wrathful is not a part of His nature. But He cannot be holy, perfectly righteous, love, just---all the good attributes that are His nature, and at the same time be accepting of unholiness, unrighteousness, hate towards Him and neighbor, injustice. To do so would make Him unrighteous, unloving, unjust etc. He created man in His image and likeness. We have failed to present that in our obedience to Him, our love of sin. and in our dealings with one another and our God given responsibility to creation. Humanity has incurred His just wrath.

 

[Tambora]

I Thessalonians 4 is not Jesus second coming.

Or ....... it is.

We meet Him in the air, and so (in the air) we will be with Him always.

We must not forget about the ways in which scripture describes the wedding party going out to meet the coming bridegroom.
They don't stay there with the bridegroom, they all go back together from where they just left to meet him.

As for "In the air", where are you going to decide that actually is?
Eph 2:2 says that Satan is said to be the prince of the power of the the air, and indicates that it means the world.

With those two biblical sayings (the bridegroom and the air) it can easily be said that 1 Thes 4 is indeed speaking of the return of Christ, ie. the 2nd coming.

 

[Arial]

Or ....... it is.




We must not forget about the ways in which scripture describes the wedding party going out to meet the coming bridegroom.
They don't stay there with the bridegroom, they all go back together from where they just left to meet him.

As for "In the air", where are you going to decide that actually is?
Eph 2:2 says that Satan is said to be the prince of the power of the the air, and indicates that it means the world.

With those two biblical sayings (the bridegroom and the air) it can easily be said that 1 Thes 4 is indeed speaking of the return of Christ, ie. the 2nd coming.

Another parallel is the king returning victorious with His people following behind in celebration of victory. Those who remain on earth at His second coming are caught up with Him and the saints that have died, and all return with Him in victory.

 

[Tambora]

Another parallel is the king returning victorious with His people following behind in celebration of victory. Those who remain on earth at His second coming are caught up with Him and the saints that have died, and all return with Him in victory.

Yeppers.
We just don't have any of the NT apostles claiming that believers will not need to endure tribulation.
All of the NT writers tell believers to stand firm, hold fast, and endure when tribulation comes.

 

[Arial]

Yeppers.
We just don't have any of the NT apostles claiming that believers will not need to endure tribulation.
All of the NT writers tell believers to stand firm, hold fast, and endure when tribulation comes.

In fact, it tells us just the opposite. 1 Peter 5:10; Rom 5:3-4; Romans 8:18,35; Phil 3:10; 2 Cor 1:5. The book of Rev was written to churches under persecution and dealing with the surrounding culture and governments putting pressure on them to compromise---and were compromising in some cases. They weren't being taken out of it. They were being encouraged to stand firm and trust in God.

To take up our sword and shield, and don't back down, stand our ground.

 

[Eleanor]

No, I go with context.

I go with text first.

Consider that God didn't speak to Elijah in riddles. Or Samuel, to whom God also spoke with directly. There were others spoken to directly. The passage in Numbers was not the basis of a prophetic system. It was about God dealing with Aaron and Miriam's lack of fear when approaching the servant of God, and planning out their actions. They never once considered God. Not once. Their focus was set directly on Moses. They never considered that as God's servant, by going after Moses, they were going after God. And God wasn't too pleased. (Miriam was struck with leprosy for this incident.)

Except God didn't speak to all prophets in visions and dreams. He spoke directly with Samuel, right down to audibly calling for Samuel. He spoke directly to Elijah. Apparently God had Elijah give a prophcy before he was translated to paradise and Elisha delivered it to the king some time later. If you read the prophecies given to Elijah they were very direct. If you, oh king, do this... you will die. There was no riddle. Consider King Hezekiah when he was told that he was going to die. Did Hezekiah get some riddle response from Isaiah (I think that is who it was.) No. The answer was direct. I have heard you, and you will not die. Consider the famine with Elijah. There was no riddle. God said directly that He would seal up the sky and He did.

Except God didn't speak in riddles to all other prophets. He was very directly with Elijah, Elisha and others. Again, the passage is one of history, but there is a lesson in it. Don't fail to give God proper reverence, and mistreating His servants is not only not giving proper reverence, you actions are actually directed towards God by proxy.

Consider this. Amillennialism came from Augustine. Preterism came from the Jesuits during the counter reformation, to lure protestants back into the Catholic Church. Premillennialism came from the first century. You had Polycarp, the disciple of John the apostle. You had Ignatius, a disciple of John the apostle. You had Papias, a student of Polycarp, who spoke often to those who knew the apostles. You had Irenaeus, a studen of Polycarp. What were their beliefs? Premillennial with the kingdom in Israel. I didn't say futurist. There was Simon of Cyrene who simply said that a belief in the millennial kingdom was the belief/feelings of orthodox believers of the day. There was a sermon written between the third and sixth centuries I believe, that speaks of a rapture, a gathering up of believers. All this means is that such a belief was circulating through the church. It did not develop in a vacuum.

If it is apostolic, then why didn't Irenaeus, who learned eschatology from a disciple of the apostle John write about it? Why did Papias not write/talk about it? Eusebius was pretty clear that Papias was a premillennialist like Polycarp. Ignatius as well, who was a disciple of John the apostle. Why didn't he write about it? When the early church father's spoke about it, there was a great tribulation that would occur 3 1/2 years before the end. They didn't talk about seven years.

Don't project yourself on the apostles... just don't. They too were servants of God, and as such, you drag God into the situation which makes things worse if you are wrong. And you so so without fear, apparently. I may be wrong. I give opinion/feeling and in general conversation, I am clear and say so. I may be wrong. I think this whole Trump situation could put a real twist on eschatology. Probably not, but I do pay a little more attention as to what is happening... just in case.

 

[Eleanor]

No, I go with context.

I go with the text first.

Consider this. Amillennialism came from Augustine. Preterism came from the Jesuits during the counter reformation, to lure protestants back into the Catholic Church. Premillennialism came from the first century. You had Polycarp, the disciple of John the apostle. You had Ignatius, a disciple of John the apostle. You had Papias, a student of Polycarp, who spoke often to those who knew the apostles. You had Irenaeus, a studen of Polycarp. What were their beliefs? Premillennial with the kingdom in Israel. I didn't say futurist. There was Simon of Cyrene who simply said that a belief in the millennial kingdom was the belief/feelings of orthodox believers of the day. There was a sermon written between the third and sixth centuries I believe, that speaks of a rapture, a gathering up of believers.
All this means is that such a belief was circulating through the church.

And?

It did not develop in a vacuum.

And yet the eschatological teaching of John, Matthew and Paul, alive and waiting for this second coming, spoke of that coming in terms of occurring only once, in association with all four of the following events occurring sequentially:

Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (Jn 6:39),
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Th 4:16).
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Mt 24:39-41).
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats (Mt 25:31-33).

So in terms of the time of their occurrence, the eschatological teaching of John, Matthew and Paul is:
the last day = resurrection = rapture = second coming = final judgment of sheep and goats (all mankind)

However, in order to make their theology work, they duplicate and triplicate these events, which are nowhere presented in apostolic eschatological teaching, as duplicated or triplicated, they being so only in their personal fancy.

In my neck o' the woods, that dog won't hunt.

If it is apostolic, then why didn't Irenaeus, who learned eschatology from a disciple of the apostle John write about it?

Why should he? It's already in the NT.

I do Scripture, in the light of Scripture, I do not do texts outside of Scripture.

 

[Eleanor]

If it is apostolic, then why didn't Irenaeus, who learned eschatology from a disciple of the apostle John write about it?

Are you saying the following eschatological teaching is not apostolic?

NT apostolic eschatological teaching specifically
1) locates the rapture with the second coming of Jesus in final judgment (Paul in 2 Th 1:6-10, 2:1-8), and
2) states there will be no appearance (Ac 3:21, Heb 9:28) nor revealing (1 Pe 1:5, 13) of Jesus until that coming in final judgment (Lk 17:29-37,
2 Th 2:1, 3, 8).

Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (Jn 6:39).
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Th 4:16).
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Mt 24:39-41).
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats (Mt 25:31-33).

It seems we don't really have a basis for Biblical discussion. . .

 

[Arial]

@TMSO

If you have any interest is learning of the amillennial view that is predominate in Reformed theology, and the ways in which they arrive at those views, I will give you some resources. Reformed theology is covenant theology, as opposed to dispensationalism, so it is good to also understand Bible interpretation from this framework first. A good starting point is Far As the Curse is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption by Michael D. Williams. It is easily read, understood, and referenced. The Progress of Redemption by William VanGomerin.

A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding End Times by Kim Riddlebarger. These books will also provide a wealth of other resources.

IMO it is always good to know all sides of the story so our beliefs are based on information gathered, rather blindly believing one thing or another. Whether or not you end up changing what you believe, is not the issue. At the very least, you will at least be able to see that there is legitimacy to the method and the conclusions. That in and of itself, does determine the right or wrongness of anything. But at least it can cut down on angst, and arguing against something that one knows nothing about.

The Riddlebarger book is particularly good at addressing the difficulties of interpreting OT prophecy, and how to recognize why they are difficult. I freely admit, they are difficult, and appear to be saying one thing that pertains to national Israel, and are at the same time, saying something that also references the future and the work of the redeemer for the whole world. And it is in the NT, when we see something from the Prophets that contains both these things, quoted and applied to the New Covenant, that it is interpreted for us. That is Scripture interpreting Scripture.