The False Doctrine of a 7-year Tribulation

[TMSO]

@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.

I am more then happy to be open with you with my, um, different stance. I am not covenant, nor am I dispensational. I don't ascribe to either, though I lean dispensational premillennial. I don't have a set belief on a pretrib rapture, because, having read more of what the early church fathers believed in the pre-nicene days, mid trib has gained traction in my mind. The early church fathers spoke of a 3 1/2 year period and not the whole seven years, placing the abomination of desolation at 3 1/2 years before the end.

I'm going to try to keep this short, or at least easily understood. (I'm trying.)

24 “Seventy [u]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to [v]finish the wrongdoing, to [w]make an end of sin, to make atonement for guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and [x]prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

26 Then after the sixty-two weeks, the [ab]Messiah will be cut off and have [ac]nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And [ad]its end will come with a flood; even to the end [ae]there will be war; desolations are determined.

In the start of the prophecy God states to Daniel that these Seventy weeks are only for the Jews and Jerusalem. He also declares how things will stand when the 70 weeks end. Consider the 70 weeks not being a single block of time, as it already begins as being divided as 7 years and 62 years, with the 70th week not even being named, but somehow attached at the back end.

First, from the first statement I will keep it short with just a few questions that go together. The first one is the most important to me. The others are as well, but consider the first question carefully.
1. To finish the wrongoing [of your people and your holy city]? Other versions say to bring an end to the transgression. So what is this wrongdoing, this transgression that will be brought to an end? My only guess is, Israel's rebellion against God with the rejection of the Messiah tacked on.
2. The 70 weeks make an end of sin [for the Jews and Jerusalem]. Has sin ended for the Jews and Jerusalem?
3. 70 weeks to make atonement for guilt and to bring in everlasting righteousness. Do we see that with the Jews and Jerusalem, or are they still in a state of rebellion and rejection?
I don't want to make this too long so, I'll stop there with questions.

In verse 26 we see mention that the 69 weeks have ended, and after the end is when the Messiah is cut off. It doesn't say anything about the beginning of the 70th week, or during the 70th week, just "after the 62 weeks." That is not the only even that occurs "after the 62 weeks" with no mention of the 70th week, but the people of the prince to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. This is all before the 70th week is ever mentioned. That, if we use 33 AD as the year Jesus died, and 70 AD for when they city and the sanctuary are destroyed, is 5 weeks. If the weeks are continuous, then those 5 weeks need to be added to the prophecy, right? Or... was the prophetic time put on pause because Israel rejected the Messiah, hence at the end, just after the end of the 62nd week, the Messiah is cut off.

I consider this a delay of prophecy as the focus shifted from the lost sheep of the house of Israel, to "another flock" which is not His. (The Gentiles). Paul referred to it as the time of the Gentiles. That delay of game, I mean prophecy, ends after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Then the timer begins anew with the final week to achieve the endstate given by God in the first statement. I believe that this end state is actually very well represented by the prophecy found at the end of Zechariah 12. Also, another milestone marking the start of the 70th week would be either a rebuilt temple, or the start of rebuilding the temple. As seen after the 62nd week (and 7, don't lose the 7), Jerusalem and the sanctuary were destroyed. There was no sacrificial system in place for that which is stated for the 70th week to occur.

Last statement: Consider this. The temple is rebuilt and at the pinnacle of their rebellion against God and rejection of the Messiah, they restart the sacrificial system. God, in response, takes it away from them through the Antichrist, and at the end of the 70th week, the remnant of God in Israel that remains will finally declare, from the heart, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. The rebellion and rejection are finished. The lost sheep of the house of Israel finally returned to the fold, with the gathered Gentiles, and those individual Jews who believed, waiting for them.

 

[TMSO]

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.

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.

My issue with the last part is that the interpretation of the Old Testament never changes. It is one book. One does not change what is in the Old Testament because of the New. There was no change. It is one continuous book. One is not revelating shadows, but removing them. The New does not interpret the Old. Once the new was revealed and written, if you read the Bible again, Old Testament and then the New, the New Testament should make complete sense without having to go back and change any understanding of the Old Testament. The "plot holes" are filled in by the New Testament. We now have the "complete" story.

I am not sure what to believe of the seven years. Basically tradition says the seven years are tribulation. That may be true, and was/is what I believe, but on further study, I agree with the church father's that the great tribulation Jesus spoke of is the last 3 1/2 years. The lead up will be increasing persecution of the church, which is basically just tribulation. The point is, if one doesn't have a proper view of, for instance, the 70 weeks, then where does the seven years come from in the first place? The first step needs to be establishing/coming up with seven years. It's like arguing evolution. They don't even have an explanation for where the life came from that evolved, so they don't have any foundation for their argument to begin with.

 

[TMSO]

Or ....... it is.

We meet in the air, and thus [in the air] we are with Him. His second coming is specifically stated to be to Earth, not the air.

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?

Ah, yes. I guess there are air pockets under ground. I guess I could better define it as "in the air". What do you think of when someone says, "well, now the answer is up 'in the air'" Are you looking down, or up? Are you thinking in the clouds, or above the clouds?

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.

I thought it indicated that his "kingdom" or more like sovereignty, is the whole global world, since the air surrounds the whole planet. Some say that the reason why the world falls apart so quickly all at once, is Satan's response to God's actions within Satan's area of influence. Say, an event like the rapture. How dare God take those people out of Satan's territory? How dare God invade? So very quickly a war takes place between Satan and heaven. Consider that Satan had no idea what he faces for rebelling against God, and now he knows, and he knows that his end is approaching.

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.

I wouldn't go that far. Consider the parable of the bridesmaids. It's how I see the rapture. Those who are believers, and those who are not believers, but hang around them and have knowledge. They know they are waiting for something, but don't take it seriously. The one's who are truly awaiting His return bring extra oil, for they are not sure of how late He may come, while those who are not serious, don't bring extra oil. When Jesus comes, He takes with Him those wise believing bridesmaids, and the others are left behind. When they get to the door and ask to be let in, they aren't told sure and asked why they are late. They are shut out forever. So those who have knowledge of God and miss the rapture... are doomed.

 

[TMSO]

I go with the text first.

Um... I guess that is how you can get the BIble to say whatever you want it to say, and not what it actually says.

And?

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).

The first resurrection is with the rapture. The second resurrection is at the end prior to judgement. Jesus never mentioned leaving to His disciples, so He did not speak of a second coming. Also, it was the angels that gathered the elect, because Jesus didn't come to Earth. So technically, it may not be the second coming He speaks of.

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)

No. That is not it. I am not saying I am right, I am saying your take is wrong. There are plenty of other takes that say I am wrong.

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.

Um... no they don't. (I know... I was one of those "them")

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

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.

Texts outside of scripture are fine. Just if you are weightlifting with books, you will raise the Bible up higher even though it weighs more. If you put some books underneath the Bible, you will raise it even higher... They cast light on what the Bible says, but also come with warnings about discernment.

 

[TMSO]

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. . .

No. I am saying your belief of eschatology, your interpretation is not apostolic. And you saying so is a logical fallacy. My belief of eschatology (millennialism) has support in the very early church. My interpretation of eschatology is my interpretation of eschatology, which I believe is in keeping with that tradition, though it differs in places. I don't see contradction though in it, but clarification and lessons learned over time. The world was/is supposed to end with Jesus second coming, and the Kingdom to being. The end of the Kingdom is the consummation of the age of this creation, where the heavens and Earth are destroyed and the New heavens and New Earth are revealed.

So yes, I believe taht your interpretation of eschatological teaching is not apostolic. I don't present my feelings/beliefs as absolute, except where I am premillennial, and believe the Kingdom will be on Earth in Jerusalem. (something even the apostles believed, hence they asked Jesus before He ascended, "Will you now return the Kingdom to Israel"?)

 

[Arial]

I am more then happy to be open with you with my, um, different stance. I am not covenant, nor am I dispensational. I don't ascribe to either, though I lean dispensational premillennial. I don't have a set belief on a pretrib rapture, because, having read more of what the early church fathers believed in the pre-nicene days, mid trib has gained traction in my mind. The early church fathers spoke of a 3 1/2 year period and not the whole seven years, placing the abomination of desolation at 3 1/2 years before the end.

I'm going to try to keep this short, or at least easily understood. (I'm trying.)

24 “Seventy [u]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to [v]finish the wrongdoing, to [w]make an end of sin, to make atonement for guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and [x]prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

26 Then after the sixty-two weeks, the [ab]Messiah will be cut off and have [ac]nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And [ad]its end will come with a flood; even to the end [ae]there will be war; desolations are determined.

In the start of the prophecy God states to Daniel that these Seventy weeks are only for the Jews and Jerusalem. He also declares how things will stand when the 70 weeks end. Consider the 70 weeks not being a single block of time, as it already begins as being divided as 7 years and 62 years, with the 70th week not even being named, but somehow attached at the back end.

First, from the first statement I will keep it short with just a few questions that go together. The first one is the most important to me. The others are as well, but consider the first question carefully.
1. To finish the wrongoing [of your people and your holy city]? Other versions say to bring an end to the transgression. So what is this wrongdoing, this transgression that will be brought to an end? My only guess is, Israel's rebellion against God with the rejection of the Messiah tacked on.
2. The 70 weeks make an end of sin [for the Jews and Jerusalem]. Has sin ended for the Jews and Jerusalem?
3. 70 weeks to make atonement for guilt and to bring in everlasting righteousness. Do we see that with the Jews and Jerusalem, or are they still in a state of rebellion and rejection?
I don't want to make this too long so, I'll stop there with questions.

In verse 26 we see mention that the 69 weeks have ended, and after the end is when the Messiah is cut off. It doesn't say anything about the beginning of the 70th week, or during the 70th week, just "after the 62 weeks." That is not the only even that occurs "after the 62 weeks" with no mention of the 70th week, but the people of the prince to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. This is all before the 70th week is ever mentioned. That, if we use 33 AD as the year Jesus died, and 70 AD for when they city and the sanctuary are destroyed, is 5 weeks. If the weeks are continuous, then those 5 weeks need to be added to the prophecy, right? Or... was the prophetic time put on pause because Israel rejected the Messiah, hence at the end, just after the end of the 62nd week, the Messiah is cut off.

I consider this a delay of prophecy as the focus shifted from the lost sheep of the house of Israel, to "another flock" which is not His. (The Gentiles). Paul referred to it as the time of the Gentiles. That delay of game, I mean prophecy, ends after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Then the timer begins anew with the final week to achieve the endstate given by God in the first statement. I believe that this end state is actually very well represented by the prophecy found at the end of Zechariah 12. Also, another milestone marking the start of the 70th week would be either a rebuilt temple, or the start of rebuilding the temple. As seen after the 62nd week (and 7, don't lose the 7), Jerusalem and the sanctuary were destroyed. There was no sacrificial system in place for that which is stated for the 70th week to occur.

Last statement: Consider this. The temple is rebuilt and at the pinnacle of their rebellion against God and rejection of the Messiah, they restart the sacrificial system. God, in response, takes it away from them through the Antichrist, and at the end of the 70th week, the remnant of God in Israel that remains will finally declare, from the heart, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. The rebellion and rejection are finished. The lost sheep of the house of Israel finally returned to the fold, with the gathered Gentiles, and those individual Jews who believed, waiting for them.

Thanks for that. I read it through, but I need to take the time to really study it---which I don't have at the moment---and will get back to you with discussion, answers to your questions, (if I have them )and questions of my own---also if they come up.

 

[Eleanor]

Um... I guess that is how you can get the BIble to say whatever you want it to say, and not what it actually says.

Fails to demonstrate the error of the very plain apostolic eschatological teaching authoritative to the church stated in the following, which 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 Peter 1:5, 13) of Jesus until that coming in final judgment
(Luke 17:29-37, 2 Th 2:1, 3, 8).

Jesus presents only one resurrection, locating it in the last day (John 6:39).
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (Th 4:17).
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Matthew 24:39-41).
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25:31-33).

 

[Eleanor]

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. . .

No. I am saying your belief of eschatology, your interpretation is not apostolic.

Please Biblically demonstrate how the above apostolic eschatological teaching authoritative to the church is in error.

 

[Arial]

My issue with the last part is that the interpretation of the Old Testament never changes. It is one book. One does not change what is in the Old Testament because of the New. There was no change. It is one continuous book.

I never said it changed anything. That is not what revealing means. The real issue you have is that you don't interpret the OT in light of the whole, even though you say and think that you do. For example, you see prophecy only in light of the perspective historic Israel had, the only one they could have, instead of in the light of the Redeemer and what He is redeeming, and what we see Him as having redeemed now, and its promised consummation at His return.

It isn't just Israel He is redeeming, and isn't even just people. It is the whole world, which was affected by our treason. His redemption is about undoing what was done in Adam. Christ in His work is dealing with the issue of sin. His mission is to destroy it and all its effects. God did not do that in Israel or with the Mosaic covenant, nor did He intend to. In that covenant He began to reveal Himself through historic events, and to teach righteousness, but it did not make anyone righteous. But all the way through those historic events the promise of this Redeemer is prophesied. And in those prophecies are things that refer to historic Israel and at the same time with the larger view to the coming of the Redeemer, not for Israel alone, but for the whole world---all nations. The true redemption when sin is dealt with, has no power of condemnation over the believer now, because His death and resurrection defeated that power for them. And the promise sins complete destruction when it will no longer exist.

The Jews misunderstood the messianic prophecies in the same way that you do, and that dispensationalist do. What the NT does, and what I mean by revealing and its interpretive place in Scripture of the OT, is to clarify the distinctions within messianic prophecy. What could not be clear to them (and to us) it stands up and announces, "This is what that means." And the this is, the Redeemer has come, and this is what He has done, and this is how He did it. The this is, Jesus is the fulfillment of those prophecies, and the promises. He is Prophet, Priest, and King. The son of David, sitting on David's throne forever. He is the victorious King who in His death and resurrection put to death the power of sin to condemn those who are His.

At the same time the NT is forward looking to the time of the consummation when Christ returns with judgement.

 

[Arial]

I am more then happy to be open with you with my, um, different stance. I am not covenant, nor am I dispensational. I don't ascribe to either, though I lean dispensational premillennial. I don't have a set belief on a pretrib rapture, because, having read more of what the early church fathers believed in the pre-nicene days, mid trib has gained traction in my mind. The early church fathers spoke of a 3 1/2 year period and not the whole seven years, placing the abomination of desolation at 3 1/2 years before the end.

I really don't want to go through the amillennial interpretation of Dan 9. It is too long and involved to put in a forum post---at least for me. The book I mentioned by Riddlebarger does a good job and it is a whole chapter long. I will leave that for you to investigate if you so desire. Most are content with what they already believe.

Suffice it to say, that the entire dispensationalist interpretation of Rev stands or falls on their interpretation of the seventy weeks. And it falls. They have at one point Christ confused with the antichrist, and insert a gap into the scriptures where there is none. They create a seven year tribulation period when that is inconsistent with the whole of scripture and even redemption. They then focus on interpreting the symbols, not according the the scriptural use of those symbols in the OT, which the Jews would be familiar with, but according to modern times. While at the same time claiming to interpret the book literally.

In their interpretation of the Daniel passages, they do not take into consideration that it is an answer to a prayer that Daniel had been praying, what that prayer was, and what it pertained to historically, that Daniel was praying about. And they approach it with the presupposition that the Dan verses pertain to only Israel, and their dispensational view of national Israel. In addition, they ignore any possibility or even thought, that the use of the sevens and multiple of sevens, are a direct reference to anything given in the Law, such as the Sabbath laws, when in fact it is a direct reference to the rest of the land and Jubilee.

Having said all that, which is more than I intended to say: Where does any idea of a pre or mid trib rapture come into the picture?

 

[Tambora]

I thought it indicated that his "kingdom" or more like sovereignty, is the whole global world, since the air surrounds the whole planet.

That's the point. One cannot take what is meant by "air" literally (as in where the birds and planes fly) when speaking of Satan's domain
If "air" for Satan's domain includes the whole world then "air" for Christ's coming can mean the same.

It's not a science issue, it's a theology issue.

Just as the stories Jesus tells of going to a far country and returning. [Matt 21:23, Luke 19:12]
A far country would mean a another country on earth to the modern literal mind, but scripture uses the term as a theology issue.

 

[TMSO]

Thanks for that. I read it through, but I need to take the time to really study it---which I don't have at the moment---and will get back to you with discussion, answers to your questions, (if I have them )and questions of my own---also if they come up.

I'm trying to keep it simple. (I spent way too much time rewriting it...working night shift and not getting enough sleep isn't fun.)

 

[TMSO]

In their interpretation of the Daniel passages, they do not take into consideration that it is an answer to a prayer that Daniel had been praying, what that prayer was, and what it pertained to historically, that Daniel was praying about. And they approach it with the presupposition that the Dan verses pertain to only Israel, and their dispensational view of national Israel. In addition, they ignore any possibility or even thought, that the use of the sevens and multiple of sevens, are a direct reference to anything given in the Law, such as the Sabbath laws, when in fact it is a direct reference to the rest of the land and Jubilee.

(Note:a lot of this is scripture references, so not a lot from me.)
What was Daniel's prayer?
"20 While I was still speaking and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and [o]presenting my plea before the Lord my God in behalf of the holy mountain of my God, 21 while I was still speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision [p]previously, [q]came to me [r]in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering. 22 And he instructed me and talked with me and said, “Daniel, I have come now to give you insight with understanding. 23 At the beginning of your pleas the [s]command was issued, and I have come to tell you, because you are [t]highly esteemed; so pay attention to the message and gain understanding of the vision."

"24 “Seventy [u]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to [v]finish the wrongdoing, to [w]make an end of sin, to make atonement for guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and [x]prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place."

It is pretty clear who the seventy weeks are for, and what they are for. It is also kind of clear what Daniel was praying about. The result of the 70 weeks is the answer to Daniel's prayer. So the people of Israel will remain in rebellion, sin, full of guilt and unrighteousness, until the end of the decreed 70 weeks. However, he basically told Daniel, I have heard your pleas, and have an answer, though it will take time.

Having said all that, which is more than I intended to say: Where does any idea of a pre or mid trib rapture come into the picture?

The 70th week has not happened yet, because the city and the temple were destroyed before the 70th week began. After the 69th week. And that "after the 69th week" covered at least 37 years. From the Messiah being cut off to the city and sanctuary being destroyed in 70 AD. And then it talks of more things happening. Then we are presented with a he, who makes peace. What was some of the other things after the 69th week? "And [ad]its end will come with a flood; even to the end [ae]there will be war; desolations are determined." And then we have someone firming/strengthening a covenant, and then violating that covenant at the mid point, until he is destroyed. It is Christ who strengthens the covenant, but the Antichrist. However, it is before he actually takes the stage as Antichrist. 3 1/2 years into the 70th week, he will be unveiled as the Antichrist when he stands in the temple and declares himself to be god. Then the time of Jacobs trouble begins, that Great Tribulation Jesus said will not be matched in history, or after, and the true tribulation of Israel will begin. (Again, the time of Jacob's trouble.) When it is over, Jesus will personally come to Israel and God will bring an end to the transgression, the sin, make atonement for guilt, and bring in everlasting righteousness.

Zechriah 12
"10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem [h]the Spirit of grace and of pleading, so that they will look at Me whom they pierced; and they will mourn for Him, like one mourning for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. 11 On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be great, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the [i]plain of [j]Megiddo. 12 The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves; 14 all the families that are left, every family by itself, and their wives by themselves."

All the families that are left. The remnant. The elect that remains at the end will be the only one's that are left.

Zechariah 13
“On that day a fountain will be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for defilement.

2 “And it will come about on that day,” declares the Lord of armies, “that I will eliminate the names of the idols from the land, and they will no longer be remembered; and I will also remove the prophets and the unclean spirit from the land. 3 And if anyone still prophesies, then his father and mother who gave birth to him will say to him, ‘You shall not live, because you have spoken falsely in the name of the Lord’; and his father and mother who gave birth to him shall pierce him through when he prophesies. 4 Also it will come about on that day that the prophets will each be ashamed of his vision when he prophesies, and they will not put on a hairy robe in order to deceive; 5 but he will say, ‘I am not a prophet; I am a cultivator of the ground, because a man [a]sold me as a slave in my youth.’ 6 And someone will say to him, ‘What are these wounds between your [b]arms?’ Then he will say, ‘Those with which I was wounded at the house of [c]my friends.’"

(Consider the above in light of the end result of the 70 weeks...)

 

[TMSO]

That's the point. One cannot take what is meant by "air" literally (as in where the birds and planes fly) when speaking of Satan's domain
If "air" for Satan's domain includes the whole world then "air" for Christ's coming can mean the same.

It's not a science issue, it's a theology issue.

Just as the stories Jesus tells of going to a far country and returning. [Matt 21:23, Luke 19:12]
A far country would mean a another country on earth to the modern literal mind, but scripture uses the term as a theology issue.

If you read Acts and Jesus ascension, you can take it literally. It is obvious that meeting Jesus in the air is not speaking of the world as a globe. The idea for Satan is that all of creation is corrupt. There is nothing left unscathed in creation. It is all under Satan's dominion, which is permitted by God, not held over by God. Satan doesn't actually have any power that God did not allow for a time.

 

[TMSO]

I never said it changed anything. That is not what revealing means. The real issue you have is that you don't interpret the OT in light of the whole, even though you say and think that you do. For example, you see prophecy only in light of the perspective historic Israel had, the only one they could have, instead of in the light of the Redeemer and what He is redeeming, and what we see Him as having redeemed now, and its promised consummation at His return.

The Old Testament is part of the whole, why would I interpret it in light of itself? I think the issue here is that you don't see that the Old Testament is a part, and the New Testament is a part, and together it makes a whole. Even Jesus separated the Jews and the Gentiles. He had the perfect opportunity to rush in with the Cushite woman, but instead said that He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He made this clear by making it a point to avoid her. (A show, sure, but it was to make this point.) It foreshadows what Paul spoke about that while Israel rejected the Messiah in disobedience, the Gentiles accepted with obedience.

It isn't just Israel He is redeeming, and isn't even just people. It is the whole world, which was affected by our treason.

Again, the 70 weeks is about Israel's rebellion/treason. It is tailored specifically for Israel. This is why it isn't 70 continuous weeks. The redemption of the Gentiles had to fit in somewhere. Again, Paul explains this all in Romans 11. By Israel's disobedience in rejection of the Messiah, the Gentiles received the gospel which they accepted in obedience. This so that Israel might become jealous, and in the end, also become obedient and accept the Messiah. The end of the passage is that God has locked up all in disobedience so He might have mercy on all. In the end, all the elect are saved, and Jews and Gentiles become one in Christ entering the Kingdom.

His redemption is about undoing what was done in Adam. Christ in His work is dealing with the issue of sin. His mission is to destroy it and all its effects. God did not do that in Israel or with the Mosaic covenant, nor did He intend to. In that covenant He began to reveal Himself through historic events, and to teach righteousness, but it did not make anyone righteous. But all the way through those historic events the promise of this Redeemer is prophesied. And in those prophecies are things that refer to historic Israel and at the same time with the larger view to the coming of the Redeemer, not for Israel alone, but for the whole world---all nations. The true redemption when sin is dealt with, has no power of condemnation over the believer now, because His death and resurrection defeated that power for them. And the promise sins complete destruction when it will no longer exist.

The Jews misunderstood the messianic prophecies in the same way that you do, and that dispensationalist do. What the NT does, and what I mean by revealing and its interpretive place in Scripture of the OT, is to clarify the distinctions within messianic prophecy. What could not be clear to them (and to us) it stands up and announces, "This is what that means." And the this is, the Redeemer has come, and this is what He has done, and this is how He did it. The this is, Jesus is the fulfillment of those prophecies, and the promises. He is Prophet, Priest, and King. The son of David, sitting on David's throne forever. He is the victorious King who in His death and resurrection put to death the power of sin to condemn those who are His.

What the Jews did not understand was who the Messiah was, and what was to happen. They believed the Messiah would be the conquering hero who would bring in the Kingdom. From the Old Testament, what did they get? The suffering servant, whom they rejected. From the New Testament, what will they get? A conquering hero who brings in the Kingdom.

Revelation 19
"11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many crowns; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. 15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will [e]rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the [f]wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written: “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

17 Then I saw [g]an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in midheaven, “Come, assemble for the great feast of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, both free and slaves, and small and great.”

19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse, and against His army.

Doom of the Beast and False Prophet​

20 And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs [h]in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire, which burns with [i]brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh."

What comes next? Satan bound, and the Kingdom that the disciples had asked Him about on two different occassions. The Jews weren't completely wrong, but they so spiritualized prophecy (hmm... where have I heard that before) that they missed Jesus first coming.

 

[TMSO]

Please Biblically demonstrate how the above apostolic eschatological teaching authoritative to the church is in error.

The first resurrection is before the millennial kingdom, and the second resurrection is before the final judgement at the consummation, the complete end of the age, before the heavens, the earth, and all the elements of creation are burnt up. The rapture in Thessalonians isn't a resurrection, because they are not being raised back to life, but going to heaven. The first resurrection is this:
"4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of [b]their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection."

The rest of the dead coming to life is the second resurrection, which is after the thousand years are completed.

 

[TMSO]

Fails to demonstrate the error of the very plain apostolic eschatological teaching authoritative to the church stated in the following, which specifically

You mean it fails to line up with your interpretation.

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 Peter 1:5, 13) of Jesus until that coming in final judgment
(Luke 17:29-37, 2 Th 2:1, 3, 8).

Jesus presents only one resurrection, locating it in the last day (John 6:39).
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (Th 4:17).
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Matthew 24:39-41).
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25:31-33).

What you say above contradicts other passages in the New Testament, so again, it is your own interpretation.

 

[Arial]

The Old Testament is part of the whole, why would I interpret it in light of itself?

Why is because it reads that way. It is a historic account of God acting in creation. And you do do that, even though you do so, knowing that it is a part of the whole. You still have national Israel as a focal point, in that, in essence, in your interpretation you have two redemptive eschatologies. One for national Israel and one for the church. That interpretation read into Rev creates a literal thousand years and a visible kingdom of Go, and then a future kingdom.

So, I will ask you this:

Why did God establish Israel and give them the law? How does that relate to the kingdom of God eschatologically coming to the world?

I think the issue here is that you don't see that the Old Testament is a part, and the New Testament is a part, and together it makes a whole.

That depends on what you are considering a"part of." I view the entire Bible as a unity, and the eschatological unity begins, as I have said, in Gen 3 with the curse on the serpent and the PROMISE that the seed of the woman would crush his head, even though he would bruise His heel. It is one continuous flow forward to the fulfillment of this promise from that point on. Everything is connected, and nothing is ever isolated from that promise. What we see in the OT as to this promise of the Seed who would crush the serpent's head, is fulfilled in the NT. For the world, not national Israel. It is fulfilled when the one promised arrives, in a manger, in Bethlehem. "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!" What does this Seed do, but what not even the natural seed of Abraham, (national Israel) could not do? He deals with and conquers the very root problem. Sin.

Even Jesus separated the Jews and the Gentiles. He had the perfect opportunity to rush in with the Cushite woman, but instead said that He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He made this clear by making it a point to avoid her. (A show, sure, but it was to make this point.) It foreshadows what Paul spoke about that while Israel rejected the Messiah in disobedience, the Gentiles accepted with obedience.

Well, why is this? Was it to make/keep a separation? Or was it serving a different and eschatological purpose? What was Israel's purpose in God rescuing them from slavery in Egypt and giving them the land of Canaan?

Also what the majority to be sure, but not all rejected was Jesus being the promised Messiah. The Redeemer to come. Because they too, thought this redemption would be about a political entity. And neither did all the Gentiles believe, but only a remnant.

 

[Arial]

What the Jews did not understand was who the Messiah was, and what was to happen. They believed the Messiah would be the conquering hero who would bring in the Kingdom. From the Old Testament, what did they get? The suffering servant, whom they rejected. From the New Testament, what will they get? A conquering hero who brings in the Kingdom.

However the kingdom is not Israel for a thousand years. That is where the disconnect in a dispensationalist view exists. It stops the forward flow of redemption, as though redemption takes a time out to step backwards. A pause to meditate on everything so to speak.

What comes next? Satan bound, and the Kingdom that the disciples had asked Him about on two different occassions. The Jews weren't completely wrong, but they so spiritualized prophecy (hmm... where have I heard that before) that they missed Jesus first coming.

I will deal with the details in response to your other post. Amillennialism is accused of spiritualizing prophecy in order to interpret Rev.by dispensationalist. But this is not what they do. Prophecy is often given in the OT with signs, that is, with word pictures that signify (represent) something else. WHen this is being done, it is obvious in the scriptures that that is being done. In which case, to interpret them, one must find other parts of scripture that use the same images, what they often represent when they are used. This is not spiritualizing but using proper interpretive hermeneutics.

The dispensationalists actually do the spiritualizing when they begin to say hail stones could be satialites, grasshoppers could be black helicopters, the mark could be an implant. But instead of correct interpretive hermeneutics, they use their imaginations and the world, rather than the word of God. And still claim that they interpret Rev literally, when in fact they interpret it literalistically.

 

[Eleanor]

You mean it fails to line up with your interpretation.

What you say above contradicts other passages in the New Testament, so again, it is your own interpretation.

That's a fail. . .

You have presented no Biblical demonstration of your assertion, only your own interpretation.

I have given BIblical didactical demonstration which you have not didactically shown to be Biblically incorrect.

(Prophecy is not didactics.)