Wednesday, October 8, 2014

The Abomination of Desolation and it's relation to The Rapture

In the past I've said pretty definitively the AoD must happen before The Rapture.  As I've gotten deeper into the details of Prophetic Chronology I've rethought that.  But it is certainly still highly possible it happens first.

I absolutely still agree that 2 Thessalonians 2 refutes the Pre-Trib notion that The Church will never encounter The Antichrist.  And with it their entire Imminence Doctrine.  So I still stand by the gist of the very first post I ever made on this Blog.

2 Thessalonians 2 says the Man of Sin must be revealed first.  That he then describes his deifying himself in The Temple leads to the conclusion that his doing that is what reveals him.  I'm not so sure anymore, but I definitely still believe he's not fully revealed during most of the first half of the 70th Week.

The thing is that Paul goes on to elaborate on what he means.  Talking about lying signs and wonders, and a strong delusion.  And the removal of the Restrainer.  I still hold to the view of The Restrainer that I argued for in that first post.  That it's removal is in Revelation 9.  And that the AoD incident hasn't happened yet when that chapter ends, because it refers to normal non life-like idolatry.

An argument can be made that the Mortal Wound being healed is what reveals him.  To believers that incident should be clearly distinguishable from the true Resurrection of The Saved.

Ascending out of the Abyss I view as another idiom of his resurrection.  So either it happens before he kills The Two Witnesses, or they're killed by the other Beast.  But I prefer outside chapter 13 viewing all references to The Beast as the first.

Revelation 13 after talking about the Mortal Wound being healed, and allowed to continue 42 months.  Says something in verse 6 I feel is usually overlooked, as the actual direct reference to the AoD event in Revelation itself.
"And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven."
In fact this is also overlooked as an argument against both Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath in general.  Problem is Pre-Tribbers act like anything that disproves Post-Trib proves their view.  And visa-versa.

Matthew 24 is constantly debated.  In my view Revleaiotn is the key to deciphering the End Times Chronology, and other Prophecies, (including the Olivte Discourses), are not necessarily to be taken quite at face value.  At least not when they seem to be spanning many subjects in a short period of time.  Joel 2 also talks about the last two Trumpets and then goes on to the 6th Seal/Pentecost.

Now a face value reading of Matthew 24 can fit a Mid-Trib or Mid-Seventieth Week view, and I've aruged for that before.  With everything placed between the AoD and The Parusia being placed during the three and a half days The Two Witnesses are dead.  But recent insights of mine have lead to consider that Matthew 24 isn't so simple.  But what I argued for before could still be true.

Pre-Wrathers love to argue that they're the only ones taking Matthew 24 at face value.  But they don't in terms of their placing the persecution described in verses 9-14 after the AoD described in verse 15.  I know their argument is that it describes the persecution and then backtracks to describe how it started.  And that's perfectly grammatically justifiable even though it's not my view on that issue.  (To me that view is refuted by verses 9-14 clearly being about The Church and 15-20 clearly Israel correlating to Revelation 12:6, 14.)

But they won't accept that the same logic can apply to other apparent synchronizations.  A core wrong Assumption is the Parusia must be last because everything else is signs of that.  But The Rapture is only the beginning of the Parusia which spans the entire Day of The LORD.

In the Parable of The Fig Tree, when Jesus says "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.".  The preterist view of that is wrong, but so is the popular sensationalist view that it refers to 1948.  It's the Generation that sees all those signs that won't pass before the Parusia is completed.  Even what's in verses 27-31 are merely signs of what's to come.  So the order of the signs are flexible.

Besides, more talk of "False Christs and False Prophets" comes after the AoD in the Discourse.  Once the AoD happens there are no more plural "False Christs and False Prophets".

I've argued that the events of The Rapture/Parusia span 10 days, from Yom Teruah to Yom Kippur.  There are reasons I allude to elsewhere why I think perhaps he'll do the AoD on Tabernacles.  But that's all conjectural for now, the True Fulfillment of Tabernacles is the descent of New Jerusalem in my view.

It's also possible that the day the Image of The Beast is set up is not the same day The Man of Sin gives his big speech in the Holy of Holies deifying himself.  Looking at the type foreshadowing in Antiochus Epiphanes.  1 Macabees tells us he set up his Idol on the 15th day of that Month.  But did the big ritual consecrating it (possibly when he sacrificed the Pig) on the 25th, 10 days latter.

Rabbinic Tradition says the Golden Calf was set up on the 6th or 7th of Tishrei.  May not be significant but worth pointing out.

No comments:

Post a Comment