The Sequence of Events associated with The Parousia

The foundational premise of this blog, that the events of Revelation are chronological, they are presented as a clear sequence of events.  Is not based on saying all Prophecies are that way, but that Revelation is uniquely chronological because it's purpose is to REVEAL how everything else ties together.

In some cases the apparent chronology of events in other prophecies fit Revelation's fine.  In some cases where a dual fulfillment may be involved it could be the older prophet's sequence of events fits the near/local fulfillment more then it does the final Eschatological fulfillment.

It's mainly in the late 30s of Ezekiel where it looks like YHWH revealed things to that Prophet practically backwards if one of my theories about them is true.

But it is in particular when a lot of things seem to be happening very quickly over a relatively short period of time that it shouldn't be that difficult to get that the shorter briefer description is perhaps not as strictly chronological.  If someone came to you and said "man you won't believe all the crazy stuff that just went down at the corner" and then rapidly rambled a bunch of things you wouldn't be too surprised to find out the order of events as they first described them were slightly off.

And that is the case with The Parousia.

The word Parousia doesn't appear in Revelation, but the events associated with it when Jesus first defined it for us in Matthew 24:30-31 and later elaborated on by Paul in the Thessalonian Epistles and parts of 1 Corinthians 15, and has a lot of other even briefer references.  Clearly happens in Revelation starting in Chapter 11 Verse 15 and are finished by the end of chapter 14.  It is pretty clear to me that Revelation is far more concerned with the proper order of events.  Still I do believe they will all happen over the course of a few days at most and maybe less then an hour.

However pretty much every Futurist who disagrees with Pre-Trib founds that opposition on some clear timing statements in Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians 2 that place the "Abomination of Desolation" before any of the Parousia events.  But doesn't my chronological interpretation place that in the middle of the Parousia?

Strictly speaking The Abomination of Desolation is not in Revelation Chapter 13.  That chapter is about the deification of "The Beast" broadly speaking, and mentions an "Image" that it doesn't tie to any particular geographical location.  But there is no illusion to anything happening in specifically Jerusalem or any other city.

Paul associated the Man of Sin showing himself to be God in The Temple with his revealing.  I have already argued for the removal of restraint being in Revelation 9, and after that comes the first clear reference to The Beast in chapter 11 when he's described as ascending out of the Abyss and kills the Two Witnesses.  Chapter 13 is just his formal introduction.

"But didn't you just earlier this month make a post arguing the "Great City" of chapter 11 isn't Jerusalem?"

Again that was a post made for arguing rhetorically with Preterists and anyone else who thinks "Great City" must always be referring to the same city every time it's used.  If the name of Babylon doesn't prove anything geographically neither does being tied to the Crucifixion.

However I also no longer necessarily think the AoD has to happen in Jerusalem.  In fact I'm definitely coming to highly doubt a proper Third Temple will be built at all.  There are aspects of the Historicist interpretation of II Thessalonians 2 and Daniel 7 that make sense to me.

However I don't think it's already fulfilled by The Pope or even the Byzantine Emperors I've talked about playing devil's advocate with them.  It will be something unmistakable when it happens, in such a way that even if it happens nothing like how any of us expected we will still not doubt that it just happened when it does.

Maybe it'll happen in Jerusalem, maybe it'll involve a Third Temple, but what's important is it will not be debatable anymore once it happens, that's the key point of why Paul was bringing it up, it obviously hadn't happened yet, and if it obliviously hadn't happened yet then it hasn't happened yet now.

Or maybe the Son of Perdition being "revealed" is really when he kills the Witnesses in Revelation 11:7, given that is the first time Revelation is definitely indisputably referring to that individual.

The Sign of The Son of Man in Heaven

One of the arguments Pre-Tribbers have for separating Matthew 24's Parusia from the Parusia of Paul in I Thessalonians 4, I Corinthians 15 and II Thessalonians 2 is that the Resurrection isn't in Matthew 24.

Now my main response to this in the past had been that none of the Rapture passages include everything that happens at that time.  1 Corinthians 15 is agreed to be a Rapture passage by most Pre-Tribbers and yet it technically doesn't mention the Rapture (us being gathered in the clouds) at all.

However a chief argument of those of us who definitely see them as the same Parusia is that Matthew 24 is the focal point of this doctrine.  Jesus here brings together Hebrew Bible themes that weren't obviously directly connected before, and then Paul and Revelation are building on Jesus when they are referring to these same ideas.

Separately I've been unsure what to think of "The Sign of the Son of Man in Heaven".  Does it correlate to the Ark being seen in the Temple in heaven after the Seventh Trumpet?  Is it the Wonders that open Revelation 12 which I also connect to the Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars of Luke 21?  I'm willing to bet someone in history has tried to apply to it Constantine's claimed Milvian Bridge vision.

Then I decided to see if studying how Jesus spoke of signs elsewhere could be helpful.  And indeed earlier in this same Gospel in chapter 12 Jesus makes clear the ONLY sign that will be given to a wicked and adulteress generation is the Sign of the Prophet Jonah.  For as Jonah was in the Ketos three days and three nights so shall the Son of Man be in the Heart of The Earth three days and three nights.

Now every Christian agrees the Resurrection is implicitly the point here, someone being dead for three days isn't unusual, it's them not being dead anymore that is the Sign.  Jesus' Resurrection was the Sign given to that generation.  But the generation that sees the Parousia will also be a wicked and adulteress generation.

It should also be understood that no Jews see the Son of Man in Daniel 7 as a specifically Messianic Title, they see Him as being Humanity as a whole in our restored state.  In my view this does not contradict the New Testament's usage of it as a title for Jesus, it is in Jesus that Humanity's Redemption from the fall is achieved, it is in Him that The Resurrection began, The Parousia is when it expands to include all of The Church after the Millennium it will expand further to include all of Humanity.

So The Sign of The Son of Man in Heaven is the Bodily Risen Saints ascending into Heaven/The Sky.

The Rapture and the In-Gathering of Israel

Chris White is correct that Matthew 24:29-31 is about the Rapture.  However he is equally WRONG when he says that passage is not about the In-gathering of Israel.

You see his version of "Pre-Wrath" allows you to be not Pre-Trib but still basically fully Dispensationalist.  They still place Gaps in Daniel 11 and 9 for example  And most importantly they have to violently reject any implication that The Church is Israel.

I reject full Dispensationalism because I understand Romans 11 and Galatians 3.  The Church is a part of Israel and Gentile believers are being grafted into Israel "agaisnt nature".

Now you can say I'm still partially Dispensationalist because unlike Post-Tribbers and most non Pre-Millennials I don't think that means biological Israel doesn't matter.  In fact even most Pre-Tribbers think post Pentecost Jews who die without ever believing in Jesus will not benefit from the Eternal fulfillment of God's promises to the Patriarchs and David.  I however understand that after the Fullness of the Gentile is grafted in ALL Israel shall be Saved.

The problem with Chris White's acting like saying Matthew 24:31 is the Gathering of Israel is just as stupid as denying it's the Rapture of 1 Thessalonians 4, is that when Jesus says "from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other", He is basically quoting Deuteronomy 30:4.  And many scholars throughout history have recognized that, rejecting that began with Darby.

Now the thing about Deuteronomy 29 and 30 is it's about events that will happen multiple times, and not always looking exactly the same, it's about the cycle of Israel's disobedience then punishment then redemption.  Nehemiah 1:9 quotes this same verse as fulfilled in his day, and I do think it's in a sense fulfilled by what happened in 1948.  And I think there may be a final fulfillment that doesn't happen till after the Millennium but before New Jerusalem descends.  But Jesus clearly also wants us to understand The Rapture as a fulfillment of this as well.

In Revelation 12-19 during the second half of the Week terrestrial Israel isn't scattered, she is The Woman in a place prepared for her in the wilderness.

White strongly argues that Daniel 12's Resurrection passage is about the Rapture.  Well guess what that entire massive Prophecy of Daniel was entirely about God's Covenant with Israel.

Chris White like Post-Tribbers points out how much of Matthew is clearly Church specific, especially 24 and 25 being a discourse given only to the 12.  And yet Matthew is also the most Jewish Gospel, Pre-Tribbers didn't make that up.  It more then any other focuses on Jesus as the rightful King of Israel and how He fulfilled Old Testament Prophecy.  The other Synoptics expand on how Jesus is the Savior of all not just Israel (a seed already planted in Matthew) and then John is the most Theological.

This is why Matthew's came first, because Paul said The Gospel was for the Jews first and then the Gentiles.  The least Jewish of the Synoptics is the one that doesn't directly refer to the In-Gathering in it's Olivite Discourse.  This is also why only Matthew's Parusia passage mentions the Trumpet, because the significance of that is inherently Jewish coming from the Shofar, the Jubilee and Numbers 10.

Also this a good place to remind people of my belief that Joel 2:15-16 is also a Rapture Passage.

Amillennial and Post Millennialism

If you have trouble telling the difference between these two eschatological models, it's not just cause they seem effectively the same to us Pre-Millenialists, even unbiased scholars are unsure which of these best describes the Eschatology of Augustine of Hippo.

The gist is, Amillenials believe there is no Millennium, while Post-Millenial means you believe the Parusia(Second Coming) happens after the Millennium.  Both however have a tendency to involve believing the Thousand Years of Revelation 20 are not literally that exact period of time.  And both tend to involve not taking the Chronology of Revelation at face value thus putting them in direct conflict with the premise of this Blog. 

My belief that the Resurrection is a literal physical bodily resurrection of the Flesh is core to my understanding of The Gospel itself.  And that is why I have long been opposed to any model saying the first 6 verses of Revelation 20 are already fulfilled.

But, I have recently become aware that some people feel you can believe in both.

Some believe the General Resurrection at the White Throne Judgment at the end of Revelation 20 is bodily, but Revelation 20:4 can be read as defining itself as of Souls not Bodies sitting on those thrones.  And I have been giving this view a very open-minded assessment.

That argument involves citing passages where Paul says we die in Christ and then are Risen in Christ when we become Believers, symbolically pictured in Baptism.  So believers have a spiritual Resurrection before we even die.  Which is why Revelation 20:4 isn't really describing the Resurrection event itself.  Basically Unbeleivers Spirits/Souls aren't resurrected before their bodies but Believers are.

This overlaps with a view on the Second Death that exists among Evangelical Universalists.  In the past I've taken the tactic of saying the Second Death is the death of death, but I've come to realize that only really fits one of the three verses to use the term.  I've now seen it argued by supporters of Universal Reconciliation that the Second Death is when unbelievers become Dead to Sin, which for Believers happened during our mortal life so that's why the Second Death has no power over us.

The first issue is that I'm only open to an argument for Post-Millenialism that doesn't play games with the chronology of Revelation.  You're not going to convince me that Apollyon and Satan are the same entity.  The Book Revelation defined itself as a clear chronology.

Secondly even if I could accept that interpretation of Revelation 20:4.  Revelation 11 is still clearly depicting the Resurrection of the Two Witnesses as bodily, you're not going to convince me that is merely symbolic.  The various Preterist views on the Two Witnesses account for their Deaths but not their Resurrection.

And then there is the mater of the Rapture of The Man-Child which I've shown isn't Jesus but The Church, and the 144,000 being described as already Redeemed from the Earth and as Firstfruits in Revelation 14.  And the Armies following the Rider on the White Horse in Revelation 19.

And the fact remains that it isn't the White Throne Judgment but various events between the 7th Trumpet and first Bowl that resemble how The Olivte Discourse and the Thessalonian Epistles describe The Paursia.

Revelation 20:4 also defines itself as being specifically those Martyred for not taking The Mark.  So it could be they are not Physically Resurrected yet because they were Post-Rapture Believers.

On the subject of rejecting The Millennium altogether.  I've read some anti Premilennial articles expressing how the face value chronology of Revelation 20 conflicts in their view with the plain reading of other passages on the Resurrection and the Parusia like 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Peter 3.

The whole Premise of my Blog is how Revelation right from the first Chapter defines itself as explaining what was unclear before.  The very first verse says that what even The Son didn't know before is being Revealed to us now, from Matthew 24 we know the timing of events is specifically what that was.  So whenever there is an apparent conflict between other passages and Revelation on Chronology, Revelation is the one to be taken at face value.

What's interesting is that Pre-Augustine those uncomfortable with the very idea of the Millennium simply rejected Revelation altogether, wanting to say Revelation was really the work of Cerethius or John the Presbyter.  Pre-Nicea that was mostly a fringe minority, as the Muratorian canon shows Revelation's canonocity was not in question.  And from Tertulian to Ireaneus to Hippolytus to Methodius of Olympus, everyone to speak on Eschatology in the Pre-Nicene Church was clearly Pre-Millennial.  They had other areas of disagreement, but they were all Pre-Millennial.

But post Nicea this Anti-Revelation camp got a prominent supporter in Eusebius of Caesarea.  In his discussions of what books to consider Canon what he says on Revelation is schizophrenic because of how his personal bias infests it.  He acknowledges it as being universally accepted as Canon by all Churches, not even disputed the way Jude, 2 Peter or Hebrews were.  But he also talks about it under spurious books because that's how he viewed it for no good reason.

It was Augustine of Hippo who introduced the idea that you can simply allegorize The Millennium away, along with a lot of other bad doctrines.

Before him everyone who considered Revelation Scripture, (which was the vast majority of Christians, especially who weren't part of some alternative Gnostic or Ebonite cult) believed in a Millennium.  They of course were wrong when they predicted it to begin in the 500s AD, but that date setting mistake was the product of other bad assumptions and shouldn't be blamed on the Millennium doctrine itself.

A view being New is not an argument against it being True.

Daniel 12:4 foretells that in the End Times knowledge shall be increased.  That is often taken to be about Knowledge in general, the explosion of knowledge that has happened since the Industrial Revolution.  But some have taken it to be about specifically knowledge of God's Word.

I say those two naturally go together.  We today have lots of advantages in studying God's Word that didn't always exist.  Today in debates people often get mad at you if you neglect to cite the exact Chapter and Verse, when Jesus didn't have that luxury, He just named the Prophet He was quoting and that had to be enough.  Not to mention how the Internet and Computer Programs have made it easier then ever to do word searches and to check the original Greek and Hebrew, and compare variant manuscripts.

But even before all of that.  The New Testament interprets some parts of The Hebrew Bible in ways that seemingly no Israelite ever thought of in the B.C. Era.

The Canon was closed I believe with the publication of The Book of Revelation. So it's a part of The Bible that never gets interpreted by other parts of The Bible, instead it is a key to helping us interpret other parts.

But I'm a Continuationist, I believe God does still inspire people, but those revelations have to be scrutinized against Scripture.  Sometimes I think even the person who receives the revelation might mis-interpret it.

This has become a vital part of the Rapture Dispute.  With people wondering why it took till the 19th Century for The Pre-Trib view (and by extension anything like Mid-Trib or Pre-Wrath) to be popularized, however many debatable hints at it before you might find.

This tactic conveniently ignores how Futurism in general was not popular in the Protestant world till the late 19th Century, their default Eschatology was Historicism.

For over a Thousand Years the Catholic Church kept most people from reading The Bible in their own language.  After the Reformation started it still took awhile for Translations to be made, and arguably the first ones made weren't the best.  So that's why it makes perfect sense that lots of valid interpretations of Scripture wouldn't be discovered or re-discovered till the 1600s or later.

Now there is a lot of mis-information about Darby.  He first wrote out the basics of his Pre-Trib Rapture view in early 1827, before Margaret MacDonald had her vision in 1830, and also before Irving published his translation of Manuel Lucanza.

Still neither of those sources teach a Pre-Trib Rapture.  MacDonald's account of her revelation has certain things left out of it when people make it seem like it could have inspired Darby's Pre-Trib view, like how she did say The Church would be persecuted by The Antichrist.  Her vision does not lay out a clear chronology however, I feel it could be compatible with either Post-Trib or Mid-Trib, but certainly not Pre-Trib.  Plus Darby said he thought her visions were Satanically inspired.

This whole "The Rapture must be false since it started with Darby" rhetoric definitely has an Anti-Continuationist tone to it.  Darby's own account of how he first came to the idea makes it seem slightly like a divine revelation.  And then they add the association with a controversial proto-Charismatic.

I think it's possible that Darby did receive a legit Revelation about Christ gathering His People before His Wrath is poured out.  But then made many mistakes when trying to figure out how that fit into Scripture.  In a way making the same key mistake Post-Tribbers make.

Because in my opinion, no amount of precedent for Post-Trib makes up for the fact that Post-Trib (in both it's Futurist and Historcist varieties) is based on an inherently wrong assumption, that Revelation 19 is the Second Coming.  Pre-Tribers make the same mistake however when they say The Rapture is distinct from the Second Coming.

But I understand why this mistake would be so common.  If you start your study of Bible Prophecy with Revelation, which many do, it's easy to see why one would make that mistake.  I myself did originally which is why I used to be Post-Trib, though I was always distinct from most Post-Tribbers.

Morgan Edwards taught a form of Pre-Trib in the mid 18th Century, while also being one of the earliest Futurists of the English Speaking world.

So I still haven't given up on finding some obscure little known Ancient or Reformation era precedent for something similar to my Midway-Point view.  But regardless it is not necessary.

My view on The Rapture is the one that correctly identifies where to find The Parusia in Revelation using Scripture to Interpret Scripture.

How many Second Comings are there?

My take on this has kinda changed since I last did a post on this subject, so I'm making this new post.

Post-Tribbers like to mock mainly Pre-Tribbers, but the Mid-Trib view would fit into this as well, for believing in "Two Second Comings".

My first response to that, as someone who's view can be considered a variation of Mid-Trib, is that the term "Second Coming" is not Biblical at all.  There are various references to His Parousia, translated Coming, but never with a numerical designation.

However the big problem here is that Pre-Tribbers like to call the Rapture and the Second Coming distinct.  And on that I strongly disagree with them.  They are correct that 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 19 are not about the same event.  But 1 Thessalonians 4, and 1 Corinthians 15 both clearly refer to the event in question as the Parousia.

Here is the big perhaps shocking point of this post.

Revelation 19 is NOT the Second Coming.

It does not use the word Parousia, in fact Parousia isn't used in Revelation at all.  And chapter 19 has nothing of any real substance in common with the passages that do.  At the Parousia He comes on a Cloud or Clouds, in Revelation 19 He's riding on a White Horse.  At the Parousia his feet never touch The Earth, He gathers His Church and takes them to Heaven (Mark 13:27).  In Revelation 19 His Saints are already in Heaven and follow Him as He leaves (though The Bride as New Jerusalem doesn't descend till the New Heaven and New Earth).

So yes it's technically an event where Jesus "comes" to a certain location.  But when it comes to The New Testament using the Greek word Parusia as a technical term for a specific Biblical Event, it is not that Parusia.

Jude 1:14 may be about the same event as Revelation 19, and uses Cometh, a form of the word, but still ultimately not the same word.  But in the Greek it's not even that similar, it's not a form of Parusia, it's elquen, and actually means Apeareth.

Isaiah 63 also uses Cometh and is seemingly in close proximity to Revelation 19, but that Hebrew word seems more similar in meaning to elquen then Parousia.  And there He "Cometh" from Edom, not Heaven..

The Parousia is about Revelation 14 not 19.

Revelation chapter 14 is where The Son of Man is riding on a Cloud.  The Seven Bowls of God's Wrath are poured out between that event and the Revelation 19 event.

 I'd made before the observation that you can technically say he had more then one "coming" at his first Advent.  In fact it's only the Triumphal Entry that is refereed to with a form of the word "come", in Daniel 9, and that wasn't even the first time he came to Jerusalem.  But that is in light of all this a very minor point.

Mid-Trib possibly predates Pre-Trib

As I said before, I believe a view popping up late is not an argument against it, which is why I disagree with trying to use that logic to refute Pre-Trib.  At any rate only Post-Tribers can use that argument consistently because only that view existed among the Pre-Nicean fathers. 

But Mid-Trib (which my view vaguely qualifies as, but isn't traditional Mid-Trib as defined by Wikipedia) has to deal with a perception that clearly Pre-Trib and Post-Trib both came first and it was merely created as a compromise.  (But the undeniably far younger Pre-Wrathers can't accept that argument so they focus on calling us "a Defunct view").

Pre-Tribulationism along with Dispensationalism are traditionally attributed to Darby in the early 19th Century.  Though the truth is Darby was just copying and repackaging the views of Edward Irving who lived about the same time.

The attempts of Pre-Tribbers to give their view a greater antiquity include Ephraim the Syrian which claim I've already debunked.  A statement in the Apocalypse of Peter which is ambiguous but at the very least is clearly predicting The Church to face Tribulation first.  And attempts to read it into any reference to "Imminence" among the Church Fathers same as they do The New Testament itself.

Also Increase and Cotton Mather of the Seventeenth Century are claimed, but from what I have been able to read they seem pretty post-Trib to me, but Increase was adamant about a future conversion of the Jews which modern Post-Trib tends to reject.

Another name thrown out is Manuel Lacunza who died in 1801.  He was a Jesuit Priest who's eschatological work was published under a false name.  His book can be read online and I've seen nothing Pre-Trib in it and have seen others say outright that those labeling him Pre-Trib are lying.

However there is one claim of a Pre Irving and Darby teacher teaching a Rapture separate from the Revelation 19 event that holds up under scrutiny.  And that is Morgan Edwards a Baptist preacher who lived from 1722-1795.  However his timeline placed the Second Coming and Resurrection and Gathering of Believers not Seven but Three and a Half years before the start of the Millennium.

"The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more—, because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ's "appearing in the air" (I Thes. iv. 17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many "mansions in the father's house" (John xiv. 2), and disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for "now the time is come that judgment must begin," and that will be "at the house of God" (I Pet. iv. 17)."-Two Academical Exercises on Subjects Bearing the following Titles; Millennium, Last-Novelties.

His model is different then my view still based on how he defined Tribulation and when he places the time of the Two Witnesses.  Here is a Pre-Trib site talking about him.

So the best evidence for a Pre-Darby separate Rapture is clearly a Mid-Trib one.

The only Medieval example that can be found of a Futurist view other then Post-Trib was a cult leader trying to give a special Last Prophet status to himself.  His timeline is complicated and confusing but clearly allows no more then Three and a Half years.

"Again, [Dolcino believed and preached and taught] that within those three years Dolcino himself and his followers will preach the coming of the Antichrist. And that the Antichrist was coming into this world within the bounds of the said three and a half years; and after he had come, then he [Dolcino] and his followers would be transferred into Paradise, in which are Enoch and Elijah. And in this way they will be preserved unharmed from the persecution of Antichrist. And that then Enoch and Elijah themselves would descend on the earth for the purpose of preaching [against] Antichrist. Then they would be killed by him or by his servants, and thus Antichrist would reign for a long time. But when the Antichrist is dead, Dolcino himself, who then would be the holy pope, and his preserved followers, will descend on the earth, and will preach the right faith of Christ to all, and will convert those who will be living then to the true faith of Jesus Christ."

Source [Gumerlock's translation of the Latin text in Gumerlock, "A Rapture Citation," pp. 354-55.].

Mid-Trib is often accused of not popping up till the early or mid 20th Century.

But between Edwards and that point is a book predicated on claiming Louise-Napoleon III was the Antichrist (written while he was still Emperor) that predicts the Rapture to happen during the third year of the seven years, which is discussed in Chapter V (pages 77-81).  So a weird view, but shows that alternatives to Pre or Post Trib were always being considered.

Going back to Pre-Darby, other 17th and 18th Century references cited are all vague, some do sound like they view the Rapture and the start of the Millennium as separate, but the exact timing is not made clear.  They may not have picked a side in Pre-Trib vs Mid-Trib at all.  These include Peter Jurieu, and Thomas Collier.

Peter Jurieu clearly did not teach a Secret Rapture, he refereed to it as a Glorious Apparition.  Some criticisms of attempts to find early examples of Pre-Trib are discussed here.  But it's unaware of Morgan Edwards.

Update February 7th 2018:  I've read now some critics of seeing Edwards as Pre-Trib.

Some will respond that Morgan Edwards seems to have been a Historicist and not Futurist at all.  He seems to have had some Hsitoricsts elements (it being ingrained in Protestant tradition has Futurists to this day saying things that sound Historicist).  But his limiting the ministry of the Witnesses to the three and a half years between the Resurrection and the Millennium makes him clearly not a pure Historicist.

The only basis for three and a half years in a pure Historicist Day=Year theory model would be the three and a half days between the Death and Resurrection of the Two Witnesses.  That makes it pretty difficult to have exactly three and a half years between the Rapture and the start of the Millennium.

Historicism inherently has more in common with Mid-Trib then Post-Trib because it's more open to accepting the Chronology of Revelation at face value.

This Morgan Edwards was a Historicist argument takes this quote. "there are no more than about 204 years between now and their death: I should therefore expect that their appearance is not far off." as supporting him being a Historicist.  If their death was 204 years away at most, then the Hisotricist model should have had them appear over a Thousand Years before Edwards' own time.  The fact is Edwards took the Witnesses far to literally for proper Historicism.

The Hisotricist elements in what he taught involved stuff about the Ottoman Turks being a Beast and the Papacy being the Man of Sin of 2 Thesselonians 2.  Stuff I've seen plenty of Futurists incorporate into Futurist models.  For the former I myself believe the Beast Empire will emerge out of Geo-political entities that already exist, and what role Turkey might play in that my mind has changed on a few times.  And for the latter, there is no shortage of Futurist Papal-Antichrist views within Protestant circles.  In fact I was encountering it long time before I even learned it was traditionally associated with a non-Futurist model.

Here is another quote from Edwards on the Subject.

Another event previous to the Millennium will be the appearing of the son of man in the clouds, coming to raise the dead saints and change the living, and to catch them up to himself, and then withdrawing with them, and observed before, This event will come to pass when Antichrist be arrived at Jerusalem in his conquest of the world; and about three years and a half before his killing the witnesses, and assumption of godhead.

It certainly shows he was not teaching a Historicist view on the Two Witnesses.  In a sense it hurts reading him as Mid-Trib in that it places the Abomination of Desolation three and a half years after The Rapture.  Some tend to place when  he conquers Jerusalem as about the same time as the Abomination.  I personally am not sure he'll "conquer" Jerusalem at all.

So I may now have to retract what was the central example of this post.  It seems he may well effectively fit the proper definition of Pre-Trib, but simply sees the total time-frame in mind as only three and a half years.  It's weird that he doesn't place the Abomination of Desolation at the halfway point, but about a month before the Millennium starts.

Pre-Tribbers aren't trying to keep his quotes out of context, as the RaptureReady website posts the whole work.   http://www.raptureready.com/morgan-edwards/.  Though I had trouble getting the first part to load.  The third part contains the quotes used to make him seem Historicist. However he goes on to say.

"The abomination intentioned by Daniel is supposed to be that which Antiochus Epiphanes set up in the temple; but that was before Christ time many hundred years; the Romans set up no abomination in the temple; for it was destroyed before they could gain possession of it; therefore Christ refers to a thing that is yet to come; and to a temple that is not yet extant."

Something that is inherently Futurist.

The context of the 204 years quote was him saying he thinks the Witnesses will appear in some sense before they begin the proper 1260 day Ministry.   He also argued for the Witnesses being Elijah and John who wrote Revelation.  So no he was not supporting any Day=Year theory here.

He also clarified the Antichrist will be the last Pope.  He was not saying All Popes are collectively The Antichrist.

At the end of section 3 he clearly separates the Second Coming from the Rapture, which is a fairly inherently Pre-Trib thing to do.

I get really frustrated reading on, as he clearly anticipates a lot of conventional Dispensational memes.  Like separating the Gog and Magog of Revelation 20 from Ezekiel 38.  He also teaches the Zionism typical of Darby inspired Dispensationalism.

And I've found a PDF link where you can read all of it.
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Edwards-TwoAcademicalExercis.pdf

Morgan Edwards may very well qualify as the first Futurist of the English Speaking world, and maybe also the Protestant world.  Everything else I've studied about 16th-18th Century Eschatology debates pretty much treats Premillenialism as synonymous with Historicism.

Update April 9th 2019:

 The PDF Link I provided for reading Morgan Edwards online doesn't work anymore, however the Rapture Ready website seems to have fixed the problem they had for Section 1.

The Apocalypse of Elijah is another text I've seen Pre-Tribbers throw around as Ancient Precedent for a Pre-Trib Rapture.  But again this text clearly fits Mid-Trib far better, as it clearly has The Antichrist persecuting Christians and martyring Enoch and Elijah in chapter 4, before the Rapture in chapter 5.

I can't be certain what Methodius of Olympus over all chronology for Revelation was.  But his teaching that The Man-Child is the Saints rather then Jesus is pretty hard to reconcile with Post-Trib.

My Hypothesis for the fulfillment of the Fall Feasts in Revelation

I watched much of Michael Rood's Prophecies in the Fall Feasts.  He says much that I found wonderfully edifying, especially on the Seventh Trumpet.  But I disagree on the Final Week beginning and ending in Tishri, I see the Fall Feasts as chiefly the midway point.

I want to lay out my hypothesis here, and while I'll be linking to earlier posts I'm also going against some things I said before in those same posts.  My mind does change as I study more.

I have a post on how the Two Witnesses and the 7th Trumpet fulfill Yom Teruah.  And about the Rapture of The Man-Child.  But I have one thing to add for Yom Teruah.

I'm hesitant to build doctrine on Rabbinic Traditions the way Michael Rood does, but some are interesting.  One idea not gained directly from The Bible is the days of Awe which begin with Yom Teruah and end with Yom Kippur in which the gates of Heaven are open.  Well one more thing we are told about the Seventh Trumpet in Revelation 11 is that the God's Temple in Heaven and the Ark of the Covenant was seen.  Genesis 24:55 could provide a basis for a period of ten days.

2 Chronicles 31 has the first fruits of Hezekiah's harvest begin being heaped up in the third month (the month of Pentecost) and finished in the Seventh month when they are gathered up and placed in the secret chambers of YHWH's House.  The beginning of Revelation 11 tells us the city of Jerusalem will be mostly Gentiles during the first half of the Week.  At the end when most of those people believe The Witnesses after their ascension, that is when he Fullness of the Gentiles is come in.

The days of Awe are the days you can seek atonement, the Judgment is set on Yom Kippur, but it's carried out on Tabernacles.  According to Rabbinic views at least.  That can happen to fit what I will lay out below, but it's not necessary for my argument.

The main interpretation of the twin Goats of Yom Kippur is that both point to Jesus, one bears our Sins and the other's Blood is shed for them.  One is Jesus bearing The Cross the other is him On It.  Biblical symbolism can be layered however, so that preferred view need not conflict with others.

Including the possibility of seeing Satan or other villainous figures in the Scapegoat.  I've argued on this blog before about both Cain and Barnabas.  I've also thought about the Goats of the Sheeps and Goats judgment being cast out.  I really don't like the Book of Enoch's popularity, but it does reflect a possibly very old tendency to see Satan in the Azazel/Scapegoat by calling it's most unique fallen angel Azazel.

What's relevant here is IF you think such a connection is valid, it can justify seeing Yom Kippur as the day Satan is cast out of Heaven.

My study of Isaiah 14 has lead to me to a conclusion that the Eight King ascending out of the Abyss happens after, probably the same day, Satan is cast out of Heaven.  Since I made that study I no longer view his death has needing to happen during the end times.
[Update note: my perspective on Isaiah has changed rendering this point moot.]

Traditional Jewish interpretations of the chronology of Exodus say the 40 days Moses was on Mt Sinai from Exodus 24:18-31:18 were Elul and the Days of Awe.  Near the end of that period is when chapter 32 tells us they made the Golden Calf.  When Moses came down on Yom Kippur they were worshiping it.  Antiochus Epiphanes' Abomination of Desolation was set up 10 days before it was consecrated.

So connecting the Abomination to Yom Kippur could make a lot of sense.  But I still think it possible there is an abomination of sorts at the start of the Week.  But putting these pieces together really helps my theory that the Image of Revelation 13 is the Eight King.  If you're thinking "but he has to kill the Witnesses before Yom Teruah" well I think that Beast is actually the second one.  Ascending out of the Bottomless Pit can apply to both, but Apollyon is The False Prophet.

I think maybe the mortal sword wound being healed isn't a death and resurrection itself but a sign that he's already resurrected.

But for those that insist the Abomination must happen both at about the middle of the week and before the Rapture.  I would consider placing it maybe when the Witnesses die three and a half days before the Rapture.  Or maybe a week before on Elul 23 the day referenced at the end of Haggai 1.  Or maybe 10 days before, Jesus refereed to 10 days of tribulation in the message to Smyrna.  Or maybe the beginning of Elul referenced at the start of Haggai 1.  Post-tribbers think Matthew 21-28 must span three and a half years because of other Biblical importance to that time frame, but Jesus mentioned no specific time lengths.

Yom Kippur imagery possibly still exists in Revelation 14 as well.  In the past I've written off theories that the Rapture doesn't happen all at once.  I'm now more open to that but not in any sense of them being separated by years, but rather less then half a month.  The Church is caught up on Tzom Gedaliah at the latest after being glorified on Yom Teruah.  If you're not saved by the Last Trumpet it's too late to be the Bride, but maybe not too late be a guest at the wedding.  No one I think gets Raptured alive after Yom Kippur.

The Son of Man on the Cloud with the Sickle and Crown is both the High Priest and the Shekinah Glory which are prominent in Leviticus 16.  The 144,000 I see s being a specific group of Church Age believers from each Tribe of Israel, but also representing the whole in a sense.

Those who argue Jesus was born on Tabernacles (a theory I find impossible) like to Translate John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," as "And the Word was made flesh, and tabernacled among us".  Well if any use of "dwell" or it's word forms can justify an illusion to Tabernacles, let's look at Revelation 13:6 talking about The Beast.

"And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven."  I've long viewed this as proof we are Raptured by this point.  Now I don't think we're at Tabernacles yet, I see this as the II Thessalonians 2 abomination event.  But it shows the conditions are in place.

One of the themes of Revelation 14 is the Grape Harvest.  The Grape Harvest has to be done before Tabernacles, Tabernacles is the festival to celebrate the Harvest.  One thing you can point out to undermine people's assumptions about how the Last Supper relates to Passover is to point out that there is no Torah basis for drinking wine on Passover or during the days of Unleavened Breast.  The only Holy Day where wine is mentioned is the Feast of Tabernacles in Deuteronomy 16.

When I was real little, I used to visualize God filling seven bowls with his Wrath as him vomiting into them.  As I got older I started thinking of that as silly and immature.  Until when I used to listen to Chuck Missler's seminars a lot how he'd cite verses I can't remember right now as saying our Sin is like a vile stench in God's nostrils.

And now I'm thinking of this Grape and Wine connection.  You know how when someone gets drunk off red wine they puke vomit that looks kinda blood red?  Well imagine then seven bowls filled with God's blood red vomit, two of which are poured into the world's water supply.  It will logically become red like blood.

The Blood=Wine connection didn't begin with the Last Supper.  It's implied in the very etymology of the Hebrew words for them according to Strongs.  It's implied in Genesis 49:11 and Deuteronomy 32:14 which refer to wine as the blood of grapes.  And Isaiah 63 which talks about Blood and Winepresses.  And it's repeated again at the end of Revelation 14, talking about God's Wrath.

Revelation 20 tells us those post Rapture Saints martyred for not taking The Mark will be beheaded.  Revelation 15 has them all in Heaven before the Bowls of Wrath are poured out.  I don't think this persecution will last very long, Revelation 13 seems to give the Beasts the means to kill most resisters pretty quickly.  I don't think any die after the Bowls have started.  Revelation 14:13 says.

And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, "Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them."

I've speculated before this could mean from here on all believers who die are resurrected and raptured right away.   But if not I think these martyrs will be Raptured when Tabernacles starts.

Does that mean I think once the Bowls start the only people on earth without The Mark are the Israelites being protected in Edom?  Maybe, maybe not.  It could be the troubles caused by the Bowls, even the first Bowl which will effect every Marked person, will hamper the beasts' ablity to kill anyone else.

John The Baptist was also beheaded, only other NT reference to that form of capital punishment, it's is pretty rare in Tanakh too, only occurrence I can recall is Jehu using it.

When I argued for Jesus being born in December, I also conjectured John was conceived between Yom Kippur and Tabernacles.  I now favor the 14th of Tishri as the day his conception process started paralleling Jesus on the 14th of Nisan- First Fruits.  Since one theme of that was Jesus being conceived at the same time frame (on the Hebrew calendar) as his Death and Resurrection, perhaps likewise John was beheaded on the 14th of Tishri.

Contrary to the Blood Moon hype, the 14th not 15th days of Biblical Months are the Full Moons.  The least important thing I'll mention in this thread is that if one model I'm speculating for when this might play out is correct, the 14th of Tishri in question will be a Lunar Eclipse.

Because I view Revelation as Chronological.  I believe the time allotted for the Bowls must span about three and a half years, the 42 months the beast reigns and 1260 days Israel is in the widlerness.  Arguments for a shorter time for the Bowls include Chris White and other Pre-Wrathers saying they're a month, Michael Rood saying they span the days of awe, and Rob Skiba saying they're all one day.  The only shorter model I could entertain is them spanning the seven days of Tabernacles.

But I've found an answer for how to bring the Tabernacles connection and spanning three and a half years together.

I've argued before the First Bowl must happen soon after The Mark is instituted.  Back then I was willing to allow half a year between them, but now I think closer to five days.  Then in my Great City post I observed how the remaining 6 bowls came in pairs.

The first Bowl I think will be the 15th of Tabernacles immediately following the Midway point drama I've just discussed.  One year later the 2nd and 3rd bowls will be poured out on the 16th and 17th of Tishri, destroying the world's water supply.

One year after that the 4th day of Tabernacles will see the Sun become really super hot.  But that I don't see lasting a long time.  In John 7 the midst of the Feast is when Jesus (The Sun of Righteousness) made his presence known.  The next day it will be blotted out, and based on Isaiah 13 that continues at least to the fall of Babylon.

One year after that, the last Tabernacles during the seven years, will see the last two days fulfill the last two bowls.

Haggai 2 refers to the 21st day of the Seventh month as a day YHWH will shake the nations.  I see that as alluding to the great earthquake of the 7th Bowl, the greatest of any in history including the more commonly quoted Sixth Seal.

Because of how Haggai 2 ties into Hanukkah and my careful reading of the Maccabees account.  I think the 21st of Tishri was actually the day the Maccabees liberated Jerusalem, but it wasn't till the 24th of Kislev that they had cleansed everything, then the following 8 days they Rededicated The Temple with a sort of second Tabernacles.  Antiochus Epiphanes did not die till awhile later, contrary to speculation I did before I read the accounts more carefully, we don't know when exactly.

As I said in the Great City post, the 7th Bowl is when Jerusalem is divided in three, and then after that God will judge Babylon.  That day is a judgment on Jerusalem, but also part of it's liberation, the beginning of it being reshaped into what we see in Ezekiel 40-48.

The eighth day I think will be Revelation 17-18 (and to an extent early 19) the Judgment on Babylon.

Esther 2:16 says Esther became the King's Wife in the Tenth Month (Tebet) of the seventh year.  It doesn't say what day.  Hanukkah begins in late Kislev but always ends in Tevet/Tebet.  The New Moon of Tevet is always during Hanukkah.

The next event in Revelation's timeline is the Marriage Supper.  Michael Rood talks about Jewish weddings being traditionally a seven day feast followed by an eighth day, thus justifying placing it on Tabernacles.  But remember Hanukkah is eight days because it was a second Tabernacles.

And The Bride of Christ is also His Temple, so it makes sense that the Feast of Dedication (which Jesus observed in John 10:22) will be the Wedding Feast in which He dedicates Himself to His Bride.

Also in Revelation 1-2 the Seven Churches (which typify the entire Church) are represented by Seven Lampstands.  Hence the importance of the Menorah to Hanukkah.  And Zechariah 4 has the two olive trees, the Witnesses next to it.  Jewish Weddings traditionally have Two Witnesses.  Jews also like to link Zechariah 4 to Hanukkah, seeing the Olive Trees on each side of the Menorah as foreshadowing the two added candles of the Hanukkah Menorah.

Jesus called himself "The Light of The World" in John 8, but He also called us in Matthew 5:14 "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid."

I disagree with the view that during this time-frame two thirds of all Jews will be wiped out in a holocaust that surpasses Hitler's.  I think that one detail of Zechariah 13 is being misused.  This will be a time that Israel (The Woman of Revelation 12) is protected in the Wilderness like in the days of Moses (which Tabernacles is supposed to be a memorial of).  There will be hardships, but I agree with those who assert that viewing the end times as God and Satan torturing the Jews until they repent is in fact a sneaky kind of antisemitism.  I believe this time results in their finally accepting Yeshua as their Messiah, but it will be what's done for them not to them that brings that about.

This isn't the final fulfillment of Tabernacles however, Zechariah 14 tells us it'll be observed in The Millennium.  And I've argued before that Tabernacles will be when New Jerusalem descends and the Eight Day when Time (as we know it) stops.  Though when I talked about that in the past I was more open to the Seven Millenniums theory that I now oppose.

I now have a follow up on the Spring Feasts.

Did only Paul talk about The Rapture?

Pre-Tribbers make an important argument for their model that only Paul talks about the Rapture, and so nothing in what Jesus or John recorded can be the same thing.  I've dealt with the main argument for that elsewhere.

Here I want to point out that if only one Bible author recorded something, they don't have a second confirming witness and therefore can't build doctrine on it, at all.  That Paul mentioned it more then once doesn't change that he's still only one witness.

I believe The Rapture was refereed to by Jesus on (at least) three occasions recorded by all three Synoptic Gospels.  In Matthew 24:27-31, Mark 13:26-27, and Luke 21:27&36.

And by John in Revelation in chapters 11-14 when you study them carefully.

I also see glimpses of it in the Old Testament, in Isaiah 26 and Joel 2.

So Paul's references to it in I Thessalonians 4 and II Thessalonians 2, and to an extent I Corinthians 15 are only a piece of the picture.

The Revealing, The Rapture and The Abomination of Desolation

In the inaugural post of this Blog I argued that the Abomination of Desolation must happen before The Rapture.  Latter I argued that maybe not, then I did another post going back to my original position but without really refuting the reasons I gave previously.

I have changed my mind again, I think this is my last change on this subject because I now feel I've unraveled the mysteries that confused me before.

Let me clarify, the way II Thessalonian 2 refutes Pre-Tribe remains fully in tact.  The Abomination incident is mentioned there but it's strictly only his Revealing that must happen before The Rapture.  And before that the restrainer must be removed.

I Believe as the new name for this Blog declares, but I've always felt this way, that the events in Revelation will happen in the order they are described, with few exceptions like referencing time periods that span 3.5 years.  And Revelation does include examples of God speaking past tense of this yet to happen like Babylon's fall in chapter 14.  But I firmly reject the idea of it starting once or multiple times.

Other Bible Prophecies are snap shots of the End Times that unless they contain clear timing statements are not chronological, but Revelation's Purpose is to tell us how it all fits together.

Only other single visions even close to being large enough to consider worth taking as strictly chronologically as Revelation, and that are irrefutably End Times.  Are the last 2 visions that make up Ezekiel.  34-39 and 40-48.  Those don't conflict with Revelation's chronology in my view, I see 40-48 as correlating to Revelation 21-22.  And I see 37-39 as Revelation 20.  What's before that can fit the Day of Wrath.

Revelation 9 is when the Restrainer is removed.

When The Beast kills the Witnesses is when he's irrefutably revealed.  That is the first time Revelation irrefutably mentions The Beast, identifying him with earlier personages is valid speculation but still ultimately speculation.  Now I'm unsure if the Beast that does is the first or second, I believe both Ascend out of the Bottomless Pit.  That's a minor issue however, since I now think the second beast may be the more important one anyway.

Three and a half days latter they are resurrected, then they ascend into Heaven and the Gentile Population of Jerusalem repents and believes.

Then the Seventh Trumpet sounds, and then Revelation 12 depicts The Rapture.  Then Revelation 13 depicts The Abomination of Desolation.

I'm still open the possibility of it happening first, my point here is there is room for interpretation on it.  If it does happen first it happens very close, the same day the Witnesses were killed would be the longest before that it could happen.  The chronology I suggested in this post remains compelling to me.

Here is the thing however.  When we get to Revelation depiction of The Abomination of Desolation incident in Chapter 13 Verse 6.

"And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven."

"Them that dwell in heaven" can only make sense to be as the already Raptured Church.  Blaspheming Angels wouldn't be such a big deal.

Which wrong view on The Rapture is the most dangerous?

The popular answer is the Pre-Trib view, the one thing all non Pre-Tribbers seem to agree on.

I really don't understand how the people who are now not believers or believers who are uninterested in Prophecy talk about being raised on the Pre-Tirb Rapture and being constantly terrified by it.  They clearly did not truly understand what The Rapture is if they found it frightening.

But what I'm going to discus here is how most of my fellow non Pre-Trib Futurists seem to think, simply by virtue of it being currently the mainstream view, that Pre-Trib is the most dangerous view.  That once we're clearly in the 70th Week and no Rapture happens countless formally faithful Pre-Tribbers will lose their faith and fall away.

Post-Tribbers particularly then see the dangers of Pre-Trib as innate in any more obscure view that has the Rapture as distinct from Revelation 19, even though I am adamant Christians will face Great Tribulation.  They are unwilling to listen to anything I have to say on Prophecy so long as I'm not Post-Trib like them.

I don't think so low of Pre-Tribbers, or anyone else who disagrees with me.  But especially Pre-Tribbers because I've grown a lot in the Spirit listening to other issues talked about by Pre-Tirbbers like Chuck Missler.  Pre-Tribbers are often the most likely to agree with me on Eternal Security, it seems the Pre-Wrath camp has a lot of Calvinism in it.

I've listened to a lot of Pre-Tribbers, many do believe American Christians will face persecution first.  I'm confident they will simply get over it and rework their understanding once Pre-Trib is proven wrong.

I don't think there is any risk of truly Saved people being "deceived" by the II Thessalonians 2 event.  I certainly don't think it's possible for a saved person to take the Mark, if you think that 100% of people who take The Mark are damned, but also believe in Eternal Security, then you have to believe no Saved person could take the Mark.  I think the Mark is instituted after The Rapture has just happened, and the awakening Israelites are fleeing to the wilderness.  So no one already saved will be presented with that dilemma.

Rob Skiba likes to say that the warning to Believers to not be deceived clearly means it's possible for us to be deceived.  That is true but it's not about the II Thessalonians 2 event, that event isn't a deception at all, that's when the Deception ends and the enemy just comes right out and says what he means, he will not claim to be Jesus or The God of The Bible he will claim to be better then The God of The Bible.

Before that, during the first half of the Week it might, MIGHT, be possible for Believers to wind up being tricked into helping/supporting the Man of Sin.

Pre-Trib will be proven wrong pretty much as soon as the 70th Week starts.  I believe The Temple will be standing before we enter it, and all of the first Six Seals will be opened before the Nisan that starts it is over.

So I'm more concerned that the default position among people is that IF Pre-Trib is wrong Post-Trib must be the only other option.  Then after that is the trendy Pre-Wrath view.  And also that movie from the Pastor I do not like to name that is presenting a model technically Mid-Trib in form but is really a hybridization of Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath ideas.  Pre-Wrathers especially love to brag about Mid-Trib being a "defunct view".  Well they should remember that it'd suit Satan well if the correct view is the least popular.

All three of those models place the Seventh Trumpet at the end of the 70th Week rather then The Mid-Way point as a plain reading of Revelation clearly shows.  Post-Trib sometimes sees the sixth or seventh Seal as the same event but not always.  Pre-Wrath places the Sixth Seal some indeterminate amount of time after the Mid-Way point.

Meanwhile there are also people arguing that there is no 70th Week, that the entire period is only 3.5 years and so every 3.5 year period referenced is the same.  And most who do believe in a 70th Week have this wrong idea that those years will begin and end on Yom Teruah, when Yom Teruah should Biblically mark the midway point.

I've talked to Pre-Wrathers who think it's possible we're already in the 70th Week now and aren't aware of it.  I firmly believe it can't start till The Temple (it could be just a Tabernacle) is standing in Jerusalem.  Pre-Wrathers also tend to think the Persecution only starts at the Abomination of Desolation.

Basically what I'm saying is I fear once Pre-Trib is firmly debunked people may be deceived into thinking we're already at or past the Mid-Way point when the 70th Week has really only just started.

The only issue there is how can people be tricked into thinking The Abomination of Desolation has happened already when it really hasn't?  Paul certainly makes what it is unmistakable in II Thessalonians 2.  But lots of people are already trying to alegorize or twist that.

I think there will be plenty of Christians who won't fall for this deception, even if their current views make them vulnerable to aspects of it.  But we need to be aware of how that deception could work.

1. Thanks to how the 1290 days reference from Daniel 12 is commonly misunderstood, most people assume the Sacrifice and Oblation is made to cease at the same time as the Abomination of Desolation when it's really 1290 days before it.

2. The Anti-Semites of the world may well think the Temple being rebuilt itself is the Abomination of Desolation.  That's what some of Texe Marrs logic seems to imply.  And since many other Dispensationalist and Zionsit Christians think it's possible The Temple won't be rebuilt till very soon before it happens, they are not prepared to refute that argument timing wise.

3. Then there are the people who allegorize what The Temple means in II Thessalonians to being The Church.  Don't assume that view will lose credibility once a Third Temple is standing, many of them are clarifying they do think The Jews might get their Temple rebuilt, but that Christians should not be tricked into thinking that is prophetically relevant.

4. Rob Skiba has gone and wrongly defined what The Abomination of Desolation of Antiochus Epiphanes was, saying it refers to when he offered the Pig on the Altar (a legend that is apocryphal to begin with) not the Idol.  So imagine if it's Nisan, perhaps on Passover, someone invades Jerusalem, enters the Temple and kills a Pig on the Brazen Altar.  Rob Skiba is set up to be deceived, especially if that same Decoy Antichrist claims to be Nimrod.

5. I've also seen someone argue (with the intent of supporting a Prestist view however) that when Jesus said "The Holy Place" really means "A Holy Place" and that the Abomination need not happen in specifically the Inner Sanctuary at all.  This is especially tempting to fall for once you notice Antiochus Epiphanes lesser Abomination Idol wasn't in the Holy Place but on the Brazen Altar.  That's probably why Rob Skiba got confused.  But II Thessalonians 2:4 says he sits in The Temple, the only sitting Place in The Temple was the Ark itself which lid was the mercy Seat, this Temple I don't think will have the real Ark.

6. I also think some might get confused by a person deifying himself or giving Messianic status to himself and forget that The Beast will also speak AGAINST the True God.

All of these could be relevant, since Satan will probably try to have multiple deceptions going on with multiple Decoy Antichrists.  Maybe even relevant in ways that sometimes overlap.

2018-2025 Seventieth Week Theory

The basic reasoning behind my developing this theory I have laid out in my Suleiman The Magnificent post.  Of course one needs to understand my reasons for disagreeing with those who say Date-Setting is inherently wrong.  At any-rate I'm not saying I know, it's a theory.

I'm not making any money off talking about this theory, I'm not writing a book about it, everything I have to say on it is up for free on this Blog.  And I do not have any kind of advertising arrangement that allows me to make money off of the clicks I get.

The gist is, it seems that the entire 70 weeks could have a double fulfillment not just the first.  And Sulieman's decree was issued possibly in Nisan of 1535.  490 years latter is 2025 putting the last week beginning in 2018.  Potential support for this comes from it being more then 70 but less then 80 years since 1948.

This puts the Mid-Way point and sounding of the Seventh Trumpet on Yom Teruah/First of Tishri 2021 AD.  Because the 70 Weeks all begin and end in Nisan.  Now we can't know for certain when Yom Teruah falls in 2021 because of what I explained about the Biblical Reckoning not always agreeing with The Rabbis.  At any-rate though, the Rabbis currently expect Yom Teruah of 2021 to fall on September 7th or 8th, the moon will be under Virgo's Feet on September 10th.

(Update: On further Stelarium study, I think 2021 is likely one of those years the Rabbinic Calendar is a month off.  So I think Yom Teruah will be October 6th or 7th, the Moon will be under Virgo's feet on the 7th.)

I speculate on how the 70th Week could play out here.

I recently explained why I feel The Rapture of The Man-Child is The Rapture of The Church.  That view is not at all dependent on adding any Virgo related speculation for the signs, but I decided to use Stelarium and take a look.

When The Moon is under Virgo's Feet on September 14th 2021, Venus will be between The Moon and Spica.  And the time Venus will be visible will be less then an hour.

Now in the Man-Child study I felt Revelation 2:27 and it's Rod of Iron reference was important, well the very next verse Jesus also says "I will give him The Morning Star".  How linked are those?  Could Venus represent the Rod of Iron in some way?

I don't know if this model will happen, but I will be paying attention.  I have an important follow up here.

The Abomination of Desolation is before The Rapture

I was clear on that in the first post I made on this blog.  I had sort of back tracked on that in one or two posts since, but I'm repudiating that now.  I won't delete those posts cause some thoughts I expressed in them may still be helpful, but the Abomination of Desolation happens before The Rapture.

To be very clear The Man of Sin in The Temple declaring himself God form II Thessalonians 2 must happen first.  The Image of The Beast of Revelation 13 may or may not.

The defining moment of The Beast will happen before The Rapture/Second Coming.

Latin Vulgate translation of Revelation 12:5

Et peperit filium masculum, qui recturus erat omnes gentes in virga ferrea: et raptus est filius ejus ad Deum, et ad thronum ejus,

Are The Rapture and Second Coming separate events?

This is a question that has been important to the Rapture debate for awhile.  It's not a simple yes or no.

I Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 19 are definitely about different events.  Problem is the term "Second Coming" isn't actually in The Bible at all.  The word "Coming" in the Greek Parusia, is used in I Thessalonians 4 not Revelation 19.  Revelation never uses "Coming" in reference to Jesus at all.  I prefer to refer to his Second Advent which includes both events just as his first Advent had more then one "coming".

Pre-Tribbers agree those two chapters of The Bible are separate events, and make their argument against Post-Trib dependent on that to an extent.  Problem is, here is how one Pre-Trib website defines them.

The Bible must see the Rapture (Jn. 14:1-4; I Cor. 15:51-58; 1 Thes. 4:13-18) and the Second Coming (Zech. 14:1-21; Matt. 24:29-31; Mk. 13:24-27; Lk. 21:25-27; Rev. 19) as separate events, because when the verses are compared they describe two very different scenarios:

The excerpts from the Olivte Discourse they listed by any standard resemble I Thessalonians 4 way more then Revelation 19.   And of course the Rapture has to be not in Revelation at all for them.

Here is some of how they break it down.

Rapture — believers meet Christ in the air
Second Coming — Christ returns to the Mount of Olives to meet the believers on earth

The Mount of Olives is only identified as relevant in Zechariah, but we know form Isaiah 63 that Jesus is in Edom first when he comes on a White Horse. Zechariah is consistent with this.  Jesus is in fact back already in the prior Chapters (12-14 are all one prophecy), Israel has already "Looked upon me whom they pierced".  The Mount of Olives is merely where he starts his second Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem.

Christians want to see the Mount of Olives as relevant to his return because it gives symmetry to the Ascension where he left from there.  But I'm afraid there is no solid Biblical basis for it.

Rapture — living believers obtain glorified bodies
Second Coming — living believers remain in same bodies

Good so far I guess.  Nothing said about the Revelation 19 event precludes change however.

Rapture — believers go to heaven
Second Coming — glorified believers come from heaven, earthly believers stay on earth

This is where the problem really begins.  Because Matthew 24 and Mark 13 clearly describes Jesus taking his people from the Earth to Heaven.

Rapture — no signs precede it
Second Coming — many signs precede it

This is the reason they need Matthew 24 to not be about The Rapture.  At any rate Paul in II Thessalonians 2 refers back to what he talked about in 1 Thessalonians 4 and clarifies that signs will proceed it.

Rapture — revealed only in New Testament
Second Coming — revealed in both Old and New Testaments

I believe there are at least two maybe three Rapture passages in the Old Testament, and even Pre-Tirbbers are beginning to accept this.

Matthew 24 uses the word Parusia which Paul also does in I Thessalonians 4.   Revelation doesn't use it at all.

Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians 4 refer to Jesus coming in the Clouds, in Revelation 19 and Isaiah 63 he comes on a White Horse.  But the Son of Man is on a Cloud in Revelation 14.

Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 refers to a Trumpet, Revelation 19 does not,  Revelation's Last Trumpet was the 7th in Chapter 11, which alludes to the Bema Judgment and the Resurrection of the Dead.

The word Harpazto from which via Latin we get Rapture from I Thessalonians 4 is used in Revelation in Chapter 12.

What did Paul mean by revealing a Mystery?

Pre-Tribbers will use that Paul said he was revealing a Mystery when he spoke of The Rapture to try and refute the notion that Jesus could possibly have been talking about it in Matthew 24.  Of course they think Jesus was referring to The Rapture when it suits them, for verses that sound like imminence to them.

First of all Mystery or Mysterion in Greek means what was before hidden, not necessarily something that was never there at all.

The passage in question is not I Thessalonians 4, but 1 Corinthians 15.  1 Corinthians 15 does not actually describe the Rapture (us being Caught Up) at all.  It's about The Resurrection.  Also 1 Thessalonians was written before either Corinthian Epistle.

The Resurrection was not a mystery, that was well known in both Jewish and Christian teachings.

1 Corinthians 15:50-53

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.  Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.  For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."

There are technically two, but they're both linked, ideas here that are at least not directly stated in any prior Old or New Testament passages on The Resurrection, including I Thessalonians.

1. That when The Resurrection of Church Age Believers happens, those Believers alive at that time will be Resurrected without needing to die first.

2. That the Resurrection we are promised is more then just being raised again to how we are now, we'll be changed incorruptible, restored to Adam and Eve's Pre-Fall state.

Both are conclusions one could deduce would be the case from earlier information, but this is the clearest teaching on those matters.

We know the Resurrection being discussed there is the one that happens at Jesus Coming because Paul mentions that elsewhere in the chapter.  And because the timing of The Trump is also used in I Thessalonians 4.

Matthew 24 does not mention The Resurrection.  Pre-Tribbers will also use that fact against it possibly being about The Rapture.  Meanwhile 1 Corinthians 15 is indisputably a Rapture relevant passage when it doesn't actually mention The Rapture.

No Rapture passage covers everything that happens at that event.  Including I Thessalonians 4 which for starters doesn't cover what I just discussed about 1 Corinthians 15.

Matthew 24 does indisputably cover what the word Rapture refers to.  No one is gathered to Him when he comes for Israel, He goes where they already are.

I feel it can be firmly demonstrated that 1 Thessalonians 4 and 2 Thessalonians 2 were essentially a commentary on Matthew 24.  Overall Matthew 24 has more in common with 1 Thessalonians 4 then 1 Corinthians 15 does.

Meanwhile The Rapture is in The Old Testament, in passages like Isaiah 26 and Joel 2:15-16.

In Romans 16:25-26 he seems to refer to the Gospel he preaches as something that was a concealed secret until his own time.  Yet earlier in that book he used The Torah to prove his Gospel (justification by Faith Alone), he uses Genesis 15 to prove it in both Romans and Galatians.

The Gospel Preached unto all Kingdoms, and Revelation 14

Matthew 24:14 at the end of describing the Pre-Abominaiton persecution says.

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

On it's own sounds like it's foretelling The Church spreading The Gospel.  Completing the Great Commission finally in the End Times.

Both Chuck Missler (Pre-Trib) and Chris White (Pre-Wrath) see a correlation to Revelation 14:6.

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people".

It's funny first because it actually doesn't fit either of their Rapture models to have a Pre-Rapture event in Revelation 14.

Going back to what I argued before, about the Resurrection and The Rapture actually possibly being separated by 10 days (Trumpets to Yom Kippur).  I said there I was inclined to see Revelation 14 as during this period.

Remembering that "angel" simply means messenger.  It could be the angels here are resurrected Church Believers.

I want to say something about Revelation 14:8 that Post-Tirbbers might use to back up their non-chronological view of Revelation.

"And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."

I could see someone trying to argue this proved Babylon already fell even though it's Fall is described latter.  God (and his Prophets) often uses past tense language in reference to future events(commonly known as “prophetic perfect”; example, Isaiah 53; 21:1-10).

The full context and intent here is clearly that this "Angel" is giving a Prophecy of Babylon's coming Fall.  Not simply telling everyone what they already know because they just saw it happen.

Daniel 12 on The Ressurection

Daniel 11 seems to end with the death of The Antichrist.  Daniel 12 begins with "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:" Which I feel clearly corresponds to the War in Heaven and Satan's Fall in Revelation 12.  Then it says "there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time:" Which is how Jesus describes the time immediately after The Abomination of Desolation.

Then we read "and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book."  There are a few Heavenly Books.  I feel like this probably is not the Lamb's Book of Life.  Perry Stone, while Pre-Trib if I recall correctly, has a study on the Book of Remembrance from Malachi and how he feels that backs up connecting The Rapture to the feast of Trumpets.

That verse 2 says "many" rather then "all" of the dead are raised makes me feel like, following what's before, this is a Rapture reference and not a general statement of the entire Resurrection.  But the Problem with that theory is some of the Damned are raised here too.

But I think back to my argument that The Beast and False Prophet being cast alive into the Lake of Fire in Revelation 19 means their both early partakers of the Second Resurrection.  I believe The Antichrist will have both a Death and Resurrection that the End Times world will witnesses.  And The False Prophet will be Judas.

Chris White argues based on the Strong Delusion from 2 Thessalonians 2 that The Anitchrist's resurrection is something God himself makes happen.

Given that Judas is kind of defined as part of The Church even though he wasn't Saved, which is why Matthias had to take his office.  With what I argued in my Four Horsemen study, it could work to maybe speculate that the person who turns out to be The Antichrist could be a similar situation.

All that could well mean it'd make sense to see their resurrections as happening at the same time as or very close to The Resurrection of The Church.

All of this strongly backs up that a Mid-Seventieth Week Rapture model is what Daniel 12 points to.

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.

The theory that the NWO will Stage a Fake Rapture?

There is some talk in Conspiracy theorist circles that the Elite could use top secret Technology, like Neutron Bomb technology, to make a fake Rapture happen, basically kill a bunch a Christian in a way that makes it look like they all disappeared.    The technology certainly does exist, there are weapons being developed that could vaporize flesh but leaves the cloths behind.

I'm not predicting this will happen.  I see no Bible Prophecy that says to expect it to happen.  And even though the NWO could do it I don't see why it would suite them to do so, seemingly proving a popular conservative Christian doctrine right in no way fits their agenda.  So I currently consider it unlikely.

But what I will say is IF something happens that looks like the Pre-Trib Secret Rapture idea, (just a bunch of people disappearing,) that will be a fake Rapture.  The Biblical evidence against that being what The Rapture will look like would not be refuted by something happening that does look like that.

I'll certainly know it wasn't the real Rapture if it happens and I'm not apart of it.

Also if the Temple in Jerusalem isn't standing yet, or it has been for less then three and a half years.

Mostly if the Abomination of Desolation hasn't happened yet, or at least The Antichrist's public false resurrection.  II Thessalonians 2 makes clear that can't be The Rapture.

But again I'm not saying to expect this to happen.