The use of the word "Souls" in Revelation 20 verse 4 is the linchpin of the argument of those who want to claim at least the First Resurrection isn't a literal bodily one but merely a spiritual Resurrection.
The thing is there are plenty of verses in the New Testament where "souls" is used and yet the "souls" in question are definitely still attached to living bodies.
Acts 2:41 referring to three thousand souls, Acts 7:14 referring to three score and fifteen souls, Acts 14:22 is an example that doesn't involve counting, Acts 27:37 referring to the number of souls on those ships. 1 Peter 3:20 refers to the number of souls on Noah's Ark. And there is Hebrew Bible precedent for it going back to Genesis 12:5, the very first time "souls" plural appears in the King James Version.
You might argue that this usage in Revelation is parallel to Revelation 6:9, the souls of Martyrs under the Altar when the Fifth Seal is opened, where only Pre-Tribbers argue the Bodily Resurrection of believers had already happened.
But to me that's the point, the word Resurrection isn't used in the vicinity of that reference nor is anything else said to imply it's already happened. The Seventh Trumpet is when we're first told that now is the time for the judgment of the dead. These verses of Revelation 20 are the last phase of the First Resurrection. So Revelation 6 and 7 show that Souls simply having some kind of conciseness on their own isn't a Resurrection, at least not in how this book uses that term.
I will say that the mere use of the word Souls in the Fifth Seal account should not be used as an argument agaisnt Pre-Trib, they'll just point to Revelation 20.
The thing is even if I were to concede the possibility that these Saints are ruling with Christ in Heaven not on Earth, which I will admit nothing in the immediate context contradicts. Jesus wasn't seated at the Right Hand of The Father till after His Resurrection, He was in no way reigning between Crucifixion and Resurrection, So if even Jesus needs a Risen Body to reign then so do the Saints.
This Blog is retired, for now check out this one. https://materialisteschatology.blogspot.com/
Showing posts with label The Resurrection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Resurrection. Show all posts
Thursday, April 23, 2020
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
The Beast out of the Red Sea?
My Hades and The Sea post was mainly about how the Sea is referenced in Revelation 20. But I did suggest the possibility of the Beast rising out of the Sea being an idiom of a resurrection of someone buried at sea but then said I couldn't think of any historical Antichrist candidates who were.
Because I've been again rethinking my theories about the geography of Sinai and Kadesh I was reading Exodus 15, and noticed something right in the first verse.
Later in verse 19.
Because I've been again rethinking my theories about the geography of Sinai and Kadesh I was reading Exodus 15, and noticed something right in the first verse.
"I will sing unto Yahuah, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea."We've long debated whether or not the Biblical text implies Pharaoh himself wound up also being drowned in the Red Sea, but consider the above, and how this terminology makes me think of the Four Horsemen, I'm starting to wonder if I just uncovered a vital clue to the Mystery of The Beast.
Later in verse 19.
"For the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his horsemen into the sea, and Yahuah brought again the waters of the sea upon them; but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea."Combing this with my earlier arguments for an Egyptian Antichrist, and I think I really might have just stumbled upon the key.
Wednesday, May 1, 2019
Hades and The Sea
I've become a believer in Universal Salvation, and I stress the importance of a Physical Bodily Resurrection. However I remain undecided on whether or not I think the Soul/Spirit has a concise state between physical Death and Resurrection, i.e. on the issue of Soul Sleep. No matter what I would say I don't believe in the Platonic notion of the Immortality of the Soul because I don't believe souls have a Pre-Existence.
Those topics bring up discussion of the words translated "Hell" a lot. Sheol and Hades (which are clearly the Hebrew and Greek counterparts to each other) are sometimes translated Grave, insinuating they can sometimes be an idiom for being buried in the Earth rather then an Underworld where disembodied Souls and/or Spirits reside. For example the KJV translates Sheol that way a lot, including the first few times it shows up in Genesis, but translates Hades this way only once, in 1 Corinthians 15:55 which is also the only time Paul ever uses the word.
I had been highly skeptical of that ever being a valid translation, especially since there are other words for Graves, Tombs and Sepulchers. But then I noticed something in Revelation chapter 20 I hadn't before, in verse 13.
So that heavily implies "hell" here (which is Hades in the Greek) being used in contrast to that is the location of physical bodies not otherworldly souls/spirits.
Those topics bring up discussion of the words translated "Hell" a lot. Sheol and Hades (which are clearly the Hebrew and Greek counterparts to each other) are sometimes translated Grave, insinuating they can sometimes be an idiom for being buried in the Earth rather then an Underworld where disembodied Souls and/or Spirits reside. For example the KJV translates Sheol that way a lot, including the first few times it shows up in Genesis, but translates Hades this way only once, in 1 Corinthians 15:55 which is also the only time Paul ever uses the word.
I had been highly skeptical of that ever being a valid translation, especially since there are other words for Graves, Tombs and Sepulchers. But then I noticed something in Revelation chapter 20 I hadn't before, in verse 13.
"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them:"The reference to there being dead in the sea here clearly refers to how many people are buried at sea, in ancient and medieval times when we didn't have modern preservation technology if you died while at sea you were probably buried at sea whether you would have preferred that or not because the body was going to start to rot.
So that heavily implies "hell" here (which is Hades in the Greek) being used in contrast to that is the location of physical bodies not otherworldly souls/spirits.
"But Death is also a location name then" you may ask. The Psalms speak often of the Valley of the Shadow of Death which I feel is a term for Sheol whether it's used literally geographically or poetically.
This also makes me start wondering about the Beast rising out of the Sea in chapter 13 (it is the same word for sea in the Greek). Since there is already reason to suspect the beast is subject to an early Second Resurrection, maybe this is an idiom of that. But I can't right now think of any historical Antichrist candidates who were buried at sea.
This verse certainly further shows that the Resurrection isn't merely Spiritual.
This also makes me start wondering about the Beast rising out of the Sea in chapter 13 (it is the same word for sea in the Greek). Since there is already reason to suspect the beast is subject to an early Second Resurrection, maybe this is an idiom of that. But I can't right now think of any historical Antichrist candidates who were buried at sea.
This verse certainly further shows that the Resurrection isn't merely Spiritual.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
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.
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.
Sunday, November 12, 2017
The Second Resurrection
I did a post on The First Resurrection already. I've updated that post fairly recently, so if you only read it when it was new, you might want to read it again.
Most assume the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll wind up in the Lake of Fire, and so the people at the White Throne Judgment who do not wind up there must be from earlier Resurrection events. But what Revelation 20 says does not support this. Those resurrected in verse 4 reigned with Christ a Thousand years, they received a reward already, there is no need for a future Judgment. And the Bema Judgment of those Resurrected at The Rapture I firmly believe happens soon after The Rapture at the 7th Trumpet, because of Revelation 11:18.
Those Judged in Revelation 20:11-15 are only those Resurrected then.
Some Post-Tribbers, and others who oppose interpreting Revelation Chronologically, like some Post-Millenialists, point to John 5:28-29 to prove that those who are saved and those who aren't will be Resurrected at the same time. But that's because they are assuming the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll be cast into the Lake of Fire when Revelation never ever says that. Those verses from John 5 I believe say every person dead at that time will rise, but it does not preclude some being resurrected earlier.
The Sheep and Goats Judgment, which is the last Parable of Matthew 25, also supports this. The fact is, those who Believed in Jesus in this Life are neither the Sheep or Goats, we are His Brethren, a clearly distinct entity in that parable. This is also about the Second Resurrection.
Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 that those who are Christ's are Resurrected at His Parusia, and the rest are resurrected when all the enemies have been defeated. The last of which is Death. The Second Death, is the death of Death, as Revelation 20:14 clearly says.
This clear unambiguous teaching of Scripture harms a lot of traditional assumptions about Soterology. And that is why I now direct you to my Sola Scriptura Christian Liberty blog.
Most assume the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll wind up in the Lake of Fire, and so the people at the White Throne Judgment who do not wind up there must be from earlier Resurrection events. But what Revelation 20 says does not support this. Those resurrected in verse 4 reigned with Christ a Thousand years, they received a reward already, there is no need for a future Judgment. And the Bema Judgment of those Resurrected at The Rapture I firmly believe happens soon after The Rapture at the 7th Trumpet, because of Revelation 11:18.
Those Judged in Revelation 20:11-15 are only those Resurrected then.
Some Post-Tribbers, and others who oppose interpreting Revelation Chronologically, like some Post-Millenialists, point to John 5:28-29 to prove that those who are saved and those who aren't will be Resurrected at the same time. But that's because they are assuming the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll be cast into the Lake of Fire when Revelation never ever says that. Those verses from John 5 I believe say every person dead at that time will rise, but it does not preclude some being resurrected earlier.
The Sheep and Goats Judgment, which is the last Parable of Matthew 25, also supports this. The fact is, those who Believed in Jesus in this Life are neither the Sheep or Goats, we are His Brethren, a clearly distinct entity in that parable. This is also about the Second Resurrection.
Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 that those who are Christ's are Resurrected at His Parusia, and the rest are resurrected when all the enemies have been defeated. The last of which is Death. The Second Death, is the death of Death, as Revelation 20:14 clearly says.
This clear unambiguous teaching of Scripture harms a lot of traditional assumptions about Soterology. And that is why I now direct you to my Sola Scriptura Christian Liberty blog.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Can Flesh and Blood inherit The Kingdom of God?
In 1 Corinthians 15:50 Paul says.
There is a lot of Context missing from how they abuse this quote. Before I deal with the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 15, I want to go back to Genesis.
In Genesis 2:23 after Eve is created Adam says "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.". Notice that Blood wasn't mentioned here. Likewise Paul in Ephesians 6 describes Angels, (who clearly do have bodies Physical enough to Eat and have Sex, and for us to entertain them unawares,) as being not flesh and blood.
So this is perfectly consistent with the Doctrine that the true Resurrection is us being restored to how Adam and Eve were before The Fall, and similar to how Angels are. It may be that Blood exists because of Sin and that is why it's Blood that is Shed for Sin. Verses that call Wine the "Pure Blood of The Grape" have been taken as implying that the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was Grape like, and Blood is the product of eating that Fruit.
Now, 1 Corinthians 15:50-53 says.
The terminology would be of taking off, not putting on, if it was about our Spirits being freed from our Bodies.
I was seeing on Facebook someone who I think would qualify as a Partial Preterist say based on Thessalonians that there could be a long gap between the Resurrection and The Rapture. Well the Rapture technically isn't in 1 Corinthians 15, but Paul does say that within the "Twinking of an Eye" the Dead are Raised and the Living changed. And the clear implication is those living when the Dead rise won't "Sleep" here referring to physical death.
That utterly destroys the Preterist view that this is just about the Souls in Hades being liberated to go to Heaven.
Hades BTW was emptied at least of all Believers when Jesus went there between his Death and Resurrection, which Peter clearly refers to. The Harrowing of Hell.
InspiringPhilsphy also had a good video on this subject, they I disagree with him in other areas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rffmrioFnBY
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;And this gets used by Preterists and others who want to deny The Resurrection we are looking forward to is of our physical Bodies and make it merely a Spiritual Resurrection. Especially since this passage is specifically on The Resurrection.
There is a lot of Context missing from how they abuse this quote. Before I deal with the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 15, I want to go back to Genesis.
In Genesis 2:23 after Eve is created Adam says "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.". Notice that Blood wasn't mentioned here. Likewise Paul in Ephesians 6 describes Angels, (who clearly do have bodies Physical enough to Eat and have Sex, and for us to entertain them unawares,) as being not flesh and blood.
So this is perfectly consistent with the Doctrine that the true Resurrection is us being restored to how Adam and Eve were before The Fall, and similar to how Angels are. It may be that Blood exists because of Sin and that is why it's Blood that is Shed for Sin. Verses that call Wine the "Pure Blood of The Grape" have been taken as implying that the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was Grape like, and Blood is the product of eating that Fruit.
Now, 1 Corinthians 15:50-53 says.
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.Making this consistent with saying only the Spirit is Resurrected requires an incredible torturing of the Text.
The terminology would be of taking off, not putting on, if it was about our Spirits being freed from our Bodies.
I was seeing on Facebook someone who I think would qualify as a Partial Preterist say based on Thessalonians that there could be a long gap between the Resurrection and The Rapture. Well the Rapture technically isn't in 1 Corinthians 15, but Paul does say that within the "Twinking of an Eye" the Dead are Raised and the Living changed. And the clear implication is those living when the Dead rise won't "Sleep" here referring to physical death.
That utterly destroys the Preterist view that this is just about the Souls in Hades being liberated to go to Heaven.
Hades BTW was emptied at least of all Believers when Jesus went there between his Death and Resurrection, which Peter clearly refers to. The Harrowing of Hell.
InspiringPhilsphy also had a good video on this subject, they I disagree with him in other areas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rffmrioFnBY
Sunday, March 5, 2017
The First Ressurection
Post-Tribbers like to insist that Revelation 20 tells us when the
First Resurrection happens. I
The Resurrection happens at the Seventh Trumpet, and we see Resurrected Church Believers in the Heavenly Zion in chapter 14.
It is the saints seen in Chapter 15 who are most directly defined as those being refereed to in Chapter 20 as reigning with Christ during The Millennium. It is an inherently specific group, only those Marytered by The Beast, unless your an Historicist, you can't say that refers to all Believers.
The term "first resurrection" is a classification more so then a sequence. Like Amalek being called the First of the Nations in Numbers 24:20, when as a bastard grandson of Esau he was no where near the first to come into existence. Or saying something is First Class.
It begins with Jesus, then those Matthew 27:51-53 refers to as rising soon after Jesus did. Then The Church at The Rapture, and then those incorrectly called by pre-tribbers 'Tribulation Saints" in chapter 20.
This goes back to my many other posts on The Resurrection.
The Resurrection happens at the Seventh Trumpet, and we see Resurrected Church Believers in the Heavenly Zion in chapter 14.
It is the saints seen in Chapter 15 who are most directly defined as those being refereed to in Chapter 20 as reigning with Christ during The Millennium. It is an inherently specific group, only those Marytered by The Beast, unless your an Historicist, you can't say that refers to all Believers.
The term "first resurrection" is a classification more so then a sequence. Like Amalek being called the First of the Nations in Numbers 24:20, when as a bastard grandson of Esau he was no where near the first to come into existence. Or saying something is First Class.
It begins with Jesus, then those Matthew 27:51-53 refers to as rising soon after Jesus did. Then The Church at The Rapture, and then those incorrectly called by pre-tribbers 'Tribulation Saints" in chapter 20.
This goes back to my many other posts on The Resurrection.
Saturday, February 25, 2017
The Mount of Olives Crucifixion model
I became aware of this model last month, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced of it, but still holding some reservations. I don't want to rehash how others make the argument, I'll provide some links for that. But a warning, such links may allude to other views of their authors I don't agree with.
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/stunning.html
https://www.vision.org/visionmedia/Bible.history/Golgotha.where.is.it/31293.aspx
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-84-christ-in-the-holy-of-holies-the-meaning-of-the-mount-of-olives/
It appears a key innovator in this theory was Dr. Ernest L. Martin's 280-page book entitled Secrets of Golgotha. It can be found on Amazon, but not currently for a reasonable price.
Bob Cornuke wants to argue for it as if it specifically proves or is dependent on his model for The Temple's location. It's not, the issue of the traditional sites being north rather then East of the Temple is the same with all four proposed locations for The Temple. And the Mount of Olives is actually far enough north to arguably fit a Temple Mount location better then Cornuke's. I still favor the Al-Kas Fountain view.
John 19:21 tells us the place where Jesus was buried was right by the place He was Crucified. We also know this Tomb was originally the tomb Joseph of Arimathea had prepared for himself. Arimathea is probably a Rama or Ramath of the Hebrew Bible. Joshua 18:25 and Nehemiah 11:33 places one in the territory of Benjamin, and Judges 19:13 and Isaiah 10:29 seems to place it near Gibea. Though Judges 4:5 places one near Bethel. Why would he have a Tomb near Jerusalem? Well let's get into that.
Zechariah 14:4-5 has lead many Jews to conclude that The Resurrection of The Dead will begin at the Mount of Olives. I'm not sure why that is, I don't see the Resurrection in that verse. But because of this many Jews have wanted to be buried on the Mount of Olives. (Mount of Olives description, from www.goisrael.com, retrieved January 4, 2012.) And it seems this tendency dates back to before the Time of Christ. So that makes the Mount of Olives the most likely place for someone like Joseph of Arimathea to have a Tomb built.
I've also been exploring on this blog the idea that most of Zechariah 12-14 was fulfilled from 30-70 AD. What if the Earthquake caused by The Messiah standing on the Mont of Olives is either the Earthquake associated with the Death of Jesus, or the one that rolled the Stone away at His Resurrection?
That would mean the Resurrection did begin there, first with Jesus but then also as Matthew 27:51-53 says many others who's tombs were split open by that Earthquake soon after. Which I feel ties into Daniel 12, the only other passage on the Resurrection that says "many" rather then all.
The Biblical designation "Mount of Corruption", or in Hebrew Har HaMashchit (I Kings 11:7–8), derives from the idol worship there, begun by King Solomon building altars to the gods of his Moabite and Ammonite wives on the southern peak, "on the mountain which is before (east of) Jerusalem" (1 Kings 11:7), just outside the limits of the holy city. This site was known for idol worship throughout the First Temple period, until king of Judah, Josiah, finally destroyed "the high places that were before Jerusalem, to the right of Har HaMashchit..."(II Kings 23:13)
Ezekiel 11:23 says "And the glory of Yahuah went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city.". That would be the Mount of Olives.
Zechariah compares this Earthquake to the Earthquake in the days of Uzziah. That Earthquake according to Josephus Antiquities IX 10:4 ( about 2 Chronicles 26) also involved the Temple being rent. Meanwhile, there is archeological evidence Uzziah's body might have wound up among those buried on the Mount of Olives, the Uzziah Tablet.
Update October 22nd 2017: I may abandon this.
Mark 15:37-39 is the key to the Mount of Olives view. I get why it seems to many to say the Centurion (who's probably not the same soldier who pierced him in John 19) must have seen the Veil being torn, putting them to the East of The Temple. However verse 39 is pretty specific that Jesus crying out and giving up the Ghost is what the Centurion saw to cause this reaction. The fact that he died at that exact moment by his own will is what impressed this Roman Solider, who was probably raised to value controlling one's own death. He wouldn't have cared about a decoration in the Jewish Temple.
And with that smoking gun weakened, and my dependence on extra-Biblical sources here. And that the NT does clearly refer to the Mount of Olives in other places when something happens there. Has caused me to come to doubt this view now.
As far as Hebrews 13:11-12 and it's comparison to Jesus Crucifixion as where the "Without the camp" reference. They are forgetting Exodus 33:7 says the Tabernacle as without the Camp. I don't think the intent of this verse is to be a clue to the geography of Jesus Crucifixion.
Update: March 16th 2018: Red Heifer
I've been looking into the Red Heifer issue lately. I had went past me before that Number 19 which Hebrews 13:12-13 is assumed to be quoting is the Red Heifer passage. I still don't think Hebrews says enough to make us certain that's what's referring to. But we do now know archeologically that the Mount of Olives is where the Red Heifer sacrifice was performed during the Second Temple period.
My theory that Jesus was Crucified where Solomon's Temple was, is perhaps weakened by my observation that the New Testament never particularly approves of Solomon. But not entirely. I"m still uncertain about much of this.
Actually I can now argue that Hebrews 13:11-13 being a clue to the location of the Crucifixion can fit other models. Because regardless of where the Second Temple traditions said to do it. The "Without the Camp" of Numbers 19 isn't that far without, because it also says to sprinkle blood at the entrance to the Tabernacle.
Plus no matter what Jesus was outside what the city limits of Jerusalem were at the time.
So I've still come to reject this theory.
Further Update March 19th 2018: Bethany
BTW, Bethany is on the Mount of Olives (Luke 19:29), so Lazarus Resurrection could be said to fulfill an expectation that the Resurrection begins there.
But that reminds me that my post trying to argue that maybe Jesus was crucified much further from Jerusalem then often assumed discussed how "nigh to Jerusalem" is used of both the Crucifixion location and Bethany. So that becomes an interesting connection.
Actually my reasoning for the Crucifixion where Solmon's Temple was theory is deteriorating.
Update December 2018: Even though this sin't my main post on the Mt of Olives model anymore, I want to copy/paste this here which I decided to remove from the Bethlehem is Zion post.
Some kings are assumed to not be buried with the others in the City of David however. Manasseh and Amon were buried in the Garden of Uzza or Uzzah, in 2 Kings 21. Manasseh is still said to have "slept with his fathers", however that terminology is arguably more vague being sometimes just used of death in general. But, Uzzah was also the name of the person who died from touching the Ark as it was transported to the City of David, and David named a location after this Uzzah, Perezuzzah. And another Uzza is listed in 1 Chronicles 6:29 as a Levite who was appointed a Musician in the Tabernacle of David. So the name of Uzza can be linked to the City of David.
Jehoram was buried in the City of David but not with the other kings because of the condition he died in according to 2 Chronicles 21:20. 2 Chronicles 24:25 has a similar situation with Joash. Jehoiada, a priest who married Jehosheba, a daughter of Jehoram, is refereed to as being buried among the Kings in the City of David in 2 Chronicles 24:16. So that adds more context to the Asahel situation.
Another King explicitly said not to be Buried with the others was Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:27, and this time it doesn't mention the City of David but says he was buried in Jerusalem. Maybe where he was buried could be a clue to Manesseh and Amon's Garden of Uzza.
The name of Uzza/Uzzah here could be a variation of Uzziah, another name of King Azariah. This king was originally buried "in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings" (2 Kings 15:7; 2 Chr. 26:23), but... that leads us to the Uzziah Tablet.
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/stunning.html
https://www.vision.org/visionmedia/Bible.history/Golgotha.where.is.it/31293.aspx
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-84-christ-in-the-holy-of-holies-the-meaning-of-the-mount-of-olives/
It appears a key innovator in this theory was Dr. Ernest L. Martin's 280-page book entitled Secrets of Golgotha. It can be found on Amazon, but not currently for a reasonable price.
Bob Cornuke wants to argue for it as if it specifically proves or is dependent on his model for The Temple's location. It's not, the issue of the traditional sites being north rather then East of the Temple is the same with all four proposed locations for The Temple. And the Mount of Olives is actually far enough north to arguably fit a Temple Mount location better then Cornuke's. I still favor the Al-Kas Fountain view.
John 19:21 tells us the place where Jesus was buried was right by the place He was Crucified. We also know this Tomb was originally the tomb Joseph of Arimathea had prepared for himself. Arimathea is probably a Rama or Ramath of the Hebrew Bible. Joshua 18:25 and Nehemiah 11:33 places one in the territory of Benjamin, and Judges 19:13 and Isaiah 10:29 seems to place it near Gibea. Though Judges 4:5 places one near Bethel. Why would he have a Tomb near Jerusalem? Well let's get into that.
Zechariah 14:4-5 has lead many Jews to conclude that The Resurrection of The Dead will begin at the Mount of Olives. I'm not sure why that is, I don't see the Resurrection in that verse. But because of this many Jews have wanted to be buried on the Mount of Olives. (Mount of Olives description, from www.goisrael.com, retrieved January 4, 2012.) And it seems this tendency dates back to before the Time of Christ. So that makes the Mount of Olives the most likely place for someone like Joseph of Arimathea to have a Tomb built.
I've also been exploring on this blog the idea that most of Zechariah 12-14 was fulfilled from 30-70 AD. What if the Earthquake caused by The Messiah standing on the Mont of Olives is either the Earthquake associated with the Death of Jesus, or the one that rolled the Stone away at His Resurrection?
That would mean the Resurrection did begin there, first with Jesus but then also as Matthew 27:51-53 says many others who's tombs were split open by that Earthquake soon after. Which I feel ties into Daniel 12, the only other passage on the Resurrection that says "many" rather then all.
The Biblical designation "Mount of Corruption", or in Hebrew Har HaMashchit (I Kings 11:7–8), derives from the idol worship there, begun by King Solomon building altars to the gods of his Moabite and Ammonite wives on the southern peak, "on the mountain which is before (east of) Jerusalem" (1 Kings 11:7), just outside the limits of the holy city. This site was known for idol worship throughout the First Temple period, until king of Judah, Josiah, finally destroyed "the high places that were before Jerusalem, to the right of Har HaMashchit..."(II Kings 23:13)
Ezekiel 11:23 says "And the glory of Yahuah went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city.". That would be the Mount of Olives.
Zechariah compares this Earthquake to the Earthquake in the days of Uzziah. That Earthquake according to Josephus Antiquities IX 10:4 ( about 2 Chronicles 26) also involved the Temple being rent. Meanwhile, there is archeological evidence Uzziah's body might have wound up among those buried on the Mount of Olives, the Uzziah Tablet.
In 1931 an archeological find, now known as the Uzziah Tablet, was discovered by Professor E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He came across the artifact in a Russian convent collection from the Mount of Olives. The origin of the tablet previous to this remains unknown and was not documented by the convent. The inscription on the tablet is written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to Biblical Aramaic. According to its script, it is dated to around AD 30-70, around 700 years after the supposed death of Uzziah of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. Nevertheless, the inscription is translated, "Hither were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah. Not to be opened." It is open to debate whether this tablet really was part of the tomb of King Uzziah or simply a later creation. It may be that there was a later reburial of Uzziah here during the Second Temple Period.And if you think Uzziah's action sounds like a good type of the Antichrist or the False Prophet. Well Daniel 12 implies this Resurrection will include some who wind up in the Lake of Fire also.
Update October 22nd 2017: I may abandon this.
Mark 15:37-39 is the key to the Mount of Olives view. I get why it seems to many to say the Centurion (who's probably not the same soldier who pierced him in John 19) must have seen the Veil being torn, putting them to the East of The Temple. However verse 39 is pretty specific that Jesus crying out and giving up the Ghost is what the Centurion saw to cause this reaction. The fact that he died at that exact moment by his own will is what impressed this Roman Solider, who was probably raised to value controlling one's own death. He wouldn't have cared about a decoration in the Jewish Temple.
And with that smoking gun weakened, and my dependence on extra-Biblical sources here. And that the NT does clearly refer to the Mount of Olives in other places when something happens there. Has caused me to come to doubt this view now.
As far as Hebrews 13:11-12 and it's comparison to Jesus Crucifixion as where the "Without the camp" reference. They are forgetting Exodus 33:7 says the Tabernacle as without the Camp. I don't think the intent of this verse is to be a clue to the geography of Jesus Crucifixion.
Update: March 16th 2018: Red Heifer
I've been looking into the Red Heifer issue lately. I had went past me before that Number 19 which Hebrews 13:12-13 is assumed to be quoting is the Red Heifer passage. I still don't think Hebrews says enough to make us certain that's what's referring to. But we do now know archeologically that the Mount of Olives is where the Red Heifer sacrifice was performed during the Second Temple period.
My theory that Jesus was Crucified where Solomon's Temple was, is perhaps weakened by my observation that the New Testament never particularly approves of Solomon. But not entirely. I"m still uncertain about much of this.
Actually I can now argue that Hebrews 13:11-13 being a clue to the location of the Crucifixion can fit other models. Because regardless of where the Second Temple traditions said to do it. The "Without the Camp" of Numbers 19 isn't that far without, because it also says to sprinkle blood at the entrance to the Tabernacle.
Plus no matter what Jesus was outside what the city limits of Jerusalem were at the time.
So I've still come to reject this theory.
Further Update March 19th 2018: Bethany
BTW, Bethany is on the Mount of Olives (Luke 19:29), so Lazarus Resurrection could be said to fulfill an expectation that the Resurrection begins there.
But that reminds me that my post trying to argue that maybe Jesus was crucified much further from Jerusalem then often assumed discussed how "nigh to Jerusalem" is used of both the Crucifixion location and Bethany. So that becomes an interesting connection.
Actually my reasoning for the Crucifixion where Solmon's Temple was theory is deteriorating.
Update December 2018: Even though this sin't my main post on the Mt of Olives model anymore, I want to copy/paste this here which I decided to remove from the Bethlehem is Zion post.
Some kings are assumed to not be buried with the others in the City of David however. Manasseh and Amon were buried in the Garden of Uzza or Uzzah, in 2 Kings 21. Manasseh is still said to have "slept with his fathers", however that terminology is arguably more vague being sometimes just used of death in general. But, Uzzah was also the name of the person who died from touching the Ark as it was transported to the City of David, and David named a location after this Uzzah, Perezuzzah. And another Uzza is listed in 1 Chronicles 6:29 as a Levite who was appointed a Musician in the Tabernacle of David. So the name of Uzza can be linked to the City of David.
Jehoram was buried in the City of David but not with the other kings because of the condition he died in according to 2 Chronicles 21:20. 2 Chronicles 24:25 has a similar situation with Joash. Jehoiada, a priest who married Jehosheba, a daughter of Jehoram, is refereed to as being buried among the Kings in the City of David in 2 Chronicles 24:16. So that adds more context to the Asahel situation.
Another King explicitly said not to be Buried with the others was Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:27, and this time it doesn't mention the City of David but says he was buried in Jerusalem. Maybe where he was buried could be a clue to Manesseh and Amon's Garden of Uzza.
The name of Uzza/Uzzah here could be a variation of Uzziah, another name of King Azariah. This king was originally buried "in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings" (2 Kings 15:7; 2 Chr. 26:23), but... that leads us to the Uzziah Tablet.
In 1931 an archeological find, now known as the Uzziah Tablet, was discovered by Professor E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He came across the artifact in a Russian convent collection from the Mount of Olives. The origin of the tablet previous to this remains unknown and was not documented by the convent. The inscription on the tablet is written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to Biblical Aramaic. According to its script, it is dated to around AD 30-70, around 700 years after the supposed death of Uzziah of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. Nevertheless, the inscription is translated, "Hither were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah. Not to be opened." It is open to debate whether this tablet really was part of the tomb of King Uzziah or simply a later creation. It may be that there was a later reburial of Uzziah here during the Second Temple Period.Being buried on the Mount of Olives, is pretty interesting.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
I think The Man-Child is The Church
I did a post on the subject of The Rapture of The Man-Child before. But my thinking has changed since then. First read this so you understand that all of this follows The Seventh Trumpet.
Back then I was focused on how The Man-Child could be both Christ and The Church, because The Church is the Body of Christ. And that remains an important part of the argument. But I've come to think it's placement in Revelation makes him, particularly in terms of his being "Caught Up", more about The Church.
The Greek term Harpatzo isn't used of the Ascension, it wouldn't be because Jesus ascended on His own, no one had to come down to get him. But that same key word used in I Thessalonians 4, that is via it's Latin Translations the origin of the term Rapture, is used once and only once in Revelation, right here.
I'm aware that Harpatzo/Rapture/Caught Up is used of things not relevant to The Rapture debate. My point here is that the alternative view of what The Man-Child's Rapture refers to is the one and only Ascension in The Bible where using that term would be inappropriate. Harpatzo implies the person ascending isn't in control of their ascension, someone else is. That's why the term enraptured comes from rapture. Jesus was in full control of his Ascension, and is in full control of every other Biblical Ascension.
And also that the term could have accurately described some other events in Revelation, like 4:1 or the Ascension of the Witnesses. But John used it only here. Now in the first century that particular word Paul used in 1 Thessalonians 4 may not have been a point of contention, but The Holy Spirit knew it would be and I think maybe was specific about how to use it in The Apocalypse.
I've seen it argued the Man-Child can't be the Church because he's Caught up to God's Throne. Revelation 12 does NOT say the Man-Child sits on the Throne (which it probably would have if the Man-Child was Jesus), the terminology is consistent just with the Man-Child being in the Throne Room. Read chapters 14 and 15.
Ruling the nations with a Rod of Iron is applied to presumably Jesus in Psalm 2, and again later in Revelation in chapter 19. But in the context of reading through Revelation on it's own without knowledge of what's ahead, the promise to rule the nations with a Rod of Iron was applied to faithful believers in Revelation 2:27.
I recommend a study on my other blog where I point out how some of our casual Christian lingo is wrong. We are "Born Again" at the Resurrection not when we are saved. We are begotten again or conceived when we are Saved. So if the concept of New Birth is linked to the Resurrection, and The Rapture we know happens when we are Resurrected. Then it's quite interesting that The Man-Child is born and Raptured in the same verse.
Numerous passages outside Revelation speak of a woman travailing in child birth as an idiom of the signs of the the Second Coming. But we never connect that to Revelation 12 because we're so used to this assumption that the Birth of The Man-Child there is referring to something that already happened at The First Advent.
Isaiah 66 also clearly defines The Man-Child as Zion/New Jerusalem.
As an individual our begetting happens when we're saved. The Church as an entity was Begotten arguably you could say over the course of The Spring Feasts in 30 AD. The Woman is Israel, we were conceived in Israel's Womb from the Bodily fluids of Jesus shed at The Cross.
Jesus is represented differently at different parts of Revelation, the Lamb, the Son of Man, ect. The Church is the same situation. We are definitely The Bride. And I see the 144,000 as a specific group that sort of represents the whole at times. They are on earth through The Trumpets, but on the Heavenly Zion in Revelation 14, and described with terms Paul linked to the Resurrection like First Fruits and Redeemed from the Earth.
Some insist The Church can never be symbolically masculine due to the Bride of Christ doctrine. Well we can't be Jesus Body then now can we? Paul even talks in Corinthians about our members being the members of Christ. That's leaving aside that some people don't even agree with The Bride doctrine, and over time I've re-thought that myself. Psalm 45 depicts The Messiah and his Bride as having children.
There were no chapter divisions in the original text. Revelation 12 follows 11, this is still the aftermath of the Seventh Trumpet, where it says now is the time of The Dead. I believe firmly that that Trumpet sounds on Yom Teruah. The 70th Week will begin and end with Nisan.
Revelation 12's beginning could also be the Sign of the Son of Man that Jesus spoke of. Or the Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars from Luke 21.
And maybe that is why this is when Satan is finally kicked out of Heaven (Michael is the aggressor here). It is when We are there fully Redeemed and brought there that God won't tolerate Satan's presence there any longer.
As far as the desire to link this to possibly Constellation alignments involving Virgo. While the time of year that points to happens to agree with when I believe this will happen for many other reasons, I remain highly skeptical. Ultimately I think this is something Supernatural, but it could be Supernatural and also involve Virgo. I've posted on related conjectures before. However I was mistaken when I said Virgo is completely not visible then. when the Sun is just starting to enter Virgo she remains partially visible at Dusk for a hour or so.
Back then I was focused on how The Man-Child could be both Christ and The Church, because The Church is the Body of Christ. And that remains an important part of the argument. But I've come to think it's placement in Revelation makes him, particularly in terms of his being "Caught Up", more about The Church.
The Greek term Harpatzo isn't used of the Ascension, it wouldn't be because Jesus ascended on His own, no one had to come down to get him. But that same key word used in I Thessalonians 4, that is via it's Latin Translations the origin of the term Rapture, is used once and only once in Revelation, right here.
I'm aware that Harpatzo/Rapture/Caught Up is used of things not relevant to The Rapture debate. My point here is that the alternative view of what The Man-Child's Rapture refers to is the one and only Ascension in The Bible where using that term would be inappropriate. Harpatzo implies the person ascending isn't in control of their ascension, someone else is. That's why the term enraptured comes from rapture. Jesus was in full control of his Ascension, and is in full control of every other Biblical Ascension.
And also that the term could have accurately described some other events in Revelation, like 4:1 or the Ascension of the Witnesses. But John used it only here. Now in the first century that particular word Paul used in 1 Thessalonians 4 may not have been a point of contention, but The Holy Spirit knew it would be and I think maybe was specific about how to use it in The Apocalypse.
I've seen it argued the Man-Child can't be the Church because he's Caught up to God's Throne. Revelation 12 does NOT say the Man-Child sits on the Throne (which it probably would have if the Man-Child was Jesus), the terminology is consistent just with the Man-Child being in the Throne Room. Read chapters 14 and 15.
Ruling the nations with a Rod of Iron is applied to presumably Jesus in Psalm 2, and again later in Revelation in chapter 19. But in the context of reading through Revelation on it's own without knowledge of what's ahead, the promise to rule the nations with a Rod of Iron was applied to faithful believers in Revelation 2:27.
I recommend a study on my other blog where I point out how some of our casual Christian lingo is wrong. We are "Born Again" at the Resurrection not when we are saved. We are begotten again or conceived when we are Saved. So if the concept of New Birth is linked to the Resurrection, and The Rapture we know happens when we are Resurrected. Then it's quite interesting that The Man-Child is born and Raptured in the same verse.
Numerous passages outside Revelation speak of a woman travailing in child birth as an idiom of the signs of the the Second Coming. But we never connect that to Revelation 12 because we're so used to this assumption that the Birth of The Man-Child there is referring to something that already happened at The First Advent.
Isaiah 66 also clearly defines The Man-Child as Zion/New Jerusalem.
As an individual our begetting happens when we're saved. The Church as an entity was Begotten arguably you could say over the course of The Spring Feasts in 30 AD. The Woman is Israel, we were conceived in Israel's Womb from the Bodily fluids of Jesus shed at The Cross.
Jesus is represented differently at different parts of Revelation, the Lamb, the Son of Man, ect. The Church is the same situation. We are definitely The Bride. And I see the 144,000 as a specific group that sort of represents the whole at times. They are on earth through The Trumpets, but on the Heavenly Zion in Revelation 14, and described with terms Paul linked to the Resurrection like First Fruits and Redeemed from the Earth.
Some insist The Church can never be symbolically masculine due to the Bride of Christ doctrine. Well we can't be Jesus Body then now can we? Paul even talks in Corinthians about our members being the members of Christ. That's leaving aside that some people don't even agree with The Bride doctrine, and over time I've re-thought that myself. Psalm 45 depicts The Messiah and his Bride as having children.
There were no chapter divisions in the original text. Revelation 12 follows 11, this is still the aftermath of the Seventh Trumpet, where it says now is the time of The Dead. I believe firmly that that Trumpet sounds on Yom Teruah. The 70th Week will begin and end with Nisan.
Revelation 12's beginning could also be the Sign of the Son of Man that Jesus spoke of. Or the Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars from Luke 21.
And maybe that is why this is when Satan is finally kicked out of Heaven (Michael is the aggressor here). It is when We are there fully Redeemed and brought there that God won't tolerate Satan's presence there any longer.
As far as the desire to link this to possibly Constellation alignments involving Virgo. While the time of year that points to happens to agree with when I believe this will happen for many other reasons, I remain highly skeptical. Ultimately I think this is something Supernatural, but it could be Supernatural and also involve Virgo. I've posted on related conjectures before. However I was mistaken when I said Virgo is completely not visible then. when the Sun is just starting to enter Virgo she remains partially visible at Dusk for a hour or so.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Was Alexander The Great Resurrected in 30 AD?
This is a follow up to an earlier study I did. Were some of the Angels once normal human beings. Where I argued many Old Testament Saints who were resurrected in 30 AD now also serve as Angels.
Why argue that a notorious Gentile Pagan world leader could be among those? We begin in Daniel 7.
Daniel 7 is a prophecy where the symbolism has two layers to it. The Beasts represents the kingdoms/nations of those world empires. But also for the first three at least their most notorious Kings who made them world empires. The Fourth is more complicated because Rome's history is more complicated.
Daniel 7:12 after describing the fourth beast's destruction says "As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." This shows that those three nations will still exist in the Millennium. But I also feel it should also apply to the three Kings. Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great. Which would make those three saved individuals.
With Nebuchadnezzar we know he's saved because Daniel 4 records his Salvation.
Some Dispensationlists teach salvation was different before The Cross, it's by Faith Alone only after. Problem is Paul was using the Old Testament to prove his point. In Galatians we are told Abraham was saved by Faith when he believed God in Genesis 15.
What exactly you needed to believe may have been different, since the NT wasn't written yet. But it was still by Belief. Jesus also tells us as The Queen of Sheba was saved because she believed Solomon, and the men of Nineveh because they believed Jonah. That they repented was a different cause to a different effect.
Isaiah 44-45 records a message God wrote to Cyrus before he was born. We know from the end of 2 Chronicles and beginning of Ezra that Cyrus did as God told him. Josephus records that it was Daniel who showed Isaiah's scroll to Cyrus. So Cyrus was saved by believing Isaiah's message I suspect.
Josephus later records that Daniel's prophecies that mentioned Alexander The Great were shown to Alexander when he was in Jerusalem. If you read Josephus account of Alexander in Jerusalem with this Biblical precedent in mind, you'll be left with little doubt that he was Saved at that time. And because I believe in Eternal Security, none of his later sins either disproved that salvation or undid it.
As I said before on the subject of the 30 AD Resurrection of Old Testament Saints. Maybe not all were resurrected then (Matthew's text says many not all) and some are being saved for later. So if we ever find Alexander's body it would not disprove anything I argued for above, only what I'm about to argue for below.
I've looked at the history of historical references to Alexander's body and/or tomb and found some things curious.
The last recorded visit that takes place before 30 AD is when Augustus visited it. Where he accidentally damaged his Nose trying to place a reef on the body. Dion Cassius, LI, 16 and LXXV, 13. reports Augustus' request to see the body of Alexander. "But touching the nose he did some damage to it. Asked if he wanted to visit the tombs of the Ptolemies, he refused, saying that: "I came to see a king and not dead men". Also Suetonius, vit. Auq. XVIII.
The first visit known to happen after 30 AD is Caligula's also recorded by Suetonius. He removed Alexander's breast plate, but the body isn't really directly mentioned. You'd think the man with the more reckless personality seeking to do a more difficult task would do more damage to it?
Dion also records that in his own day the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus sealed up the Tomb. He also mentions that Severus placed in the Mausoleum all the secret books "so none could read the books nor see the body". Septimius Severus was also one of the Emperors who persecuted Christianity, and his wife was a notorious opponent of Christianity.
The next Emperor, Caracalla, placed items in the Tomb but again the body isn't mentioned. A modern theory that he moved the body to a tomb in Macedon has been formed. Why would he do that while still honoring the Tomb in Alexandria? He also believed he was something like a reincarnation of Alexander (he was one of the crazy Emperors) maybe a lack of Body there helped reinforce that idea in his head.
The Body itself seems to have always been visible and referenced before 30 AD, but after that direct references to the body are avoided. Maybe it disappeared in 30 AD?
It was in the 4th Century that certainty of what structure was Alexander's Tomb was lost. Some theories interestingly have one of the earliest Christian Churches of Alexandria built over the Tomb. One specifically is a Church called the Church of Alexander. There were no Church Buildings before the Third Century, so Church building was still a new thing during this period. Why would Christians want to build a Church over his tomb and name it after him? Did early Alexandrian Christians have a tradition we've lost? Could it be in 30 AD Alexander rose again and proclaimed the Olympian gods false and that the recently Crucified Jesus of Nazareth was The One True God?
Let's return to Scripture. Acts 16:8-12
To 1st Century AD Greek speakers the biography of Alexander was as well known as the biography of George Washington is to us. And this part of the Acts narrative was very likely to make readers think of Alexander. Paul is sort of following Alexander's footsteps in reverse. Troy was one of the first places Alexander made a point to visit after he traversed from Europe into Asia. Paul is from Troy going to leave Asia and enter Europe with Macedon being the first place he goes. A city founded by and named after Alexander's father. Mention is also made of Samothace, the Island were Philip and Olympias (Alexander's parents) met while being inducted into a Dionsytic cult.
Other scholars have suggested that either Alexander or Philip is who the readers were meant to assume this man was. But they do so without tying any of these Resurrection or Daniel related issues into it.
Alexander did not have to be Resurrected to be used by God for this vision. Samuel did not need to be physically Resurrected to be used by God to deliver a message to Saul. But on this side of The Cross, Abraham's Bosom is empty, so the nature of the after life is different then it was before.
Saul was a namesake to Paul's Jewish name. But also similar to Alexander in some ways, both were important Kings of their nations but who's descendants didn't inherent their Thrones. For Alexander this detail about him is among the things Daniel predicts in chapter 11. Both also got angry and threw spears at people.
So, who knows, it's not something to build a huge doctrine on. But it's interesting.
Update March 4th 2017: I now consider this theory mostly defunct for two reasons.
1. I now strongly suspect those Resurrected in 30 AD are limited to people buried on the Mount of Olives at that time. And it's not likely Alexander's body wound up there.
2. Now that I believe in Universal Salvation, I no longer aboslutly need Alexander to have been Saved in his Mortal Life to possibly be on Earth during The Future Messianic Era, thus fitting Daniel 7. Though I still feel that is probably necessary to be here during the Millennium, and I do still think Alexander was possibly Saved in that sense.
Update October 23rd 2017: I have become more skeptical of the Mount of Olives model. And also decided that even if the 30 AD Resurrection began there, it may still have not been limited to it.
On the subject of Unviersal Sa;vation, I also don't even think those Resurrected in 30 AD were only of Believers, since I tie that Resurrection to Daniel 12. Either way I do still count Alexander, however flawed he was, as a righteous Gentile.
Update November 2018: Since that last Update I've become more convinced then ever of the Mount of Olives model.
But the main reason for this new update is that I've learned there are references to Alexander's Body in Alexandria following the time of Caligula. I've learned this while researching the theory that Alexander's Tomb become the Tomb of St Mark in the 390s AD.
Why argue that a notorious Gentile Pagan world leader could be among those? We begin in Daniel 7.
Daniel 7 is a prophecy where the symbolism has two layers to it. The Beasts represents the kingdoms/nations of those world empires. But also for the first three at least their most notorious Kings who made them world empires. The Fourth is more complicated because Rome's history is more complicated.
Daniel 7:12 after describing the fourth beast's destruction says "As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." This shows that those three nations will still exist in the Millennium. But I also feel it should also apply to the three Kings. Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great. Which would make those three saved individuals.
With Nebuchadnezzar we know he's saved because Daniel 4 records his Salvation.
Some Dispensationlists teach salvation was different before The Cross, it's by Faith Alone only after. Problem is Paul was using the Old Testament to prove his point. In Galatians we are told Abraham was saved by Faith when he believed God in Genesis 15.
What exactly you needed to believe may have been different, since the NT wasn't written yet. But it was still by Belief. Jesus also tells us as The Queen of Sheba was saved because she believed Solomon, and the men of Nineveh because they believed Jonah. That they repented was a different cause to a different effect.
Isaiah 44-45 records a message God wrote to Cyrus before he was born. We know from the end of 2 Chronicles and beginning of Ezra that Cyrus did as God told him. Josephus records that it was Daniel who showed Isaiah's scroll to Cyrus. So Cyrus was saved by believing Isaiah's message I suspect.
Josephus later records that Daniel's prophecies that mentioned Alexander The Great were shown to Alexander when he was in Jerusalem. If you read Josephus account of Alexander in Jerusalem with this Biblical precedent in mind, you'll be left with little doubt that he was Saved at that time. And because I believe in Eternal Security, none of his later sins either disproved that salvation or undid it.
As I said before on the subject of the 30 AD Resurrection of Old Testament Saints. Maybe not all were resurrected then (Matthew's text says many not all) and some are being saved for later. So if we ever find Alexander's body it would not disprove anything I argued for above, only what I'm about to argue for below.
I've looked at the history of historical references to Alexander's body and/or tomb and found some things curious.
The last recorded visit that takes place before 30 AD is when Augustus visited it. Where he accidentally damaged his Nose trying to place a reef on the body. Dion Cassius, LI, 16 and LXXV, 13. reports Augustus' request to see the body of Alexander. "But touching the nose he did some damage to it. Asked if he wanted to visit the tombs of the Ptolemies, he refused, saying that: "I came to see a king and not dead men". Also Suetonius, vit. Auq. XVIII.
The first visit known to happen after 30 AD is Caligula's also recorded by Suetonius. He removed Alexander's breast plate, but the body isn't really directly mentioned. You'd think the man with the more reckless personality seeking to do a more difficult task would do more damage to it?
Dion also records that in his own day the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus sealed up the Tomb. He also mentions that Severus placed in the Mausoleum all the secret books "so none could read the books nor see the body". Septimius Severus was also one of the Emperors who persecuted Christianity, and his wife was a notorious opponent of Christianity.
The next Emperor, Caracalla, placed items in the Tomb but again the body isn't mentioned. A modern theory that he moved the body to a tomb in Macedon has been formed. Why would he do that while still honoring the Tomb in Alexandria? He also believed he was something like a reincarnation of Alexander (he was one of the crazy Emperors) maybe a lack of Body there helped reinforce that idea in his head.
The Body itself seems to have always been visible and referenced before 30 AD, but after that direct references to the body are avoided. Maybe it disappeared in 30 AD?
It was in the 4th Century that certainty of what structure was Alexander's Tomb was lost. Some theories interestingly have one of the earliest Christian Churches of Alexandria built over the Tomb. One specifically is a Church called the Church of Alexander. There were no Church Buildings before the Third Century, so Church building was still a new thing during this period. Why would Christians want to build a Church over his tomb and name it after him? Did early Alexandrian Christians have a tradition we've lost? Could it be in 30 AD Alexander rose again and proclaimed the Olympian gods false and that the recently Crucified Jesus of Nazareth was The One True God?
Let's return to Scripture. Acts 16:8-12
And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, "Come over into Macedonia, and help us."
And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them. Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis; And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.I agree with the theory that the part of Acts 16 where Paul is at Troas (Troy) is where Luke (The Macedonian physician) joins him, because it's there that the narrative voice changed from third person to first person. But it's sometimes tied into that to identify Luke with the man who appeared to Paul in the vision asking him to come to Macedonia. But that to me is clearly an Angelic personage. Paul probably sought a Macedonian who was in Troas after that vision to help him as he decided to head to Macedonia.
To 1st Century AD Greek speakers the biography of Alexander was as well known as the biography of George Washington is to us. And this part of the Acts narrative was very likely to make readers think of Alexander. Paul is sort of following Alexander's footsteps in reverse. Troy was one of the first places Alexander made a point to visit after he traversed from Europe into Asia. Paul is from Troy going to leave Asia and enter Europe with Macedon being the first place he goes. A city founded by and named after Alexander's father. Mention is also made of Samothace, the Island were Philip and Olympias (Alexander's parents) met while being inducted into a Dionsytic cult.
Other scholars have suggested that either Alexander or Philip is who the readers were meant to assume this man was. But they do so without tying any of these Resurrection or Daniel related issues into it.
Alexander did not have to be Resurrected to be used by God for this vision. Samuel did not need to be physically Resurrected to be used by God to deliver a message to Saul. But on this side of The Cross, Abraham's Bosom is empty, so the nature of the after life is different then it was before.
Saul was a namesake to Paul's Jewish name. But also similar to Alexander in some ways, both were important Kings of their nations but who's descendants didn't inherent their Thrones. For Alexander this detail about him is among the things Daniel predicts in chapter 11. Both also got angry and threw spears at people.
So, who knows, it's not something to build a huge doctrine on. But it's interesting.
Update March 4th 2017: I now consider this theory mostly defunct for two reasons.
1. I now strongly suspect those Resurrected in 30 AD are limited to people buried on the Mount of Olives at that time. And it's not likely Alexander's body wound up there.
2. Now that I believe in Universal Salvation, I no longer aboslutly need Alexander to have been Saved in his Mortal Life to possibly be on Earth during The Future Messianic Era, thus fitting Daniel 7. Though I still feel that is probably necessary to be here during the Millennium, and I do still think Alexander was possibly Saved in that sense.
Update October 23rd 2017: I have become more skeptical of the Mount of Olives model. And also decided that even if the 30 AD Resurrection began there, it may still have not been limited to it.
On the subject of Unviersal Sa;vation, I also don't even think those Resurrected in 30 AD were only of Believers, since I tie that Resurrection to Daniel 12. Either way I do still count Alexander, however flawed he was, as a righteous Gentile.
Update November 2018: Since that last Update I've become more convinced then ever of the Mount of Olives model.
But the main reason for this new update is that I've learned there are references to Alexander's Body in Alexandria following the time of Caligula. I've learned this while researching the theory that Alexander's Tomb become the Tomb of St Mark in the 390s AD.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
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
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.
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.
Monday, October 13, 2014
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Do White Robes prove being Resurrected?
One of the traits Pre-Trib and Pre-Wrath have in common is thinking that the Multitude in Revelation 7:9-16 are already Resurrected (and thus Raptured) because they have White Robes.
Where do they get this doctrine from? Jesus is never described wearing a Robe in his Resurrected state in The Gospels. Nor are Robes mentioned in any of Paul's key discussions of The Resurrection. Revelation 1:13 is a problematically translated verse, it does not use any word for robe, it only used a verb, it should read "the Son of man, arrayed to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle."
We won't actually be wearing ANYTHING in the Resurrection, The Resurrection is the restoration to how Adam and Eve were before The Fall. Nakedness is bad only in the fallen state. We will be sort of clothed in light is my personal theory.
Perhaps they think the Robes are symbolic of the Resurrected body. Well both also tend to agree that it's the same multitude seen in in the Fifth Seal, but Pre-Wrath at least sees them as not Resurrected yet at that point. They are already given the Robes there, but they need to wash them first.
Our Resurrected bodies are the same bodies we have now, they're simply perfected. If the Robes are symbolic of anything it' the probably the Spirit or Soul.
Leviticus 16:23 says of the garment The High Priest wears when he enters the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. "And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there:". Of course he wouldn't wear this ceremonially Garment for the rest of his life, but that the text is specific about what is done with it shows it has meaning.
The High Priest also had to do special cleansing before he could put that Robe on. I think both the 1st and 10th of Tishrei Holy Days have symbolic meaning relevant to The Second Coming. Verse 24 tells us he then puts back on his regular garments.
Since there is far more evidence the Resurrection of The Church happens latter in Revelation, it's the 7th Trumpet Blast that tells us the time of the dead and the Bema Judgment have arrived, and Revelation 14 describes the 144,000 is clear unmistakable Resurrection imagery (First fruits, redeemed of The Earth). I must conclude that the Robes seen in Revelation Chapter 7 are temporary garments worn during the time those martyrs are physically deceased.
Another issue with viewing this multitude as the Post-Rapture Church is that it's ONLY the Martyrs, it's clearly the same multitude as the 5th Seal, they've defined as all Christian Martyrs, but only the Martyrs. So by definition is can't includes any believe alive at The Rapture.
Where do they get this doctrine from? Jesus is never described wearing a Robe in his Resurrected state in The Gospels. Nor are Robes mentioned in any of Paul's key discussions of The Resurrection. Revelation 1:13 is a problematically translated verse, it does not use any word for robe, it only used a verb, it should read "the Son of man, arrayed to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle."
We won't actually be wearing ANYTHING in the Resurrection, The Resurrection is the restoration to how Adam and Eve were before The Fall. Nakedness is bad only in the fallen state. We will be sort of clothed in light is my personal theory.
Perhaps they think the Robes are symbolic of the Resurrected body. Well both also tend to agree that it's the same multitude seen in in the Fifth Seal, but Pre-Wrath at least sees them as not Resurrected yet at that point. They are already given the Robes there, but they need to wash them first.
Our Resurrected bodies are the same bodies we have now, they're simply perfected. If the Robes are symbolic of anything it' the probably the Spirit or Soul.
Leviticus 16:23 says of the garment The High Priest wears when he enters the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. "And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there:". Of course he wouldn't wear this ceremonially Garment for the rest of his life, but that the text is specific about what is done with it shows it has meaning.
The High Priest also had to do special cleansing before he could put that Robe on. I think both the 1st and 10th of Tishrei Holy Days have symbolic meaning relevant to The Second Coming. Verse 24 tells us he then puts back on his regular garments.
Since there is far more evidence the Resurrection of The Church happens latter in Revelation, it's the 7th Trumpet Blast that tells us the time of the dead and the Bema Judgment have arrived, and Revelation 14 describes the 144,000 is clear unmistakable Resurrection imagery (First fruits, redeemed of The Earth). I must conclude that the Robes seen in Revelation Chapter 7 are temporary garments worn during the time those martyrs are physically deceased.
Another issue with viewing this multitude as the Post-Rapture Church is that it's ONLY the Martyrs, it's clearly the same multitude as the 5th Seal, they've defined as all Christian Martyrs, but only the Martyrs. So by definition is can't includes any believe alive at The Rapture.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
The Resurrection of The Antichrist: Ezekiel 28
The other major Hebrew Bible passage on the Fall
of Satan is in Ezekiel 28. Some people discuss how Ezekiel 28 starts
out talking about a human ruler of Tyre and then goes on to discus Satan
as if it's ambiguous where this change happens, but it's not.
Ezekiel 28 begins with "The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying", which is a typical Sign of a new message being given, that might be in some way connected to the prior message, but might not. Verse 11 says "Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying". It's after verse 11 it's talking about the "Anointed Cherub", the first 10 verses are about the human ruler.
The human ruler is the "Prince of Tyrus" the word for "Prince" here being Nagiyd, which is also translated Ruler, Captain, Leader, Governor and Noble. Satan is refereed to as the "King of Tyrus", the word for King being "Melek". The patron deity of ancient Tyre was Melqart, who's name was derived in part from Melek and means "King of the City". So part of the intent in referring to Satan this way may have been to link him to that false god. (Who the Ancient Greeks identified with Herakles/Hercules.) Also the Hebrew word Melek for King is spelled the same as it's word for Angel, Malak, M-L-K. So the Holy Spirit could be doing some word play here. Moloch is also spelled the same BTW.
Don't get over excited about an Antichrist passage seemingly calling him the "Prince of _____" or "King of _____". He will conquer and take over many Near Eastern locations, so none of these really tell us anything about his origin. Tyre may likely come under his control when he is victorious over the "King of the North" in Daniel 11:36-45. He'll also conquer Egypt (King of The South) which is important to remember later. This particular Prophecy is speaking of him in terms of his connection to Tyre because it spins off from Ezekiel's earlier prophecies of the contemporary conquest of Tyre by Babylon.
Ezekiel 28 begins with "The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying", which is a typical Sign of a new message being given, that might be in some way connected to the prior message, but might not. Verse 11 says "Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying". It's after verse 11 it's talking about the "Anointed Cherub", the first 10 verses are about the human ruler.
The human ruler is the "Prince of Tyrus" the word for "Prince" here being Nagiyd, which is also translated Ruler, Captain, Leader, Governor and Noble. Satan is refereed to as the "King of Tyrus", the word for King being "Melek". The patron deity of ancient Tyre was Melqart, who's name was derived in part from Melek and means "King of the City". So part of the intent in referring to Satan this way may have been to link him to that false god. (Who the Ancient Greeks identified with Herakles/Hercules.) Also the Hebrew word Melek for King is spelled the same as it's word for Angel, Malak, M-L-K. So the Holy Spirit could be doing some word play here. Moloch is also spelled the same BTW.
Don't get over excited about an Antichrist passage seemingly calling him the "Prince of _____" or "King of _____". He will conquer and take over many Near Eastern locations, so none of these really tell us anything about his origin. Tyre may likely come under his control when he is victorious over the "King of the North" in Daniel 11:36-45. He'll also conquer Egypt (King of The South) which is important to remember later. This particular Prophecy is speaking of him in terms of his connection to Tyre because it spins off from Ezekiel's earlier prophecies of the contemporary conquest of Tyre by Babylon.
"Son of man, say unto the Ruler of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord Yahweh; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, "I Am A God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas"; yet thou art a man, and not a god, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee: With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches: Therefore thus saith the Lord Yahweh; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; Behold, therefore I will bring foreigners upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas. Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, "I am God"? but thou shalt be a man, and no god, in the hand of him that slayeth thee. Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of foreigners: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord Yahweh." |
Here
we have a ruler explicitly thinking of himself as God-Like, and also
being sent down to the Pit. The word for "pit" here is different in the
Hebrew then in Isaiah 14, but the idea is still clearly the same.
We're also told specifically he will be killed, and his killer is refereed to as "the terrible of the nations". This figure is significant, to me since many of the False Prophecies I see as setting up Messianic Figures that I think The Antichrist could seek to identify himself with have what I like to call a "Decoy Antichrist" figure who will kill him setting the stage for his Resurrection. Messiah Ben-Ephriam is killed by Armilus and the Mahdi by Dajjal. There are also similar ideas in apostate Christians traditions, though they don't as specifically expect their hero to be killed. I'll return to this subject latter.
Some see "die the deaths of the uncircumcised" as meaning he is Jewish, and that dying like a Gentile is some kind of mystical disgrace. If that's the case then it certainly goes against seeing this as applying to Ithobaal III (Ethbaal) the Ruler of Tyre at the time of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Tyre. But others see it the opposite, as simply saying he's Uncircumcised.
I believe The Antichrist will die only one death, because of what I mentioned before about Revelation 19 and being cast alive into The Lake of Fire. Some see Daniel 7:11 as clarifying that "The Beast" is killed first. "I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame." While the Beast imagery in Revelation draws on Daniel 7 it's also different. In Revelation The beast is both the individual and his Kingdom, in Daniel 7 The Beast is only The Kingdom, the Little Horn is the individual who is The Antichrist. This detail of Daniel 7:11 is about Edom/Rome as a nation being destroyed, not an individual person being killed.
Chris White and some others like to diminish the Eschatological-Antichrist significance of this passage by saying it merely makes this ruler of Tyre a type. But the problem is none of this really fits Ithoball/Ethoball at all. I alluded to one possible problem already, but there are others.
He was not killed by Nebuchadnezzar (who in a contemporary context is the only person "the terrible of the nations" could be, Ezekiel elsewhere gives this title him explicitly) or his armies, simply forced to abdicate. And there is no evidence he arrogantly deified himself, I don't know whether or not like in Egypt the ruler was ceremonially always viewed as a sort of avatar of the patron god, but that would be different from this Prophecy where someone really honestly believes he's divine in his own heart.
This prophecy appears to be about him before and up to his death. but since the Abomination of Desolation is clearly after his resurrection, isn't the focus on his deification a little out of place? This prophecy does not reference that specific event, it may not be a matter of not publicly proclaiming himself yet but believing it in his heart, and/or simply not silencing his supporters who deify him. In which case I think it might work well to see Herod Agrippa in Acts 12 as a type.
We're also told specifically he will be killed, and his killer is refereed to as "the terrible of the nations". This figure is significant, to me since many of the False Prophecies I see as setting up Messianic Figures that I think The Antichrist could seek to identify himself with have what I like to call a "Decoy Antichrist" figure who will kill him setting the stage for his Resurrection. Messiah Ben-Ephriam is killed by Armilus and the Mahdi by Dajjal. There are also similar ideas in apostate Christians traditions, though they don't as specifically expect their hero to be killed. I'll return to this subject latter.
Some see "die the deaths of the uncircumcised" as meaning he is Jewish, and that dying like a Gentile is some kind of mystical disgrace. If that's the case then it certainly goes against seeing this as applying to Ithobaal III (Ethbaal) the Ruler of Tyre at the time of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Tyre. But others see it the opposite, as simply saying he's Uncircumcised.
I believe The Antichrist will die only one death, because of what I mentioned before about Revelation 19 and being cast alive into The Lake of Fire. Some see Daniel 7:11 as clarifying that "The Beast" is killed first. "I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame." While the Beast imagery in Revelation draws on Daniel 7 it's also different. In Revelation The beast is both the individual and his Kingdom, in Daniel 7 The Beast is only The Kingdom, the Little Horn is the individual who is The Antichrist. This detail of Daniel 7:11 is about Edom/Rome as a nation being destroyed, not an individual person being killed.
Chris White and some others like to diminish the Eschatological-Antichrist significance of this passage by saying it merely makes this ruler of Tyre a type. But the problem is none of this really fits Ithoball/Ethoball at all. I alluded to one possible problem already, but there are others.
He was not killed by Nebuchadnezzar (who in a contemporary context is the only person "the terrible of the nations" could be, Ezekiel elsewhere gives this title him explicitly) or his armies, simply forced to abdicate. And there is no evidence he arrogantly deified himself, I don't know whether or not like in Egypt the ruler was ceremonially always viewed as a sort of avatar of the patron god, but that would be different from this Prophecy where someone really honestly believes he's divine in his own heart.
This prophecy appears to be about him before and up to his death. but since the Abomination of Desolation is clearly after his resurrection, isn't the focus on his deification a little out of place? This prophecy does not reference that specific event, it may not be a matter of not publicly proclaiming himself yet but believing it in his heart, and/or simply not silencing his supporters who deify him. In which case I think it might work well to see Herod Agrippa in Acts 12 as a type.
Acts 12:20-23 And Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon: but they came with one accord to him, and, having made Blastus the king's chamberlain their friend, desired peace; because their country was nourished by the king's country. And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. And the people gave a shout, saying, "It is the voice of a god, and not of a man". And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost. |
This is verified by Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Chapter 8.
Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honor of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theater early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun's rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, [though not for his good,] that he was a god; and they added, "Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature." Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said, "I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life; while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept of what Providence allots, as it pleases God; for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner." When he said this, his pain was become violent. Accordingly he was carried into the palace, and the rumor went abroad every where, that he would certainly die in a little time. But the multitude presently sat in sackcloth, with their wives and children, after the law of their country, and besought God for the king's recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation. Now the king rested in a high chamber, and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, he could not himself forbear weeping. And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign; |
The
last part of Ezekiel 28 is about a judgment on Sidon. Which did not
suffer any so epic Judgment in Ancient Times. I think it's possible to
keep that passage in mind anytime tensions involving modern Lebanon are
flaring up.
Ezekiel reuses some of the key themes of this passage in chapters 29-32. Another human ruler killed by "the terrible of the nations" and going down into Sheol. This time it's given new details like "and he shall groan before him with the groanings of a deadly wounded man." But there the human ruler is the Pharaoh of Egypt.
This time there definitely is a sense of near fulfillment in Ezekiel's own time, since "the terrible of the nations" is spoken of as synonymous with 'The King of Babylon" and Nebuchadrezzar is mentioned by name.
Along with this is a prophecy of Egypt being uninhabited for 40 years. Ussher believed this was fulfilled from about 572-532 B.C., but the documentation for that isn't solid. Some see in the text a possible allusion to this 40 year desolation beginning with the Aswan Dam being Nuked, with the references to a fire being set, and references to "the tower of Syene". Syene being where the Dam was build and no major ancient structure was built there.
Nebuchadnezzar is clearly only a type of The Antichrist's killer here. Many see him ironically as serving as a type of The Antichrist in Daniel 3. So I don't see this as definitive that the future "Terrible of the Nations" will be from or in Iraq. But Daniel 11:36-45 does refer to The Antichrist having trouble from the North and the East, after he's already conquered the King of The North (Syria). So that makes either Turkey and/or Iraq a likely candidate for this new adversary.
But if the King of Babylon detail is relevant, it seems awkward given it's The Antichrist who's the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14. After his Resurrection and return to power this enemy will quickly be taken care of. Armilus and Dajjal seem to be killed by the False Prophet figure in those false prophecies, but the heretical Christian traditions would rather see it be the Last Roman Emperor/Great Catholic Monarch who defeats the evil tyrant. Either way, it's likely The Antichrist will then take Rulership of Babylon, or whatever lands "the Terrible of the Nations" controls, for himself.
It's interesting to note that there are rival claimants to the Hashamite "King of Iraq" title right now. In addition to the proper claimants coming form two rival lines, there are those in the international community who'd rather give the title to someone of the Jordanian Royal Family. But I'm no longer a fan of the Islamic Anitchrist view as I used to be.
That Nebuchadnezzar can be a type of The Antichrist to one Prophet, but a type of his killer to another, just further reinforces my belief that this individual will be a sort of "Decoy Antichrist". I've written elsewhere that I think there may be many potential Antichrists during the first half of the 70th Week, or perhaps even before the 70th week begins. And that no matter how convincing it might seem to view someone currently on the rise as The Antichrist, to remember that we will not know for certain who he is until the Abomination of Desolation happens.
Ezekiel reuses some of the key themes of this passage in chapters 29-32. Another human ruler killed by "the terrible of the nations" and going down into Sheol. This time it's given new details like "and he shall groan before him with the groanings of a deadly wounded man." But there the human ruler is the Pharaoh of Egypt.
This time there definitely is a sense of near fulfillment in Ezekiel's own time, since "the terrible of the nations" is spoken of as synonymous with 'The King of Babylon" and Nebuchadrezzar is mentioned by name.
Along with this is a prophecy of Egypt being uninhabited for 40 years. Ussher believed this was fulfilled from about 572-532 B.C., but the documentation for that isn't solid. Some see in the text a possible allusion to this 40 year desolation beginning with the Aswan Dam being Nuked, with the references to a fire being set, and references to "the tower of Syene". Syene being where the Dam was build and no major ancient structure was built there.
Nebuchadnezzar is clearly only a type of The Antichrist's killer here. Many see him ironically as serving as a type of The Antichrist in Daniel 3. So I don't see this as definitive that the future "Terrible of the Nations" will be from or in Iraq. But Daniel 11:36-45 does refer to The Antichrist having trouble from the North and the East, after he's already conquered the King of The North (Syria). So that makes either Turkey and/or Iraq a likely candidate for this new adversary.
But if the King of Babylon detail is relevant, it seems awkward given it's The Antichrist who's the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14. After his Resurrection and return to power this enemy will quickly be taken care of. Armilus and Dajjal seem to be killed by the False Prophet figure in those false prophecies, but the heretical Christian traditions would rather see it be the Last Roman Emperor/Great Catholic Monarch who defeats the evil tyrant. Either way, it's likely The Antichrist will then take Rulership of Babylon, or whatever lands "the Terrible of the Nations" controls, for himself.
It's interesting to note that there are rival claimants to the Hashamite "King of Iraq" title right now. In addition to the proper claimants coming form two rival lines, there are those in the international community who'd rather give the title to someone of the Jordanian Royal Family. But I'm no longer a fan of the Islamic Anitchrist view as I used to be.
That Nebuchadnezzar can be a type of The Antichrist to one Prophet, but a type of his killer to another, just further reinforces my belief that this individual will be a sort of "Decoy Antichrist". I've written elsewhere that I think there may be many potential Antichrists during the first half of the 70th Week, or perhaps even before the 70th week begins. And that no matter how convincing it might seem to view someone currently on the rise as The Antichrist, to remember that we will not know for certain who he is until the Abomination of Desolation happens.
The Resurrection of The Antichrist: Isaiah 14
Isaiah 13 and most of 14 is one Prophecy. 13 is
talking about the Fall of Babylon, a prophecy that has not been
literally fulfilled, an arguable near fulfillment exists in Isaiah's
day, but it doesn't fit the full details even remotely. And attempts to
make this fit the fall to Cyrus don't work at all. 14 begins with
saying how Yaweh will choose Israel and give them the land.
I used to view The King of Babylon as not being The Beast, but as probably a decoy Antichrist the Beast will defeat, but I've changed my mind after only recently noticing aspects of this I repeatedly overlooked. Which is gonna cause me to have to go back and adjust some details of my olderdissertations .
A note, I shall adjust the KJV rendering to better reflect The Hebrew, influenced by my own in depth study.
Now let's begin,verses 4-11 are talking about the human King.
I used to view The King of Babylon as not being The Beast, but as probably a decoy Antichrist the Beast will defeat, but I've changed my mind after only recently noticing aspects of this I repeatedly overlooked. Which is gonna cause me to have to go back and adjust some details of my older
A note, I shall adjust the KJV rendering to better reflect The Hebrew, influenced by my own in depth study.
Now let's begin,
That
thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say,
How hath the oppressor ceased ! the golden city ceased ! Yaweh hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. Sheol from beneath is moved for thee "Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?" Thy pomp is brought down to Sheol, and the noise of thy viols: the maggot is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. |
So
this Human ruler has died and is now in Sheol, called Hades in the
Greek and often by us Hell. But this isn't the Lake of Fire.
Now people assume what comes next is mentioned for the purpose of comparing these two personages. I feel the grammar justifies that a new character is in mind, but the person we were discussing will come up again latter. Isaiah 14:12-14
Now people assume what comes next is mentioned for the purpose of comparing these two personages. I feel the grammar justifies that a new character is in mind, but the person we were discussing will come up again latter. Isaiah 14:12-14
How
art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the Dawn ! how art thou
cut down to the earth, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Highest. |
This is one of the core passages
on the fall of Satan from heaven. The only one besides Revelation that
could help us time it chronologically, but Revelation is far more
precise.
Now I think we learn why these two come together in verse 15
Now I think we learn why these two come together in verse 15
Yet thou shalt go down to Sheol, to the sides of the pit. |
They
are now in the same place. In the New Testament "The Pit" is used of
the Abyss. Given Hebrew poetic style however, I think this reference
means a synonym of Hades. Though it could work either way if the Abyss
is a specific part of Hades, or a location right next to it. This
Hebrew word is also used of just literal cisterns and dungeons also.
The big translation issue I noticed is that the part of the usual translations that imply he's being brought there against his will, like his fall was, isn't in the Hebrew. It can be read that he went down there on his own, his fall was only to The Earth.
In the past I've been against viewing The Beast as possessed by Satan like Judas was, simply out of lack of direct reference. But here once both characters are in the underworld, the grammar of the text does seem to treat them as one.
Now verses 16-19 is the key really interesting part.
The big translation issue I noticed is that the part of the usual translations that imply he's being brought there against his will, like his fall was, isn't in the Hebrew. It can be read that he went down there on his own, his fall was only to The Earth.
In the past I've been against viewing The Beast as possessed by Satan like Judas was, simply out of lack of direct reference. But here once both characters are in the underworld, the grammar of the text does seem to treat them as one.
Now verses 16-19 is the key really interesting part.
They
that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying,
Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake
kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities
thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lay in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. |
Generally
we've considered the idea of the Beast's having his own Death and
Resurrection merely implied by the "mortal wound" being healed in
Revelation 13, and how Daniel 45 speaks of his end. But we miss how
Isaiah here explicitly speaks of a King who'll go to Hell, but then be
"cast out of his grave". And having some sort of wound from a sword.
Of the three ways the KJV translated that word throughout The Bible I chose "grave" because it most literally conveyed the idea poetically. It can also mean "sepulcher", and I do think as I explained elsewhere the Dome of The Rock could be his sepulcher. It's not Sheol however, which the KJV also often renders Grave, but I personally choose never to translate it that way.
Revelation twice when describing The Beast (both references timing wise I see as after his resurrection). Refers to him as ascending out of the Abyss. 11:7 "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them." 17:8 "The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition".
I also see here a possible description of his post resurrection state. See I don't think The Antichrist's resurrection will be one like Lazurus, just being returned to how he was before. Though he's certainly not like our promised Resurrection either. That he and The False Prophet are in Revelation 19 cast into the Lake of Fire without being killed first implies to me that they are early partakers of the Second Resurrection. I've written on my theory about The False Prophet's identity elsewhere.
Since we who will be of The First Resurrection will have bodies like The Angels. I think it's possible that the bodies of The Second Resurrection will be like the bodies of Fallen Angels. II Corinthians 5:2 "For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven". The word translated "house" here is Oiketerion. A word used only one other time in The Bible, in Jude 6 where it's translated "habitation". "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Like Chuck Missler I view this word as being a technical term for the Incorruptible bodies of Unfallen beings.
Does this tell us anything about the timing of other events in relation to his resurrection, mainly the destruction of Babylon that was discussed before?
That his mortal wound's healing is mid week is pretty indisputable from other references. This account is in the context of the yet future Fall of Babylon. But the context here is a semi change of subject, it could be looking back to explain how this King became what he is now, when Babylon falls. Or it could be this is going on to describe how this King after is judged Babylon is judged. Or maybe Babylon's End Times Judgment really happens in phases? Now to continue. Verses 19-23
Of the three ways the KJV translated that word throughout The Bible I chose "grave" because it most literally conveyed the idea poetically. It can also mean "sepulcher", and I do think as I explained elsewhere the Dome of The Rock could be his sepulcher. It's not Sheol however, which the KJV also often renders Grave, but I personally choose never to translate it that way.
Revelation twice when describing The Beast (both references timing wise I see as after his resurrection). Refers to him as ascending out of the Abyss. 11:7 "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them." 17:8 "The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition".
I also see here a possible description of his post resurrection state. See I don't think The Antichrist's resurrection will be one like Lazurus, just being returned to how he was before. Though he's certainly not like our promised Resurrection either. That he and The False Prophet are in Revelation 19 cast into the Lake of Fire without being killed first implies to me that they are early partakers of the Second Resurrection. I've written on my theory about The False Prophet's identity elsewhere.
Since we who will be of The First Resurrection will have bodies like The Angels. I think it's possible that the bodies of The Second Resurrection will be like the bodies of Fallen Angels. II Corinthians 5:2 "For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven". The word translated "house" here is Oiketerion. A word used only one other time in The Bible, in Jude 6 where it's translated "habitation". "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Like Chuck Missler I view this word as being a technical term for the Incorruptible bodies of Unfallen beings.
Does this tell us anything about the timing of other events in relation to his resurrection, mainly the destruction of Babylon that was discussed before?
That his mortal wound's healing is mid week is pretty indisputable from other references. This account is in the context of the yet future Fall of Babylon. But the context here is a semi change of subject, it could be looking back to explain how this King became what he is now, when Babylon falls. Or it could be this is going on to describe how this King after is judged Babylon is judged. Or maybe Babylon's End Times Judgment really happens in phases? Now to continue. Verses 19-23
But
thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the
raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go
down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not stand, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with enemy cities. For I will rise up against them, saith Yahweh of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and offspring, and posterity, saith Yahweh. I will also make it a possession for the porcupines, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction, saith Yahweh of hosts. |
The
subject of Babylon itself seems to be returned to, as if the process of
destruction began earlier but hadn't ended yet. It's interesting that
he's spoken of as slaying his own people.
What new does this understanding tell us?
It kind of directly links the counterfeit resurrection to Satan's fall. Daniel 11:45 and 12:1 are the same continuous message originally, (the Chapter divisions are modern), also place "Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people" at the time the Willful King meets his end. Daniel 12:1 I also believe correlates to Revelation 12:7 "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon" which is directly linked to when The Woman (Israel) flees to the Wilderness.
Verses 24-27 are still the same Prophecy, no "Word of The LORD came unto me saying" or any other indicator of it being a change in subject. None the less some Bibles include a new Chapter heading here as if it were different that calls it Judgment on Assyria. The text in the KJV says The Assyrian however.
The Assyrian here could be one of 3 or 4 things
1. The same King of Babylon we'd been discussing. I consider this the least likely since the other passages people cite as calling The Antichrist as The Assyrian I see as flawed logically also. Micah 5 is being hypothetical, saying how Israel can't be attacked once The Messiah reigns. And I've come to see Isaiah 9-11, if End Times at all (it could be easily just be about events form Isaiah's time when he gave this Prophecy) as linking The Antichrist to Ephraim rather then Assyria. Because I see Isaiah 9:14-15 "Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day. The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail." as being a rare outside Revelation reference to The Antichrist being paired with a False Prophet.
2. Perhaps the "Terrible of The Nations" from Ezekiel I'll discus when I study those Chapters later.
3. The "King of The North" from Daniel 11:40. Could be the same person as 2 or maybe not.
4. It could be a flawed Translation, and simply mean Assyria, or the Assyrian people. Which could maybe overlap with either 1 or 2 or 3.
When it's said of The Beast "and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." The terminology could mean continue as in he should have ended already. I think specifically it's referring to the amount of time following his being cast out of Hades.
What new does this understanding tell us?
It kind of directly links the counterfeit resurrection to Satan's fall. Daniel 11:45 and 12:1 are the same continuous message originally, (the Chapter divisions are modern), also place "Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people" at the time the Willful King meets his end. Daniel 12:1 I also believe correlates to Revelation 12:7 "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon" which is directly linked to when The Woman (Israel) flees to the Wilderness.
Verses 24-27 are still the same Prophecy, no "Word of The LORD came unto me saying" or any other indicator of it being a change in subject. None the less some Bibles include a new Chapter heading here as if it were different that calls it Judgment on Assyria. The text in the KJV says The Assyrian however.
The Assyrian here could be one of 3 or 4 things
1. The same King of Babylon we'd been discussing. I consider this the least likely since the other passages people cite as calling The Antichrist as The Assyrian I see as flawed logically also. Micah 5 is being hypothetical, saying how Israel can't be attacked once The Messiah reigns. And I've come to see Isaiah 9-11, if End Times at all (it could be easily just be about events form Isaiah's time when he gave this Prophecy) as linking The Antichrist to Ephraim rather then Assyria. Because I see Isaiah 9:14-15 "Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day. The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail." as being a rare outside Revelation reference to The Antichrist being paired with a False Prophet.
2. Perhaps the "Terrible of The Nations" from Ezekiel I'll discus when I study those Chapters later.
3. The "King of The North" from Daniel 11:40. Could be the same person as 2 or maybe not.
4. It could be a flawed Translation, and simply mean Assyria, or the Assyrian people. Which could maybe overlap with either 1 or 2 or 3.
When it's said of The Beast "and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." The terminology could mean continue as in he should have ended already. I think specifically it's referring to the amount of time following his being cast out of Hades.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Was Marriage ordained in Genesis 2 or Genesis 3?
The default answer among my fellow Fundamentalist, theologically Conservative Christians would be that it's clearly established by Genesis 2. The simple fact that God created Two Genders proves that God's sole intent for both Sex and Marriage was inter-gender relations. And those two things are inseparable from each other.
But Genesis 2 has no ceremony, nor does it lay out any rules or costumes for how this Male-Female relationship is supposed to be. We're simply told it was not good for Adam to be alone, so God created a Helper for him, and then told them to be fruitful and multiply and to fill and populate the Earth. And in reference to future generations, that a man would leave his father's house and join with a woman. (The emphasis is on the man leaving his family, not the other way around, interesting).
It's not till Genesis 3:16, after The Fall happens and the The Curse begins that we're told. "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"
So it's at least accurate to say that marriage as we know it is the product of The Fall.
I've done many posts on the nature of The Resurrection here, since it's linked to The Rapture. And feel at times it's important to remind people that The Resurrection is the restoration of Humankind to how we were meant to be before The Fall. But there is one key verse on The Resurrection people constantly forget to consider with that context in mind, Matthew 22:30 (and it's parallel in the other Synoptics).
"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
This is abused by supporters of The Sethite view of Genesis 6 by insisting this means Angels are not Biologically capable of sexual reproduction. But even people who get Genesis 6 right still have it in their mind that this means Believers when we're Resurrected will not engage in any sexual procreation. They're politically wrapped up in the notion that NEVER under any circumstance is ANY sex allowed outside Marriage.
Problem is Isaiah 65 and Ezekiel 40-48 both refer to reproduction going in the coming Kingdom. And I have argued that that Kingdom is the New Jerusalem, not the Millennium.
Either way on that. I have trouble being sold on the idea that The Millennium is at it's start populated by anyone but Resurrected Believers. Which combined with people who's Eternal Destiny wasn't decided yet clearly being in existence for Satan to deceive at the end of The Millennium, implies Resurrected Believers biologically reproducing during that time.
I know it's popular to argue that even though there are Resurrected Believers co-ruleing during The Millennium, there are also still normal fallen Humans who survive The 70thWeek. But the problem is I don't hold the Post-Trib view of The Resurrection and the meaning of Revelation 20. So to me verse 5, "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." must mean that only the Damned were not Resurrected yet.
I believe those born to Resurrected individuals will not need to be Resurrected if they side with Jesus, they will not be born with original Sin. But they can still choose to fall as Adam did, unlike those of us who'll be Redeemed in the Blood of The Lamb.
Because in The Resurrection we'll be immune to even the temptation of Sin. There is plenty of reason to see there as being less moral restrictions then we have now. And we're already no longer bound by The Law.
Now let me be clear. I believe while we're under The Curse that Biblical Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, that potentially procreative Sex should only be performed between a Husband and Wife. Because it's important in this fallen world to provide Children with a healthy family. I do not pass judgment on people who aren't able to follow that however.
But in The Millennium, and the New Heaven and New Earth there will be no failure to provide that family. Resurrected Born Again people will not fail to make sure they provide for and take care of their Children.
The context in Matthew 22:30 was Jesus responding to Sadducees trying to discredit the Resurrection doctrine altogether. They were confused about situations where Widows had married other Husbands in obedience to The Torah.
I think some Christians take this phrase in English as if the "Given in Marriage" part refers to the consummation of the union. But the Greek word there is actually specifically about the act of a Father giving his daughter to a man to wed.
I think it's the Genesis 3 redefining of Marriage that Jesus was referring to as being done in The Resurrection. But Marriage does exist in a sense in Eternity in New Jerusalem being The Lamb's Wife.
Hosea 2:16 refers to Baal as a name or title Yahuah has been called, but as one he doesn't like. The main context there is how Ish and Baal are both words for Husband (marriage is the major theme of Hosea) but Baal also means Lord while Ish is a word for man as in male gender that is introduced in Genesis 2.
In the Eternal Kingdom no one will be leaving one family to join another. All The Saved will be one family. With Jesus as the Patriarch, The Church as the Matriarch, and the rest of The Saved as their children.
But I do think we might still be held to God's original instruction to Adam and Eve from before The Fall, to be fruitful and multiply. And I think Saved Women in The Resurrection will be able if they choose to experience painless Childbirth as was originally intended.
But Genesis 2 has no ceremony, nor does it lay out any rules or costumes for how this Male-Female relationship is supposed to be. We're simply told it was not good for Adam to be alone, so God created a Helper for him, and then told them to be fruitful and multiply and to fill and populate the Earth. And in reference to future generations, that a man would leave his father's house and join with a woman. (The emphasis is on the man leaving his family, not the other way around, interesting).
It's not till Genesis 3:16, after The Fall happens and the The Curse begins that we're told. "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"
So it's at least accurate to say that marriage as we know it is the product of The Fall.
I've done many posts on the nature of The Resurrection here, since it's linked to The Rapture. And feel at times it's important to remind people that The Resurrection is the restoration of Humankind to how we were meant to be before The Fall. But there is one key verse on The Resurrection people constantly forget to consider with that context in mind, Matthew 22:30 (and it's parallel in the other Synoptics).
"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
This is abused by supporters of The Sethite view of Genesis 6 by insisting this means Angels are not Biologically capable of sexual reproduction. But even people who get Genesis 6 right still have it in their mind that this means Believers when we're Resurrected will not engage in any sexual procreation. They're politically wrapped up in the notion that NEVER under any circumstance is ANY sex allowed outside Marriage.
Problem is Isaiah 65 and Ezekiel 40-48 both refer to reproduction going in the coming Kingdom. And I have argued that that Kingdom is the New Jerusalem, not the Millennium.
Either way on that. I have trouble being sold on the idea that The Millennium is at it's start populated by anyone but Resurrected Believers. Which combined with people who's Eternal Destiny wasn't decided yet clearly being in existence for Satan to deceive at the end of The Millennium, implies Resurrected Believers biologically reproducing during that time.
I know it's popular to argue that even though there are Resurrected Believers co-ruleing during The Millennium, there are also still normal fallen Humans who survive The 70thWeek. But the problem is I don't hold the Post-Trib view of The Resurrection and the meaning of Revelation 20. So to me verse 5, "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." must mean that only the Damned were not Resurrected yet.
I believe those born to Resurrected individuals will not need to be Resurrected if they side with Jesus, they will not be born with original Sin. But they can still choose to fall as Adam did, unlike those of us who'll be Redeemed in the Blood of The Lamb.
Because in The Resurrection we'll be immune to even the temptation of Sin. There is plenty of reason to see there as being less moral restrictions then we have now. And we're already no longer bound by The Law.
Now let me be clear. I believe while we're under The Curse that Biblical Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, that potentially procreative Sex should only be performed between a Husband and Wife. Because it's important in this fallen world to provide Children with a healthy family. I do not pass judgment on people who aren't able to follow that however.
But in The Millennium, and the New Heaven and New Earth there will be no failure to provide that family. Resurrected Born Again people will not fail to make sure they provide for and take care of their Children.
The context in Matthew 22:30 was Jesus responding to Sadducees trying to discredit the Resurrection doctrine altogether. They were confused about situations where Widows had married other Husbands in obedience to The Torah.
I think some Christians take this phrase in English as if the "Given in Marriage" part refers to the consummation of the union. But the Greek word there is actually specifically about the act of a Father giving his daughter to a man to wed.
I think it's the Genesis 3 redefining of Marriage that Jesus was referring to as being done in The Resurrection. But Marriage does exist in a sense in Eternity in New Jerusalem being The Lamb's Wife.
Hosea 2:16 refers to Baal as a name or title Yahuah has been called, but as one he doesn't like. The main context there is how Ish and Baal are both words for Husband (marriage is the major theme of Hosea) but Baal also means Lord while Ish is a word for man as in male gender that is introduced in Genesis 2.
In the Eternal Kingdom no one will be leaving one family to join another. All The Saved will be one family. With Jesus as the Patriarch, The Church as the Matriarch, and the rest of The Saved as their children.
But I do think we might still be held to God's original instruction to Adam and Eve from before The Fall, to be fruitful and multiply. And I think Saved Women in The Resurrection will be able if they choose to experience painless Childbirth as was originally intended.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
The Rapture in The Old Testament
Is a somewhat controversial topic. Because it's largely a Church specific event, and because of things Paul said in Galatians it's popularly assumed the doctrine of The Church can't be founding The Old Testament. So it is often considered pointless to look for it there.
However I feel there are sufficient hints of The Church in the Old Testament. And The Rapture is also linked to The Resurrection.
Isaiah 26:19-21 is the most popular place to see an illusion to The Rapture.
Joel 2:10-16 I view are correlating to the 7th Trumpet (with the effects of some earlier Trumpets still lingering). Matthew 24, and Paul's references to the "Last Trump" in his Rapture passages in Corinthians and Thessalonians.
However I feel there are sufficient hints of The Church in the Old Testament. And The Rapture is also linked to The Resurrection.
Isaiah 26:19-21 is the most popular place to see an illusion to The Rapture.
Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.I have already mentioned Joel Chapter 2 in my past studies, explaining why I feel that ties into the Seventh Trumpet/Mid-SeventiethWeek view. But I didn't outright cite the entire passage, because it was supplemental to other points, and I do not consider my view dependent upon it. So I've decided to cite it here.
Joel 2:10-16 I view are correlating to the 7th Trumpet (with the effects of some earlier Trumpets still lingering). Matthew 24, and Paul's references to the "Last Trump" in his Rapture passages in Corinthians and Thessalonians.
The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining: And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?
Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil. Who knoweth if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the LORD your God?
Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly: Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet.We have the people being Gathered, and we have the Bridegroom and The Bride. And of course a Trumpet being sounded.
Ephraem the Syrian
I decided I should address the matter of Ephraem the Syrian. A work attributed to the 4th Century Ephraem the Syrian is popularly cited by Pre-Tirbbers in response to the accusation from Post-Tribbers (and non Futurists) that the idea of The Rapture as a separate event from the Second Coming of Revelation 19 is purely the invention of John Nelson Darby in the 19th Century.
To me it is ultimately absolutely irrelevant how much Extra-Biblical support a position has.
I believe new insights into Scripture can happen. It wasn't clear to The Jews (and still isn't) that The Messiah has two Advents.
The cited Ephraem text is controversial. There is more then one Translation based on different manuscripts and they don't agree with each other. And it was probably not actually written by Ephraem but is rather a Seventh Century work attributed to him.
The texts commonly cited in Rapture disputes is the Rhoades translation of a Latin manuscript.
It's clear that I have eschatological differences with this Author regardless of if they have a basically similar Rapture view to myself. He agrees with me on The Witnesses being Enoch and Elijah, but probably not on the timing of their ministry it seems.
A problem for Pre-Tribbers thinking this agrees with them is the last section. Clearly Ephraem views the return of Christ described in 1 Thessalonians 4 as being after The Resurrection of The Witnesses and the Abomination of Desolation. He also ignores the Millennium strangely.
The accusation exists that the one line that helps Pre-Trib and Dispensaitonalism was in fact deliberately added or mistranslated by the translator.
The other Translation is not usually cited in The Rapture debate. Is clearly influenced by the Seventh Pseudo-Methodius apocalypse. And Pretends to foretell the rise of Islam.
If you deny that the The Church and Israel are separate covenants then you have no choice but to accept the Post-Trib position, as Chuck Missler likes to explain. The Church developed Anti-Semitic views early on accepting Replacement theology and that is why the Truth of the nature of The Rapture has been so rare, prior to the re-emergence of Pro-Israel Christians in England following The Protestant Reformation.
This other Translation also agrees with me on Enoch and Elijah being The Witnesses. And it agrees with my view I've argued for elsewhere that at the Time of Jesus's Resurrection others Arose too.
To me it is ultimately absolutely irrelevant how much Extra-Biblical support a position has.
I believe new insights into Scripture can happen. It wasn't clear to The Jews (and still isn't) that The Messiah has two Advents.
The cited Ephraem text is controversial. There is more then one Translation based on different manuscripts and they don't agree with each other. And it was probably not actually written by Ephraem but is rather a Seventh Century work attributed to him.
The texts commonly cited in Rapture disputes is the Rhoades translation of a Latin manuscript.
On the Last Times, the Anti-Christ, and the End of the World A Sermon by Pseudo-Ephraem and Isidor of Sevilla (Caspari's title of the sermon is: Eine Ephraem Syrus und Isidor von Sevilla beigelegte Predigt über die letzten Zeiten, den Antichrist und das Ende der welt.)
The English translation of the Latin text in C.P. Caspari's Briefe, Abhandlungen und Predigten aus den zwei letzten Jahrhunderten des kirchlichen Altertums und dem Anfang des Mittelater (Christiania, 1890, pp. 208-20) was provided by Cameron Rhoades, instructor of Latin at Tyndale Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, TX.
Section I Dearly beloved brothers, believe the Holy Spirit who speaks in us. We have already told you that the end of the world is near, the consummation remains. Has not faith withered away among mankind? How many foolish things are seen among youths, how many crimes among prelates, how many lies among priests, how many perjuries among deacons! There are evil deeds among the ministers, adulteries in the aged, wantonness in the youths—in mature women false faces, in virgins dangerous traces! In the midst of all this there are the wars with the Persians, and we see struggles with diverse nations threatening and "kingdom rising against kingdom." When the Roman empire begins to be consumed by the sword, the coming of the Evil One is at hand. It is necessary that the world come to an end at the completion of the Roman empire. In those days two brothers will come to the Roman empire who will rule with one mind; but because one will surpass the other, there will be a schism between them. And so the Adversary will be loosed and will stir up hatred between the Persian and Roman empires. In those days many will rise up against Rome; the Jewish people will be her adversaries. There will be stirrings of nations and evil reports, pestilences, famines, and earth quakes in various places. All nations will receive captives; there will be wars and rumors of wars. From the rising to the setting of the sun the sword will devour much. The times will be so dangerous that in fear and trembling they will not permit thought of better things, because many will be the oppressions and desolations of regions that are to come.
Section II We ought to understand thoroughly therefore, my brothers, what is imminent or overhanging. Already there have been hunger and plagues, violent movements of nations and signs, which have been predicted by the Lord, they have already been fulfilled (consummated), and there is not other which remains, except the advent of the wicked one in the completion of the Roman kingdom. Why therefore are we occupied with worldly business, and why is our mind held fixed on the lusts of the world or on the anxieties of the ages? Why therefore do we not reject every care of worldly business, and why is our mind held fixed on the lusts of the world or on the anxieties of the ages? Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time. Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: "Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!" For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins. And so, brothers most dear to me, it is the eleventh hour, and the end of the world comes to the harvest, and angels, armed and prepared, hold sickles in their hands, awaiting the empire of the Lord. And we think that the earth exists with blind infidelity, arriving at its downfall early. Commotions are brought forth, wars of diverse peoples and battles and incursions of the barbarians threaten, and our regions shall be desolated, and we neither become very much afraid of the report nor of the appearance, in order that we may at least do penance; because they hurl fear at us, and we do not wish to be changed, although we at least stand in need of penance for our actions!
Section III When therefore the end of the world comes, there arise diverse wars, commotions on all sides, horrible earthquakes, perturbations of nations, tempests throughout the lands, plagues, famine, drought throughout the thoroughfares, great danger throughout the sea and dry land, constant persecutions, slaughters and massacres everywhere, fear in the homes, panic in the cities, quaking in the thoroughfares, suspicions in the male, anxiety in the streets. In the desert people become senseless, spirits melt in the cities. A friend will not be grieved over a friend, neither a brother for a brother, nor parents for their children, nor a faithful servant for his master, but one inevitability shall overwhelm them all; neither is anyone able to be recovered in that time, who has not been made completely aware of the coming danger, but all people, who have been constricted by fear, are consumed because of the overhanging evils.
Section IV Whenever therefore the earth is agitated by the nations, people will hide themselves from the wars in the mountains and rocks, by caves and caverns of the earth, by graves and memorials of the dead, and there, as they waste away gradually by fear, they draw breath, because there is not any place at all to flee, but there will be concession and intolerable pressure. And those who are in the east will flee to the west, and moreover, those who are in the west shall flee to the east, and there is not a safer place anywhere, because the world shall be overwhelmed by worthless nations, whose aspect appears to be of wild animals more than that of men. Because those very much horrible nations, most profane and most defiled, who do not spare lives, and shall destroy the living from the dead, shall consume the dead, they eat dead flesh, they drink the blood of beasts, they pollute the world, contaminate all things, and the one who is able to resist them is not there. In those days people shall not be buried, neither Christian, nor heretic, neither Jew, nor pagan, because of fear and dread there is not one who buries them; because all people, while they are fleeing, ignore them.
Section V Whenever the days of the times of those nations have been fulfilled, after they have destroyed the earth, it shall rest; and now the kingdom of the Romans is removed from everyday life, and the empire of the Christians is handed down by God and Peter; and then the consummation comes, when the kingdom of the Romans begins to be fulfilled, and all dominions and powers have been fulfilled. Then that worthless and abominable dragon shall appear, he, whom Moses named in Deuteronomy, saying:-Dan is a young lion, reclining and leaping from Basan. Because he reclines in order that he may seize and destroy and slay. Indeed (he is) a young whelp of a lion not as the lion of the tribe of Judah, but roaring because of his wrath, that he may devour. "And he leaps out from Basan." "Basan" certainly is interpreted "confusion." He shall rise up from the confusion of his iniquity. The one who gathers together to himself a partridge the children of confusion, also shall call them, whom he has not brought forth, just as Jeremiah the prophet says. Also in the last day they shall relinquish him just as confused.
Section VI When therefore the end of the world comes, that abominable, lying and murderous one is born from the tribe of Dan. He is conceived from the seed of a man and from an unclean or most vile virgin, mixed with an evil or worthless spirit. But that abominable corrupter, more of spirits than of bodies, while a youth, the crafty dragon appears under the appearance of righteousness, before he takes the kingdom. Because he will be craftily gentle to all people, not receiving gifts, not placed before another person, loving to all people, quiet to everyone, not desiring gifts, appearing friendly among close friends, so that men may bless him, saying;-he is a just man, not knowing that a wolf lies concealed under the appearance of a lamb, and that a greedy man is inside under the skin of a sheep.
Section VII But when the time of the abomination of his desolation begins to approach, having been made legal, he takes the empire, and, just as it is said in the Psalm:-They have been made for the undertaking for the sons of Loth, the Moabites and the Ammanites shall meet him first as their king. Therefore, when he receives the kingdom, he orders the temple of God to be rebuilt for himself, which is in Jerusalem; who, after coming into it, he shall sit as God and order that he be adored by all nations, since he is carnal and filthy and mixed with worthless spirit and flesh. Then that eloquence shall be fulfilled of Daniel the prophet:-And he shall not know the God of their fathers, and he shall not know the desires of women. Because the very wicked serpent shall direct every worship to himself. Because he shall put forth an edict so that people may be circumcised according to the rite of the old law. Then the Jews shall congratulate him, because he gave them again the practice of the first covenant; then all people from everywhere shall flock together to him at the city of Jerusalem, and the holy city shall be trampled on by the nations for forty-two months, just as the holy apostle says in the Apocalypse, which become three and a half years, 1,260 days.
Section VIII In these three years and a half the heaven shall suspend its dew; because there will be no rain upon the earth, and the clouds shall cease to pass through the air, and the stars shall be seen with difficulty in the sky because of the excessive dryness, which happens in the time of the very fierce dragon. Because all great rivers and very powerful fountains that overflow with themselves shall be dried up, torrents shall dry up their water-courses because of the intolerable age, and there will be a great tribulation, as there has not been, since people began to be upon the earth, and there will be famine and an insufferable thirst. And children shall waste away in the bosom of their mothers, and wives upon the knees of their husbands, by not having victuals to eat. Because there will be in those days lack of bread and water, and no one is able to sell or to buy of the grain of the fall harvest, unless he is one who has the serpentine sign on the forehead or on the hand. Then gold and silver and precious clothing or precious stones shall lie along the streets, and also even every type of pearls along the thoroughfares and streets of the cities, but there is not one who may extend the hand and take or desire them, but they consider all things as good as nothing because of the extreme lack and famine of bread, because the earth is not protected by the rains of heaven, and there will be neither dew nor moisture of the air upon the earth. But those who wander through the deserts, fleeing from the face of the serpent, bend their knees to God, just as lambs to the adders of their mothers, being sustained by the salvation of the Lord, and while wandering in states of desertion, they eat herbs.
Section IX Then, when this inevitability has overwhelmed all people, just and unjust, the just, so that they may be found good by their Lord; and indeed the unjust, so that they may be damned forever with their author the Devil, and, as God beholds the human race in danger and being tossed about by the breath of the horrible dragon, he sends to them consolatory proclamation by his attendants, the prophets Enoch and Elijah, who, while not yet tasting death, are the servants for the heralding of the second coming of Christ, and in order to accuse the enemy. And when those just ones have appeared, they confuse indeed the antagonistic serpent with his cleverness and they call back the faithful witnesses to God, in order to (free them) from his seduction ...
Section X And when the three and a half years have been completed, the time of the Antichrist, through which he will have seduced the world, after the resurrection of the two prophets, in the hour which the world does not know, and on the day which the enemy of son of perdition does not know, will come the sign of the Son of Man, and coming forward the Lord shall appear with great power and much majesty, with the sign of the wood of salvation going before him, and also even with all the powers of the heavens with the whole chorus of the saints, with those who bear the sign of the holy cross upon their shoulders, as the angelic trumpet precedes him, which shall sound and declare: Arise, O sleeping ones, arise, meet Christ, because his hour of judgment has come! Then Christ shall come and the enemy shall be thrown into confusion, and the Lord shall destroy him by the spirit of his mouth. And he shall be bound and shall be plunged into the abyss of everlasting fire alive with his father Satan; and all people, who do his wishes, shall perish with him forever; but the righteous ones shall inherit everlasting life with the Lord forever and ever.It's a key part of Section II that is a Rapture Witness. "For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins". It's usually Pre-Tribbers bringing this up. So as a form of Mid-Tribber I feel the need to point out that they don't know if whoever wrote this is defining "the tribulation" as Pre-Tribbers do.
It's clear that I have eschatological differences with this Author regardless of if they have a basically similar Rapture view to myself. He agrees with me on The Witnesses being Enoch and Elijah, but probably not on the timing of their ministry it seems.
A problem for Pre-Tribbers thinking this agrees with them is the last section. Clearly Ephraem views the return of Christ described in 1 Thessalonians 4 as being after The Resurrection of The Witnesses and the Abomination of Desolation. He also ignores the Millennium strangely.
The accusation exists that the one line that helps Pre-Trib and Dispensaitonalism was in fact deliberately added or mistranslated by the translator.
The other Translation is not usually cited in The Rapture debate. Is clearly influenced by the Seventh Pseudo-Methodius apocalypse. And Pretends to foretell the rise of Islam.
SERMON OF PSEUDO-EPHREM ON THE END OF THE WORLDIn this version the timing The Resurrection of the Saints clearly seems to agree with a Post-Trib view I'm afraid.
Translated from the text in Edmund Beck, ed., Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones III (CSCO 320; Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus SCO, 1972), 60-71; see also 79-94 for Beck’s translation. The text is based on two manuscripts: (1) Codex Vaticanus Sir. 566, and (2) Codex Dublinensis (Trinity College) B 5.19. Editio princeps: Thomas Josephus Lamy, ed., Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones (4 vols.; Mechliniae: H. Dessain, 1882-1902), 3:187-212.
A discourse (memra) of the holy saint Ephrem, the Syrian teacher, concerning the end, (final) consummation, judgment, and punishment; on the people of Gog and Magog; and about the Antichrist. O Son who by His grace humbled Himself And who was pleased to make Himself a human being; Who willingly experienced death At the top of the wood(en cross) on Golgotha: Grant me, my Lord, (the ability) to speak about The struggles which will take place in the created order; For peoples will fall upon each other And nations will destroy one another, Evil will fortify itself on the earth And iniquity will increase throughout creation. Righteous rulers will perish And lawless ones will arise on the earth. Then a judgment will arise, And a weighing on the scale for those humans: The side (containing) the wicked will sink down; And that for the elect will rise up. Then spiritual entities will go forth And destroy the ends of the created order. It will happen, my brethren, just as it is written: A plague in a number of places, And a famine will occur in the created order; Terrible struggles and conflicts. Dust will be saturated with blood; The created order will be polluted from iniquity. Regions will be ravaged, And cities will be consumed by Sheol; Nation will rise up against nation And kingdom against kingdom. Lawlessness will be sovereign on earth And the defiled will pursue after the saints. People will openly apostatize And augment the left side; The righteous ones will suffer indignities From those who belong to the side of the sinners. It is due to this, my beloved ones That the final age has arrived. Lo, we have observed the signs, Just as Christ inscribed for us: Rulers will arise, one against another; There will be suffering on earth; Nations will contend with nations And armies will fall upon one another. When the Nile, the river of Egypt, Overflows (and) floods part of the land, Certain regions will prepare themselves Against the country of the Romans. Nations will contend with nations, And a kingdom with a kingdom. They will depart, moving from one land to another; Those Romans who are put to flight. And the Assyrians will gain authority Over the region of the Romans. The fruit of their loins they will subjugate And they will also ravish their women; They will be sowing and also reaping They will plant fruits in the ground; They will acquire vast riches And hoard treasures underground. But just as the Nile, the river of Egypt Recedes again from what it flooded; So too will Assyria recede Back to their own country. For the Romans once again will be found In their ancestral land (i.e., the Assyrians’). Then evil will increase on the earth And the land will be defiled with fornication. The cry of the persecuted and the wretched Will rise up to heaven. Then a judgment will arise To cast them out of the land. The holy covenant will complain; A cry will rise up to heaven. A people will emerge from the wilderness, The progeny of Hagar, the handmaid of Sarah; Who hold fast to the covenant with Abraham, The husband of Sarah and Hagar. Set in motion, he (Ishmael) comes in the name of the ram, The herald of the Son of Destruction. A sign will appear in the heavens, The one our Lord spoke of in His gospel: Luminaries will shine among the stars And the light of His face will gleam. Rulers will quake and tremble; The forces arrayed by them will fall. The peoples of the earth will be terrified When they behold the sign set in the heavens. They will prepare for battle and come together, All peoples and nationalities. They will wage war there And the ground will be drenched with blood. The nations will suffer defeat there, A marauding nation will prevail. The marauders will fly over the landscape, Across plains and over the peaks of mountains. They will take women and children as captives, Also men both elderly and young. The best of the males will be destroyed; The most desirable women will be removed. With strong spears and lances They will impale elderly men. They will separate a son from his father, A daughter from the side of her mother; They will separate a brother from his brethren, A sister from the side of her sisters. They will slay the bridegroom in his bedroom And expel the bride from her bridal chamber. They will take a wife away from her husband, And slaughter her as if she were a sheep; They will cast an infant away from its mother And drive the mother into captivity. The child will scream out on the ground: Its mother hears, but what can she do? For it will be trampled by the hooves Of horses, camels, and infantry! She (tries to) turn toward it, (but) they will not allow her; The child remains within the wild (?). They separate children from their mother As the soul (is separated) from the body. She watches while they divide them up, Her beloved ones (taken from) the embrace of her bosom; Two of her children to two (different) masters, Her own self to still another master; She has been allocated, and her children with her; For they are now slaves to robbers. Her children cry out with laments, Their eyes burning with tears; She turns toward her beloved ones, The milk flowing forth from her breast: ‘Farewell, my beloved ones! May God go with you! The one who accompanied Joseph In (his) servitude among foreigners: May He accompany you, my children Into the captivity where you are going!’ ‘Farewell, our mother! May God go with you! The one who accompanied Sarah Into the palace of Abimelech the Gadarite: May He accompany your own self Until the Day of Resurrection!’ The son will stand and watch while his father Is sold into slavery. The eyes of both of them will burn with tears While they groan, one in front of the other. A brother will watch while his brother Is killed and cast down on the ground, Whereas he they drive off into captivity In order to serve among foreigners as a slave. They even put to death mothers Who are holding their children to their breasts. Bitter is the sound of the infants Who are groaning to satisfy their desire (for milk). They will prepare roads in the mountains, Highways in the middle of the plains; They will maraud until the very ends of the created order. They will establish rule over the urban centers. The provinces will suffer destruction, And they will multiply corpses on the earth. All peoples will be brought low Before the marauder nation. And once the peoples have endured much on earth And hope that now peace has arrived, They (the Ishmaelites) start exacting tribute And everyone will be fearful of them. Lawlessness will intensify on the earth And even obscure the clouds; Wickedness will enclose the created order And waft up like smoke to the heavens. Then since wickedness will be rampant upon the earth, The Lord’s wrath will then stir up Kings and mighty armies. For when He seeks to expunge it from earth, He sends out humans against humans To annihilate one another. Truly at that time He will summon The kings and mighty armies Who are behind those gates Which Alexander fashioned. Many rulers and peoples Remain behind the gates. They look toward heaven And call on the name of God, That the Lord send His sign From within His heaven of glory And the Divine Voice Summon them who are by those gates; So that they suddenly break down and collapse At the command of the Divinity. Numerous armies issue forth, As many as the stars which cannot be counted. As multitudinous as the sand by the sea, And exceeding (the number of) the stars in the sky. A full span was consumed From the lower crossbar; And from the upper crossbar Another full span was consumed On account of the great quantity of their sharp spears With which they lacerated it. They issued forth, Moving, spilling forth from there; Kings and large armies And every people and language group Emerging from (behind) those gates. Gog and Magog and Nūl and Agag, Kings and mighty armies! Togarmah and Ashkenaz and Daypar, Pūìayē with Lūbayē. Amzartayē and Garmēdō‘, ¬alab with helmet-covered heads, Azmurtayē and Kūshayē, Hunayē and Parzayē, Diqlayē and Tūbalayē, Mūshkayē with Kūshayē. Allied to and coming with them Were both the Medes and the Persians, Armenians and Turks And NamrūÐayē and MūshÐayē; The descendants of Ke’wan and Serug; The progeny of Yaqìan and the MaÐūnayē; Numerous armies and nations Whose number cannot be calculated. They will burst forth and flood the earth, Shaking the walls of the created order. A dust cloud will rise up over the earth, Obscuring the sun above And covering creation With clouds and dark fogs, In accordance with what Ezekiel prophesied, The son of Buzi in his prophecy. For when the Huns come forth To wage war and to do battle, They will take hold of pregnant women And heap fire on top of them; They will come closer and mutter incantations over them, While roasting their children inside them! Splitting them open, they extract their fetuses When they are finished cooking inside of them. They draw near: then place them in basins, And pour water over them And dissolve their corpses there In those enchanted waters. They immediately take their swords And their bows with their spears And dip them in those waters For their arrows and their weapons. Every weapon to which are applied Those magical potions Appears as if there are hundreds, even thousands Of cavalrymen who wield them. Moreover those hundreds of horsemen Who set out (and) traverse the whole of the earth Appear as if they are accompanied By six thousand myriads. If one of them should fall off during battle While engaging in the fight, Wherever he extends his hand Suddenly a knife emerges! They eat the flesh of children And also drink the blood of women. Clothed in tanned skins, They mount the winds and tempests; And rapidly, in the blink of an eye, They lay waste to cities, Topple their walls to the ground, And destroy the strong citadels. Moving quickly, they bind the swift And slaughter the vigorous men. They are quicker in motion Than winds and tempests. Whenever news of them is heard on earth (to wit) ‘The Huns have set out (and) are coming!’ They blanket the whole of creation. Because they are sorcerers, They fly between heaven and earth. Their chariots are like the winds, And their swords and their lances Are like terrifying bolts of lightning. Holding straps in their hands And two or three horses, Each one of them leads with him Some fifty or sixty men, Traveling behind and in front of him Like winds and tempests. The sound of the battle-cry of just one of them Is like the roaring of lions. Indeed dread of the Huns Will overpower the entire earth; They will cover the whole earth Like the waters during the days of Noah, And they will overwhelm the edges of the created order: There is no one who can withstand them. These are the ‘numerous peoples’ About whom Ezekiel spoke Who will cover the whole earth As if they were clouds. ‘Fish will shudder before them, (As will) the birds of the sky And wild beasts and vermin of the earth And every species in creation; High mountains will be thrust down And fortified towers will collapse, Even the walls of the cities.’ On the earth will be a wasteland. For Ezekiel has prophesied That it will come to pass in the End of Days: They will burst out (and) come up from the land And cover the created order; Gog and Magog will prepare itself And arrive at the ‘hill country of Israel.’ Between the sea and Jerusalem He will place his encampment. Riders will fly off, descending Upon Egypt and opposite India; Leading away so many captives they cannot be numbered. People and riches, Cattle and property Which have now become his prey. Then Righteousness will summon Michael, the one who is leader of the host, To come down (and) destroy his encampment Just as (he destroyed) the encampment of Sennacherib. The angel, receiving the command, will draw The terrible and powerful sword, And departing, he will destroy his force In the twinkling of an eye! Righteousness will pick up and hurl Stones of fire upon the encampment. The slain on the ground will be as numerous As the (particles of) sand which cannot be counted; People and pack-animals will perish, The entire encampment will be consumed. The blaze will extend Unto the sea and to the islands. The bow will swerve from the hands Of Gog, the wicked ruler; Also his arrows (will drop) from his left hand: His entire encampment will be consumed. The inhabitants of Judaea will go out And loot his whole encampment. They will collect and pick up armament: Lances, arrows, and bows. For seven years within a fire They will burn them, as it is written: ‘They will not need to gather Wood from the field or thickets.’ Seven years they will throw in the fire Shields and clubs, Arrows, spears, and bows. They will prove sufficient for fueling the fire for seven years. Then the Lord will bring in His peace, Which attests His glorification among the heavens. And once more the empire of the Romans Will spring up and flourish in its place. It will possess the earth and its extremities, And no one will exist who opposes it. And when iniquity has become rife on earth And has polluted the whole of creation, Then a judgment will arise Which will entirely obliterate the people. The Son of Destruction, the Evil One, Will emerge and come upon the earth. A deceiver of humanity, An instigator of trouble over the whole earth. On the day when he comes to it, (when) the Son of Destruction arrives on earth, The created order will be thrown into commotion, And terror will engulf the earth. The sun will become dark in its place, And the stars will fall from the height; All the luminaries will be quenched, Darkness will cover the created order. The earth with its inhabitants will shake, And mountains and heights will quake; Springs and fountains will dry up, And the waves in the sea will abate And the fish therein grow still. Rulers will stop rendering judgment And priests will tremble in the sanctuary And military power will collapse. Confusion will be on the earth And all human powers will be paralyzed, For the Evil One will be ready. He will come to and enter Jerusalem. He will rebuild and establish himself in Zion, And will make himself to be God And enter into the sanctuary to take a seat In accordance with what the Apostle wrote to us. The Jews will take pride in him; They will prepare themselves and come to him. And he moreover will blaspheme when he says: ‘I, even I, am the Father and the Son! The First and the Last! There is no other god apart from me!’ But at that time ten thousand Jews will denounce him: They will answer him in truth: ‘You are a deceiver for (all) creatures! For the one whom our ancestors restrained At the top of the wood(en cross) on Golgotha Is (actually) the redeemer of (all) creatures, And he was raised up to the One Who sent him!’ Then the Evil One will be enraged And he will issue a command regarding those who denounced him That they should immediately die by the sword, And everyone will be too afraid to renounce him. Then he will begin to display Wonders through deception In the heavens and on the earth, Within the sea and on the dry land. He will summon the rain and it will fall; He will command the seed and it will sprout However he will not actually perform (miracles); He will be employing magic. He will command the waves and they will cease, And the winds will be obedient to him. He will suspend fruits on the trees And cause water to gush from the ground. He will address the leprous and they will become clean, (Speak to) the blind, and they will see light, He will call to the deaf and they will hear him, (Address) even the mute and they will speak. He will effect all the wonders Which Our Lord performed within the created order, Except that he will not be able to resurrect the dead, For he will not have authority over (the) spirits (of the dead). Lightening-flashes will be his messengers, And are the sign of his advent; Demons are his armies And the commanders of the devils are his pupils; He will dispatch the heads of his legions To distant lands Where they will display marvelous powers and healings And mislead the whole of creation. Behold, the Apostle has penned a warning for us In his epistle to the Thessalonians: ‘Let no word or no letter Trouble you that is not from us. For the rebellion comes first, Also the Man of Sin And he will exalt himself over God, Making himself to be God.’ And when the Accursed One comes And displays his mighty works and wonders, The nations will gather together and come As (if) they were going to see God. Groups and nations will join him, And every person will renounce their deity; Everyone will say of him to their fellow That they should acknowledge him, the Son of Destruction! Peoples will fall upon one another, Slaying each other with swords. The elect will flee from his presence To the peaks of mountains and hills, And there will be calamity on earth Unlike any that came before. Fear will fall upon all people And they will be overcome with terror. Children will renounce their father And follow after the Evil One; Priests will abandon their altars To serve as his heralds. People will flee to cemeteries And hide themselves among the dead, Pronouncing the good fortune of the deceased Who had avoided the calamity: ‘Blessed are you for you were borne away (to the grave) And hence you escaped from the afflictions! But as for us, woe is us! For when we die, Vultures will serve as escort for us!’ And if the days of that time were not shortened, The elect would never survive The calamities and afflictions. For Our Lord revealed (and) disclosed to us In his Gospel when He said: ‘Those days will be shortened For the sake of the elect and the saints.’ And when he has harassed the whole of creation, (When) the Son of Destruction (has bent it) to his will, Enoch and Elijah will be sent That they might persuade the Evil One. With a gentle question The saints will come before him, In order to expose the Son of Destruction Before the assemblies surrounding him: ‘If you are indeed God, Tell us what we ask of you: Where is the place that you have hidden The elders Elijah and Enoch?’ The Evil One will respond and say To the saints at that time: ‘When I wish (it), they are in the height(s), Or again should I choose, they are within the sea; For I have authority over habitations, Since there is no other god apart from me And I can make anything On earth (and) also in heaven!’ They will answer The Son of Destruction as follows: ‘If you are truly God, Call out to the deceased so that they will rise! For it is written within the books Of the prophets and the apostles That when the Messiah reveals Himself, He will resurrect the dead from the graves. If you cannot show us this (sign), Then the One who was crucified is greater than you! For he roused and resurrected those who were dead, And was exalted in great splendor.’ Then the Evil One will become enraged With the saints at that time; He will draw his terrible sword And sever the necks of the righteous ones. But Gabriel will arise (and) descend (With) Michael (as) military commanders; They will resurrect those saints While the Evil One stands confused with his servants. They will approach and seize that Accursed One And the Lord will rebuke (him) from heaven; Then He will destroy the Accursed One And all of his forces. Angels will suddenly approach And cast him into Gehenna, And all of those who believed in him Will be thrust into the flame(s). Then the Lord will come from above In splendor and with a company of His angels, And between earth and heaven A throne-chariot will be fixed there. He will admonish the sea and it will dry up; The fish within it will perish. He will dissolve the heavens and the earth, And there will be (only) darkness and gloom. He will dispatch fire upon the earth, And it will burn there for forty <days> Purifying it of iniquity And of pollution and of sins. A great throne will be adorned And the Son will be seated on the right; Seats will be positioned For the twelve apostles of the Son; And couches will be decorated for the martyrs And a royal chamber for the righteous ones. The Watchers will blow trumpets And the dead will arise from the dust; Fiery entities will suddenly go forth And assemble all the descendants of Adam. They will gather the wheat in a storehouse And throw the straw into the fire; The good will go forth into the Kingdom, And the bad will remain in Gehenna; The righteous will fly up to the height, And the sinners will burn in fire. The martyrs will float to the couch; The wicked will go out into darkness. And Christ will reign forever, He will be sovereign over each generation. To Him be the glory, and His mercy is over us For all time, amen, amen!
If you deny that the The Church and Israel are separate covenants then you have no choice but to accept the Post-Trib position, as Chuck Missler likes to explain. The Church developed Anti-Semitic views early on accepting Replacement theology and that is why the Truth of the nature of The Rapture has been so rare, prior to the re-emergence of Pro-Israel Christians in England following The Protestant Reformation.
This other Translation also agrees with me on Enoch and Elijah being The Witnesses. And it agrees with my view I've argued for elsewhere that at the Time of Jesus's Resurrection others Arose too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)