context....CONtext.........CONTEXT

[SACREDWARRIOR]

Hello Gang,

 I read through posts & listen to podcasts typically on the subject of ESCHATOLOGY (End Times).....this has been a fascination of mine since youth....(im 61)...

 I've ran through the gamut of positions...and find myself currently in the PRE-WRATH camp. somewhere between traditional and AMILLENNIAL . alongside of that I have recently questioned the common description/understanding of the 7th week......as I have watched and studied It occurred to me that nowhere in the NEW or OLD TESTAMENT was a 7 year period mentioned, save for the, the Original prophetic utterance through Jeremiah & repeated in Daniel.....

 All common positions, PRE - MID -PRE WRATH - POST , consider an end time event period of 7 years.......Yet the Bible when speaking to the close of humanity, speaks only of 3 & 1/2 years.

 I studied and learned directly under the author teachers, ROBERT VANKAMPEN, MARVIN ROSENTHAL, CHARLES COOPER, ETC...

through each of these teachers and their writings, there was a prominent teaching on how to understand scripture in general, pivotal prio to examining the subject of eschatology... this featured 2 primary tenets ...READ SCRIPTURE USING THE GRAMMATICAL RULE...NORMAL NATURAL CUSTOMARY SENSE OF UNDERSTANDING LANGUAGE......Which opened the word to me in a way I had not seen previously....

The second major understanding was CONTEXT...... TYPICALLY UNDERSTOOD AS THE SURROUNDING VERSES OR CHAPTER(S) NEAR the text in question, however Bob V, further maintained to investigate the whole of scripture on any given topic or study before drawing conclusions.

  using this primary understanding, I came to realize 7 years is not written in the eschatological pages of scripture.........but what of the prophetic decree of Jeremiah & Daniel.......?

 All positions divide the 7th year into 2 equal sections of 3.5 YRS, and have them running concurrent.......BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!  what if they are not supposed to be concurrent? what if there was a PARENTHETICAL GAP TO BRING INTO SALVATION THE GENTILES......most believe in a GAP   but is their understanding of the gap correct! In the clearest teaching  of end times THE OLIVET DISCOURSE, we see a designation of 2 primary distinctions , BEGINNING OF SORROWS & TRIBULATION PERIOD INCLUDING "GREAT TRIBULATION"...what of the 1st half or period.....is there a peace treaty or covenant to indicated it, is there some miraculous sign from heaven , how would christians know when it began? I know the NORMAL descriptive EARTHQUAKES ,DISEASE, FAMINE ETC... but those things arguably have been occurring since the fall of man in Eden.....

 What if the COMMA (,) was placed the wrong position a small JOT TITTLE causing the confusion....

SOMETHING TO PONDER!!!!!!

THE BATTLE RAGES TIL THE LION ROARS!!

 Clarence

[BibleWords]

I am totally pre-trib and pre-mill as most anyone on here already knows.

That of course makes my beliefs all futurist in nature.  This position interprets the Bible consistently literally and uses the grammatical and historical approach.

Therefore I believe that the rapture is the next thing on the Christian’s list of events.

My position is pretty standard end time theology.  I am a Missionary Baptist pastor so the regular Baptist eschatology is really prevalent in my doctrine.

You asked the starting point of the seven year tribulation.  I believe it is the rapture of the church.

I realize that there are many different views on end times here on the forums.  Believe me, I have had my share of discussions about that very subject.  I respect differing views from my own.  
However, this is my position and I don’t think  that now after many years of study there is any chance of changing my doctrine.

[BibleWords]

Dan. 9:27 is the reference to the “covenant with many for one week”.

This is the week of years you referred to, the seven year tribulation which will be divided into two 3 1/2 year periods because the Antichrist will set up the abomination of desolation in the temple in the middle of the seven years.

The whole seven years is the tribulation which comes after the rapture of the church, but the second half is the 3 1/2 years you spoke of, which is the Great Tribulation.

The second period is the wrath of God poured out.

The church has been protected from the wrath of God by knowing Jesus and going in the rapture before the tribulation.

This is the time known as Jacob’s troubles.

In Christ

[enoob57]

1 hour ago, BibleWords said:

I am totally pre-trib and pre-mill as most anyone on here already knows.

That of course makes my beliefs all futurist in nature.  This position interprets the Bible consistently literally and uses the grammatical and historical approach.

Therefore I believe that the rapture is the next thing on the Christian’s list of events.

My position is pretty standard end time theology.  I am a Missionary Baptist pastor so the regular Baptist eschatology is really prevalent in my doctrine.

You asked the starting point of the seven year tribulation.  I believe it is the rapture of the church.

I realize that there are many different views on end times here on the forums.  Believe me, I have had my share of discussions about that very subject.  I respect differing views from my own.  
However, this is my position and I don’t think  that now after many years of study there is any chance of changing my doctrine.

You are different from your churches statement?
https://www.missionarybaptistchurches.org/articles-of-faith.html

[BibleWords]

Wrong “missionary Baptist”.

BMAA 

Baptist Missionary Association of America

Sorry

[Arial]

1 hour ago, BibleWords said:

The church has been protected from the wrath of God by knowing Jesus and going in the rapture before the tribulation.

The church (all those in Christ through faith) is and always has been and always will be protected from the wrath of God. There is no need of a "rapture" to protect them from it. Jesus faced it for them.

Don't confuse protection from the wrath of God as being not witnessing His wrath. We witness it all the time.  We just don't recognize it for what it is.

[BibleWords]

4 minutes ago, Arial said:

The church (all those in Christ through faith) is and always has been and always will be protected from the wrath of God. There is no need of a "rapture" to protect them from it. Jesus faced it for them.

Don't confuse protection from the wrath of God as being not witnessing His wrath. We witness it all the time.  We just don't recognize it for what it is.

We are protected from the wrath and judgement by the grace of Christ, that is correct.

But God uses the rapture as the means to get us out of earth before His wrath comes.  Of course He could leave us here, we would still be saved by grace even when we are killed for His name. Salvation would not be a problem.

But Jesus did not choose to send His Bride through the time of Jacob’s trouble.  
John 14–Jesus promised to come and get His bride and take her to the Father’s house.

The Father’s house is not on the earth in the middle of horrific conditions.

In the verses above quoted (Matt. 24) the flood came and took away the sinners in judgement.  The ark took away the righteous from judgement.

The Bible clearly teaches the pre-trib rapture.

The bride of Christ is never told that she will witness God’s wrath.

 

[Arial]

29 minutes ago, BibleWords said:

But God uses the rapture as the means to get us out of earth before His wrath comes.  Of course He could leave us here, we would still be saved by grace even when we are killed for His name. Salvation would not be a problem.

But Jesus did not choose to send His Bride through the time of Jacob’s trouble.  
John 14–Jesus promised to come and get His bride and take her to the Father’s house.

I do not believe that John 14 can in any way be seen as support of rapture theory. It would seem that in order for it to do so, a firm belief of a coming "rapture" would have to pre-exist in the one who does so. Without that belief already present a  reading of those scriptures would never arrive on it own to being about a rapture. ANd in all of Daniel of the dreams interpreted, in all of Rev, in all of the few scriptures of the NT that are used as though they clearly used the word "rapture" and do not, is any such thing actually ever said?

John 14 is not speaking about Jesus coming to take His bride. It is talking about Jesus leaving the disciples as His finished work of redemption on earth, promising they will be with Him where He goes, (but not when), and sending them the Holy Spirit to carry on the earthly work of gathering the sheep (the bride) through the gospel spread.

29 minutes ago, BibleWords said:

The Father’s house is not on the earth in the middle of horrific conditions.

Don't forget that Jesus was speaking to His disciples. Almost all of whom died horrific martyr's deaths. Don't forget the countless times both Jesus and the apostles promised that His people would suffer and be persecuted but that He would bring them through trouble. Don't forget history. The dark ages and periods of great persecution of the church, the burnings, hangings, imprisonment, torture, all for the name of Jesus. That is a refining for His church and a judgment stored up for His enemies---many who met it in the land of the living while they saints bore witness.

Don't forget 70 a.d. when the temple and Jerusalem were destroyed and the priesthood and sacrifices were brought to an end. That was a judgment, wrath of God poured out.

32 minutes ago, BibleWords said:

In the verses above quoted (Matt. 24) the flood came and took away the sinners in judgement.  The ark took away the righteous from judgement.

The Bible clearly teaches the pre-trib rapture.

The bride of Christ is never told that she will witness God’s wrath.

This is an analogy made where no analogy exists without a preconceived belief in a "rapture" eisegesis being forced on the scripture.

The Bible does not clearly teach any "rapture". It doesn't teach it at all.

The bride of Christ is never told that she won't witness God's wrath. She has witnessed it many times in history and would even today could she but see. It is seen in the very verses of Romans 1.

[farouk]

3 minutes ago, Arial said:

I do not believe that John 14 can in any way be seen as support of rapture theory. It would seem that in order for it to do so, a firm belief of a coming "rapture" would have to pre-exist in the one who does so. Without that belief already present a  reading of those scriptures would never arrive on it own to being about a rapture. ANd in all of Daniel of the dreams interpreted, in all of Rev, in all of the few scriptures of the NT that are used as though they clearly used the word "rapture" and do not, is any such thing actually ever said?

John 14 is not speaking about Jesus coming to take His bride. It is talking about Jesus leaving the disciples as His finished work of redemption on earth, promising they will be with Him where He goes, (but not when), and sending them the Holy Spirit to carry on the earthly work of gathering the sheep (the bride) through the gospel spread.

Don't forget that Jesus was speaking to His disciples. Almost all of whom died horrific martyr's deaths. Don't forget the countless times both Jesus and the apostles promised that His people would suffer and be persecuted but that He would bring them through trouble. Don't forget history. The dark ages and periods of great persecution of the church, the burnings, hangings, imprisonment, torture, all for the name of Jesus. That is a refining for His church and a judgment stored up for His enemies---many who met it in the land of the living while they saints bore witness.

Don't forget 70 a.d. when the temple and Jerusalem were destroyed and the priesthood and sacrifices were brought to an end. That was a judgment, wrath of God poured out.

This is an analogy made where no analogy exists without a preconceived belief in a "rapture" eisegesis being forced on the scripture.

The Bible does not clearly teach any "rapture". It doesn't teach it at all.

The bride of Christ is never told that she won't witness God's wrath. She has witnessed it many times in history and would even today could she but see. It is seen in the very verses of Romans 1.

Whose followers is the Lord Jesus talking to in John 14? (As per 1 Cor. 10.32...)

Edited May 15, 2023 by farouk

[farouk]

When the Whom? is considered about the coming of the Lord Jesus, as well as the What? then the picture can become clearer.