Monthly Archives: November 2019

God’s Man on the Titanic

Posted on by
Reply

Source: The Partiarchy Podcast facebook page

One of the passengers on the Titanic was a godly Pastor from Scotland, by the name of John Harper. Harper had recently spent three months ministering at the Moody Church in Chicago, during which time the church had experienced one of the most wonderful revivals in its history. He had not been back in Britain long when he was asked to return and continue his ministry. He quickly made arrangements for himself and his six-year old daughter, Nana, to travel back to American on board the Lusitania. However, he decided to delay their departure for one week, so that they could sail on a new ship, the Titanic, which was about to make its maiden voyage.

On Sunday April 14th, 1912, the day when the iceberg was struck, the weather was fine, the sea calm. Harper attended the church service for the passengers. His niece reported that later that afternoon she saw her Uncle speaking individually to people about their souls. It seems he was in the habit of seeking out the lost sheep wherever he went.

The Titanic struck the iceberg at 11:40PM on April 14, 1912. As the call was issued for passengers to vacate their cabins, Harper wrapped his daughter in a blanket, told her that she would see him again one day, and passed her to one of the crewmen. After watching her safely board one of the lifeboats, he removed his life jacket and gave it to one of the other passengers. One survivor distinctly remembered hearing him shout, “Women, children and the unsaved into the lifeboats!” Harper knew that believers were ready to die, but the unsaved were not ready.

Harper then ran along the decks pleading with people to turn to Christ, and with the ship sinking, he called upon the Titanic’s orchestra to play, “Nearer, my God, to Thee.” Gathering people around him on deck, he then knelt down, and “with holy joy in his face” raised his arms in prayer. As the ship began to lurch, he jumped into the icy waters and swam frantically to all he could reach, beseeching them to turn to the Lord Jesus and be saved. Finally, as hypothermia set in, John Harper sank beneath the waters and passed into the Lord’s presence; he was 39.

Four years later, a young Scotsman by the name of Aguilla Webb stood up in a meeting in Hamilton, Canada, and gave the following testimony:

“I am a survivor of the Titanic. When I was drifting alone on a spar that awful night, the tide brought Mr. John Harper of Glasgow, also on a piece of wreck, near me. ‘Man,’ he said, ‘Are you saved?’ ‘No,’ I said, ‘I am not.’ He replied, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.’ The waves bore him away; but, strange to say brought him back a little later, and he said, ‘Are you saved now?’ ‘No,’ I said, ‘I cannot honestly say that I am.’ He said again, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,’ and shortly after he went down; and there, alone in the night, and with two miles of water under me, I believed. I am John Harper’s last convert.”

Only seven people were plucked from the icy water that night to join the survivors in the lifeboats. Webb was one of them.

In the Hollywood movie of the Titanic, nothing was said about John Harper, but he was truly one of the great heroes of the Titanic. In the face of death and drowning, he was concerned about the souls of men. As are all true men of God.

May all we men remember John Harper.

Dealing With Bible Prophecy Experts

Posted on by
1

Article: “Welcome to my world of dealing with Bible prophecy ‘experts'” by Gary Demar – original source: https://americanvision.org/21410/welcome-to-my-world-of-dealing-with-bible-prophecy-experts/

I don’t claim to be a Bible prophecy expert. All I claim to be is someone who has looked at Bible prophecy passages and compared them with other similar passages. I’ve done this for more than 40 years.

One critic of a video I posted was critical of my comments claiming he had studied Bible prophecy for ten years and knew I was wrong. I commend anyone who has studied anything for ten years. But studying something for ten years does not mean that such a long-term study has netted accurate results. The same is true for someone who has studied a topic for 40 years. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, that is, the proof of what the Bible is saying is in the Bible.

Another critic did not like my response when I said that the position he was advocating did not have anyone “of repute” (solid reputation) to support him in his views, this included reputable Bible commentaries and lexicons. When I posted numerous examples of what I meant, he ignored the dozens of commentators and lexicons and moved on to another topic. There’s an extensive list of them in my book Wars and Rumors of Wars.

One of the reasons I write books and articles is so I don’t have to keep answering the same questions over and over again. I often point people who ask me questions to a book or article I’ve written. Some people are incensed when I do this.

“Why should I have to buy one of your books for you to answer me?” Because one answer almost always leads to another question. And then another. Then another. Essentially, I end up repeating what’s in books or articles I’ve already written. If a person isn’t willing to take the time to read what I’ve spent many hours studying, researching, and writing, I don’t believe I’m obligated to spend even more time going over the same material.

I’ll often test the waters to see what type of person I’m dealing with. For example, I received the following comment from someone who was responding to a comment I made regarding time texts using words like “near,” “shortly,” and “quickly”:

Have these things happened?
And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come [Matt. 24:14]. … Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Matthew 24:14, 29-31 ESV

I’ve answered a multifaceted question like this numerous times in Last Days Madness, Is Jesus Coming Soon?, and Wars and Rumors of Wars. I decided to comment on Matthew 24:14 to see how he would respond. His response would give me an indication of whether it was worth spending time with his other points of contention. Just so you know, it wasn’t worth except that I got this article out of it. Here’s what I wrote in response:

Let’s look at Matthew 24:14. You say this passage has not been fulfilled. I say it has. What does Matthew 24:34 say: “This generation will not pass away until ALL these things take place.” This would include v. 14 since EVERY time “this generation” is used in the gospels it always refers to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. The Greek word often translated as “world” in v. 14 is oikoumenē, not kosmos. The same word is found in Luke 2:1 and other places and is often translated more accurately as “inhabited earth” or the political boundary of the Roman Empire. Rome could only tax its subjects, not the entire world. [In other places I point out that the gospel of the kingdom only had to be preached as far as Rome could tax. If the gospel had been preached to that extent, then what Jesus said in Matthew 24:14 was fulfilled before that generation passed away.]
Let’s see what the Bible says about the preaching of the gospel to the whole oikoumenē:

● Col. 1:6: “the gospel … which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth.

[This verse alone should have satisfied any argument in response since it states that the gospel had been preached “in all the world,” and the word for “world” is kosmos which is broader than oikoumenē. The Bible often uses the word kosmos (world) in this way, and so do we today.]
● Col. 1:23: “if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.”

[“This is obviously a figure of speech indicating the universality of the gospel and its proclamation, not that every person on the globe heard Paul preach. In Acts 2:5 this phrase describes countries without including, for example, anyone from North or South America (cf. Also Gen. 41:57; 1 Kings 10:24; Rom. 1:8).”1 Paul tells the Romans that “their voice has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world” (10:18; see Ps. 19:4).]

● Rom. 1:8: “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.”

[The word translated “world” is kosmos. This means if Jesus had used the word kosmos in Matthew 24:14, this verse would have confirmed what Jesus said about the gospel being preached before that present generation passed away.]

● Rom. 16:25-26: “Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith.”

● 1 Tim 3:16: “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.”

Did he comment on these verses? No. He wrote the following in response:

Let’s get real. Are you saying the Great Commission has been fulfilled? Verse 15 [he means verse 14 of Matthew 24] makes the meaning clear. It is for all nations. And are you saying the end has come? Verse 15 [he means verse 14] clearly states that after the message has gone to all the world, the end will come. This is exactly the same message of Matt 28:19 and Acts 1:8, except here to avoid any confusing it takes all nations to the “remotest parts of the world.”

I did “get real” by comparing Scripture with Scripture. You can’t get any more real than that.

The verses I listed above answer his objection. He never deals with the use of oikoumenē instead of kosmos in Matthew 24:14 or that Paul declared that the gospel had been preached to “every creature under heaven” (Col. 1:26), even “to all the nations” (Rom. 16:26; also, 1 Tim. 3:16e), and was “believed on in the world [kosmos]” (1 Tim 3:16f). Here is his comment: “And I am not even touching on the lack of history to support the events you reckon have taken place! Assertion is never evidence!” The history is the text of Scripture (Rom. 1:8; 16:26; Col. 1:5-6, 23; 1 Tim. 3:16). Is he saying that these words by the Apostle Paul aren’t history?

The Bible is the best interpreter of itself. We need to let it speak for itself and not force a constrained hermeneutic on it. Consider John Murray’s commentary on Romans 1:8 that’s typical of most commentaries on this passage:

“Throughout the whole world” [kosmos] has been regarded as hyperbole. This is not perhaps the most felicitous way to expressing the apostle’s thought. Paul did not mean, of course, that the whole world distributively, every person under heaven, had heard of the faith of the Roman believers. His terms could not be pressed into that meaning even if most literally understood. But the expression here witnesses to the extensive diffusion of the gospel throughout the known world during the apostolic age (cf. Col. 1:23; Acts 17:30, 31).2

Here’s the comment on Rom. 1:8 from Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: “Throughout the whole world.—A hyperbole, which is the more natural as the Apostle is speaking of Rome, the centre and metropolis of the world as he knew it.”

There’s this from Matthew Poole’s Commentary: “Throughout the whole world, that is, through many parts of it; it is a figurative speech: see … John 12:19 [“So the Pharisees said to one another, ‘You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world has gone after Him.’”] Or else, by the whole world may be understood the Roman empire, which ruled at that time over a great part of the known world. See … Luke 2:1.”

My critic writes that Matthew 24:14 “is exactly the same message of Matt 28:19 and Acts 1:8.” Matthew 28:18-20 is describing the discipleship of the nations. In Matthew 24:14, Jesus is describing the “preaching” of the “gospel of the kingdom,” the very thing Paul was still doing (Acts 28:31) before the events of AD 70 took place. The events of Matthew 24:14 took place before “this generation” – their generation – passed away. Jesus does not put a time limit on the Great Commission. Does any of this mean that we don’t keep preaching the gospel? Not at all. The context of Matthew 24 is about the destruction of the temple and the signs associated with it. Jesus is not describing events that relate to another generation.

What about Acts 1:8, “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth”? This passage does not say that this must happen before that generation passed away. Since the above passages (Rom. 1:8; Rom. 16:26; Col. 1:5-6, 23; 1 Tim. 3:16) were written at least 30 years after Jesus said these words in Matthew 24:14, the gospel had been preached to what was then “the remotest part of the earth” as it was known in their day. And like clockwork, the temple was destroyed soon after.

The expert claims that when the things Jesus prophesies in Matthew 24 take place, “the end will come.” Since the end has not taken place, he argues, the things prophesied by Jesus could not have taken place. For him, the end is the end of the world or some distant eschatological event. He doesn’t say what it is. But the context of Matthew 24 is the “end of the age [aion]” (24:3), not the end of the world (as the KJV translates aion. The ESV, the translation the critic used, gets it right: “age” not “world” but gets it wrong on Matt. 24:14 and Luke 2:1, translating oikoumenē as “world.”). And when was the “end of the age”? It was approaching in that generation. It was the end of the Old Covenant age manifested in the destruction of the temple that took place in their generation. Paul writes:

  • Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come (1 Cor. 10:11).
  • Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26).
  • When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear (Heb. 8:13).
  • We could add to these Hebrews 1:1-2: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.”

My critic changed the subject by disagreeing with me on my interpretation of “this generation,” that every time it’s used in the gospels it refers to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. Here was his response:

As a starting point, I do not agree that this generation refers to those alive at that time. … I tried before to listen/read your argument, but you lost me at this point. “This generation” frequently in Matthew has reference to “generation of wickedness,” or genealogy, i.e., generation of type of people like the Jews. Historical use of this word did not carry the same meaning then as it does now. I, secondly, emphatically disagree with your assertion that all those events have taken place. … History is devoid of support for your position. It is only in Preterist circles that your version is accepted as true.

At this point, I knew I was wasting my time. He’s incorrect on his understanding of the meaning of “this generation.” I listed numerous commentators throughout the centuries who easily refute his claim. Again, he dismissed them by not responding to the overwhelming evidence. He’s not alone.

“This generation,” without exception always refers to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. Yes, the generation of Jesus’ day is described as “wicked: “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah” (Matt. 16:4). Consider the following and ask yourself this question, What generation is Jesus describing?

The men of Nineveh will stand at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now One greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and now One greater than Solomon is here. When an unclean spirit comes out of a man, it passes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it.  Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ On its return, it finds the house vacant, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and dwell there; and the final plight of that man is worse than the first. So will it be with this wicked generation (Matt. 12:41-45).

Jesus described that present generation as “this wicked generation” because Jesus, the One greater than Jonah and Solomon were in their midst. No other generation could make that claim. “This generation” refers to their generation.

Consider Matthew 23:36: “Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.” Jesus is addressing that generation not some generation in the future. Why would Jesus move from the specific (notice the use of the second person plural throughout the chapter) to a non-specific generation in the future that had nothing to do with the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus? Those to whom Jesus was speaking “understood that He was speaking about them” (Matt. 21:45).

This generation” has been interpreted in several ways to get around the obvious: (1) the Jewish race, (2) a future generation, (3) “this kind of generation,” and (4) the generation to whom Jesus was speaking.

(1) The Greek word genea can’t be translated as “race” since it does not have this meaning. If Jesus had meant “race,” He would have used the Greek word genos. Genea is used throughout the gospels to refer to a period of time not a race of people or a nation (ethnos) (Matt. 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark. 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 32, 50, 51; 16:8; 17:25; 21:32).

(2) The problem arguing for a future generation is that “this generation” always refers to contemporaries. “This” is a near demonstrative adjective. If Jesus had a future generation in view, He would have said, “that generation.” A modification of this argument is that verse 34 should read, “the generation that sees these signs will not pass away until all these things take place.” To get this interpretation requires replacing “this” with the definite article “the” and adding “that sees these signs.” With this approach, we can get the Bible to say anything, even “there is no God” (Psalm 14:1).

(3) Jesus does not say “this type of generation.” He says, “this generation.” Even so, the generation of Jesus day was that type of generation, described as a “perverse generation” (Acts 2:40; see Matt. 17:17; Phil. 2:15), because it was the generation that “crucified Jesus” (Acts 2:36, 33). If Jesus had wanted to extend “this generation” to refer to many generations, He could have said “on all generations” (Luke 1:48) or “generation after generation” (1:50), or “to all generations” (Eph. 3:21).

(4) We know the generation to whom Jesus was speaking: “so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that it [the kingdom of God: Luke 21:31] is near, right at the door” (Matt. 24:33). “This generation” (he genea haute) occurs 18 times in the gospels (Matt. 11:16; 12:41, 45; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12 [twice], 8:38; 13:30; Luke 7:31; 11:29 [in sentence form]; 11:30, 31, 32, 50, 51, 17:25; 21:32), and always refers to the generation to whom Jesus was addressing.

  • “All the alternative senses proposed here [in 24:34] (the Jewish people; humanity; the generation of the end-time signs; wicked people) are artificial and based on the need to protect Jesus from error. ‘This generation’ is the generation of Jesus’ contemporaries.”3
  • “‘[T]his generation’ (ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη) in the gospels always means the people of Jesus’ own time (11:16; 12:41-42; 23:36) not, as some have proposed, the generation of the last days in history, the Jewish people, the human race in general, or the sinful people.”4
  • “Mk. 13:24-30 may be interpreted as a prophecy of judgment on Israel in which the Son of man will be vindicated. The disintegration of Israel as the people of God coincides with the inauguration of the kingdom of the Son of man. Such an interpretation fits the preceding discourse and the introductory remarks of the disciples (Mk. 13:1ff. par.). It would not, however, pre-empt the judgment of mankind in general (See further J. Marcellus Kik, Matthew XXIV: An Exposition, 1948; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 1971, 227-39.)5

There is unbelief in past generations, our generation, and there will be unbelief in future generations, but Jesus clearly identifies the people of His day as being part of a “perverse generation” (Acts 2:40) since it was only their generation that “delivered up [Jesus] by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.” Peter is specific: “you nailed [Him] to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” (2:23).

Why use the second person plural “you” if Jesus didn’t mean them? If Jesus isn’t referring to their generation, then what word could He have used other than “you” if He wanted to refer to them?

  1. Norman L. Geisler, “Colossians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament (An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty), John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds. (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 675. [↩]
  2. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Grnd Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1959), 1:19. [↩]
  3. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 988-989. [↩]
  4. Grant R. Osborne, Matthew: Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 899-900. [↩]
  5. Colin Brown, “Generation,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 2:37-38. 

How Do Creeds & Confessions Help Us?

Posted on by
Reply

Buck Parsons answers:

TRANSCRIPT:

Those who understand the place of creeds and confessions understand how helpful they are to the church. My concern is for those who don’t know the creeds and the historic Reformed confessions and thus don’t refer to them or use them on a regular basis. Often, if they’re not using them, are not aware of them, or haven’t studied them, typically they are basing their faith on a very short confessional statement that either their church or some organization has made up.

All churches have to have some sort of basic confessional statement to some degree. But if they don’t have a significant, formulated, historic, attested-to creed or confession, then the likelihood is that their creed or confession is changing quite frequently, sometimes even based on the moods and whims of their own pastors, elders, or congregation.

Creeds and confessions help to ground us and to guard us. They become a perimeter to help us know where we can go and where we can’t go.

They also serve us as maps or guides for us. I like to hunt. I love to hike and backpack and fish. Especially here in Florida when you’re backcountry fishing, you need maps. You need to know where you’re going so you don’t run aground and so you can find your way back. You use maps, looking at where people have gone before you. You’re saying, “They have gone here and have told us: ‘Don’t go this way because you’ll run aground there. You’ll run aground into heresy there, into false teaching there, and into error there, so steer clear of this way and that way and steer a straight path.’”

Creeds and confessions help us to do that. They help us to train up our children. And they help our teachers, our pastors, and our elders to remain steadfastly orthodox in the faith.

The Rapture is a Package Deal

Posted on by
Reply

Article: Pre-Wrath Dispensationalism – The ‘Rapture’ is a Package Deal by Gary Demar – Original source – https://americanvision.org/21396/pre-wrath-v-dispensationalism-the-rapture-is-a-package-deal/

The Pre-Wrath Rapture position has all the inherent interpretive problems the other four rapture positions have.

As I’ve mentioned in other places, there are five rapture positions. They depend on the belief that the 70th week (seven years) of Daniel’s seventy weeks of years prophecy (490 years) has been postponed. Those who hold to a pre-tribulation rapture position believe the rapture of the church will take place before the seven-year period. Mid-tribbers believe the rapture takes place at the mid-point of the seven years. Post-tribbers claim the rapture takes place at the end of the seven-year people. The “partial” or “conditional rapture” position is as follows:

This view teaches that only those who are spiritual, who are prepared for the Lord’s return, will escape the terrors of the tribulation by being taken in the rapture. Carnal Christians are raptured progressively during the tribulation as they become righteous and the tribulation period is a time for disciplining believers toward holy living. …

The partial rapture theory originated with Robert Govett in 1835 in his book Entrance into the Kingdom: The Apocalypse Expounded by Scripture. Later proponents of this view include J.A. Seiss, G.H. Pember, G.H. Lang, Ray Brubaker and the cult of the Local Church Movement (Witness Lee).

The newest entry is the Pre-Wrath Rapture position. This fifth rapture position teaches that the church is raptured just prior to God pouring out His wrath in judgment. It’s closest to the post-trib position since it takes place near the end of the seven-year period (Daniel’s postponed 70th week). When Jesus described the coming judgment on Jerusalem in the Olivet Discourse, that took place in the lead up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, those living in Jerusalem could avoid His wrath by fleeing to the mountains outside of Jerusalem (Matt. 24:16). As we’ll see, the pre-wrath position shares the same problems inherent in the other rapture positions.

Marvin Rosenthal formally named and publicized the pre-wrath Bible prophecy position in 1990 with the publication of his book The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church, published by Thomas Nelson. He was a committed dispensationalist for many years. He rejected the position when after his own personal study he could not find support for the pre-trib rapture view. Rosenthal turned to John Walvoord to find biblical support for the position. Walvoord’s The Rapture Question includes a list of fifty arguments in support of a pre-trib belief. Rosenthal was shocked when after reading the list that there was no biblical text that explicitly supported the doctrine. Rosenthal could come to only one conclusion:

Not once, among fifty arguments, does this godly Christian leader cite one biblical text that explicitly teaches pretribulation rapturism—not once. This was not an oversight. The reason for the omission of any pretribulation Rapture texts is clear. There are none. Walvoord’s own comment helps substantiate that fact. He wrote, “It is therefore not too much to say that the Rapture question is determined more by ecclesiology [the doctrine of the Church] than eschatology [the doctrine of the last things].” In other words, he is saying that verses which deal with the church must be used to prove an issue that relates to the prophecy. There simply is no explicit exegetical evidence for pretribulation rapturism.1

As Rosenthal came to find out, there is not one explicit verse to support a position that millions of Bible-believing Christians hold with unbending devotion. He was right. None of the major rapture positions can point to a verse that supports their position, something that pre- and post-tribbers admit. In fact, none of the five rapture positions have any biblical support because they fail to account for the timing of prophetic events as they relate to Daniel’s 70 weeks of years.

The Pre-wrath position makes the same mistake as the dispensationalists by separating the 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy in Daniel 9:24–27 from the first 69 weeks when nothing is said about such a separation, gap, or parenthesis in the passage. The “rapture” is a package deal. It must include a discussion of how the 70th week of Daniel’s 70 weeks of years prophecy has been postponed for nearly 2000 years. Those who appeal to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-52 to support the “rapture of the church” claim must explain why there is no mention of Daniel’s prophecy anywhere in 1 Thessalonians or 1 Corinthians. There is no mention of an antichrist, making a covenant with Israel, breaking the covenant, rebuilding the temple (again), Israel returning to their land (again), or anything related to how the five rapture positions interpret Daniel 9:24-27.

Image result for daniel's 70 weeks
Notice the extended gap between the 69th and 70th week.

Daniel is told that “70 weeks are decreed” (9:24). This is a mistranslation. “The student of the Hebrew text will note that the masculine plural [70 weeks] is here construed with a verb in the singular (is decreed). The seventy heptades are conceived as a unit, a round number, and are most naturally understood as so many sevens of years.”2 There are 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week. These 70 weeks are said to be 70 weeks of years, thus, 490 years. There is no gap between the 7 and 62 weeks (483 weeks of years), so why is there a gap between the 69th (7 +62) and the 70th week?

Earlier in Daniel 9, we learn that Daniel is reading Jeremiah’s prophecy: “[I]n the first year of the reign of [Darius the son of Ahasuerus], I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years” (9:2).

The 70 years of captivity is the key that unlocks the 70 weeks of years. Daniel was referring to what we know today as Jeremiah 29:10: “For thus says the Lord, ‘When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place.’”

The 70 years of captivity lasted 70 years! There were no gaps, postponements, or an insertion of ongoing years as part of some change in God’s redemptive plan. What if God had postponed the 70th year of release from captivity by nearly 2000 years but didn’t count the 2000 years in the overall calculation? Only the 69 years and the final year would be counted. The additional years between the 69th and 70th year would not be counted. The 70th year was continually pushed into the future and the Jews would still be in captivity waiting for the 70th and final year, but God would only count 70 years. It makes no sense.

But this is exactly what dispensationalists and “pre-wrathers” claim is happening in Daniel 9:24–27. They only differ on when the “rapture” takes place. Pre-tribbers place the rapture before (pre) the tribulation period of seven years (Daniel’s 70th week of years), while pre-wrath advocates place the rapture just prior to God pouring out His wrath during the seven-year (Daniel’s 70th week of years) period. Both positions claim that the 70th year of Daniel’s 70 weeks of years (490 years total) has been postponed contrary to any explicit statement in Daniel 9:24–27 of that fact. “Exactly 70 weeks in all are to elapse; and how can anyone imagine that there is an interval between the 69 and the 1, when these together make up the 70?”3

The following is from the book Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants on why a gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel’s 70-week prophecy is “contrary to a vision of chronological sequence”:

The vision of Daniel’s seventy weeks … refers to a period of seventy sabbaticals or periods of seven years required to bring in the ultimate jubilee: release from sin, the establishment of everlasting righteousness, and consecration of the temple…. In the climactic seventieth week, Israel’s King arrives and dies vicariously for his people. Strangely, the desecration of the temple similar to Antiochus Epiphanes in the Greek empire is perpetrated by the Jewish people themselves, resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem. These events are fulfilled in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He is the coming King. His crucifixion is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices and the basis of the new covenant with the many. His death is “not for himself,” but rather vicarious. The rejection of Jesus the Messiah and the desecration of him as the true Temple by his trial by the high priest result in judgment upon the Herodian temple, carried out eventually in A.D. 70. The notion of a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week is contrary to a vision of chronological sequence. The prophecy is remarkable for its precision as it fits the event concerning Jesus of Nazareth.4

Pre-wrath advocates follow the same type of postponement logic as the pre-tribulationalists. Their main disagreement with dispensationalism is when the “rapture of the church” takes place. The notion of a “rapture” is based on the unproven assumption that the 70th week has been pushed off into the distant future by a gap of nearly 2000 years (so far). Until the “gap” between the 69th and 70th weeks is proven from the text, there is no basis for a “rapture,” either pre, mid, or post-tribulational, partial, or pre-wrath. Until the “gap” idea is proven, the pre-wrath position has the same inherent problems as dispensationalism.

It’s possible that we’ve missed the meaning of the following passage:

Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven (Matt. 18:21-22).

Save

Is Jesus referencing Daniel 9:24-27. Time had run out for Israel. The end of the Old Covenant was on the horizon. God’s promises to Israel had been fulfilled. The separation of the wheat and tares was about to commence. The 70th week (the fullness of the 70 weeks of years: 490 years) was about to be fulfilled When Jesus prophesied that, “your house is being left to you desolate” (Matt. 23:38). The house was the temple that would be destroyed within a generation (Matt. 24:34) as a symbol of that end.

Save

All the rapture positions dismiss the New Testament’s emphasis on the inauguration of the New Covenant and the Jerusalem above (Gal. 4:21-31). The writer to the Hebrews destroys the myth of a renewed covenant with earthly Jerusalem based on the rudiments of the Old Covenant: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (12:22-24).

  1. Marvin Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church: A New Understanding of the Rapture, the Tribulation, and the Second Coming (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 280. [↩]
  2. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1898] 1988), 201. [↩]
  3. E. W. Hengstenberg, The Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary on the Predictions of the Messiah by the Prophets, 4 vols. (Washington, D.C.: William M. Morrison, 1839), 3:143. [↩]
  4. Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, IL Crossway, 2012), 563–564. Emphasis added. [↩]