Pre-tribulation rapture of the church, part 2; why does Michael show up?
Please read disclaimer for Part 1 below.
I intend this study to be exhaustive. Too many folks ignore clear verses to concentrate on a handfull of obscure ones.
That there is a gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week is painfully obvious to any Bible-believer. I will not go into interpretive details, for as previously mentioned, I assume a minimal degree of Bible-knowledge on the part of the reader. If you're amillennialist or post-millennialist, you should get back to believing the words of the Bible instead of men.
Gabriel is clear
Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon
thy people and upon thy holy city,
He tells Daniel the seventy weeks concern his (Daniel's) people, i.e. the Jews; and his city, i.e.
Fact: The seventy weeks then, including the 70th week, are not determined upon the
Post-tribs brush off this fact.
While we agree that the focus of the prophecy is the Jewish people and Jerusalem, (emphasis mine) we do not agree that it in any way indicates God would stop dealing with Israel during the gap.
(emphasis mine) between the 69th and 70th weeks, or a change of program has occurred. The
evidence that God continues to deal with
1. The crucifixion of Christ 5
days after the end of the 69th week
2. The destruction of
the end of the 69th week
Pasted from <http://www.geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/pd_17.html>
It is hard to imagine a more self-effacing argument than that. Note that it doesn't strike them as odd that God's last eventful dealing (and what a dealing) with Israel was over 1900 years ago. Or that any event which might be pointed to is one of judgment. Of course God still has en eye on the nation of Israel, and in some sense, has been "dealing" with the Jews, yet that in no way equivalent to his use of his body on earth which is the New Testament church of God. Where He is dealing with the Jew today, like returning him to Palestine, He is setting up the scene for the tribulation judgment. (folks who teach that the New Testament church IS the nation of Israel, are blind leaders of the blind and we will not waste time with them in this study.)
Our post-trib. brethren acknowledge a focus but so far as I've read at least, do not practically define it.
They acknowledge the gap but fail to explain it. Why did God stop his clock after the 69th week only to restart it again at the beginning of the 70th if nothing in His dealings with
They see God's continued unchanged dealing with
a) Crucifying their
King
b) Destroying the city
of the Great King
c) Provoking them to jealousy
Seriously, it is hard to imagine a more self-effacing argument
than that.
"Paul speaks of God's dealing with
provoking the nation to jealousy through the Gospel going to the Gentiles (Rom.
11:11). How then can it be said that God is not dealing with
gap?"(emphasis mine)
Pasted from <http://www.geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/pd_17.html>
"You see, you heretical pre-tribs, how can you say that!"
...
You see people believe that the Church was a mystery hid in God, but simultaneously refuse to rightly divide the word of truth in order to identify the passages doctrinally targeted at the church thereby forgoing the extra light a New Testament believer has to interpret the scriptures. They are not one step ahead of the Old Testament prophets when it comes to the
Look at this again
1Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall
descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel,
and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
In the 66 books of the Bible, there is only 1 angel
called an "archangel" and that's Michael
Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel,
Paul is telling you that along with the Lord Jesus Christ coming down to rapture you, there will be Michael showing up. Now why do you think that is? Can any post-trib answer that one?
Michael the archangel has another title
Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people (matching 9:24): and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time:and at that time thy people(matching 9:24) shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
Now let me ask you another question. You, my post-trib. brother, believe that 1 Thessalonians 4:16 refers to a rapture. In that same verse appears the archangel, which ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, can only be Michael. Now since you believe the church is raptured at the end of the tribulation, that for you means that Michael shows up at the end of the tribulation, clearly contradicting Daniel 12:1 above, for the time of his standing up preceds/ushers the time of trouble. Now how do you reconcile that? Unless of course that's the first time you gave attention to "the voice of the archangel" in 1 Thessalonians 4:16.
Consider this. When you take Daniel 12:1, and run through the verses looking for some future manifestation of Michael, you land on the rapture of the church in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. You can call that coincidence, or evidence. Maybe you wouldn’t call it proof, but you can call it evidence.It's clear English. Michael shows up because he stands for "thy people" the Jews like in Daniel 9:24. God's "focus" as they call it, becomes the Jewish nation once again. Please notice that Michael shows up for the Jews in chapter 12! 12 is Israel's number in the Bible.
Ok, Then a "time of trouble"; that's "Jacob's trouble", if you please
Jeremiah 30:7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.
"saved" here matching the "delivered" of Daniel 12:1. You, my dear saved brother in Lord Jesus Christ and member of His body which is the church, are NOT Jacob, neither are you a Hebrew in the epistle which is doctrinally addressed to the Hebrews, neither are you of the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad of James 1:1 to whom that epistle is doctrinally addressed.
(Study that a little and it will solve a few thorny issues without any
knowledge of greek and hebrew.) Jacob is the Jew, not you. It is the time of his trouble, not yours. It is his judgment,not yours. Your judgment is the Judgment Seat of Christ, not the tribulation. The church (actually a percentage thereof if
the post-tribs are correct) cannot go through 2 judgments, and the tribulation is
a judgment.
The church's judgment takes place in heaven because it is a heavenly entity.
Look again at Daniel 12:1
That matches
Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Daniel 12:1 is about the tribulation and Michael as an archangel is connected
with it.
again
Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael
and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Again tribulation, again chapter 12, again Israel (see v.1)
but you can write off that last part again as mere coincidence because you've been taught better than to believe the Bible is inspired right down to its division by bespectacled men in stuffed shirts.
posted by Revelation 2:17 at 12:44 PM
9 Comments:
Does Michael stand up on earth or in heaven? I see nothing to indicate that Michael stands up on earth rather than in heaven, the place of spiritual warfare.
Interestingly, some Pre-Tribbers like Vernon McGee think that the voice of the archangel is Christ's voice, meaning that He sounds like an archangel rather than an actual archangel being present.
The Tribulation involves judgment on apostate Christendom and the Church has some relation to this. However, the Tribulation is not for the judgment of individual believers, apart from those who have added or taken away from the Word of God (and who will thus suffer plagues referred to).
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
wow, you comment fast.
All the Bible says is that he stands up. Then in Revelation 12, which is FUTURE, there's a battle in heaven. But I don't see how where he stands negates the point being made.
Now I’m sure you noticed I capitalized "according to the Bible" when saying the archangel was Michael. I know of many personal opinions. In fact I used to hold an opinion similar to what you mentioned.
The Bible defines the archangel as Michael. That’s what’s interesting. Of what matter then is the opinion of Vernon McGee when it contradicts the Bible? Besides, Christ has a shout in the verse, and the verse does not say “with the voice of AN archangel” but “with the voice of THE archangel”. Does the Lord borrow Michael’s voice?
Many pre-tribs have false arguments, like 2 Thessalonians 2:7 being about the Holy Spirit.
Maybe Mr. McGee should have practiced line upon line a bit more. I read that he did not believe the A.V. text as it stood.
The church is a body of called-out individuals, unlike Israel which is a called out assembly. In any event you'll have to admit only a part of one body is going through a judgment.
Now,
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
That, is a verse on loss of salvation, because the context is tribulation salvation, where tribulation saints can lose salvation, as evidenced by a load of verses. The born-again church age believer cannot lose his salvation, he not only is in Jesus'hand, he is part of his hand. More on that in an upcoming post.
Thanks for reading.
If Michael remains in heaven during the tribulation, then He presumably shows up at the coming of Christ.
You may be right about Vernon McGee's view.
I personally do not think this issue makes a lot fo difference.
The Church as a body remains on earth during the Tribulation. It stands as witness to God's judgment on the Great Apostasy. Faithful believers are a testimony of God's grace in the day of apostasy.
A believer posseses eternal life. This is God's gift of grace that can never be taken away. Salvation is by grace in every dispensation.
Rev 22:19 deals with temporal judgment in the tribulation and exclusion from heavenly privilege, not loss of eternal life (which is impossible, becuase eternal is forever).
By the way, what Post-Tribulational material have you read?
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
I’ve read no post-tribulation book. It has been more of an ecclectic reading. I went through your linked “the last trumpet” rather diligently. If I misrepresent some position I do hope you will correct me. The positions I hold today are vastly different than what I held not too many years back. This is because I asked a lot of questions and read a lot. Now I’m at a place where I don’t have much hope of revelation in the works of people who
a) find fault with any word in the AV text
b) cannot differentiate the kingdom of God from the kingdom of heaven (you are right, they are not constantly differentiated in the Bible; but are so consistently.)
c) cannot differentiate the gospel of the kingdom from the gospel of the grace of God/Paul’s gospel
d) cannot see more than one rapture
e) apply church-exclusive truths to everything that breaths in the Bible.
f) Etc.
That’s not even dealing with non-pre-millennial, non-dispensational non-sense.
Now:
"If Michael remains in heaven during the tribulation, then He presumably shows up at the coming of Christ."
We never read that he stands up on earth. We just read that he stands up. Wherever he will be standing, the Bible considers that as showing up, whether in heaven or on earth, or in between; which wouldn’t be wholly alien to what we read in the book of revelation about various angels. Maybe I’m unable to grasp what you’re aiming at, but all I read is that
a) he will stand up (wherever/somehow) at the beginning of the tribulation (Daniel 12:1)
b) that manifestation of his is contemporaneous with the rapture of the church (1 Thessalonians 4:16)
Now you may disagree with b). But consider this. When you take Daniel 12:1, and run through the verses looking for some future manifestation of Michael, you land on the rapture of the church in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. I believe you can call that evidence. Maybe you wouldn’t call it proof, but you can call it evidence, and you said you looked for such evidence in the Bible and didn’t find any.
Now I admitted I haven’t read any book on post-tribulation rapture of the church, but if you know of an argument based on verses, that deals with this evidence, please let me read it.; an alternative reading of the verses, line upon line.
As to the witnesses in the tribulation, we’ve both read who they are. They're Jews.
As for salvation; I disagree with hyper-dispensationlists on a dispensation of time called "the age of grace". Grace is present from Genesis to Revelation. Agreed. But salvation of the soul through grace without the keeping of works, the new-birth, spiritual circumcision, are characteristics only of the church age. That much is so obvious that scholars keep applying church truths to everybody in the Bible only by ignoring verses, spiritualizing them to no end, ignoring the context, running to some manuscript, etc…
“God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city,”
Brother, how you can call this a “temporal judgment” is baffling. The english is clear as day.
Now how you gather that having one’s part taken out of the BOOK OF LIFE is only TEMPORAL I just can’t imagine.
Concerning the city; you’re born again. You’re part of the body of Christ, which is the church, which is the city New Jerusalem. If you’re cut out of the holy city, you’re out of the body of Christ. Now that’s not possible for you. But it is possible for tribulation saints who are not part of the body, part of the church, but who can have access to NJ. You’re the bride, the soon-to-be one flesh, they’re not.
Only the born-again believer in this age hath eternal life in him because he has Christ Jesus in him who is eternal life. People in the millennium have to show some works because they cannot have faith the way we do for Jesus will be on the throne bodily, VISIBLY, as the great king. You will note that the post-millennium nations will depend on the tree of life. You won't.
You see when the Bible says to study to divide; it means to study the differences.
As I said, a more focused post is upcoming, Lord willing.
I am not sure where you get this idea of Michael being manifested in the Tribulation. It says that Michael 'stands up'. That is a bit different to showing up.
Jewish witnesses in the tribulation? Well, it is pretty certain that the Two Witnesses are Jewish, but I read of no other witnesses.
The Pre-Tribulationalists say that the 144,000 are witnesses but never produce anything to support that conclusion.
We see the development of the theme of apostasy in the last few epsistles, John, Peter, Jude and of course the Seven Churches. The church stands in relation to this theme of apostasy that burst into full fruit on the deaths of the apostles.
Revelation 17
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.
While this has a greater future fulfillment, I believe the Whore has already showed up in Popery.
The matys of Rome were just as much in view of that verse as any during the Tribulation.
God's faithful are witnesses in their suffering at the hands of apostasy.
When God pours out judgment on apostasy, He always has His faithful remnant present as a witness. This can be seen througout the Old Testament.
God's dealings with the apostate church stand in relation to His dealings with the true church. Their duty is separation.
We see this clearly in the message to the Church of Laodicea (Rev 3:14-22). There is both a message of judgment on the unfaithful and exhortation to the faithful.
"If you’re cut out of the holy city, you’re out of the body of Christ."
It is nowhere stated in Scripture that all believers will dwell in the New Jerusalem, though at least nomminally all believers have a title to dwell there. Probably some believers who have been unfaithful will dwell in heavenly places outside of the city.
Is this not a warning to the reader of the book? And is it not possible that some Christians in this dispensation do in fact add or take away from the Word of God?
Believers posess eternal life in its fulness and so will not depend upon the tree of life in the way the Millennial nations will, however, there may be other spiritual or physical benefits derived by heavenly saints from it.
"But salvation of the soul through grace without the keeping of works, the new-birth, spiritual circumcision, are characteristics only of the church age."
I do not agree with this conclusion. Was not Abraham justified by faith?
This is the clear conclusion of Galatians. God's salvific dealings with man are always by grace, though they may not always be fully conscious of it.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
“I am not sure where you get this idea of Michael being manifested in the Tribulation. It says that Michael 'stands up'. That is a bit different to showing up.”
From Daniel 12:1. He stands up at the offset of the tribulation. Now I’m not using the word “manifestation” with doctrinal technicality here. If you want I will stick to just saying he stands up. One thing is clear. He is associated with the start of the tribulation, and he is associated with the rapture of the church. I don’t how more directly and narrowly to put it.
”Jewish witnesses in the tribulation? Well, it is pretty certain that the Two Witnesses are Jewish, but I read of no other witnesses.
The Pre-Tribulationalists say that the 144,000 are witnesses but never produce anything to support that conclusion.”
Will deal with that in upcoming post. I don’t necessarily call them witnesses. What I do know is there are no Christians in the book of Revelation. Not everybody saved in the Bible is a Christian, member of the body of Christ. There are saved Jews and Gentiles, but no “Christians”. Not even the 7 churches. Doctrinally the verses concerning the seven churches are clearly refering to a tribulation salvation with possible loss thereof. There’s a spiritual application to be made to the church from the seven churches, but not doctrinal.
”We see the development of the theme of apostasy in the last few epsistles, John, Peter, Jude and of course the Seven Churches. The church stands in relation to this theme of apostasy that burst into full fruit on the deaths of the apostles.
Revelation 17
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.
While this has a greater future fulfillment, I believe the Whore has already showed up in Popery.
The matys of Rome were just as much in view of that verse as any during the Tribulation.
God's faithful are witnesses in their suffering at the hands of apostasy.
When God pours out judgment on apostasy, He always has His faithful remnant present as a witness. This can be seen througout the Old Testament.
God's dealings with the apostate church stand in relation to His dealings with the true church. Their duty is separation.
We see this clearly in the message to the Church of Laodicea (Rev 3:14-22). There is both a message of judgment on the unfaithful and exhortation to the faithful.”
You’ve basically defined yourself that the apostate church is Laodicea. Not Rome. But you’ve shut the door on the SPIRITUAL application to the church of God through history. So I understand you don’t see it that way. Won’t go into that now. Rome is no apostate church. Rome is Satan’s bride. So it has been, so it is and so shall it ever be, world without end. Rome has always persecuted Jews and will do more for Satan hates the Jewish nation and Jerusalem. Notice Revelation 12 is about Israel, NOT the church of God. I mean this stuff is there folks.
” "If you’re cut out of the holy city, you’re out of the body of Christ."
It is nowhere stated in Scripture that all believers will dwell in the New Jerusalem, though at least nomminally all believers have a title to dwell there. Probably some believers who have been unfaithful will dwell in heavenly places outside of the city.”
Where does that come from? Verses? You’re confusing entities. The Bible is formal.
Saved in church age= body of Christ=church=bride of Christ=New Jerusalem the city.
This is an identity, not an equation. As far as the Bible is concerned, the church (organic) IS New Jerusalem (inorganic). Now I don’t understand that, but I believe it the way it stands.
”Is this not a warning to the reader of the book? And is it not possible that some Christians in this dispensation do in fact add or take away from the Word of God?”
Yes, and the warning is not DOCTRINALLY addressed to Christians. Christians (body of Christ) can’t lose their salvation. The tribulation saints will understand those things better than we do.
You didn’t deal with
“God shall take away his part out of the book of life”
Why not?
”Believers posess eternal life in its fulness and so will not depend upon the tree of life in the way the Millennial nations will, however, there may be other spiritual or physical benefits derived by heavenly saints from it.”
Again, confusing entities. Not all believers and saints are church. You’ll have no benefit from the tree. Post-millennium saints will not have a new body like you will. They will be like Adam in innocence, deriving benefit from the tree of life. You are born-again of incorruptible seed and spiritually circumcised.
”"But salvation of the soul through grace without the keeping of works, the new-birth, spiritual circumcision, are characteristics only of the church age."
”I do not agree with this conclusion. Was not Abraham justified by faith?
This is the clear conclusion of Galatians. God's salvific dealings with man are always by grace, though they may not always be fully conscious of it.” “
Yes he was. And he was before the law, and the law is back during the tribulation. Abraham was saved by faith, but HE WAS NOT BORN-AGAIN AND SPIRITUALLY CIRCUMCISED. Spiritual circumcision is a literal operation which the Lord performed on you when you got saved, whereby he seperated your soul from your body. People just don’t believe the words of the Bible. But this operation deserves an entire post on its own. My point is you are not dividing, you are not studying the differences, you’re lumping things different together.
Things different are not equal unless the Bible defines them to be.
”Every Blessing in Christ”
Amen
"He is associated with the start of the tribulation, and he is associated with the rapture of the church. I don’t how more directly and narrowly to put it."
So what have you proven?
Michael has some signficance toward Israel during the tribulation, though he remains in heaven to battle Satan. Then he probably comes to earth at the rapture (at the close of the Tribulation).
'There are saved Jews and Gentiles, but no “Christians”.'
How many times is the word Christian actually used in the N.T.? Not very often. Likewise, there are many places in the N.T., such as Romans 1-9 and the epistles of John where the Church is not used.
The absence of the word Church and Christian from Revelation proves nothing.
Especially given that there is no clear reference to the Church being in heaven in Revelation 6-18.
Some Pre-Tribulationalists cite the elders as proof of the church being in heaven. However, if we interpret the Scriptures literally, it should be obvious that the Elders do not comprise the whole Church of God.
"Doctrinally the verses concerning the seven churches are clearly refering to a tribulation salvation with possible loss thereof."
There is not a single verse in the Seven Churches that proves loss of salvation for any saints.
"You’ve basically defined yourself that the apostate church is Laodicea."
Laodicea was one of a number of churches that were falling into apostasy. The fulness of that apostasy is seen in Popery.
"Rome is no apostate church. Rome is Satan’s bride."
Rome is no true church, but she stands in relation to Christianity through her apostasy, just like the heretics in the apostles' day.
"Where does that come from? Verses?"
Revelation 22:15
Believers may well do many of those things. If they do they may lose their title to dwell in the city.
It should be obvious that heaven is not limited to the city.
"Yes, and the warning is not DOCTRINALLY addressed to Christians. Christians (body of Christ) can’t lose their salvation. The tribulation saints will understand those things better than we do."
Is there some verse that tells us 'this applies only to Tribulation saints'?
In order to prove this argument you need to prove first that there is a Pre-Tribulational rapture and then prove that it is possible for Tribulation saints to lose their salvation.
“God shall take away his part out of the book of life”
The book of life is used in judgment only in regards to the Great White Throne. Believers in this dispensation (if believers have a part in the Great White Throne judgment at all) are not judged then.
Loss of a place in the Book of Life does not counter-act justification in the risen Christ. Nothing can do that.
Revelation 3
5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
Notice that hear being in the Book of Life is connected with being presented before the Father.
If one is in the Book of Life, Christ may confess one before the Father, but if not, one shall be denied this glorious position and the rewards pertaining to it.
"Not all believers and saints are church."
Agreed.
"You’ll have no benefit from the tree."
Are you sure about that?
"Post-millennium saints will not have a new body like you will. They will be like Adam in innocence, deriving benefit from the tree of life."
I agree. But this does not prove that resurrected believers may not derive any spiritual or physical benefit from the tree.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Matthew,
You seem to be playing on the words I use concerning Michael's standing up. I can't help that. What is clear, is that Daniel tells you Michael shows up (I don't know where, but he still does, brother, he still does) at the BEGINNING of the tribulation, and Paul tells you He's there at the rapture of the church.
Put one and one together. No interpretive contorsions needed.
I don't know what made you think I was referring to the absence of the word "christian". Maybe I should've stated I wasn't.
A christian is someone saved during the church's dispensation, who is born-again (spirit comes back to life inside of man) spirituallly circumcised (which is the separation of the soul from the body) and is member of the body of Christ, which is the church/bride.
I've read some of our blogs, and for dispensationalists they do a next-to-absent job of dividing salvation doctrine. It is not the same for all dispensations, though the grace of God is always active in some form or fashion. Brother if people got that and believed the plain verses it would clear up so much, so much!
Salvation is not the same throughout the Bible. The only way to arrive at that is to listen to theologians who are masters, and I mean masters at corrupting the plain english scriptures. Salvation under the law is different than salvation after the law; and during the trib. the law is back.
I promised a fuller post. We can hammer at it more then, but i'm glad for the comments having given both of us an opportunity for clarification.
Greetings.
How do you handle the hot potatoes of
Matt 24:29-31
Luke 21: 20-27
Rev 7:13-14
Dan 12:1
Dan 12: 7-12
Kim Smith (Mr.)
Canada
Post a Comment
<< Home