The 1,000 year reign

[FrankLawrence]

I don’t believe in the “rapture,” as fundamentalists teach it, but I do believe that the events of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 will happen in the future, being one in the same event as the Second Coming of Christ, occurring after the tribulation. Please don’t think that I believe in a pre-tribulational rapture. I am adamantly against that. That is not where I’m stumbling on this. Where I am having the difficulty is seeing how Jesus appearing on the clouds(Matthew 24:30) can be construed as having already happened.

 

[Teflon93]

I don’t believe in the “rapture,” as fundamentalists teach it, but I do believe that the events of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 will happen in the future, being one in the same event as the Second Coming of Christ, occurring after the tribulation. Please don’t think that I believe in a pre-tribulational rapture. I am adamantly against that. That is not where I’m stumbling on this. Where I am having the difficulty is seeing how Jesus appearing on the clouds(Matthew 24:30) can be construed as having already happened.

Do you know what the Sanhedrin saw in their final moments?

Even so, not being Fundamentalists we are not required to be so literal. There is no evidence I’m aware of that the skies went black throughout the world as Christ died either. A certain amount of poetic license is to be granted given the shape and flavor of Scripture as a whole, isn’t it?

 

[FrankLawrence]

Do you know what the Sanhedrin saw in their final moments?

Could it have been “An opening in the sky, and the Son of Man standing at God’s right hand?”

What about verse 31, though? Is that not connected with the trumpet blast spoken of in 1 Thessalonians 4:16?

Also, where, specifically do the Scriptures speak to a separate judgment on the Sanhedren? Granted, God is ultimately in control of everything, but I’m having a tough time saying that the events of 70A.D. were a prophesized judgment from God.

Once again, I am not trying to be antagonistic, and I appreciate your patience with me, but what you are presenting is sounding totally new to me.

 

[FrankLawrence]

Does David Currie’s Rapture have an imprematur(sic?)

 

[Teflon93]

Could it have been “An opening in the sky, and the Son of Man standing at God’s right hand?”

What about verse 31, though? Is that not connected with the trumpet blast spoken of in 1 Thessalonians 4:16?

Also, where, specifically do the Scriptures speak to a separate judgment on the Sanhedren? Granted, God is ultimately in control of everything, but I’m having a tough time saying that the events of 70A.D. were a prophesized judgment from God.

Once again, I am not trying to be antagonistic, and I appreciate your patience with me, but what you are presenting is sounding totally new to me.

I don’t think you’re being antagonistic at all; just asking reasonable questions.

Currie deals with this at length, and it’s hard to put his arguments in soundbite form. He quotes extensively from Daniel, the prophets, the epistles, and Revelation, dealing with each in turn and demonstrating how they interconnect.

He also helps to put us in a 1st century mindset.

Regarding Christ’s judgment of the Sanhedrin:

Matthew 23:

29: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30: And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31: Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32: Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33: Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34: Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36:** Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation**.
37: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38: **Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. **
39: For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

This also is the passage which explains the parable of the wicked tenants in Matthew 21:33-41.

Christ then leaves the Temple, a very portentous act, for the Mount of Olives, to begin the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24:

1: And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2: And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

And of course, that glorious Temple was completely destroyed in A.D. 70, just as Christ foretold. It has not been rebuilt in 2,000 years.

Then later in the chapter:

45: Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
46: Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47: Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48: But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49: And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50: **The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51: And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. **

Matthew 26:

57: And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.
58: But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.
59: Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
60: But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,
61: And said, This fellow said,** I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days**.
62: And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
63: But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64: Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
65: Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
66: What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
67: Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
68: Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

Christ thus told the wicked tenants he was coming to give over the land to new tenants. He tells them he will destroy the Temple, the house of God, and rebuild it in three days, as he did between Good Friday and Easter Sunday when he created the Church.

Gives you chills, doesn’t it?

 

[Teflon93]

Does David Currie’s Rapture have an imprematur(sic?)

Well, he’s not Pope.

But it dovetails nicely with the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible’s treatment of Matthew annotated by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, if that helps.

 

[pyropam]

I’m by no means trying to be antagonistic. I’m just confused. When exactly did Jesus make this claim? What Scriptures can be used to support it?

1000 years is a figure of speech… meaning a very long time…

Sort of like the verse that says “your sons will be as numerous as the grains of sands”… Well, the earth has a long time before the end if we are going to wait on that one… and it was scripture too.

 

[spauline]

I appreciate how you are all trying to help me on this, but I must admit that I’m still rather confused. I see the two part question in verse 3. Am I to say that verses 4-35 answer the first part, while verses 36-42 answer the second part? I see verse 31 as paralleling the events of 1 Thessalonians 4:16, using that trumpet blast correlation as showing how the “rapture” will take place after the tribulation, not before it. In what way did “the Son of Man come on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” in 70AD? I see that as indicating the future Second Coming of Christ, not a symbolic understanding of a past event. He needs to remain in Heaven until the time of universal restoration(Acts 3:21) Again, I am very open to truth, and not set on one particular view, but I hope you can all see where I am stumbling on accepting the 70 A.D. explanation for Matthew 24. Has the Catholic Church officially declared that these are past events, or is this merely the take of the author of the book you are recommending?

Frank, I think you need to realize that preterism is just ONE layer of meaning to the text.

The entire text of Matthew 24 could apply to at least TWO different time periods all together. On one layer, admitttedly, it is almost all fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

And yet, on another non-conflicting layer, His whole discourse could be of the great spiritual ages of ALL of Church history, so that the Second Coming in the discourse IS the Second Coming.

Even still, another layer of meaning could find it all fulfilled at the very end of the world as well.

Remember, Scripture can have multiple layers of meaning all at the same time.

Hence, the entire apoc can be almost all fulfilled in the Early Church years, almost all fulfilled over the whole course of Church history, and almost all fulfilled at the very end of the world.

In that vein, we don’t need to believe that Matthew 24 is almost all fulfilled in the first century to the absolute exlcusion of any other layers of meaning.

For example, the Woman of Revelation 12 can, at least in certain parts, be seen as the OT Israel, Mary, and the Catholic Church, all at the same time. That is, the woman does not need to be only thing to the detriment of any other possiblities.

Hope this helps.

scott

 

[FrankLawrence]

For example, the Woman of Revelation 12 can, at least in certain parts, be seen as the OT Israel, Mary, and the Catholic Church, all at the same time. That is, the woman does not need to be only thing to the detriment of any other possiblities.

I thank you. On this issue, however, I see the woman as strictly being Mary, due to verse 17. I would say that it could NOT be Israel on the grounds that all of Israel does not give witness to Jesus. I would say it could not be the Catholic Church in that Jesus founded the Catholic Church(Matthew 16:17-19), while this “woman” gave birth to Jesus.(verse 5) Verse 17 is also a useful Catholic apologetics answer to the question, “Where does the Bible say that Mary is the Mother of all believers?” To interpret that “woman” as someone or something other than Mary would kill our (Strictly Biblical) apologetics on that issue.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<
Since chiliasm doesn’t teach that Christ’s kingdom will end, this seems dubious.>>

Whether you call it “millenialilsm” or “chiliasm”, it was determined to be a heresy no matter wnat language it’s labelled in. An Ecumenical Council condemned it, and that should be sufficient.

No matter how you slice it, a millennium is an earthly kingdom, and Jesus said, “My Kingdom is NOT of this world.”

 

[spauline]

I thank you. On this issue, however, I see the woman as strictly being Mary, due to verse 17. I would say that it could NOT be Israel on the grounds that all of Israel does not give witness to Jesus. I would say it could not be the Catholic Church in that Jesus founded the Catholic Church(Matthew 16:17-19), while this “woman” gave birth to Jesus.(verse 5) Verse 17 is also a useful Catholic apologetics answer to the question, “Where does the Bible say that Mary is the Mother of all believers?” To interpret that “woman” as someone or something other than Mary would kill our (Strictly Biblical) apologetics on that issue.

Well, no, I realize that the woman cannot necessarily be any of the three at any point in the chronology. For, admittedly, prior to the birth of the Christ Child, the woman could only be either Mary or Israel, but not the Church. However, I think there are ways in which following the Ascension, the entire text afterwards can see her as the Church, in addition to Mary. This would not kill our apologetics, but actually enhance it. For again, Mary and the Church can apply after the Ascension in several scenes. It doesn’t need to be either or. It can be both and.

 

[ryanoneil]

I don’t believe in the “rapture,” as fundamentalists teach it, but I do believe that the events of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 will happen in the future, being one in the same event as the Second Coming of Christ, occurring after the tribulation. Please don’t think that I believe in a pre-tribulational rapture. I am adamantly against that. That is not where I’m stumbling on this. Where I am having the difficulty is seeing how Jesus appearing on the clouds(Matthew 24:30) can be construed as having already happened.

I read “Rapture” by Currie and it makes sense to me. Two of his ground rules to understanding apocolyptic literature pertain to your question.

ITS ALL POLITICAL
Apocalyptic literature uses dramatic imagery of cataclysmic disruptions to describe changes within the human political sphere.

and

HISTORY IS PROPHECY
An event (70 A.D.) can be a prophecy of a still-future, final fulfillment, and when it is , we should consider the entire historical context of the events to gain a fuller understanding.

 

[spauline]

I read “Rapture” by Currie and it makes sense to me. Two of his ground rules to understanding apocolyptic literature pertain to your question.

ITS ALL POLITICAL
Apocalyptic literature uses dramatic imagery of cataclysmic disruptions to describe changes within the human political sphere.

and

HISTORY IS PROPHECY
An event (70 A.D.) can be a prophecy of a still-future, final fulfillment, and when it is , we should consider the entire historical context of the events to gain a fuller understanding.

And yet, Ryan, there is an even deeper level. For underneath political transformations are spiritual. In fact, then, in essence, the apocalypse transcends the merely political. In the end, it reveals the spiriutal ages of salvation history, and their meaning and purpose in the greater Plan of God. For spiritual history, which is the ultimate subject of apocalyptic data, is truly guided by God, such that God, because of His intrinsic Divine Knowledge, knows precisely how to guide human history so that, in the end, the greatest spiritual good is wrought. Salvation history is not arbitrary. God knows what He is doing in the greater picture, as well as in our individual lives. And before Christ returns, the Church will understand these ages in full, they will understand the psychology of salvation history fully.

 

[ryanoneil]

well said spauline.

 

[antimon]

try the audio lecture concerning rapture at www.biblechristiansociety.com Although it touches millenial kingdom very briefly, it’s very good lecture.

 

[Lev23]

I helps not to read it as literally as Fundamentalists are wont to do when it’s convenient for them to do so. 1,000 years didn’t mean “precisely one millennium” to Jews reading Daniel—how could it? That’s a LOOOOONG time by any measure.

Again, read David B. Currie’s “Rapture”—very thorough, very compelling.

To be a premillennialist is to torture Christ’s assurance that the Son of Man would return to judge the Sanhedrin within the lifetimes of some of the apostles present. This occurred when the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D.

Christians of the time clearly got this—that’s why they fled to the mountains before the Romans began slaughter in earnest.

Is this what Currie teaches? The Son of Man returned to Jerusalem in 70A.D. to bring judgement?

Who’s teaching more than 2 comings of Messiah now?

 

[Teflon93]

Is this what Currie teaches? The Son of Man returned to Jerusalem in 70A.D. to bring judgement?

Who’s teaching more than 2 comings of Messiah now?

Christ himself told the Sanhedrin he was coming. Your quarrel is with him, not Currie.

But then, the Rapturist always quarrels with Christ. Matthew 23:36 has to be tortured mightily to support the Darbyist timeline.

So when will the Rapture happen?

It wasn’t 1988, one generation after Israel was refounded in 1948.

It doesn’t look like it’ll be 2007, one generation after Israel was secured in the Six Day War.

Perhaps 2013, 40 years after Israel won the Arab-Israeli War?

Perhaps 2033, 40 years after the Dayton Accords?

My guess would be “none of the above”, as a) it won’t happen. and b) every single rolling Armageddon prediction has been wrong, which prompted Darbyists to simply claim a new date.

 

[Lev23]

Christ himself told the Sanhedrin he was coming. Your quarrel is with him, not Currie.

But then, the Rapturist always quarrels with Christ. Matthew 23:36 has to be tortured mightily to support the Darbyist timeline.

So when will the Rapture happen?

It wasn’t 1988, one generation after Israel was refounded in 1948.

It doesn’t look like it’ll be 2007, one generation after Israel was secured in the Six Day War.

Perhaps 2013, 40 years after Israel won the Arab-Israeli War?

Perhaps 2033, 40 years after the Dayton Accords?

My guess would be “none of the above”, as a) it won’t happen. and b) every single rolling Armageddon prediction has been wrong, which prompted Darbyists to simply claim a new date.

Calm down, your not even getting close to get under my skin.

Let me rephrase the question, if you believe Jesus came back in 70 A.D., why do you refer to the Lord’s coming at the end of the age as a “2nd” coming?

 

[Baraq]

I’m not trying to be difficult, and I am TOTALLY against John Darby’s pretribulational rapture, but I am still having a difficult time viewing the events of Matthew 24 as having been past tense. Look at verses 29-31, in particular. That didn’t happen yet. Verse 2 did happen, however. Are you suggesting that the “great tribulation” has already happened? Again, I’m not trying to be argumentatitve, but trying to understand this.

Was not the sun darkened at the Cross(Luke 23:45)? Does not Peter quote Joels prophecy on the sun darkened fulfilled at Pentecost(Acts 2:20)? Could the sun darkened be a foreshadow of judgment on the wicked as in Is 13 ? while those of us which are saved have the light of Christ?

 

[Teflon93]

Calm down, your not even getting close to get under my skin.

Let me rephrase the question, if you believe Jesus came back in 70 A.D., why do you refer to the Lord’s coming at the end of the age as a “2nd” coming?

I don’t. Christ came at the Incarnation, and at the Resurrection. One might even call the multiple appearances of the Risen Christ to be separate “comings”.

As Catholics, we say “Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead”. It would be an interesting separate thread in my view to discuss the “2nd coming” and how that phrase came to be.