by
Keith Hunt
Question:
I have been hearing yet another teaching on this and that is that
when the scripture refers to two in the field and one taken, the
one taken is the one destroyed; some believing that they are
taken and destroyed at the battle of Armageddon, and reference
the scripture where the body is there will the eagles be gathered
together.
Answer:
I have never heard that teaching above.
I find it a very strange idea. Just does not fit the context at
all. And further, nothing in Mat.24 says anything about either
party being destroyed. The one left on earth at the
resurrection will be in various parts of the earth, just as the
one taken in the resurrection will be in various parts of the
earth, to be gathered by the angels and led to Christ. The battle
of Armageddon is in a specific location and with ARMIES of the
earth, ALL in that battle with be destroyed. Just does not fit at
all with Mat.24. I find that idea very strange indeed.
I guess I missed explaining verse 28 of Mat.24. Really quite
simple if kept in the context. Jesus has just said and talked
about His COMING as lightening, then the verses after also talk
about His coming and the gathering of the saints to Him at the
trumpet sound. No mistaking it. The context is the literal day of
Christ s return to this earth and the gathering of the saints to
Him. All that verse 28 is saying is that Jesus will come and the
saints will be there with Him. The example He gives must not be
taken too literally. Jesus is the carcase (the object, the focal
point of the whole scene) and to that focal point the saints (the
eagles) will be gathered. This is the true meaning of verse 28 as
shown by what Jesus went on to explain in verses 29-31.
Those verses give the interpretation of verse 28. The Bible
interprets itself.
Question:
Do you agree with the WCG teaching that the woman in Rev 12
refers to the church or do you feel that when taking those
scriptures in their context, that the woman is referring to
Israel and verse 17 is speaking of the church?
Answer:
I've heard this idea above, the last idea you give. I have
problems with it. Yes, you could say the first part is Israel,
and the church later. Christ, the man child, was born
from Judah, who was part of Israel. BUT, I do not see the context
but using "Woman" all the way through, from start to finish. God
could have used the word Israel for He used it in chapter 11. I
agree with the old teaching of the WCG on this. Woman from start
to finish means church, the true church of God, which is the
true called out ones who were the children of God from Adam or
from Jacob at least as verse one may be taking us back to Jacob s
time. Let me explain. From the time of Jacob, and his offspring
(Israel and the sons of) God was working with mainly one group of
people.
Only SOME in that group were converted and had God s Spirit. I
know you understand all that. Hence, in a strict and specific
way, the true children of God were WITHIN Israel as a whole
people. Hence God, had His true church - the woman - those with
His Spirit, who will be in the first resurrection, right from the
time of Jacob Israel and his sons. From among and from within
those people who were the true woman of God within the whole
peoples of Israel, the Son of God was to be born and come forth.
Mary was one lady who was a member and part of the very spiritual
family of God, a member of the woman true people of God, who had
His Spirit. She the literal woman and she the woman of the true
spiritual children of God brought forth the man child whom Satan
tried to devour. Satan was not only attacking the literal child,
but was in effect attacking the woman true church of the children
of God. God has always had His woman church, members of His
family, those led by His Spirit, on this earth from the time of
Jacob/Joseph Israel, where this prophecy begins. It was this true
woman church or people of God that fled into the wilderness
(v.6).
The prophecy is constant throughout. The woman from start to
finish is the woman church or the body of people who were always
there as God s children led by His Spirit, there at the time of
Jacob/Joseph Israel, at the time of Mary from whom Jesus came,
and who will be there at the time of the end when Satan will once
more attack her in no small way.
Question:
I do agree with your article but would like to make one comment
about Christ's coming.
The true saints should recognize who the two witnesses are by
what they are preaching, then the saints will know that the two
witnesses will prophesy for exactly 1260 days, and that at the
end of those days they will be killed and their bodies will
lay in the streets of Jerusalem for exactly three and one half
days. At the end of that precise period of time the seventh
trumpet will sound and the resurrection will occur since the
resurrection will occur at the same time they are resurrected.
With God being so specific, how can the saints NOT know the day
of Christ's coming?
Answer:
I m really glad you brought this up Marie. Once more remember
Jesus said no one could know the DAY nor the hour of His coming
ONLY the Father. And Jesus also said, in a day we THINK NOT He
will come. How then does this jive with what you brought out
above. Often we jump to putting meanings into verses or words
that are just not specific and hence we often can make mistakes.
The mistake MAYBE in this part of Rev. 11 has been to THINK it is
referring to THE resurrection of ALL the saints to IMMORTALITY,
that the two witnesses are IN when they are resurrected. The
words of Rev.1 I just DO NOT SAY this!! Nothing is there about
THE last trump sounding. Nothing is there about ALL the saints
being resurrected WITH them.
Nothing is there about their resurrection being to IMMORTAL
life... .ah get that. It is not told us that they were raised to
IMMORTAL life. Only the spirit of life entered them. The
Greek... . the breath of life entered them. It s the common
Greek word used dozens of time for breath. This could well be a
PHYSICAL resurrection only.
There is no proof it is a resurrection to immortal life at the
last trump with all the rest of the saints. Elijah was taken up
into heaven also, into the clouds, not very high up.
The third woe is yet to come so the context says. Jesus has not
quite yet returned. So the 7th trumpet has not yet sounded when
these two witnesses are resurrected. It is to come quickly, but
what does quickly mean? The same day? One more day? Two more
days? maybe a week? Do we see what could happen IF I am correct
on this and the raising of the two witnesses is only to physical
life and removal to protection from their enemies? People may
have forgotten Jesus said He would come in an hour when we least
expected Him to come. They are looking to be with the two
witnesses in a resurrection. They see they are still standing in
the flesh, they do not see Jesus in the clouds...maybe a day goes
by, maybe two days or more goes by, and they are still in the
flesh, with no Jesus coming as lightning in the clouds. They
could think the whole thing is make-believe and loose faith,
because they were set in their minds that when the two witnesses
were raised up it would be the resurrection of all saints to
immortality and the very coming of Jesus, when Revelation 11 said
no such thing.
Ah, now do you see that we better be very careful in how we read
certain verses.
The best plan for anyone in any age is to remember what Jesus
taught. We cannot know the day, no one does EXCEPT the Father. He
may come in a day we least expect Him to come, and we had better
be always ready in our minds and life for His coming. As many
have known, Jesus coming for each one of us, is as close as
taking our last breath. If we die this second as I m typing this,
the next second of life for me is the last trump and the
resurrection to glory on the day of Jesus coming.
Question:
Another set of scriptures which gives a specific period of time
is Daniel 12, which says that Daniel will rest and then stand in
his lot (referring to his standing in the first resurrection) at
the end of a specific number of days. daniel 12 also says that
the understanding of these days is sealed up until the time of
the end and at that time the WISE WILL UNDERSTAND.
If there were no scriptures in the bible which give specific
events to watch and specific number of days to countdown to the
resurrection, I would say it would be true that we cannot know.
Answer:
Another mistake being made by many on this. The days mentioned
are specific okay, but specific for what? Not one word says
anything about the resurrection to glory here.
Nothing here about a last trump. The days do mean something
alright, but EXACTLY what is not given....a blessing for those
that wait till the end of 1,335 days, but what is the blessing?
The verses do not say. But people read into them that it MUST
BE the last trump and the resurrection to immortality of the
saints, and hence Jesus return.
But the verses to do not any such thing. Did Jesus KNOW these
verses were in the Bible? Sure he did! Did Jesus know what these
verse were all about? Sure He did! He knew and He knows today
when they will start. He knows the blessing for those who wait
till the end of them BUT, in knowing those verses were in
Daniel and knowing what they were all about, He STILL TAUGHT us
that no one can ever know the day or the hour of His coming, ONLY
the Father knows it. He still taught that He may come in a day we
would least except it. Now, verse 13 of Dan.12. Again, many
ASSUME that when Daniel stands at the end of the days it will
be ON the last day of the days or at least the NEXT day AFTER the
last day of the days, hence they THINK this will be the last
trump day and the resurrection of the saint to glory day, and
Christ's day of His return. BUT, it does not say such a thing!!
What it says is that Daniel will not stand UNTIL the end of those
days. This it says. So we do know those days MUST COME before
Daniel is resurrected to glory (along with all the other saints
of all ages), but that is really all it says. The verse is just
not that specific in telling us that Daniel will be resurrected
on the last day of those days. The verse leaves enough room and
doubt in what it says or does not say that once more a false and
wrong date setting could be decided upon by some. Hence IF the
resurrection does not come on the last day of those days
(supposing God s people do know the exact start to the day of
those days) some could loose faith and begin to eat and drink
with the drunkards and not be doing their Lord s will when He
does come. These verses in Daniel CANNOT contradict what we have
seen that Jesus specifically taught regarding the very day of
His coming.
Question:
I have heard so many ministers put down and poo-poo any attempt
to make charts and set dates and can understand this since so
many wrong dates have been set.
And I certainly agree that the principle of being ready at any
time is true since we could die at any time and the next instant
for us would be the resurrection. But who are the WISE THAT WILL
UNDERSTAND if you go around preaching and making the brethren
believe that it is impossible to know and close their minds to
any meditation of these scriptures which DO SET DATES?
Answer:
I hope you can now see that there is NO scripture in the entirety
of God's word that sets a date to the literal day that Jesus will
come and set His feet on this good green earth. All that will try
to do so are reading into verses something that is just not there.
Hence, Jesus words concerning that day are not contradicted
anywhere in the Bible.
....................................
Written January 2000
Abomination of Desolation
or
Abomination that makes Desolate
Jesus and Daniel talk about it!
It has been a common Fundamental Christian teaching for a
hundred years or more, now adopted by many Church of God people,
that near the end of this age, within about 7 years before the
coming of Christ the Messiah, that a Jewish Temple of some
type will be constructed in Jerusalem, and Jews will once more
perform animal sacrifices.
The teaching continues to say that a great religious leader, the
false prophet of the book of Revelation, will head a mighty world
power. It is said that he will come into Jerusalem, overcome the
Jews, walk into the Temple they have constructed, and establish
himself and his religion within its walls. This event is said by
these Fundamental Protestants to be what the NT (New Testament)
and Jesus were meaning to convey to us when they talk about "the
abomination of desolation."
I openly and frankly disagree with this theological idea of
some of those who so interpret this phrase of Jesus in Matthew
24. I believe it is in total error and using the NT to interpret
itself, I believe the truth of the matter is plain to see. I have
not been the only one to see how the NT explains and interprets
itself on this "abomination of desolation" phrase. Ralph Woodrow
wrote a book on certain prophecies of the Bible, way back in
1971, called "Great Prophecies of the Bible." I do not agree
with all that Woodrow has written on prophecy. But I do think he
has written and come to some very good insights on parts of Bible
prophecy, this being one of them.
I present here, as the truth on this matter, what Ralph
Woodrow has in part to say on what is the "Abomination of
Desolation" (Keith Hunt).
Quote:
"Concerning our Lord's statement about the destruction of
the Temple, the disciples asked: 'WHEN shall these things be? and
WHAT SIGN will there be when these things shall come to pass?'
(Luke 21: 7). As we have seen, Jesus mentioned things of a
general nature that would come to pass first. Now he gives THE
sign - a specific sign that would let them know that Jerusalem
was about to be destroyed. He said that they would see 'the
abomination of desolation' and when they saw this, they were to
quickly flee, for the desolation of the city would be nigh.
Matthew: 'When you shall SEE the abomination of desolation,
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso
reads, let him understand), then let them that be in Judea FLEE
into the mountains' (24: 15, 16).
Mark: 'When you shall SEE the abomination of desolation, spoken
of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him
that reads understand), then let them that be in Judea FLEE to
the mountains' (13: 14).
Luke: 'When you shall SEE Jerusalem compassed with ARMIES, then
know that the DESOLATION thereof is nigh. Then let them which are
in Jerusalem FLEE to the mountains....Jerusalem shall be trodden
down of the GENTILES' (21: 20, 21, 24).
Now, step by step, let us notice what we are told in these
parallel accounts:
1. We notice where Matthew and Mark record: 'When you shall
see the abomination of DESOLATION.....then let them which be in
Judea flee into the mountains,' Luke, in speaking of exactly the
SAME thing, says: 'When you see JERUSALEM compassed with armies,
then know that the DESOLATION thereof is nigh. Then let them
which are in Judea flee to the mountains.' We see, then, that it
was JERUSALEM that would become a DESOLATION.
We notice also that this 'desolation' was that 'which was
spoken by Daniel the prophet.' ............(Daniel spoke about
this in Daniel 12:11 in which the context is only certain number
of days before Daniel would be resurrected at the end of the
days, verse 13. Jesus in Matthew 24 is talking about the same
time frame as the disciples asked Him what would be the signs of
His coming and the end of the age, Mat.24:3. Keith Hunt).
.....it is evident that what was to become a 'desolation'
was JERUSALEM. There is no room for any misunderstanding here.
2. Looking again at the parallel accounts, we see that what
Matthew and Mark refer to as the 'abomination' that would make
Jerusalem DESOLATE, Luke (using plain language) shows that such
would be ARMIES - Gentile armies: 'And when you shall see
Jerusalem COMPASSED with ARMIES, then know that the DESOLATION
thereof is nigh....JERUSALEM shall be TRODDEN DOWN of the
Gentiles' (Luke 21:20-24).
The word 'abomination' is a word that refers to anything
that is especially loathsome or detestable. Certainly this fits
the feelings the inhabitants of Jerusalem would have towards an
idol-worshipping Gentile army advancing to destroy their city! In
fact, an army (coming to destroy) is an abomination to any people
or nation. And, as history has repeatedly recorded, the work of
armies so often results in desolation - destruction!
3. Matthew's account says that the abomination (Gentile
army) would 'stand in the holy place' and adds the words: 'Whoso
reads, let him understand.' Mark's account, because it too is
given in somewhat veiled language, includes the words: 'Let him
that reads understand.' BUT, looking at Luke's account of the
SAME passage which is given in PLAIN language, we read: 'When you
see JERUSALEM compassed with armies....' And because he gives the
EXPLANATION, he does not include the phrase: 'Let him that
reads understand.'
By letting the Bible be its own INTERPRETER, then, we see
that the term 'holy place' (Mat.24:15), is a reference to
JERUSALEM. Jerusalem is commonly referred to as the HOLY CITY
(Mat.27:53; Dan.9:16 etc.). According to the prophecy, Gentile
armies were to compass it and finally bring it to desolation.
The word translated 'place' in the expression 'holy place'
in Matthew's account is TOPOS (see any Greek dictionary or Bible
Concordance such as Strong's, Young's, etc.). The word TOPOS
means simply a locality. Such words as TOPICAL and TOPOGRAPHY
are derived from it. It is used in such scriptural expressions as
'a desert place,' 'dry place,' etc. (It is NOT the same term as
that which is used in describing the holy of holies in the
temple).
What is called the holy place is EXPLAINED by Luke as the
area that would be occupied by armies surrounding Jerusalem. The
MATTHEW HENRY COMMENTARY has well put it: 'Jerusalem was the holy
city, Canaan the holy land, the Mt.Moriah which lay about
Jerusalem, for its nearness to the temple was, they thought, in a
particular manner holy ground; on the country lying round about
Jerusalem the Roman army was encamped, THAT was the abomination
that made desolate' (Henry, Commentary on the whole Bible, vol.5
p.352). "
The 70 A.D. captivity of Jerusalem by the Roman armies of
Titus and then the desolation and destruction of that city was a
forerunner of what once more will take place in the last few
years before the close of this age and the return of Christ
(Keith Hunt).
Continuing with Woodrow:
" These pagan armies were to 'compass' the city (Luke); they
would take a 'stand' there (Matthew) - the word STAND indicating
rebellion or hostility. Examples of the word used in this way may
be seen in the following:
'A king of fierce countenance...shall stand up' (Dan.8:23,
25). 'A mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great
dominion...and when he shall stand up...'(11:3,4). Another will
'stand up in his estate, and shall come with an army' (verse 7).
'Then shall stand up...a raiser of taxes...and in his estate
shall stand up a vile person' (verses 20, 21). A king 'shall be
stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he
shall not stand...' (verse 25). Concerning persecution against
the cause of Christ, we read in Acts 4:26: 'The kings of the
earth stood up and the rulers were gathered together against
the Lord...'
We cite these references to show how the word 'stand' is
used of those who assume a place of leadership or authority to
rebel or fight. And in the same sense, the 'abomination' - the
pagan armies - were to take a stand against Jerusalem and compass
it about to destroy it!.....Any way we look at it, according to
the words of Christ, Jerusalem was marked for destruction by the
hands of her enemies......."
From recorded history we know that in the 70 A.D. forerunner
and type of what will take place at the end time, not one single
Christian was killed in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman
armies of Titus. They saw Jerusalem being compassed with armies,
waited for the opportune time (which God gave them) and fled the
city. They fled when they saw Jerusalem compassed about with
Gentile armies, NOT when something was done inside the Temple.
The prophecy has nothing to do with the a Temple in Jerusalem. It
has nothing to do with a person doing anything outside or inside
a physical building, that some could want to call a Temple. The
prophecy has to do with Gentile ARMIES compassing about the city
of Jerusalem, and getting ready to capture and desolate and
destroy it (Keith Hunt).
Woodrow explains correctly:
"We see, then, that in the place where Matthew and Mark use
the somewhat veiled expression 'abomination of desolation,' Luke
(using PLAIN language) shows that such was to be Gentile armies
compassing Jerusalem to bring it to desolation. All three of the
Gospel accounts before mentioning this sign begin with the words:
'When you see...' and follow this with the words: 'Then let them
that be in Judea flee to the mountains,' etc. There can be no
mistaking that these are PARALLEL accounts. By simply letting the
Bible EXPLAIN ITSELF, we have seen that the 'desolation' was to
be the destruction of Jerusalem.....the 'abomination of
desolation' referred to the heathen armies that would bring about
the desolation; and then these armies would be seen compassing
Jerusalem, the disciples were to flee.
This interpretation is solidly built on the Bible. With it,
the Gospel accounts are COMPLIMENTARY, not CONTRADICTORY......
Having set forth what we sincerely believe to be the exact
and only fulfillment of our Lord's words, we must now consider an
interpretation which has become widely believed, especially in
this century (20th century). We have reference to the teaching
that the 'abomination of desolation' is an IDOL to be placed in
the holy of holies of a REBUILT Jewish Temple - possibly an idol
of the Anti-christ or the Anti-christ HIMSELF.....
An example....is seen in the following: 'The Jews - who will
have....restored Herod's Temple, and be in LEAGUE with the
Antichrist - will have a visit by the False Prophet who shall
bring an image of the Antichrist into Jerusalem and wheel it into
the Temple....When this image of the Antichrist is taken into the
Jewish Temple, that will be the sign Jesus mentioned in Matthew
24, the Abomination of desolation' (Roberts, How to be Personally
Prepared for the Second coming of Christ, p. 38).
Another futurist says: 'This image will be placed in the
Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and is the abomination of desolation
to which the Lord made reference in his Olivet discourse'
(DeHaan, The Antichrist and Armageddon, p. 13)......
The setting up of an idol in the sanctuary is something the
enemy could not do UNTIL such a time as the Temple would be in
the enemies' possession. Since the magnificent Temple would no
doubt be the LAST thing to be yielded to the enemy in battle, by
this time the city would have ALREADY BEEN CAPTURED and it would
be TOO LATE for the disciples to FLEE! Obviously then, this could
NOT be the SIGN to flee. In order for something to be a WARNING
for the disciples to ESCAPE, it would have to come BEFORE the
capture of the city - not something to take place AFTERWARDS!
In view of this, an idol in the holy of holies could not be
the sign Jesus referred to. But the presence of heathen armies
compassing Jerusalem could be - and was the sign, such happening
BEFORE (in 70 A.D. Keith Hunt) the overthrow of the city (as we
have seen)......
The 'abomination' that would make desolate was to be
something that could be SEEN by the inhabitants of Judea and
Jerusalem. 'When you SEE the abomination,' that is, 'When you SEE
Jerusalem compassed with ARMIES,' then, 'let them that are in
Judea flee into the mountains.' It is evident that Jesus was not
talking about an idol in the holy of holies, for such could NOT
be SEEN by the population of Jerusalem and Judea. Only the high
priest entered the holy of holies. None of the ordinary Jews
would dare enter there.....
On the other hand, it was pagan armies that destroyed the
city....It was armies that were seen by the people, and it was
the compassing of Jerusalem by the armies that warned the
disciples to flee! (in the first 70 A.D. fulfillment when
Jerusalem was desolated by the Roman armies of Titus - Keith
Hunt).....
'And as He (Jesus) went out of the TEMPLE, one of His
disciples said unto Him: Master, see what manner of stones and
what buildings are HERE! And Jesus answering said unto him, See
you THESE great buildings? There shall not be left ONE STONE
UPON ANOTHER, that shall not be thrown down......' "
END QUOTE
With this last quote from Matthew 24 by Woodrow I leave off
quoting from him and his chapter in his book on this subject, and
continue with my own further expounding on this matter and topic.
The context of Matthew 24 from where this quote by Jesus is
taken must be read very carefully. The disciples asked Jesus
when these things would be AND, "what shall be the SIGN of YOUR
COMING, and of the END of the world (age, as the Greek should
be understood), verse 3.
Matthew 24 is clearly a prophecy for the END TIME, not for
70 A.D. There may have been a type fulfillment in 70 A.D. but the
prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24 is for the END of the age, for a
time just SHORTLY BEFORE His return. This we can see from the
mention of the resurrection of the saints as they are gathered by
the angels to meet the returning Christ (verses 25-31).
The fact is that in 70 A.D. NOT ALL the stones from the
Temple and the buildings were cast down, so that there was not
one left upon another. Such as that NEVER happened in 70 A.D. Nor
has it happened to this very day. For the now famous WAILING
WALL in Jerusalem which still stands with stones one upon
another, was a PART OF THE TEMPLE of Jesus' day! In the future
fulfillment of Matthew 24, when the Gentile armies of the Beast
power of the book of Revelation comes to compass about Jerusalem,
to take the city and to destroy it in battle (see Rev.11:2) then
this prophecy of Jesus will finally be fulfilled and all the
stones of the Temple of Jesus' day will come down, so not
one will be left upon another.
In passing, you may have questions regarding Revelation
11:1-2 as it talks about a Temple and altar (but notice it says,
"temple of God" not "temple of the Jews." A Jewish Temple, built
by those who have rejected the Christ and the NT, who are
worshipping God not under the NT but under the OT, who do not
worship God in "spirit and in truth" could hardly be said to be a
"temple of God'). For the contextual truth of these verses
I refer you to the excellent comments by Albert Barnes in his
Bible Commentary.
Animal Sacrifices by Jews at the End Time?
Many have and do feel very confident that a Jewish temple
will yet be built in Jerusalem, and that the Jews will once more
offer animal sacrifices in that Temple before the coming of the
Messiah in glory.
First, it is often either not known or is forgotten by most.
The State and Government of Israel is a "secular" Government.
They are NOT interested in "religious matters" on the whole. The
secular government of Israel could really care less about
building a "religious" Temple for a certain relatively small
religious sect of Judaism.
Secondly, the main body of "orthodox" Judaism clearly and
strongly is opposed to any Temple being built BEFORE the coming
of the Messiah. They actually teach that ONLY the Messiah can build
the NEXT temple in Jerusalem. This main body orthodox religious
Jews would be totally AGAINST the building of a Jewish temple in
which an animal sacrificial system would once more be practiced.
Thirdly, of those religious Jews who do want to build a
Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (and some Christian sects backing
them), those Jewish groups teach that a Temple CANNOT be built
just ANYWHERE in Jerusalem. They teach that a Temple can ONLY be
built where the Dome of the Rock now stands. They claim and teach
that the Arab Dome must GO, and that the Jewish Temple must be
built where it now stands.
They have their clear theology for so teaching, and nothing, no
other place or area of land in the city of Jerusalem can be used
to build a temple upon, in which the old Levitical priesthood and
sacrifices could be reinstated. They have then limited themselves
between a rock and a hard place as they say. The religious Arabs
would never allow their Dome to be destroyed by the Jews, not
without creating a full scale war of death unto the end. Such an
attempt by the Jews or by Christians would bring sure Nuclear war
between a united Arab world and the Jews of the State of Israel.
But, even with all this, some still say the Bible prophecies
of the OT, especially in the book of Daniel, teach that animal
sacrifices will be performed in Jerusalem before the Messiah
returns. Hence to them a Temple, a Jewish Temple, in Jerusalem
must yet be built before the end of this age. To them this is so
critical that the Messiah cannot come until such a Temple and
animal sacrifices are once more functioning in Jerusalem, hence
they believe the sooner all this comes about the sooner the Lord
Messiah can return, and so they live and breath (some sects) and
push and pull and shout and move, to bring all this to pass,
thinking they are then being a part of fulfilling the Lord's
prophecies of the end time.
Their mistake is two fold. First, they do not read the
prophecies of Daniel very carefully. They do not see that in
those end time prophecies the Hebrew word for "sacrifice" is NOT
THERE!! Yes, that is correct, the Hebrew word for "sacrifice" is
not there in those prophecies! Oh, to be sure, something is
going to be STOPPED by the end time Beast power that comes into
the city of Jerusalem as foretold by Daniel and by the book of
Revelation. But the word for "sacrifice" is not found in those
passages of Daniel that have reference to the end time, the final
world power and to the city of Jerusalem. Yes, as they say, be my
guest. Look up those passages in Daniel, go to the Hebrew/English
Interlinears.
Many things can be stopped as to not allowed to function by
a people who are taken in captivity by another army of another
power. Many of their daily practices as to religious practices
can be stopped by a conquering power that may differ in its
religious beliefs and practices from those it has conquered.
Certain religious sects within Jerusalem have certain daily
religious practices today. The orthodox sect of Judaism have
their daily religious devotions at the Wailing Wall. This would
certainly come to a stop when the Gentile Beast power takes
captive and destroys much of the city of Jerusalem at the time of
the end, when not one stone of that wall (once a part of the
Temple of Jesus' day) will remain upon another, but when all will
be cast down.
Secondly, they miss the mark by not understanding some of
the principles of Bible prophecy. Bible prophecy is not all cut
and dry, there are many pros and cons, many slights of the hand,
and within a context it may not always be easy to pin down
certain phrases and how they may be played out in actual reality.
A study of all the prophecies that were fulfilled at the
first coming of Christ will show this to be all so true.
There are some prophecies that will only take place ONCE,
and others that will take place more that once, a duality to
those if you will. I have given some of the keys to understand
Bible prophecy in another study.
Some have seen that in the book of Daniel there are a few
passages that have ALREADY been fulfilled, recorded history
making this very clear. And with a few of those passages the
words "daily" is used but the word in Hebrew for "sacrifice" is
NOT used. Yet, it was indeed the daily sacrificial system that
did come to a stop by the power of certain kings and armies of
certain nations that came against Judah or the Jews. Hence,
the reasoning goes because of this that those passages of like
manner that are to do with end time or end of the age prophecies,
must also mean animal sacrifices must be stopped. So the reasoning
continues that for physical sacrifices to stop they must begin
again, and to begin again a Temple will need to be built. The
reasoning feeds on itself, so is one (people coming to a
dogmatic, close of the mind, stance on a verse) and so must be
the other.
What they fail to see and understand about Bible prophecy is
that just because one verse with certain words was fulfilled in a
certain way, DOES NOT MEAN another verse with the same words,
regarding a prophecy for much later (at the end of the age) must
also be fulfilled the exact same way as the one fulfilled
thousands of years earlier.
Not understanding this "un-sameness" in Bible prophecy, even
when the words used are identical, has led many to run off
shouting as they go, on wild goose chases, which have often left
all kinds of egg on people's faces, or a face full of the smashed
cream pie dripping all over it.
As before stated the passages in Daniel to do with end of
the age prophecies that use the word "daily" but not the word
"sacrifice" CAN be understood in a way that has nothing to do
with daily animal sacrifices being stopped by some Beast power
that captures Jerusalem and takes the Jews captive. There are
many "daily" practices (some religious in nature) that the Jews
would be prevented from practicing and continuing, should they be
conquered by a religious force such as that mentioned in the book
of Revelation, a religious force that would not be at all
sympathetic to the Jews and their OT religion. I have mentioned
ONE very important daily practice done by the orthodox Jews
that would surely come to an end, be stopped, by the Beast power
and its false Prophet, and that is the prayers and religious
worship done daily by Jews at the Wailing Wall.
More interesting Words and Verses
Now we shall look at two Hebrew words used in the OT for our
English KJV translation - the words are TEMPLE and SANCTUARY. The
Hebrew word translated "temple" in dozens of passages, such as in
Mal.4:1 and Zech.6:12,13, is number 1964 in Strong's Concordance.
It is used for the tent tabernacle built under the leadership of
Moses, also called "the sanctuary" as well as the "temple" that
Solomon built.
The Hebrew word translated "sanctuary" in dozens of OT
passages is number 4720 in Strong's Concordance. This word is
used in Ex.25:8,9.
Sometimes the physical structure that God dwelt in when
among Israel was called "sanctuary" and sometimes it was called
"temple." BOTH WORDS ARE USED TO DENOTE THE SAME PHYSICAL
STRUCTURE that God dwelt in when among Israel.
Now notice this!
Talking about the tribes of Israel, Moses prophesied, "You
shall bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine
inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which you have made for thee
to dwell in, in the SANCTUARY, O Lord, which they hands have
established" (Ex. 15:17).
This is BEFORE God instructed Moses to build a physical
tabernacle or tent sanctuary. The Hebrew word used here in
Ex.15:17 is the SAME WORD used for the physical sanctuary - #4720
in Strong's.
Ex.15:17 is plainly talking about the LAND OF PALESTINE or
the PROMISED LAND!
Now, turn to Psalm 78 and read verse 54. Talking about how
God brought Israel out of Egypt, verse 53, AND, "And He brought
them to the border of His SANCTUARY, even to this MOUNTAIN......"
verse 54.
The whole context makes it clear that the "sanctuary" here
spoken about is the PROMISED LAND - PALESTINE!!
So, as the words "sanctuary" and "temple" as used for the
physical structure, as the literal building that God dwelt in
when among the people of Israel could be called EITHER
"sanctuary" or "temple," COULD IT BE POSSIBLE (without being
dogmatic), could it be that when the prophet said the Messiah
would "suddenly come to His temple" he had in mind the PROMISED
LAND, and not a physical building at all?
Again, when another prophet said that the BRANCH (Messiah)
would "build the temple of the Lord" was he telling us that the
Messiah would RESTORE and REPLENISH the land of PALESTINE from
the destruction it had received (during the last few years of
this age) prior to the Messiah's coming in power and glory to
bring the Kingdom of God on earth for a thousand years? It could
well be that this is what the prophet had in mind, as well as
overseeing the building of the millennium Temple of Ezekiel, that
will be built when the Messiah comes again.
Once more we see that passages of the Bible, especially
prophetic passages, can be understood in different ways. We have
seen (if you have studied the Hebrew in the book of Daniel, or
noticed the italic words in the KJV, which mean those words are
not in the Hebrew) that the word "sacrifice" is not in the
end-time passages in the book of Daniel, and something "daily"
that is stopped by the end time Beast power in Jerusalem and
Judea, could be something other than the sacrifice of animals on
an altar in a physical temple. I have one Bible Commentary that
says it seems more than just a slip of the writer to leave out
the word for "sacrifice." It seemed to be a deliberate plan, as
it is to tell us something. And it does tell me that whatever this
"daily" that is going to be taken away, it could be something
OTHER THAN ANIMAL SACRIFICES!
It is interesting that in Daniel 9:27 the Hebrew words for
"sacrifice" and "oblation" ARE NOT IN ITALICS! This prophecy
was, as we have seen in other studies, not an end time prophecy
at all, but one for the first century A.D. It was fulfilled in 70
A.D. by Titus and his armies when they took Jerusalem and
destroyed most of the city, including the physical Temple. It was
at that time that animal sacrifices in a Jewish temple did come
to a complete and utter stop.
Turn to Daniel chapter 9. Here you will find a revealing and
interesting passage concerning the city of Jerusalem. Verse 16
shows God had turned away from the city of Jerusalem, His HOLY
MOUNTAIN. He had desolated it and the people thereof. They had
become a reproach to all people around about them.
Daniel cries out to God that He would stop this reproach in
verse 17. And that God's face would once more shine upon....."THY
SANCTUARY that is DESOLATE...."
He further goes on in verse 18 to tell us about the Jews
"desolations" which includes the CITY. The context is the
desolation of JERUSALEM. Yes, of course, in Daniel's day the
Temple in Jerusalem was desolated also, being a part of the city.
But the physical temple is not specifically THE desolation, but
the whole CITY is.
The Hebrew for "sanctuary" in verse 17 is number 4720 in
Strong's. And some translations render it as "holy place."
Jerusalem is called by God's NAME (verse 18). God is
HOLY....Jerusalem is a holy location that God had chosen and will
yet choose to dwell in when God the Messiah comes to reign on
earth. Jerusalem and the land of Palestine is God's holy place,
God's holy mountain, the Lord's "sanctuary" or "temple."
What about 2 Thessalonians 2 ?
Here we have this famous passage of the man of sin sitting
in the Temple of God, a passage much used and I will add much
mutilated by the end time "Jewish physical temple and animal
sacrifice" teachers.
The Greek word for "temple" here is NAOS. Vine's Expository
Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says, "a shrine or
SANCTUARY....." Is used both in a literal way and also
metaphorically in the NT.
With all I have expounded on this, Paul could well have seen
exactly what I have shown you from the OT. He was then simply
telling us and the church at Thessalonia what was written in the
OT. At the end time, the faith once delivered would be in
decline, hard to find (as Jesus said, "When the Son of man comes,
shall He find THE (definite article is in the Greek) faith on
earth?"), and a false prophet, a great religious leader, would
arise (John in Revelation was given the same vision and more
concerning this False Prophet at the end of the age), who would
plant his seat between the seas in God's holy MOUNTAIN, in the
city of Jerusalem, in the holy city, in the holy sanctuary/temple
LAND of Palestine and Jerusalem (see Daniel 11:40-45).
This great end time false prophet will live up to the coming
of the Lord in power and glory, and shall be cast into the lake
of fire, shall be consumed with the spirit of God's mouth, and
destroyed with the brightness of His coming (2 Thes.2:8 with Rev.
19:11-21).
There is another way to understand 2 Thes. 2:1-12 which sees
the office of a one man Pope church leader as coming from within
and out of the very NT CHURCH TEMPLE of God, way back in the
first centuries of the NT age. This one man leader office came
eventually from out of the very NT true Church of God and
continues today in the form of a great religious organization
that will continue until the Christ Messiah comes again. Many do
not realize, but it is there in the NT, that many false leaders
of Christian religion came from within the very true Church of
God, in the first century A.D. who eventually formed another
organization with its headquarters in the city of Rome. For
a few centuries there were debates and dialogue over certain
theological issues with the churches of Asian Minor (founded by
the apostles of Jesus) and the leader of the new Christian
organization in Rome.
All the details of that aspect of understanding 2 Thes.2 I
will present in another full and in-depth study in the future.
The "abomination of desolation" is the end time Beast power
of Revelation, with the False Prophet, coming with their armies
and conquering the land of Palestine, desolating the city of
Jerusalem, setting up their seat in the city, destroying much of
the city and the Wailing Wall (where not one stone will be left
upon another that is not thrown down), and scattering the power
of the holy people (Christians). Who when they see
Jerusalem compassed about with the armies of the Beast, will flee
to the hills, as well as the Jews.
As Jesus told us, let us pray that our flight will not be on
the Sabbath or in the winter.
.............................
Written first in 1990 and re-written/edited in August 2000
Key to the Future
All told to us in Daniel 11
by
Keith Hunt
Daniel chapter 11 and up to about verse 30, the old well known
Bible commentaries like Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, and others,
have the historical events pretty well right on the bull's eye.
The reader is referred to those such Commentaries for the
understanding of verse one to thirty.
Verses 29-30 hold the KEY to who the king of the North is in
verse 40.
Syria has been the king of the north up to v.29. But what happens
in v.30 is missed by nearly all students of Bible prophecy.
For there is a CHANGE in who is the NORTHERN KING from v.30 to
the end of the chapter.
In modern language, Rome told him to stop his invasion against
Egypt - OR ELSE! Antiochus put his tail between his legs like a
whipped dog and bowed down to the dictates of Rome.
The ROMAN EMPIRE from this point in history became the "king of
the north".
There's never any change in the "king of the south". It is EGYPT
for the entire chapter.
Without understanding what the significance is in v.30, the rest
of the chapter cannot be understood.
V.33-35 Covers the Christian era from the time of the New
Testament Church to 313 A. D. (in its first fulfilling) and to
the second return of Christ in its second larger fulfilling.
These verses cover the martyrdom of true followers of Christ.
".......BUT MANY SHALL CLEAVE TO THEM WITH FLATTERIES." Compare
this with 2 Pet. 2. Notice v.l-3, 13-14, 18,19. The New Testament
church was in Peter's time being corrupted from within by persons
who eventually went out and formed the great apostate church,
Babylon Mystery, the Mother of Harlots (Rev. 17).
V.36-39. Here is depicted a GREAT king - as the king of the north
is now the ROMAN EMPIRE, this king here mentioned must be a king
of that Empire. Let's note what is said of him:
1. He exalts himself above every god.
2. He speaks AGAINST the true God. 3. He prospers.
4. He rejects his ancestors' god - (He then chooses another).
5. Rejects the desire of women.
6. He honors with gold, silver and riches a god that his former
ancestors did not.
7. This god he honors is called a 'strange' god - not the true
God then. And this strange god rules over many.
The event and KING here depicted must be a FIRST of a kind -
a king who is different than all other kings of the Roman Empire.
He has to be a LANDMARK-type person, someone who does so many
changes in the Empire and himself that he will stand out as a
unique king of Rome.
There is only ONE king who fits all seven of the aforementioned
points - King CONSTANTINE of Rome. See the following pages:
FROM "A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY" by Laterette.
QUOTE:
One of the factors to which is attributed the triumph of
Christianity is the endorsement of Constantine. But,as we have
suggested, the faith was already so strong by the time when
Constantine espoused it, that it would probably have won without
him. Indeed, one of the motives sometimes ascribed to his
supposed desire to enlist the cooperation of what had become the
strongest element in the Empire, the Christian community....
CONSTANTINE ESPOUSES CHRISTIANITY
What must have seemed an unequal contest between naked ruthless
force and unarmed, passive resistance, it was not the imperial
government which emerged victor. Presumably this would have been
the eventual outcome, for christianity was clearly proving itself
the stronger. As it was the individual who was preeminent in the
surrender of the state was Constantine. Constantius Chlorus, the
father of Constantine, was governing Britain; Gaul,and Spain as
Caesar when the persecution broke out. He seems never to had any
stomach for it and to have been at best half-hearted in his
enforcement of the anti-Christian edicts. When, after the
abdication of his two superiors, Diocletian and Maximian, he
became one of their successors under the title of Augustus, he
appears to have allowed the anti-Christian measures to lapse. On
the death of Constintius Chlorus, in 306, Constantine, then in
York in distant Britain, already his father's known choice for
the succession, was proclaimed Emperor by his troops. He was
confronted with rivals and a prolonged struggle followed. He did
not become sole Emperor until 323, when he defeated his last
competitor, Licinius.
Constantine took the decisive steps in his relation with
Christianity in the year 312. He had invaded Italy on his march
towards Rome and was faced with the army of his first formidable
opponent, Maxentius. Apparently he knew that Maxentius was
relying on pagan magic and felt the need of a more powerful
supernatural force to offset it. Years later he told his friend,
bishop Eusebius, the most eminent of the early Church historians,
that, after noon, as he was praying, he had a vision of a great
cross of light in the heavens bearing the inscription, "conquer
by this," and the confirmation came in a dream in which God
appeared to him with the same sign and commanded him to make a
likeness of it and use it as a safeguard in all encounters with
his enemies. How accurately Constantine remembered the experience
we do not know, but Eusebius is usually discriminating in his
evaluation of data, and he declares that he himself saw the
standard which was made in response to the vision- a spear
overlaid with gold, with a cross which was formed by a transverse
bar and a wreath of gold and precious stones enclosing a monogram
of the letters Chi and Rho for the name of Christ. The staff also
had an embroidered cloth with the picture of Constantine and his
children. Constantine was victor, the winning battle being at the
Milvian Bridge, near Rome, and he therefore took possession of
the capital. Presumably his faith in the efficacy of the
Christian symbol was thus confirmed.
In the following year Constantine and Licinius, between whom the
realm was temporarily divide, met at Milan and action was taken
which was later looked back upon as having ensured toleration for
the Christians through precisely what was done at Milan remains
controversial. Some, declare that an edict of toleration was
issued. On the other hand it is contended that Constantine had
already granted religious freedom and that whatever was done at
Milan was by Licinius and was intended only for the eastern
portions of the Empire where Licinius was in control. Whatever
the details, it seems clear that important measures on behalf of
the Christians was taken at Milan and that Constantine was
consistently friendly.
The policy of Constantine was one of toleration. He did not make
Christianity the sole religion of the state. That was to follow
under later Emperors. He continued to support BOTH paganism and
Christianity. In 314, when the cross first appeared on his coins,
it was accompanied by the figures of SOL INVICTUS and MARS
CONSERVATOR. To the end of his days he bore the title of PONTIFEX
MAXIMUS as chief of the pagan state cult.
The subservient Roman Senate followed the long-established custom
and classed him among the gods. He did not persecute the old
faiths.
As time passed, Constantine came out more pronouncedly in favour
of Christianity. Whether he was a Christian from political
motives only or from sincere religious conviction has been hotly
debate. Perhaps he himself did not know. However, it is clear
that he granted to members of the Christian clergy the freedom
from all contributions to the state which had been the privilege
of the priests of other religions which were accorded official
recognition....
Will in favor to the Church were permitted. Christian Sunday was
ordered, placed in the same legal position as the pagan feasts,
and provincial governors were instructed to respect the days in
memory of the martyrs and to honor the festivals of the churches.
The manumission of slaves in churches in the presence of the
bishop and clergy, was legalized. Litigants might bring suit in a
bishop's court and the decision tendered was to be respected by
the civil authorities. Constantine forbade Jews to stone such of
their co-religionists as chose to become Christians. He had his
children instructed in the Christian faith and kept Christian
bishops and clergy in his entourage. He built and enlarged
churches and encourage bishops to do likewise and to call on the
help of civil officials. When he removed head-guarters to
Bayzantium,on the Bosporus, and enlarged that city and renamed it
Constantinople, he built in it many churches. He prohibited the
repair of ruined temples and the erection of new images of the
gods. He forbade any attempt to force Christians to participate
in non-Christian religious ceremonies.
He took an active part in the affairs of the church, thus
establishing a PRECEDENT,which was to be followed by his
successors. The fashion in which he sought to promote Christian
unity by calling the first general council of the Church and
presiding at it will be noted to the next chapter. While
Constantine did not receive baptism until the latteR part of his
life, the deferment of that rite seems not to have been from
indifference to it, but from the conviction, then general, that
it washed away all previous sins and being Unrepeatable, had best
be postponed until as near death as possible.
The CONTINUED GROWTH OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY
UNDER THE SONS OF CONSTANTINE
The three sons of Constantine who followed him successively in
the imperial purple were much more positive furthering the
Christian faith than heir father had been. In 341 the second of
them ordered that pagan sacrifices be abolished in Italy. The
third, Constantius, commanded that the "superstition cease and
the folly of sacrifices be abolished" and removed from the Senate
the statue of Victory which had been placed there by Augustus
after the battle of Actium. He ordered temples closed. Yet of the
pagan rites only sacrifices were forbidden, and processions,
sacred feasts,and initiation to the mysteries still permitted,
presumably continued.
Under this prolonged patronage by the Emperors the Christian
communities grew rapidly. The momentum acquired before
Constantine was accelerated. Many now sought admission to the
Church from other motives than purely religious conviction.
Official favour and even wealth could be hoped for where formerly
persecution, always in the background, tended to give pause...."
END QUOTES
We can note:
1. To the end of his days he bore the title of Pontifix Maximus
as CHIEF priest of the pagan cult - he thus exalting himself
above every god. Rome classed him among the gods.
2. He followed both paganism and a so-called 'Christianity' which
was not the Christianity of the New Testament. He was never truly
converted. He thus spoke AGAINST the true God.
3. He became very rich and wealthy as king of Rome.
4. As time went on, he rejected more and more the pagan cult to
follow his new-found life with the church of Rome. He thus
rejected the god of his fathers.
5. By accepting the Roman Catholic religion, he accepted and
approved of the doctrine of "celibacy" for the clergy -
an unmarried priesthood; thus rejecting the desire for women.
It came later but Constantine adopting the Roman religion was allowing Rome to set doctrine. 6. He puts himself above all gods EXCEPT ONE - the god of the
Catholic faith, which god he honored with gold, silver and
riches. Constantine built and had built many churches. He
supported with riches the church and faith of Rome.
7. He honors the god of 'forces' - a supernatural power; yes,
this power is of Satan. And this is indeed a 'strange' god - the
true God calls it in Rev.17 "MYSTERY Babylon the Great". It is a
church full of strange or mysterious doctrines and practices,
which can be traced back to the original pagan empire of Babylon.
CONSTANTINE, like no other, fits this king of Dan. 11:36-39.
But Constantine was only a TYPE of a YET-TO-COME king of the
resurrected Roman Empire, now forming in Europe. (See the study
on 'The Beasts of Daniel and Revelation') This king is to be
given the power and strength of a 10-nation European end-time
Roman Empire, as Jesus returns.
TEN nations will unite with the "beast" man and the 'FALSE PROPHET."
He, together with a great false miracle-working religious leader, will try to
fight Christ on His return. (Rev.17:12-14; Rev.19:11-20).
You see, Dan.11:35 brings us to the "Time of the End".
Dan.11:36-45 is then yet AHEAD OF US!!
V.40 KING OF THE SOUTH - never changes. It is EGYPT, yesterday,
today, and yet future. But other scriptures say it will be an
Egypt with ALLIES. (See Ezekiel 30:4-5,7) Both Daniel and Ezekiel
name at least Egypt and Ethiopia and Libya as falling together.
"KING OF THE NORTH" - the end-time 10-nation Roman Empire of
Europe - will yet in the future attack and destroy Egypt,
Ethiopia, Libya and other Arab nations (v.40,42,43; Ezek.
30:4-7). This "King of the North" of Daniel is the "King of
Babylon" of Ezekiel. (See text on 'The Beasts of Daniel and
Revelation") The whole chapters of Ezekiel 30, 31 and 32 concern
the destruction of Egypt and her allies, the "King of the South".
V. 41 and 45
These go together. They are talking about the SAME event.
GLORIOUS LAND - same Hebrew word as is in Ch. 8:9 - "Pleasant
Land". History shows that it was the land of Palestine that
fulfilled Ch. 8:9. It is also Palestine spoken of here in Ch.
11:41,45.
TABERNACLE BETWEEN THE SEAS - between the Dead Sea and
Mediterranean Sea - in Jerusalem - the glorious HOLY MOUNTAIN.
The Bible gives us its interpretation as to WHAT is the "Holy
Mountain". In Ch. 9:16 we read: "..Thy city Jerusalem, thy Holy
Mountain ..."
The last Roman Empire of Europe will come down and destroy the
King of the South, and then enter Palestine and set its seat in
Jerusalem, thus causing the "abomination that makes desolate"
spoken of in Dan.12:11, and by Christ in Mat.24:15.
Three nations will escape - Edom (Turkey), Moab (Jordan), and
Ammon (Iraq).
V-44 - an INSET verse. The event here spoken of takes place AFTER
verses 40-43,45. This verse is a prophecy of the power to the
north east of Jerusalem - Russia. Sometime after V.45, Europe
will attack Russia.
These prophecies had a TYPE fulfillment back in the 1930's and
40's. (More on that later.)
NOTICE! Daniel 12:1 goes on to say that AT THAT TIME - when this
Northern power has set its seat in Jerusalem - there will come "a
TIME OF TROUBLE, SUCH AS NEVER WAS SINCE THERE WAS A NATION, EVEN
TO THAT SAME TIME ..."
Jeremiah was inspired to write of this also: "ALAS! FOR THAT DAY
IS GREAT,SO THAT NONE IS LIKE IT: IT IS EVEN THE TIME OF JACOB'S
TROUBLE ..." (Jer.30:7).
MATTHEW 24
Christ spoke about this SAME time of trouble in Mat. 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."
What is the S I G N of this coming time of tribulation?
Christ gives us the answer in Mt.24:15, Lk.21:20 and Mrk. 13:14:
"When you therefore shall see the abomination of desolation
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place..." Mark
says, "...stand where it ought not ..." Luke says and interprets
for us, "And when you see JERUSALEM compassed with armies, then
know that the DESOLATION thereof is nigh."
The 'holy place' - 'stand where it ought not' and that spoken of
by Daniel is the DESOLATION OF JERUSALEM, the holy city of God,
the holy mountain - where this European Roman Empire will
desolate and plant its seat, as Daniel 11 foretells.
When we see this happen, THEN will be a time of trouble on this
earth as there never was or shall be again.
WHO WILL THIS TRIBULATION BE UPON?
Christ gives us the answer:
"...Then let them that be in JUDEA flee to the mountains." Mark
13:14
"Then let them which are in JUDEA flee to the mountains ... for
these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written
may be fulfilled ...for there shall be great distress in the
land, and wrath upon THIS PEOPLE [those in Judah] and they shall
fall by the edge of the sword: and Jerusalem shall be trodden
down of the gentiles ...." (Luke 21:21-24).
The people of Judah - the Jews of Palestine - will be part of
this great tribulation. They shall fall by the sword - by war.
Jeremiah wrote that this GREATEST TIME OF TROUBLE to come on this
earth would be JACOB'S trouble (Jer. 30:7). Jacob was renamed
Israel (Gen. 35:9-10). Israel was to become "...a nation and a
company of nations ..." (Gen. 35:11).
This promise and blessing was passed on to Joseph and his two
sons Ephraim and Manasseh, by the hands of Israel, ".....Bless
the lads and let MY NAME be named on THEM ..... Let them GROW
into a MULTITUDE in the midst of the earth." (Gen.48:16).
Israel then put his right hand on the head of Ephraim and his
left hand upon Manasseh and said, "..... He [Manasseh] shall
become A PEOPLE [singular] and he also shall be great: but truly
his younger brother shall be greater than he and his seed shall
become a MULTITUDE OF NATIONS [many nations - plural]". (Gen.
48:19.)
The tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh have more right to the NAME of
Israel than do any of the other eleven tribes of Jacob. THEY were
to grow TOGETHER in the earth until one became A NATION - A
PEOPLE [singular - one great nation] and the other a COMPANY or
MULTITUDE OF NATIONS [many nations - plural].
Who in all of history - what people - grew together, were of
the same stock, looked alike, had the same culture and language,
and have become A NATION and a COMPANY OF NATIONS? History
testifies there has only been ONE such people who find themselves
as brothers, and who constitute A GREAT SINGLE NATION and a GREAT
COMPANY, or COMMONWEALTH, OF NATIONS.
Who they are should be obvious!
This great tribulation - time of trouble - Jacob's trouble - will
come upon them also, just as it will upon Judah - the Jews.
There is still yet another group that this greatest-ever
tribulation will fall upon:
"But before all these [great signs in heaven - v.11] they shall
lay their hands on you, and persecute you, ..... and you shall be
betrayed both by parents and brethren, and kinfolks, and
friends; and some of you [Christians] shall they cause to be put
to death" (Luke 21:3.2-16).
True followers of Christ will go through this tribulation - they
will come out of it victorious and stand before Christ in
righteousness (Rev. 7:9-15).
Some Christians will have to go through this tribulation, while
others will not:
"For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face
of the whole earth. WATCH you, therefore, and pray always, that
you may be accounted worthy to ESCAPE all these things that shall
come to pass and to stand before the son of man" (Lk. 21:35-36).
John, in Revelations 12, was also given this truth that a part of
God's church will go through this time of world trouble, while
others of His church will be spared and protected.
A woman in prophecy represents a church (Rev.19:6-9;
Eph.5:31-32). Rev.12 is the history of God's true church from its
beginning to the second advent of Christ. Verse 12 - Satan is
cast down from heaven once more, and comes down to take his wrath
out on the true church - knowing his time is short before he will
be chained up (Rev.20:1-3). He persecutes the woman [church]
which brought forth the man who was to rule all nations (Rev.12:
13,4). The woman is protected (Rev.12:14). Where? In heaven? In a
secret rapture? No! In the wilderness. The earth helps the woman
(Rev.12:16). Satan cannot touch this part of God's church, but he
is allowed to make war with the remnant of her seed - with those
who will not escape the great tribulation (v.17).
These are the ones who must go through the tribulation and these
are the ones whom Christ spoke about.
The great tribulation is also a persecution of true saints of
God.
The tribulation will be FIRST and FOREMOST on:
1. True Christians.
2. It will be upon Judah, the Jews of Palestine.
3. And Israel - the nation and company of nations of Ephraim and
Manasseh, together with other Israelite nations.
I said earlier that the last world war of 1939-45 was a TYPE of
the yet-future third world war. It is indeed; but with SOME
differences:
The last world war and the first (1914-18) was perpetrated by
Europe - Germany. So will be the third one - but this time
Germany will be at the head of other nations of Europe.
There were TWO leaders of Europe against the Western
allies in the 1940's war - Mussolini and Hitler. They were
civil-military leaders. There will be TWO leaders of Europe in
the next war - but ONE will be a great miracle working RELIGIOUS
LEADER and the OTHER a CIVIL-MILITARY LEADER. (Rev.17:12-14;
19:11-20).
As Mussolini and his Italian Empire [as he called it], with the
sanction of the religion of Rome, attacked and conquered Ethiopia
in 1935-36, so the coming Empire of Europe [the King of
the North] will attack Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya [the King of the
South] in the future end time.
As Europe [through Germany] attacked the western nations AFTER
Ethiopia had fallen, so this 10-nation Roman Empire will attack
the western nations again, but this time AFTER also entering and
making Jerusalem a desolation and destroying many of the Jews of
Palestine.
The last two leaders failed in their attempt to dominate the
Western world. The coming two leaders will not - they shall
prevail.
As Hitler, AFTER attacking the Western nations, turned and
attacked Russia, so the coming 'Hitler' of Europe will do in the
Third World War. And as Hitler failed to conquer Russia in the
40's, so the Beast power of Europe will fail again. The Eastern
power strike back and the Western and Eastern powers will face
off at each other.
But unless this battle is stopped, the entire earth would
be destroyed (Mt.24:21,22). Christ says it will be stopped for
the elect's sake.
Christ will return as King of Kings to destroy them that destroy
the earth. He will set up His Kingdom that will rule all nations.
He shall be King of the whole earth in that day. There will be
peace and salvation for a thousand years.
...................
Written 1980
DANIEL 12 Authorized (King James) Version
12 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: WE HAVE COME TO THE KING OF THE NORTH DEFEATING THE KING OF THE SOUTH [verses 40-45] and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: JESUS SPOKE ABOUT THIS TIME OF TROUBLE LIKE NO OTHER, IN MATTHEW 24. and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. IS THIS A DOUBLE RESURRECTION?....THE SAINTS AND SOME UNCONVERTED ONES. THERE WAS SOME RESURRECTED AFTER JESUS WAS RESURRECTED; YES IT IS THERE IN THE GOSPELS. 3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. ONES THAT ARE DOING THE WORK OF GOD 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. THAT TIME IS NOW 5 Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. 6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? 7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. IT IS THE SAME TIME AS GIVEN IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION. A TIME, TIMES, AND HALF A TIME IS A YEAR, TWO YEARS, AND HALF A YEAR. GOD'S ORIGINAL YEAR WAS 12 MONTHS AND 30 DAYS TO A MONTH = 1260 DAYS OR YEARS - 42 MONTHS, 3 AND A 1/2 YEARS. 8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. THOSE THAT DO GOD'S COMMANDMENTS WILL KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THE END TIME PROPHECIES - PSALM 111: 10 11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, NOTICE THE WORD SACRIFICE IS NOT IN THE HEBREW. ITALIC WORDS IN THE AUTHORIZED KJV MEANS IT IS NOT IN THE HEBREW. THE DAILY STOPPED WILL BE DAILY LIFE AS WE KNOW IT TODAY, AND GOING TO THE WAILING WALL WILL STOP AS IT WILL COME DOWN, TO FULFILL JESUS PROPHECY THAT NOT ONE STONE OF THE OLD TEMPLE WILL STAND BUT COME DOWN. AND IT IS THE ABOMINATION THAT MAKES DESOLATE. IT IS THIS THAT JESUS WAS REFERRING TO IN MAT. 24; MARK 13; LUKE 21. THE ABOMINATION OF THE LAST AND 7TH RESURRECTED HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE OF EUROPE. THIS BEAST POWER WITH A CHURCH RULING IT IS AN ABOMINATION TO GOD. THE GOSPEL OF LUKE CHAPTER 21 AND VERSES 20, 21 GIVES THE INTERPRETATION. THE KING OF THE NORTH WILL PLACE ITS ARMIES AROUND JERUSALEM AND MAKE IT DESOLATE. there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. MORE DAYS THAN 1260. WHAT THAT IS ALL ABOUT WE ARE NOT TOLD 13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days. DANIEL WILL BE RAISED TO LIFE IN THE FIRST RESURRECTION AT THE END OF THOSE DAYS Keith Hunt
Man of Sin? 2Thes.2 #1 All about this prophecy of Paul's falling away
by
Ralph Woodrow
THE ANTICHRIST "HE WHO LETTETH WILL LET"
"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and by our gathering together unto him... Let no man
deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except
there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be
revealed... and now ye know what witholdeth that he might be
revealed in his time... only he who now letteth will let, until
he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be
revealed" (2 Thess.2:1-8).
Has the man of sin been revealed yet? During World War I, some
believed the Kaiser would be the dreaded man of sin, the
Antichrist. A few years later it was Joseph Stalin. When the New
Deal came into power in the United States, some thought Franklin
Roosevelt was at least the forerunner of Antichrist. And then, of
course, there was Mussolini and Hitler. Of the two, Mussolini was
probably the favorite. A book published in 1940 asked the
question: "Is Mussolini the Antichrist?" and the writer answered:
"He may be. I know of no reason why he should not fit the
description of this terrible man of sin... He is evidently an
atheist." Another writer was more positive in his claims. He said
that Mussolini had fulfilled 49 prophecies concerning Antichrist
Others have thought the Antichrist will be Nimrod, Nero, or a
Roman Emperor resurrected from the dead. Some believe it will be
Judas Iscariot. After comparing John 17:12 with 2 Thess.2:3, one
writer says: "Judas, then, will be the Antichrist." Or, as
another put it: "Antichrist will be Judas come to earth again!"
Some believe that Antichrist will be assassinated and that Satan
will raise him from the dead. A widely known preacher writes:
"The Bible tells how, right in the middle of his rise to power,
Antichrist will be assassinated. The devil will then make his big
move. He will raise Antichrist from the dead in an attempt to
reproduce the Holy Trinity."
Actually, it would take several pages to give an account of the
various ideas that are held today concerning Antichrist. But the
common concept is that he will be an atheistic "superman",
an individual who will come to world-wide political power and
prominence during the last years of this age. This is the
FUTURIST interpretation.
In contrast to the futurist interpretation is what we will call
the FULFILLED interpretation. Those who hold this view believe
that the prophecies concerning the man of sin or Antichrist have
found their fulfillment in the PAPACY - the succession of Popes
that rose to power in Rome following the fall of the Roman
Empire. To some, this interpretation will appear too ridiculous
to even consider, and it will be cast aside immediately. But
before such actions are taken, surely the evidence for this
position should be carefully examined. As we shall notice in more
detail later, such noted men as Wycliff, Huss, Luther, Calvin,
Knox, Zwingli, Tyndale, Foxe, Newton, and Wesley all believed
that the prophecies of the man of sin had found their fulfillment
in the Roman Papacy. Should we not at least inquire why these men
held this view? Who invented the futurist interpretation? And for
what purpose? When all the evidence is in, we do not believe the
fulfilled interpretation will appear as absurd as some may have
thought.
Looking again now at Paul's prophecy regarding the man of sin, we
read these words: "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with
you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth
that he [the man of sin] might be revealed in his time. For the
mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth
[restrains] will let [restrain], until he be taken out of the
way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed" (2 Thess.2:5-8). The
word "let" in this passage is simply an old English word meaning
to hinder or restrain. In this case, the reference is to
something that was hindering or restraining the appearance of the
man of sin.
We notice from the wording of this passage that whatever was
restraining the man of sin from being revealed was not some
thing that was unknown or obscure. Paul KNEW what it was. He
mentioned that the Christians at Thessalonica KNEW what it was.
There was no guess work about it. However, when writing
concerning this restraint, we notice that Paul was careful not to
mention it by name, but simply reminded them of what he taught
when he had been present with them.
What was it that was restraining or hindering the man of sin from
being revealed? According to the teachings that were handed down
by word of mouth to the Christians of the early centuries, it was
the ROMAN EMPIRE under the Caesars, the fall of which would bring
on the man of sin. When Christians were accused of holding this
belief, they did not deny it. Their reply was that they believed
the Empire would fall, but that they did not desire it, for its
fall would bring on the Antichrist who would inflict greater
persecution against them than they had suffered under pagan Rome.
Lactantius, for example, said: "Beseech the God of heaven that
the Roman State might be preserved, lest, more speedily than we
suppose, that hateful tyrant should come."
Justin Martyr in his Apologies to the pagan Roman rulers stated
that the Christians understanding of the time caused them to pray
for the continuance of the restraining Roman Empire, lest the
dreaded times of Antichrist, expected to follow upon its fall,
should overtake them in their day.
Hippalytus believed the breaking up of the fourth Empire, Rome,
would bring on the Antichrist who would persecute the saints.
In his comments on 2 Thess.2, Tertullian pointed out that the
Roman State was the restraining "obstacle" which, by being broken
up would make way for Antichrist. "What is the restraining power?
What but the Roman State, the breaking up of which, by being
scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon [its
own ruins]?"
Cyril of Jerusalem, in the fourth century, speaking of the
prophecy under consideration said: "This, the predicted
Antichrist, will come, when the times of the Roman Empire shall
be fulfilled... Ten kings of the Romans shall arise together...
Among these the eleventh is Antichrist, who, by magical and
wicked artifices, shall seize the Roman power."
Jerome, noted bishop and translator, stated: "He[ Paul] shows
that that which restrains is the Roman Empire; for unless it
shall have been destroyed, and taken out of the midst, according
to the prophet Daniel, Antichrist will not come before that."
Commenting further on 2 Thess.2, he stated that "unless the Roman
Empire be first desolated and Antichrist precede, Christ shall
not come....Let us therefore say what all ecclesiastical writers
have delivered to us, that when the Roman Empire is destroyed,
ten kings will divide the Roman world among themselves, and then
will be revealed the man of sin."
Ambrose also mentioned that the Roman Empire was that which was
standing in the way of the appearance of Antichrist and that
"after the failing or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist would
appear."
Chrysostom stated: "One may naturally enquire, What is that which
withholdeth?" He answered that it was the Roman Empire and that
"when the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he
[Antichrist] shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear
of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but
when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor
to seize upon the government both of man and of God." He spoke
also of how the four empires of Daniel 7 each followed the others
in succession, so the fall of Rome would be followed by
AntiChrist. "As Rome succeeded Greece, so Antichrist is to
succeed Rome."
We see, then, that the testimony of the early church fathers was
that the Roman Empire was that which was standing in the way of
the man of sin being revealed and that its fall would bring on
the Antichrist. That this was the belief of the Christians in the
early centuries is well known by any who have looked into it. The
Expositor's Bible Commentary, for example, says: "There is no
reason to doubt that those fathers of the church are right who
identified it with the Empire of Rome and its sovereign head."
Let us briefly notice what some of the other commentators have
said along this line. "We have the consenting testimony of the
early fathers", says Elliott, "from Irenaeus (130-200 A.D.), the
disciple of the disciple of St.John, down to Chrysostom (347-407)
and Jerome (331-420) to the effect that it was understood to be
the Imperial power ruling and residing at Rome."
After many pages of carefully documented proof for his statement,
Froom says that the "letting" or restraining power impeding the
development of the "man of sin" was interpreted in the early
church as the Roman Empire.
......... 1. Jerome, Commentaria, Bk. 5, chapter 25.
2. Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 463.
3. Porcelli, The Antichrist-His Portrait and History, p.49. 4.
Newton, p. 463.
5. Chrysostom, Homilies, pp. 388, 389.
6. Denny, Commentary on Thessalonians, p.325. 7. Elliott, Horae
Apocalyticae, Bk. 3, p.92.
8. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1, p. 150.
.........
Guinness says: "The early writings of the fathers tell us with
remarkable unanimity that this 'let' or hindrance was the Roman
Empire as governed by the Caesars; and that on the fall of the
Caesars, he [the man of sin] would arise."
The Encyclopedia Britannica says that the power which was
universally believed by the Christians to be that which was
retarding the revelation of the Antichrist was the Roman Empire?
Clarke's Commentary states that the united testimony of the
church leaders of those first centuries was that the restraint
which was to be removed was the Roman Empire.
"The Christian Church in general, all over the world at that
time, regarded the then existing Roman Empire of the Caesars as
the obstacle of which St.Paul had spoken as 'letting' or
'hindering' the appearance of Antichrist upon the scene of the
world."
Is it necessary to say more? We think the evidence is clear.
Understanding that it was the Roman Empire that was to be removed
before the man of sin would come to power, we can now understand
why Paul did not come right out and call the hindrance by name.
To teach that "eternal Rome" could fall from power could have
brought the early Christians into immediate conflict with the
leaders and people of the Empire within which they lived.
Especially careful would Paul be in writing to the Christians at
Thessalonica, for when he had been there with them, unbelieving
Jews had stirred up trouble by saying that Christians were doing
things "contrary to the decrees of Caesar" and that they believed
in "another king, one Jesus" (Acts 17:7). So when writing to the
Thessalonian believers, he found it wise to simply remind them of
what he had taught when he had been present with them.
Jerome said that Paul believed the restraint was the Roman Empire
and that "if he had chosen to say this openly, he would have
foolishly aroused a frenzy of persecution against the
Christians." Chrysostom stated: "Because he [Paul] said this of
the Roman Empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly
and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous
enmities, and useless dangers."
Understanding that the "let" or restraint that was standing in
the way was the Roman Empire and that its fall would bring on the
man of sin, we can now know the TIME when the man of sin rose to
power! We should look not to the future for the appearance
......... 1) Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation, p. 119. 2) Vol. 2, p.
60 (1961 Edition), Article: Antichrist. 3) Note on 2
Thessalonians 2. 4) Tanner, Daniel and Revelation, pp. 188, 189.
5) Jerome, Commentaria, Bk. 5, chapter 25. 6) Chrysostom,
Homilies, p.388, 389.
..........
of the man of sin then, but back into those early centuries to
the time that the Roman Empire fell. But before looking into
history in this connection, there is another point of
identification that we should note.
Looking again at Paul's prophecy (2 Thess.2), we notice that
included within his veiled description is not only the mention of
"what" withholdeth, but also "he" who letteth or restrains
(verses 6,7). "What" is neuter gender; "he" is masculine.
Evidently the reference was to the Roman Empire as "what" and the
Caesar as "he" that would be taken out of the way.
If, then, the Caesar would have to be "taken out of the way"
before the man of sin could come to power, we have a strong
indication that the man of sin would rise to power in Rome. It
could not properly be said that the Caesar was in the way of the
man of sin, unless the Caesar was occupying the place the man of
sin would eventually occupy!
To illustrate, let us suppose we wanted to build a house on a
certain piece of property, but another building was in the way.
Obviously it could not be said that the old building was in the
way - and needed to be taken out of the way - unless it was
occupying the spot where the new house would be built. The old
building would not have to be taken out of the way if the new
house was going to be built on a completely different location!
Likewise, the Roman Caesar could not be in the way - and need to
be "taken out of the way" - unless the place that he occupied
would be the location where the man of sin would come to power!
Therefore, since we have seen that the Roman Caesar was the "he"
that was in the way and would have to be "taken out of the way",
it is definitely implied that the man of sin would rise to power
in the same place that the Caesar ruled: Rome.
On the basis of these things, then, we know WHERE the man of sin
would rise to power and we know WHEN! Where? He would rise to
power in the place that the Caesars ruled at the time Paul wrote
his epistle; that is, Rome. The man of sin would be a Roman
power! When would the man of sin be revealed? Upon the fall of
the Roman Empire (under the rule of the Caesars) the man of sin
would be revealed.
Looking into history then, who was it that followed the Caesars
as rulers of Rome? What power rose up in Rome following the fall
of the Empire? We believe the evidence all points to the PAPACY.
There was no other power that rose up at the time and place
specified by the prophecy.
Barnes has well said: "To any acquainted with the decline and
fall of the Roman Empire, nothing can be more manifest than
the correspondence of the facts in history respecting the rise of
the Papacy, and the statement of the apostle Paul here." (Barnes'
Commentary, p. 1115).
The breaking up of the Roman Empire and the removal of the
Caesars from power in Rome took place over a period of time.
Constantine removed the seat of power from Rome to Constantinople
in A.D.330. This can probably be considered a partial removal of
the restraint that was in the way. Says the historian Flick: "The
removal of the capital of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople
in 330, left the Western Church practically free from imperial
power, to develop its own form of organization. The Bishop of
Rome, in the seat of the Caesars, was now the greatest man in the
West and was soon forced to become political as well as spiritual
head" (Flick, The Rise of the Medieval Church, p. 113). This
point is recognized by Catholic writers also. Henry Cardinal
Manning wrote: "The possession of the pontiffs, commences with
the abandonment of Rome by the emperors" (quoted in The Seer of
Babylon, p. 113).
Finally in 476, the last Western Caesar, Augustulus, was forced
out of office by the Goths. With the fulfillment of these things,
the mighty Roman Empire of the Caesars had passed from the scene
of human history. The restraint was now fully ek mesou, "out of
the way." According to what Paul had written, the stage had now
been cleared for the next scene in the prophetic drama, the rise
to power of the man of sin.
"The mighty Caesars had fallen; Augustus, Domitian, Hadrian,
Diocletian, were gone; even the Constantines and Julians had
passed away. The seat of sovereignty had been removed from Rome
to Constantinople. Goths and Vandals had overthrown the western
empire; the once mighty political structure lay shivered into
broken fragments. The imperial government was slain by the Gothic
sword. The Caesars were no more, and Rome was an actual
desolation. Then slowly on the ruins of old imperial Rome rose
another power and another monarchy, a monarchy of loftier
aspirations and more resistless might, claiming dominion, not
alone over the bodies, but over the consciences and souls of men;
dominion, not only within the limits of the fallen empire, but
throughout the entire world. Higher and higher rose the Papacy,
till in the dark ages all Christendom was subjected to its sway"
(Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation, p. 61).
The fact that the early Christians held the belief that the "let"
or restraint was the Roman Empire presents a problem for those
who hold the futurist interpretation of prophecy. If that which
was holding back the revelation of the man of sin was the Roman
Empire, how could the man of sin be someone who would not appear
until at the very end of the age? Since the Roman Empire fell
many centuries ago, what has been holding back his appearance all
of these centuries since that time?
To admit that the "let" was the Roman Empire is to admit that the
prophecy of the man of sin has found fulfillment in the Pope, for
it was the Papacy that rose up in the place and time designated
by the prophecy. But futurism teaches that the man of sin is some
future individual - someone, in fact, that will not be revealed
until after a supposed "secret rapture"! Consequently, those who
hold the dispensational viewpoint must ignore all of this
evidence that the "let" was the Roman Empire under the Caesars
and substitute a theory that is of modern origin.
Those who hold the dispensational - futurist interpretation
usually suggest a few vague possibilities and then end up saying
that the "restraint" is the Holy Spirit in and through the
Church. The following quotations from dispensational writers are
typical of many: "The hindering influence in this passage is of
course, the ministry of the Holy Spirit in and through the lives
of Christians today. This One who hinders the man of sin must be
the Holy Spirit. At the rapture of the saints, we believe, the
Holy Spirit will be taken out of the way of the man of sin so
that he may be revealed" ( Rice, The Coming Kingdom of Christ, p.125).
This teaching is nothing but an echo from the theory spread by
Scofield that the restrainer "can be no other than the Holy
Spirit in the Church, to be 'taken out of the way'." But as
Oswald Smith has well said concerning the verse under
consideration: "There is no mention of the Holy Spirit at all.
That is a Scofield Bible assumption. The Holy Spirit and the
church remain to the end of the age" (Smith, Tribulation or
Rapture - Which?, p. 8).
We all recognize, of course, that the Holy Spirit within the
Church is a great force against evil in the world, but this was
not the "let" of which Paul spoke. Paul told the Thessalonians
that the day of Christ's coming and our gathering together unto
him could NOT take place until AFTER the man of sin would be
revealed (2 Thess.2:1-3). Surely then, he would not turn right
around in the same chapter and contradict himself by teaching
that the church is the "let" which must be taken out of the way
BEFORE the man of sin would be revealed! This would be the exact
OPPOSITE of what he had just said!
The teaching that the church would be taken out of the world
before the man of sin is revealed is absolutely contrary to what
all Christian teachers and preachers have always taught - until
the last century! Though they may have differed on details, they
all envisioned the Antichrist as a persecuting power against the
true believers - a power that would make war against the saints!
On this they were united. None of them thought of the church as
being absent from the earth during the reign of Antichrist.
We have seen that Paul was careful not to mention the restraint
by name when writing to the Thessalonians. But if the restraint
had been the Holy Spirit or the church, there would have been no
reason for Paul not to mention this in 2 Thess.2. Several times
in his writings to the Christians at Thessalonica, he mentioned
the church (1 Thess.1:1; 2:14; 2 Thess.1:1,4) and he also
mentioned the Holy Spirit (1 Thess.1:5,6; 4:8; 5:19;
2 Thess.2:13).
There is no record of anyone believing that the restraint
mentioned by Paul was the Spirit until the latter half of the
fourth century and we only know of this belief because Chrysostom
rejected it. Concerning this, he wrote: "Some indeed say, the
grace of the Spirit." But he points out that the restraint was
the Roman Empire and could not be the Spirit. "Wherefore? Because
if he [Paul] meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken
obscurely, but plainly."
It should be pointed out that what Chrysostom rejected was a
theory about the restraint being the grace of the Spirit in
connection with spiritual gifts. It had nothing whatsoever to do
with the dispensational idea of the Spirit being taken out of the
world in a secret rapture. The teaching that the Holy Spirit will
be taken out "seems to be of quite modern origin; there is,
apparently, no trace of it in early writings on the subject."
Those who believe that the Holy Spirit will be taken out of this
world are faced with serious problems of interpretation. They
teach that after the church is gone, God will turn to the Jews, a
believing remnant of which will preach the gospel of the kingdom
into all the world. They will be so empowered, some ask us to
believe, that they "will become the mightiest evangelists this
world has ever seen" (Appleman, Antichrist and the Jew, p. 12).
Another writer says: "The Jew in seven years will accomplish more
in world evangelism than the church has done in nineteen
centuries. The greatest revival which has ever been known in
history will be in progress during the tribulation period."
But who, we ask, will so empower these Jews if the Holy Spirit is
taken from the earth? How could they evangelize the world if the
Holy Spirit which convicts and converts is gone? Is there some
other agent more powerful than the Spirit of God?
To hear some tell it, there will be more conversions with the
church gone and the Holy Spirit taken out of the way! They tell
us that millions will be converted within the brief period of
seven years - and so strongly converted that they will become
martyrs! "All over the world will be a turning to God", says one
noted dispensational preacher, "... MILLIONS shall see that they
have been deceived and shall be converted to Jesus Christ and to
full obedience to the true God... it will be a martyr's route to
heaven... These are the Tribulation martyrs. They missed the
Rapture. But at last, their eyes shall be opened."
All of this is supposed to happen with the church gone, the
Antichrist in power, and the Holy Spirit taken out of the way! It
just does not make sense. We have carefully checked the arguments
that are given to explain this glaring discrepancy and have found
them very weak and unconvincing.
We find no proof whatsoever in the scriptures for the belief that
the "let" was the Holy Spirit or the church. On the other hand,
there are very good reasons for believing that the Roman Empire
under the rule of the Caesars was that which was to be taken out
of the way. That is, the Roman Empire would be broken up and fall
- then the man of sin would be revealed in power.
We believe that Paul proved what he taught from the scriptures.
On what passage, then, did he base his conclusions in this
connection? The passage that shows that the rise of Anti-christ
would follow the breaking up of the Roman Empire is found in
Daniel Seven to which we now turn...
............
TO BE CONTINUED
Man of Sin? 2Thes.2 #2
The Great Falling away - who did it?
by
Ralph Woodrow
DANIEL'S PROPHECY - THE LITTLE HORN
In vision, Daniel saw four great beasts which symbolized four
kingdoms which were to rule the earth (Daniel 7).
1. The first beast was like a lion with eagle's wings, but the
wings were to be plucked off (verse 4). Even as the lion among
animals is the king of the forest, so the empire which held first
position in the vision given to Daniel was Babylon. In due time,
its "wings" were plucked off and mighty Babylon fell from its
elevated position.
2. The second beast was like a bear and it had three ribs in its
mouth (verse 5). Even as the bear is less courageous (as well as
less noble) than the lion, the second kingdom, Medo-Persia, was
less in glory compared to Babylon. It fell short of Babylon in
wealth, magnificence, and brilliance. The mention of "three ribs"
in the mouth - between the teeth where a bear crushes its prey -
is possibly a reference to the fact that Medo-Persia crushed the
three provinces that made up the Babylonian kingdom: Babylon,
Lydia, and Egypt.
3. The third beast was like a leopard with four wings and four
heads (verse 6). The third kingdom, the Grecian Empire of
Alexander the Great, was symbolized by the leopard which is noted
for its quick movements and remarkable swiftness by which it
springs upon its prey. Likewise the conquests of Alexander's
kingdom were amazingly rapid. At the age of 32, it is said,
Alexander had conquered the world and wept because there were no
more worlds to conquer.
There were four heads on this leopard beast. Following the death
of Alexander, his kingdom was divided into four parts with four
kings each ruling a part: (1) Cassander ruled over Greece and the
surrounding country, (2) Lysimachus ruled over Asia Minor, (3)
Seleucus ruled over Syria and Babylon, and (4) Ptolemy ruled over
Egypt.
4. The fourth beast that Daniel saw was "dreadful and terrible,
and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured
and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it,
and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and
it had ten horns" (verse 7). The fourth world kingdom was the
Roman Empire. And, as the prophecy said, it was dreadful,
terrible, and strong; it did tear down the whole earth; and it
stands out as diverse from the other empires of history. The
meaning of the ten horns on this beast is explained in verse 24:
"These ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings [or kingdoms]
that shall arise" - Macchiavelli, the Roman historian, described
the Empire as being divided among the various Gothic tribes their
number being ten: Heruli, Suevi, Burgundians, Huns, Ostrogoths,
Visigoths, Vandals, Lombards, Franks, and Anglo-Saxons. These
have ever since been spoken of as the ten kingdoms that rose out
of the Roman Empire.
As the prophecy continues, we find that another horn would rise
up among these ten. "I considered the horns, and, behold, there
came up among them another little horn, before whom there were
three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in
this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking
great things" (verse 8). This "little horn" would make war
against the saints (verse 21) and would think to change times and
laws (verse 25). Altogether there are eight things that we should
notice concerning the little horn.
1. The little horn was to be a ROMAN power. A horn on a beast is
that which grows out of a beast. Since we know the fourth beast
was Roman, so also must the horn be Roman!
Does the Papacy fit this description? Yes. The Papacy rose to
power at the time and place indicated by Bible prophecy. No one
can question that the Papacy is Roman. Its seat is in Rome. Its
very name is ROMAN Catholic, an amazing point of identification
even in our time!
2. The little horn was to be revealed in power among the ten
kingdoms into which the Roman Empire was divided. We have seen
that Rome was divided into ten kingdoms. The Papacy did rise to
power among these ten kingdoms - following the fall of Rome - as
we have seen.
3. The little horn was to pluck up three of the other horns, the
interpretation being that "he shall subdue three kings
[kingdoms]" (Dan.7:24). Did the Papacy subdue three of these ten
kingdoms? Elliott says: "I might cite three that were eradicated
from before the Pope out of the list first given, viz., the
Heruli under Odacer, the Vandals, and the 0strogoths." The Heruli
were
....... 1) In Daniel 7 we find the word "kings" and "kingdoms" used
interchangeably. The prophecy speaks of four kings (verse
17) and goes on to speak of these as four kingdoms (verse
23). There is no contradiction here. If there is a king,
there is of necessity a kingdom.
2. Elliott, Horae Apocalpticae, vol. 3, p. 139.
........
overthrown in 493, the Vandals in 534, and the Ostrogoths in 553.
4. The little horn would rise up among the ten horns (kingdoms),
but would be "diverse" or different than the ten. Has the Papacy
been a kingdom that has been different from other kingdoms that
rose out of the fourth beast? Yes. Other kingdoms have claimed
temporal power, but the Papacy rose up claiming spiritual power
as well. The Papacy is the only government rising from the ruins
of Rome that made such claims. The Papacy has claimed that its
diversity from other kingdoms is as the sun compared to the moon.
Guinness has well put it in these words: "Is not the Papacy
sufficiently diverse from all the rest of the kingdoms of western
Europe to identify it as the little horn? What other ruling
monarch of Christendom ever pretended to apostolic authority, or
ruled men in the name of God? Does the Pope dress in royal robes?
Nay, but in priestly garments. Does he wear a crown? Nay, but a
triple tiara, to show that he reigns in heaven, earth, and hell!
Does he wield a sceptre ? Nay, but a crosier or crook, to show
that he is the good shepherd of the Church. Do his subjects kiss
his hand? Nay, but his toe! Verily this power is 'diverse' from
the rest, both in great things and little. It is small in size,
gigantic in its pretensions:"
5. The little horn was pictured with a MOUTH - "a mouth that
spoke every great things"(verse 20). "He shall speak great words
against the most High" (verse 25). This suggests pride and
arrogance.
By teaching corrupt doctrines, unscriptural doctrines, the Papacy
has dared to speak great things - has made great claims - and so
by doing has spoken against God. IT should be carefully noted
that the prophecy tells what this little horn would DO, not what
he would PROFESS TO DO. He professes to speak the words of God,
to define the doctrines of God; but in reality, he speaks things
that are unscriptural and in some cases even the exact opposite
of what the Bible says.
Much could be said about the great claims that the Popes have
made, but for now we will mention one classic claim - the claim
that all men must be subject to the Roman pontiff in order to be
saved: "All the faithful of Christ by necessity of salvation are
subject to the Roman pontiff, who judges all men... Therefore we
declare, assert, define, and pronounce, that to be subject to the
Roman pontiff is to every human creature altogether necessary
for salvation" (Unam Sanctam, by Boniface VIII).
Thus the Papacy has had a mouth claiming things that no bishop
had ever claimed before. The sentences of the Pope are considered
final; his utterances infallible; his decrees irreformable.
6. The little horn of Daniel's vision "had eyes" and his "look
was more stout than his fellows" (verse 20). A horn on a beast
does not normally possess eyes - thus such symbolism stands out
vividly. This horn would be a power with foresight, intelligence.
With such eyes, it would be a seer.
Does the Papacy fit this? The Pope claims to be the overseer of
the whole world-wide church! He claims to watch over, to shepherd
or pastor, more people than any other leader. His look is more
stout than others and is greatly feared, for he claims to be the
possessor of the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
7. The little horn was to "make war with the saints" and prevail
against them (Dan. 7:21); he would "wear out the saints of the
most High" (verse 25).
The early Christians were persecuted by the Jews, later came the
persecutions under the rule of the pagan Roman Empire. But the
war against the saints that is here described was to be carried
on by a power that would rise out of Rome following the breaking
up of the Empire into ten kingdoms. Looking into history, we find
that century after century of persecution did come upon the
saints by a power that rose out of Rome. That power was the
Papacy - and none other.
Christians were horribly tortured, tested, and tried during those
centuries. Pope Innocent IV issued an official document which
stated that heretics (those who would not bow to the Romish
system) were to be crushed like venomous snakes. His soldiers
were promised property and remission of all their sins if they
killed a heretic! Victims of the Inquisition were stretched and
torn apart on the "rack." Some were crushed and stabbed to death
in the "iron virgin." There was the thumb-screw, an instrument
made for disarticulating the fingers and "Spanish Boots" which
were used to crush the legs and feet. Pinchers were used to tear
out fingernails or were applied red-hot to the sensitive parts of
the body.
Every imaginable method of torture was used that fiendish men
could imagine. Those who wouldn't bow to the Pope's system were
shut up in caves and dungeons, were nailed to trees, tormented
with fires, scalded with oil or burning pitch; melted lead was
poured into their eyes and ears and mouths; they were scalped,
skinned, flayed alive; heads were twisted off and eyes gouged
out; women were defiled, their breasts cut off; babies were
brutally beaten, whipped stabbed, dashed against trees - in front
of their parents - and then thrown to hungry dogs and swine. It
has been estimated that there were fifty million or more
Christians killed during those dark ages by the persecutions that
were promoted by the Papacy.
If such treatment as this, inflicted on generation after
generation, is not the "wearing out of the saints of the most
High", what could be? All other persecutions against the saints
were brief and mild in comparison to those persecutions inflicted
by the Papacy.
Those who hold the futurist interpretation, however, commonly
think of the Antichrist as a super-politician who will drop
highly destructive bombs from jet planes. As one writer says.
Antichrist will "plunge the nations into the last great atomic
war" (De Haan, Will the church Go Through the Tribulation?, .
25).
But this is not what the Bible is talking about here. The
dropping of bombs upon cities would kill people regardless of
whether they were saints or sinners. In fact, this kind of "war"
would kill more sinners than saints, for the simple reason that
there are more sinners. But the "war" of Daniel 7 was not to be
mass destruction of the people as a whole - it was specifically
described as war against the saints!
8. The little horn would "think to change times and laws" (Dan.
7:25). Daniel said that wisdom and might belong to God and that
he is the one that "changeth the times and the seasons" (Dan.
2:21). But here we see that this "little horn" would think to do
things which rightly belong only to God. He would exalt himself
to a place in which he would even dare to meddle with divine
things!
There would not be much significance if he would merely think to
change civil laws - politicians do this every day in their course
of duty. But since the context speaks of how the little horn
would speak words against the "most High", would wear out the
saints of the "most High", it is inferred that the times and laws
which he would seek to change would not only be civil laws, but
divine laws also. This demonstrates the blasphemous character of
the little horn.
As far as human laws, the Papacy has annulled the decrees of
kings and emperors; it has thrust its long arm into the affairs
of the nations; it has brought rulers to its feet in abject
humility. In religious things, the Pope claims infallibility in
pronouncing doctrine. By exalting himself to such a position -
and millions have believed this dogma - it is evident that he has
thought to change divine things. He has instituted the observance
of days for which there is no scriptural basis, has instituted
rituals and rites that were borrowed directly from paganism, and
has set himself up as authority in place of the Bible.
We see, then, that the little horn that would rise out of the
fourth beast - Rome - would be a Roman power, would rise among
the ten kingdoms into which the empire was divided, would pluck
up three of the other kingdoms, would be diverse, would make
great claims, would be a seer, would make war with the saints,
and would think to change times and laws.
Understanding this prophecy, the early Christians knew that the
Roman Empire - the fourth beast - would fall, the fall of which
would bring on the man of sin. And since the man of sin, the
little horn of Daniel 7, would make war against the SAINTS, Paul
concluded that the man of sin would have to come to power BEFORE
the saints are gathered at the Second Coming of Christ!
(2 Thess.2:1-3).
................
TO BE CONTINUED
Man of Sin? 2Thes.2 #3
The last wicked one
by
Ralph Woodrow
PAUL'S PROPHECY - THE MAN OF SIN
Continuing now in Paul's prophecy, we see that he links the man
of sin with a falling away. "That day shall not come, except
there come a FALLING AWAY first, and that man of sin be re-
vealed..." (2 Thess.2:1-3). Therefore, if we can determine when
this falling away occurred and where, we will have another point
of identification regarding the man of sin.
The Greek word that is here translated "falling away" is
'apostasia.' Strong's concordance defines this word as "defection
from the truth." It is from this word that we get our English
word "apostasy." This falling away or apostasy of which Paul
spoke was not to be a falling away from religion into atheism,
but rather a corruption of Christianity through false doctrine.
It would be a departure from the true faith - a departure that
would develop right WITHIN the realm of the Christian church. As
Lenski has said: "This is apostasy. It is, therefore, to be
sought IN the church visible and not OUTSIDE the church, not in
the pagan world, in the general moral decline, in Mohammedanism,
in the French Revolution, in the rise and spread of Masonry, in
Soviet Russia, or in lesser phenomena."
Is the falling away from true Christianity yet to happen at some
future time or has it already happened? Those who are acquainted
with church history know the answer.
The falling away to which Paul referred took place many centuries
ago. The only way the falling away could be future is if
Christianity had remained pure in doctrine and Spirit until now.
This has obviously not been the case.
Originally the New Testament church was filled with truth and
spiritual power. The book of Acts gives an account of those
glorious days. But as time went on, even as the inspired apostles
had warned (Acts 20:29,30; 1 Tim.4:1-3; 2 Peter 2:2,3), there
began to be departures from the true faith. The mystery of
iniquity was at work. Compromises were made with paganism in
order to gain numbers. Finally, what the world recognized as the
"Church" in the fourth and fifth centuries had actually become
the fallen church. And - as is well established in history - this
apostasy cantered in ROME!
The bishop of Rome rose to power claiming to be "Bishop of
bishops" and that all the Christian world should look to him as
head and to ROME as headquarters for the church. This apostasy
has continued through the centuries with a "man" at Rome exalting
himself above all others, claiming divine honours and worship - a
continual reminder that the falling away took place centuries
ago. It is not future, it is FULFILLED!
Newton has well said: "If the apostasy be rightly charged upon
the church of Rome, it follows that the man of sin is the Pope,
not meaning this or that Pope in particular, but the Pope in
general, as the chief head and supporter of this apostasy. The
apostasy produces him and he promotes the apostasy." Or as Barnes
put it: "That his the Pope's rise was preceded by a great
apostasy, or departure from the purity of the simple gospel, as
revealed in the New Testament, cannot reasonably be doubted by
any one acquainted with the history of the church. That he is the
creation or result of that apostasy, is equally clear."
Understanding that the falling away occurred centuries ago and
cantered at Rome, provides more evidence that the Papacy has met
the requirements of the prophecy about the man of sin.
According to Paul, the man of sin was to "exalt himself above
all... in the temple of God" (2 Thess.2:4). It is quite important
that we understand just what Paul meant by his use of the term
temple of God.
Those who hold the dispensational interpretation of prophecy with
its secret rapture, gap theory, etc. think that Paul was speaking
of a future rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem. But a careful
study of every reference that Paul made to the "temple God"
reveals that he NEVER applied this term to the Jewish temple.
The word that is translated "temple" in 2 Thess.2:4 is used many
times by the apostle Paul. The first is Acts 17:24: "God... _.
dwelleth not in temples made with hands." In what kind of temple,
does God now dwell? Looking through the epistles, we find that
Paul always used the expression in reference to BELIEVERS, the
CHURCH - never to a literal building.
"Know ye not that YE are the TEMPLE OF GOD, and that the Spirit
of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the TEMPLE OF GOD, him
shall God destroy; for the TEMPLE OF GOD is holy, which temple YE
are" (1 Cor.3:16,17). In this passage, three times he refers to
Christian believers - the church - as the temple of God.
"What? know ye not that your body is the TEMPLE of the Holy Ghost
which is in you, which ye have of God?"(1 Cor.6:19). Each
believer is as a stone, a living stone, in that great "spiritual
House", "the church of the living God"(1 Peter 2:5; 1 Tim.3:15).
This same truth is seen in 2 Corinthians 6:16: "And what
agreement hath the TEMPLE OF GOD with idols? For YE are the
TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD." Writing to the church at Ephesus, Paul
said: "Ye are built on the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone; in
whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy
TEMPLE in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an
habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph.2:20-22).
None of these references could possibly refer to a literal Jewish
temple in Jerusalem!
Barnes states that Paul's use of the expression "temple of God"
refers to "the Christian church" and that "it is by no means
necessary to understand this of the temple at Jerusalem... The
idea is, that the Antichrist here referred to would present
himself in the midst of the church as claiming the honours due to
God alone... No one can fail to see that the authority claimed by
the Pope of Rome, meets the full force of the language used here
by the apostle." (Barnes' commentary, p. 1114).
When the Bible speaks of the complete, literal temple, the word
"hieron" is used. This word appears 71 times in the New Testament
in reference to the temple at Jerusalem. On the other hand, the
word that Paul used for temple is "naos" which refers not to the
complete, literal temple, but to the holy place, the dwelling of
God. And the dwelling place of God is now the church.
In what sense, then, are we to understand the term as used in 2
Thess.2:4? Since this verse links the "temple of God" with the
falling away, the term must be understood in the sense of
profession. The Church of Rome professes to be the one true
church, but is actually the fallen church, having departed from
the teaching that the church at Rome had originally received.
(cf. Book of Romans).
We see, then, that the man of sin was not to be merely a
political leader, but would claim to be above all others within
the very framework of professing Christianity! How different this
is from the futurist ideas about an atheistic, political superman
of the last days!
The man of sin is mentioned as he that "sitteth" in the temple
of God. His sitting within the church realm "as God" suggests
that he would claim a place of rulership there. The word
"sitteth" is translated from the word "kathizo." The sitting
implies a "seat" in which he would sit. The word translated seat
is "kathedra" which is a related term. From this term we get the
word "Cathedral" which means "the bishop's seat"; also "ex
cathedra", the expression used to describe the Pope's words as he
speaks from his seat officially, such pronouncements being
considered infallible.
Guinness says: "There, in that exalted cathedral position, and
claiming to represent God, the man of sin was to act and abide as
the pretended vicar, but the real antagonist, of Christ,
undermining His authority, abolishing His laws, and oppressing
His people" (Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation, p. 57).
The man of sin is further described as he that "exalteth himself
above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he
as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is
God" (2 Thess.2:4). We understand from this description that the
man of sin would exalt himself in great pride, would make great
claims, would magnify himself above all others.
Similar expressions are found in various ways through the
scriptures. The prince of Tyrus is represented as saying: "I am a
God, I sit in the seat of God" (Ez.28:2). The king of Babylon
being lifted up with pride is represented as saying: "I will
exalt my throne above the stars of God... I will be like the most
High" (Isaiah 14:4,15,14). Concerning a king in Daniel 11:36,37,
it is said that "he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself
above every god... for he shall magnify himself above all."
Another king is said to "magnify [exalt] himself in his heart"
(Dan. 8:25). Concerning Herod, certain ones after hearing his
speech, said: "It is the voice of a god, and not of a man" (Acts
12:21-23). Concerning Edom, Obadiah 4 says: "Though thou exalt
thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the
stars, thence will I bring thee down." Or concerning Capernaum,
Jesus said: "And thou, Capernaum which art exalted unto heaven,
shall be brought down to hell"(Mt. 11:23).
Verses which speak of kings, countries, or cities exalting
themselves unto heaven, exalting themselves above every god,
sitting in the seat of God, being like the most High, etc., are
expressions which convey the meaning of pride and arrogance. In
the case of the man of sin, he would exalt himself above all
others - above all others in the church! That is, he would not
only claim to be "a" leader in the church, but would actually
claim to be "the" leader of the church.
The man of sin would claim to be "AS God", exalting himself as
head of the church - a position that belongs only to the Lord
himself - "showing that he is God." There is no article before
"God" in this case; the meaning is that the man of sin would
claim to be divine. Concerning this passage, Barnes has written:
"This expression would not imply that he actually claimed to be
the true God, but only that he sits in the temple, and manifests
himself AS IF he were God. He claims such honours and such
reverence as the true God WOULD if he should appear in human
form" (Barnes' Commentary, p. 1114 - note on 2 Thes.2).
Have the Popes claimed to be above all THAT is called God, have
they claimed to be AS GOD in the temple of God, and have they
attempted to show that they are DIVINE? The answer is yes!
The Popes have claimed to be above all kings and emperors. They
have claimed not only the rule of the earth, but of heaven and
hell also - these three realms being symbolized in the triple
crown which they wear. They have claimed attributes and titles
which can rightly pertain only to God.
At the coronation of Pope Innocent X, the following words were
addressed to him by a Cardinal who knelt before him: "Most holy
and blessed father! head of the Church, ruler of the world,
to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, whom the
angels in heaven revere, and the gates of hell fear, and all the
world adores, we specially venerate, worship, and adore thee!"
Moreri, a noted historian, wrote: "To make war against the Pope
is to make war against God, seeing the Pope is God and God is the
Pope." Decius said: "The Pope can do all things God can do." Pope
Leo XIII said of himself in 1890: "The supreme teacher in the
Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires,
together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete
submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman
Pontiff, as to God himself." In 1894, he said. "We hold the place
of Almighty God on earth."
On April 30, 1922, in the Vatican throne room before a throng of
Cardinals, bishops, priests, and nuns who fell on their knees
before him, Pope Pius XI in haughty tones said: "You know that
I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the
Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth."
The pagan Caesars were styled, "Our Lord and God." For centuries
the Popes accepted the same title! On the arches raised in honour
of Pope Borgia were the words: "Rome was great under Caesar; now
she is greater: Alexander VI reigns. The former was a man: this
is a god"!
Pope Pius X, when Archbishop of Venice, said: "The Pope is not
only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ
himself hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak?
It is Jesus Christ who speaks."
The following is an extract from the actual wording that has been
used by Popes in making their claims: "The Roman Pontiff judges
all men, but is judged by no one... We declare... to be subject
to the Roman Pontiff is to every creature altogether necessary,
for salvation... That which was spoken of Christ, 'Thou has
subdued all things under his feet' may well seem verified in
me... I have the authority of the King of kings. I am all in all
and above all... I am able to do almost all that God can do...
Wherefore if those things that I do be said not to be done of man
but of God: what can you make me but God?... Wherefore no marvel
if it be in my power to change time and times, to alter and
abrogate laces, to dispense with all things, yea, with the
precepts of Christ; for where Christ biddeth Peter to put up his
sword and admonishes His disciples not to use any outward force
in revenging themselves, so do not I, Pope Nicholas, writing to
the Bishops of France, exhort them to draw out their material
swords?... Wherefore, as I began, so I conclude, commanding,
declaring, and pronouncing, to stand upon necessity of salvation,
for every creature to be subject to me", etc.
The man of sin is referred to as "the son of perdition" (2 Thess.
2:3). This same title was applied to Judas Iscariot - John
17:12). By this duplication of the term, the Holy Spirit is
apparently showing that the man of sin would resemble Judas.
Judas was to outward appearances a bishop and apostle (Acts
1:20,25). Nevertheless, he "was a thief, and had the bag, and
bare what was put therein" (John 12:6). Such things are a picture
of Papal practices, especially during the dark ages. Claiming to
have apostolic authority, the Popes propagated such things as
indulgence selling, prayers for the dead in purgatory, payment
for masses, relic sales, offerings before idols, etc., by which
they enriched themselves. Though Judas had received thirty pieces
of silver to betray Jesus, he approached him in the garden with a
kiss and the words, "Hail Master"? And likewise, the Papacy has
claimed to be Christ's apostle and friend, but has betrayed the
Lord by promoting doctrines and practices which are contrary to
what Christ taught.
The man of sin's rise to power was to be accompanied by claims of
supernatural signs and wonders. "Whose coming is after [according
to) the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying
wonders" (2 Thess.2:9). The rise of the Romish church to a
world-wide system of religion is in itself a wonder, for though
claiming to be the church of Jesus Christ, it has actually
promoted practices and teachings that are the opposite of what
Christ taught. Millions have been deceived by its claims.
A full account of all the miracles which have supposedly happened
within the Romish system would fill volumes. The following are a
few of the claims that have been made:
crucifixes have spoken; images have come down and lit their own
candles; idols have sweat, turned their eyes, moved their hands,
opened their mouths, healed sicknesses, raised the dead, mended
broken bones; souls from purgatory have appeared on lonely roads
and begged that masses be said in their behalf; many have claimed
that the virgin Mary visited them, etc. All of these miracles -
whether supposed, real, or faked - greatly increased the fallen
church.
We see, then, that the man of sin would appear in connection with
the falling away; he would rise to power within the very
framework of Christianity, claiming to be above all others, as
God; and his rise to power would be accompanied with lying signs
and wonders. We have seen the evidence, point by point, that
these things have found their fulfillment in the Papacy.
(Yes, the Church at Rome was in the beginning a very real part of
the body of Christ, a very real part of the true Church of God.
In the second century we have recorded in church history that
Polycarp and Polycrates, went to debate with the bishop of Rome
over the Passover/Easter issue and practice. The bishops of Asia
Minor still help the church of Rome to be part of their
fellowship and part of the true Church of God. And so indeed it
was that the "man of sin" - did come from within the true
fellowship and body of Christ. The bishop of Rome was in the
second century A.D. beginning to fall away from the true word and
teachings and practices of the true Church of God. And so the
prophecy of Paul in 2 Thes 2 came to pass, and the man of sin,
came from within the "temple of God" - the Church of God - Keith
Hunt).
Some object to this interpretation on the basis that Paul spoke
of "the man of sin" and that such wording must refer to one
individual man, not a succession of men. But this is not
necessarily true. For example, "the" is used in the expression,
"the man of God" (2 Tim.3:17) - a reference to a class of men of
a certain character, a succession of similar individuals. Or we
read about "the high priest" (Heb.9:7) - meaning a succession of
high priests.
The church - the long line or succession of believers through the
centuries - is spoken of as "one new man" (Eph. 2:15), but
certainly no one would insist that the church is one man in a
literal sense. The statement about a "woman" called "Babylon the
Great, the Mother of harlots" (Rev.17) is not taken to mean one
literal woman, nor is the "woman clothed with the sun" (Rev.12)
thought of as a literal woman. A single beast in prophecy often
represents a whole empire or kingdom in all its changes and
revolutions from beginning to end. The four beasts of Daniel 7
are mentioned as four kings, yet the meaning is not limited to
individual kings, for each of these empires referred to included
a succession of rulers.
Gramatically, the expression "the man of sin" could mean either
an individual or a succession of similar individuals. The use of
the singular expression neither asserted nor excluded a dynastic
meaning.
However, there was a strong hint that such could be a succession
of men, for since "he that letteth" was a line or succession of
Caesars, it would not be inconsistent to believe that "he that
sitteth" would also be a succession of men.
It has been said that prophecy is a wonderful combination of the
clear and the obscure; enough to show the hand of God, but not
enough to make fatalists of the readers; enough to prove the
message to have been from God, but not enough to enable man to
know all the details of how that purpose is to be realized. We
believe that such has been the case here.
Since the man of sin was to come to power upon the fall of the
Roman Empire, and would not be destroyed until the Lord's coming,
it is evident that one individual man could not be meant. Such
requires a succession of men. Nevertheless, the idea of ONE MAN
is not actually eliminated by this interpretation, for there is
only one man at a time who occupies the Papal office.....
Rome did fall, but it was a decline and fall - taking place over
a period of years. The rise of the Papacy was also gradual, many
years passing before it met all the requirements of the
prophecy. With its rise to power, darkness covered the earth, and
very little preaching was done on prophecy. But when the light of
the Reformation began to shine through, the study of prophecy was
revived. People began to re-examine things. They knew Rome had
fallen and had been divided into ten kingdoms. They could now see
that the power that rose up in Rome which thought to change laws,
wore out the saints, and made great claims, was the Papacy....
.............
End of study by Ralph Woodrow
END NOTE by Keith Hunt
Realizing that the church at Rome, into the second century was
still regarded by the bishops of Asia Minor as part of the
"church" of Christ, makes then full sense to understand that Paul
was prophesying that a large and very significant "falling away"
would come to the "church" the Temple of God, after the
constraining power of the civil Roman Empire had come to an end
or had been "taken away." God was working it all out according to
His time plan for the restraining power of the Empire of Rome to
be taken away, and then would come the panicle of the falling
away in the Church of God, with the rise of the full Papal force
of the vicar or bishop of Rome - who became known as the Pope.
THERE IS ONE LARGE DIFFERENCE I WOULD HAVE WITH MR.WOODROW
And that is that I fully BELIEVE THERE WILL BE A **ONE** MAN OF
SIN, A **FALSE PROPHET,** OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION, THAT WILL
COME ON THE WORLD SCENE, FOR ESPECIALLY THE LAST THREE AND ONE
HALF YEARS OF THIS AGE, BEFORE JESUS RETURNS IN POWER AND GLORY.
2 THES.2:8 CLEARLY TELLS US THAT AT JESUS' COMING, A MAN OF SIN,
"THAT WICKED" SHALL BE DESTROYED BY THE SPIRIT OF HIS MOUTH AND
BY THE BRIGHTNESS OF HIS COMING. THIS VERSE THEN GOES WITH
REVELATION 19:20.
THE MAN OF SIN AT THE END OF THIS AGE WILL INDEED BE IN THE PAPAL
OFFICE OF THE POPE OF THE BABYLON WOMAN CHURCH, WHICH NEARLY ALL
THE PROTESTANT BIBLE COMMENTARIES SINCE THE REFORMATION, HAVE
DECLARED TO BE THE PAPACY.
...............
MESSIAH COMING TO HIS TEMPLE
The Coming Messenger3 “Behold, I send My messenger,
And he will prepare the way before Me.
And the Lord, whom you seek,
Will suddenly come to His temple,
Even the Messenger of the covenant,
In whom you delight.
Behold, He is coming,”
Says the Lord of hosts. 2 “But who can endure the day of His coming?
And who can stand when He appears?
For He is like a refiner’s fire
And like launderers’ soap.
3 He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver;
He will purify the sons of Levi,
And purge them as gold and silver,
That they may offer to the Lord
An offering in righteousness. 4 “Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem
Will be pleasant to the Lord,
As in the days of old,
As in former years.
5 And I will come near you for judgment;
I will be a swift witness
Against sorcerers,
Against adulterers,
Against perjurers,
Against those who exploit wage earners and widows and orphans,
And against those who turn away an alien—
Because they do not fear Me,”
Says the Lord of hosts.
THIS PROPHECY DID HAVE A FIRST FULFILMENT BY JOHN THE BAPTIST. YET FROM THE CONTEX THERE WILL BE A SECOND FULFILMENT, BEFORE THE COMING OF CHRIST IN GLORY AND POWER AND MIGHTY IN JUDGMENT OF THE RIGHTEOUS AND THE SINNERS. IT IS DURING THE SECOND COVENANT. SO WHO IS THE LORD'S TEMPLE WHEN HE COMES? THE NEW COVENANT MAKES IT PLAIN----
2 Corinthians 6
6 14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.”
THE ONLY TEMPLE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT GOD RECOGNIZES IS THE TEMPLE OF SAINTS, HIS CHILDREN. THE APOSTLE PAUL REPEATED IT MANY TIMES THAT CHRISTIANS WERE THE TEMPLE OF GOD.
Keith Hunt
Elijah Coming Before Christ!!
by W.H.Vobes
From "Thy Kingdom Come" - March 2014 - a publication of the Association of the Covenant People, Burnaby, B.C. Canada.
"I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord; and he shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Malachi 4:5-6)
Why has this Vital Prophecy of Malachi, the greatest of Prophecies, second only of importance to the Return of Jesus Christ, been so neglected, so little spoken of or written about?
(One very good reason is what Jesus said about the end time coming of the Elijah in Matthew 17:9-13. Jesus said the Elijah had come, in verse 13 the disciples understood Jesus as meaning John the Baptist. But notice verse 11. Jesus knew the prophecy was dual; it also had an end of this age meaning. And the Elijah would "restore all things." You do not hear about this prophecy because 99.9 percent of Christians do not think there is any need to "restore all things." They think everything is just fine, with their theology, and everyone "gets to heaven" in different ways - Keith Hunt)
Surely these words are plain enough for the most simple mind to understand, yet there are many Christians in the world and in our own Israel Truth organizations today that believe and teach that this prophecy was fulfilled in John the Baptist, (in the Spirit and Power of Elijah).
(Yes they think it is a prophecy already fulfilled, and will not be for the end times as clearly shown by Malachi - before the coming of the "great and dreadful day of the Lord." It is simple to understand, IF you have the mind of a child. Remember Jesus saying that unless you become as little children you cannot enter the Kingdom of God - Keith Hunt)
John the Baptist was indeed the Forerunner and Herald of Christ's First Coming, our Saviour who laid down His life for the Redemption of Israel. But Elijah the Prophet is to come as Christ's Herald at His Second Coming, as The King of Glory. Furthermore the missions of John and Elijah are entirely different, John was to pave the way for Christ's short ministry among His Own People, and the road to Calvary for the Suffering Messiah. Elijah's mission prior to Our Lord's Second Advent is to lead Israel, God's Servant Nation, back to God, to prepare a People to meet their King. Elijah's mission can be said to be twofold, first as Leader of the Nation, and secondly as Administrator to proclaim the Law of the Lord to the people, as Malachi puts it, "the turning of the hearts of the fathers and the children."
(Nope....the Elijah to come will NOT be the leader of any nation, just as John the Baptist was not, and just as the original Elijah was not. His coming per se has nothing to do with leading "Israel" back to God. It is all about exactly what the original Elijah and John the Baptist did.... teaching the truths of God's word and calling people to REPENT of sin and finding the way to true Salvation - Keith Hunt)
Let us reason together and use our own common sense that God has given us. Is there a mortal man in the whole House of Israel that could accomplish the stupendous task that had fallen upon Elijah? A man after God's own heart. Can you think of any leader in the western Christian nations, or any noted theologian for that matter, qualified to take complete control of an Israel nation during the Period of Transition, from the abolition of the old order of things to the restoration of a New Order? Not exactly a New Order, God's Laws are eternal. They existed before the World began and exist today but we do not obey them. Therefore we and the whole of Mankind suffer.
(TRUE there is no leader of any nation, that will fulfill this prophecy. It is not some "statesman" to look for. And it is not any man within 99.9 percent of popular Christianity either - Keith Hunt)
When we do turn to the Lord and obey His laws we shall experience a prosperity beyond our wildest dreams, and who would know more about the Laws of God than Elijah, who was schooled by the Spirit in the days of Ancient Israel. Let us give God's Word our profound thought and study. ■
YES YOU NEED TO GIVE SERIOUS THOUGHT TO THIS PROPHECY, FOR THE END TIME ELIJAH WILL NOT BE LIKED BY 99.9 PERCENT OF CHRISTIANITY. HE WILL BE RESTORING ALL THE TRUTHS OF GOD; HE WILL BE PROCLAIMING IT LOUD AND CLEAR, AS JOHN THE BAPTIST DID, AND WAS DISLIKED AND HATED BY THE POPULAR RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR PEOPLE OF HIS DAY.
AND ONE LAST THING ABOUT THIS END TIME PROPHECY, 99.9 PERCENT OF PEOPLE WILL NOT RECOGNIZE WHO THE END TIME ELIJAH IS, JUST AS THEY DID NOT RECOGNIZE JOHN THE BAPTIST FULFILLING THIS PROPHECY. EVEN JESUS HAD TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO HIS FOLLOWERS AS SHOWN IN MAT.17:13.
HE THAT HAS AN EAR TO HEAR WITH SHOULD HEAR!
Keith Hunt
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment