[Biblestudent]

What do you think of the recent "Mid-week Rapture" view? It seems akin to the "Mid-Tribulation Rapture" view. Is the Tribulation period seven years, or only the last 3 1/2 years should be termed "Tribulation period"?

The whole seven years is the Tribulation period, the time of Jacob's trouble (Jeremiah 30:7). Jesus and John (in Revelation) both refer to the last 3 1/2 years as the Great Tribulation. All seven years are the wrath of God, not just the last half; therefore the church must be raptured out before all seven years, not just at the midpoint. If you compare Isaiah 13 and Luke 21, you will see the descriptions are the same - and Isaiah makes it very clear that this time is a time of God's wrath, where He is pouring out His indignation.

Originally Posted by jerry

The whole seven years is the Tribulation period, the time of Jacob's trouble (Jeremiah 30:7). Jesus and John (in Revelation) both refer to the last 3 1/2 years as the Great Tribulation. All seven years are the wrath of God, not just the last half; therefore the church must be raptured out before all seven years, not just at the midpoint. If you compare Isaiah 13 and Luke 21, you will see the descriptions are the same - and Isaiah makes it very clear that this time is a time of God's wrath, where He is pouring out His indignation.

I have a whole different view, but won't give it unless I have permission.

I will hold my peace.

Peace>>>AJ

[Debau]

Originally Posted by look3467

I have a whole different view, but won't give it unless I have permission.

Go for it AJ! Maybe it will shed some light on your other beliefs which have me stymied.

.

Has to do with this verse:
Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The one week is as one day divided by 2 is 3-1/2 days each.
The first half of the week is as the night(Darkness) and the second half is as the day. (light) or as the two witnesses in Revelation.

Prior to Christ the world was in darkness, and after the midweek entrance, Christ's light came into the world.

The same day is as like four beasts with six wings, as in 4-6hr periods of the day.
1. period= Jesus at the last supper
2. period=Jesus receiving the sins of the world at the garden
3. Is Jesus being judged and sentenced
4. Sentence carried out.

The same day is as like the 24 elders= a 24 hour day.

Four God doubles twice the thing before He brings it to pass.

So you have 3 different pictures of the week of the same day.

1st picture is the day divided by 4
2nd picture is the same day divided by 2
3rd picture is the same day but as a whole day.

If you count those divisions, you will arrive at 7, or as 7 days of the week.

The significance of this view is that Christ came to recreate a new heaven and a new earth in one day.

This was the battle that Jesus had to endure to the end in order to gain our salvation.

Revelation then is all about Jesus conquering death and hell.

Perhaps this is too far out of a view, but I can tell you is that based on all my studies, all the books written about the end time scenarios, this view does not even come close to be answered.

Where as the bible gives ample clues to that view being the most correct. In my opinion.

This view would require you to place your standard views aside for a bit to look into it, otherwise, you will not be able to see it.

In the middle of the week the sacrifices ceased why? Because Jesus became the once and for all sacrifices of which no other is needed.

There's allot more, but this is just a short introduction.

Please let me say this, that the basic foundation which is Jesus Christ, is my solid foundation and from it, I am firmly anchored.

The one who will stop the sacrifices and will defile the temple is of the people that destroyed Jerusalem. That was not Jesus, that will be the Antichrist, from the revived Roman Empire.

Daniel 9:26-27 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Jesus was obviously not referring to Himself when He quoted this passage:

Matthew 24:15-21 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

The only thing Look3476 said that I could agree with (or understand, for that matter) was that it was Jesus' sacrifice that cut off the temple sacrifices and was the reason the temple was completely destroyed some 40 years later.

That doesn't mean that the prophecies we are now trying to understand couldn't involve the restored temple, though, and we know that preparations are being made in Israel for that to happen.

HOWEVER, the positive light in which this expected restored temple is regarded by many has always seemed very much out of line with the Bible to me, because the temple itself is an abomination now that its function has been completely fulfilled by Christ. That is why it was destroyed. So if it IS restored it cannot be regarded as a holy place.

In fact, it just occurred to me that the restored temple itself could be the "abomination of desolation," as its existence and use would deny the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, being nothing but the Old Testament type of Christ which Christ fulfilled, so you could say it is usurping the rightful place of Christ. An abomination standing in the holy place.

In any case, the temple can't be defiled as Jerry goes on to say:

Originally Posted by Jerry

The one who will stop the sacrifices and will defile the temple is of the people that destroyed Jerusalem. That was not Jesus, that will be the Antichrist, from the revived Roman Empire.

. . . because it IS already defiled by even existing at all, by sacrificing animals at all, if it ever gets to that point.

A temple is not an abomination in itself - or there would be no temple during the Millenium, which Ezekiel gives pretty detailed info on.

Look at parallel passages. In other places in Daniel it refers to Antiochus Epiphanes who does the same thing as the Antichrist will do - Antiochus was the type, the Antichrist was the antitype (ie. the fulfillment). See Daniel 8 and 11.

Daniel 8:11-14 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

This is the Antichrist, and it is yet future - this is what Jesus was referring to:

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 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, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

What this passage teaches is that the Antichrist will defile the holy of holies (which is what the word for temple means here, the inner sanctuary of the temple). Like Antiochus already did, he will defile the holy place with an idol (according to Revelation 13 it will be an idol of himself, unlike Antiochus who defiled the OT temple with a pig).

A temple is not an abomination in itself - or there would be no temple during the Millenium, which Ezekiel gives pretty detailed info on.

You'll have to show me that. I am being stretched quite a bit in this discussion but it's probably a good thing because it makes me check scripture and think things through. BUT I know of no temple of God any more but the one built without hands, the very people of God ourselves, each of us being a stone of that temple built by Christ.

Look at parallel passages. In other places in Daniel it refers to Antiochus Epiphanes who does the same thing as the Antichrist will do - Antiochus was the type, the Antichrist was the antitype (ie. the fulfillment). See Daniel 8 and 11.

Yes, I understand Antiochus to have been a type of the Antichrist, and I've been expecting the final Antichrist to come and fulfill the Daniel scripture even more perfectly, but it just doesn't seem right to call a restored temple a holy place when it was never meant to be anything but a type of Christ, and its function has been completely fulfilled in His perfect sacrifice. That means we would have to look for a different kind of fulfillment perhaps, OR the literal idea of the Antichrist's placing himself in the restored temple as God could fit if the language is understood from the unbelieving Jewish point of view. But it would be a mistake for a Christian to regard a restored temple and especially restored animal sacrifices as anything but an abomination to God, quite apart from the Antichrist's doings in it.

Daniel 8:11-14 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

This is the Antichrist, and it is yet future

I agree, but that passage about the daily sacrifice is particularly hard to understand. I need to study it.

- this is what Jesus was referring to:

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 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, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

What this passage teaches is that the Antichrist will defile the holy of holies (which is what the word for temple means here, the inner sanctuary of the temple). Like Antiochus already did, he will defile the holy place with an idol (according to Revelation 13 it will be an idol of himself, unlike Antiochus who defiled the OT temple with a pig).

Yes, I understand that is the usual teaching about these things, which I also learned at one time, but I now have a problem with the very idea of a restored temple, as we know it was a type of Christ and that it was destroyed because He is now our perfect sacrifice. In the time of Antiochus and the Maccabees Christ had not yet come, but He has now come and any animal sacrifice done now would be a stench in the nostrils of God -- so for such sacrifices to stop couldn't be an offense to God. I do not know how to put all this together, but the usual understanding just doesn't work as is.

Actually I tend to read that about His sitting in the temple of God shewing himself that He is God to refer to the papacy, and particularly the last pope who will probably be the next, who puts himself in the place of God. That makes the "temple" have some other meaning than the usual though.

Why would the references to Antiochus defiling the temple be literal, yet the ones about the Antichrist doing so be figurative - when they are BOTH found in Daniel?

Have you read Ezekiel? Chapters 40 on describe the temple that will be built by the Lord or His people in the Millenium. This is God's inspired account. There is no way a Jewish temple in itself is evil - perhaps what is done in it might be.

Revelation 11:1-2 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Why would God tell John to measure the Tribulational temple, if there were no literal temple? And you keep making statements about how could that temple be holy? Who said it was - not the Bible. The holy place and holy of holies refer to places within the temple, not necessarily to its state. Obviously when a temple is defiled, it is no more holy. That is why Daniel refers to the Jews cleansing the temple after Antiochus' defiling of it. There is no reference to the temple being cleansed after the Antichrist defiles it - which could indicate the rebuilding of it prior to the return of Christ is not endorsed by God. However, God doesn't have to approve of it to foretell it happening.