Revelation: A Cyclical View

Have you considered that the battle in Rev 20, Rev 19, Rev 16 and Ez 39 is all the same battle at the end of the age? They all use similar language

^ Hi @Slimsumo ,

As a pre-tribber [me], I believe:

--Revelation 19:19,21 / 16:14-16 / 20:5 aligns with PARTS of Ezekiel 38-39 [not with Rv20:8-10 (see below)], which also corresponds with the FIRST of the TWO "PUNISH" words of Isaiah 24:21-22a[,23];

... which TWO "PUNISH" words in Isaiah 24:21, 22a[,23] are SEPARATED by "TIME" (in that passage)--the SECOND "PUNISH" word aligning with the LATER "GWTj" point in the chronology (Rv20:8-10), following the "TIME" span which intervenes between the two.






Isa24 -

21And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD SHALL PUNISH [1] the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.

22And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days [the "TIME" spans intervening] shall they be visited/PUNISHED [2].

23Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.












Consider also that Rev19:15b says (at that time-slot): "[And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations:] and he shall [future tense] rule them [the nations] with a rod of iron: ..." (This is "future tense" at this point because the earthly Millennial Kingdom age ['the age [singular] to come' Matt12:32] is what FOLLOWS this point in the chronology.)


[note: "rule" is the same Greek word translated "feed" in Rev7:17 (compare Isa49:10--an earthly Millennial Kingdom passage)--said re: the "a great multitude... of all the nations" coming out of "the GREAT tribulation" (i.e. 2nd half); and "rod" is the same Greek word as "sceptre" in Heb1:8--"and unto the Son: 'Thy throne, O God, is to the age [singular] of the age [singular]; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy reign [/kingdom];"]

They aren't the same battle. The one in Rev 19 takes place at a different location than the one in Rev 20 and while 2 armies meet in Rev 19, only one army is present in Rev 20.

lol, ok. Well I’m glad to hear you have never stated anything that is incorrect. Apparently that is the way we judge false teachers these days. Smh

Thanks for the links. I did look at the information. I do think it‘s important to recognize that the opponents to this view of the origin of the rapture concept are Dispensational theologians…

“For these and other reasons, dispensational scholars consider MacPherson's alleged connection to dispensationalism as untenable.”

Of course Dispensational scholars are going to try to find reasons why this certainly couldn’t be the case…but that doesnt mean there isn’t truth to it. Even if the original vision was in reference to a post-tribulation account does not mean that the message didn’t influence Darby. Also, I find the argument that Darby certainly wouldn’t have used a charismatic source to be a bit suspect.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is this: No one in church history had ever conceived of a “secret rapture” or had interpreted Revelation in this manner until the 1800s. In the 1800s, some strange concepts like this began to arise…a key early source of a “secret rapture” was from Margaret McDonald which was later found in Darby’s theology. So it’s either an amazingly weird coincidence that this concept started from two independent sources from the same location at the exact same time in history…or one person utilized SOME information from another source.

Finally, I dont think the “post-tribulation” nature of McDonald’s “vision” matters at all. Just because her rendition of her vision was a post-trib account doesn’t mean that Darby couldn’t incorporate the concept into a pre-trib account.

So, in sum, no one in the Church was interpreting the Second Coming as a “secret” event seen only by believers until Margaret MacDonald and Darby entered the scene. Regardless of whether one imagined it as a post-trib event or pre-trib event matters little. The point my reference made was in regard to the origin of the “secret rapture” and not the origin of Pre-Trib Premillennial Dispensational Theology.

Hurray! We agree on yet another point!



____________

The battle of Armageddon (at the time of Christ's Second Coming to the earth, Rev19) indeed takes place at "the end [singular] of the age [singular]" ("the end [singular] of the age [singular]" Matt24:3 / Matt13:24,30,39,40,49-50); after which, "the age [singular] to come" (Matt12:32) will commence (i.e. the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age).

At the end of the MK age, then the Rev20:8-10 event takes place (distinct from the earlier one). At least, that is Satan's intention / aim (once he is "loosed out of his prison" after the 1000 yrs are concluded).



[Satan's intention / aim: "to deceive the nations..." (and) "to gather them together to battle" per v.8]

Columba Graham Flegg in 'Gathered Under Apostles' A Study of the Catholic Apostolic Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), pg 436, writes,

"The later Powerscourt Conferences were dominated by the new sect. The Brethren took a futurist view of the Apocalypse, attacking particularly the interpretation of prophetic 'days' as 'years' , so important for all historicists, including the Catholic Apostolics. . . . Darby introduced the concept of a secret rapture to take place 'at any moment' , a belief which subsequently became one of the chief hallmarks of Brethren eschatology. He also taught that the 'true' Church was invisible and spiritual. Both these ideas were in sharp contrast to Catholic Apostolic teaching, . . . There were thus very significant differences between the two eschatologies, and attempts to see any direct influence of one upon the other seem unlikely to succeed- they had a number of common roots, but are much more notable for their points of disagreement. Several writers [referring specifically to MacPherson (bracketed comment by T.Ice)] have attempted to trace Darby's secret rapture theory to a prophetic statement associated with Irving, but their arguments do not stand up to serious criticism."





[note: Irving was an Historicist, not a pre-trib-rapture adherent]

____________

On another note: Over a hundred years prior to Darby, another writer clearly DISTINGUISHED [time-wise] between our Rapture and Christ's Second Coming to the earth... he wrote this around 1744 (if memory serves). He believed the rapture precedes the second coming by 3.5 yrs. So, no... Darby certainly was NOT the first to distinguish these two [events], time-wise...



Check out Post #2594 - https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4568508

I appreciate the comments and research. However, I must say I am always a bit skeptical of an author who doesn’t actually provide the material to defend the point they are trying to make. Saying, “but their arguments do not stand up to serious criticism” seems like a way to dismiss a point without providing any of the actual arguments. Perhaps they do in the context of what they are writing. However, from what I have seen reading the posts provided, the primary arguments against Darby drawing his ideas about a secret rapture from MacPherson are these…

1. Darby wouldn’t have used charismatic visions because he viewed them as “demonic.”
2. The vision of the secret rapture is a post trib vision and Darby’s eschatology is pre-trib.

So, perhaps this is true and Darby‘s views developed just shortly later and independently of this curiously similar concept in the same area that was a key characteristic of both eschatologies. However, I just dont think either argument is very solid. Darby certainly could have used this material even though it was from a theological background he wasn’t fond of and he certainly could have read the concept and thought that it would fit well in his pre-trib eschatology. People incorporate and slightly alter ideas all the time from other sources that don’t always exactly line up with their theological preferences. To suggest that Darby would have ONLY allowed pre-trib and brethren theological views to shape every view he ever had or developed seems untenable to me and not a ”serious criticism” regarding the ultimate source of his secret rapture idea.

Im curious if you can find the source for the earlier secret rapture concept. I’d like to read about it if you can track it down! Thank you

That is in fact the case. If I do not have Scripture properly interpreted, I make sure that I do. I have invested time and effort in studying the Word of God (without reference to man-made teachings or commentaries). So can every believer. We have the Holy Spirit to teach us and guide us into all truth.

Must be a good feeling to know that when you arent interpreting something properly, you are able to self-correct and make sure you know only the truth and all your interpretations are 100% true.

By the way, I’d be careful denigrating “man made” commentaries and teaching sources. Last I checked, the Holy Spirit gives gifts to people other than yourself, and is quite likely that God uses other teachers to bless and instruct His church. But, I guess you dont need anyone else and the Spirit has provided you with all the gifts and the ability to be sure that you are 100% correct…and when you aren’t, you will become self aware of your own misinterpretation instantly so that you can immediately correct yourself.

Pretty prideful position if you ask me to think that you are 100% accurate on all your interpretations and you dont need anyone else but yourself to provide all the truth you need. Yikes.

Another thing (or two) about it, though, is that Darby came to his conclusions...

--three or so years PRIOR TO her supposed "vision";

--and his OWN claim is that he came to this conclusion (in part) by what he himself read in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2


= )

JFYI, the term (itself) "SECRET rapture" originated from E. Irving (as I understand it--some say this is the case)... who was an Historicist (NOT a "pre-tribber").

So some claim that Darby took the idea from him.

Well according to the “eye-and-ear witness,” Robert Norton M.D who preserved her handwritten account of her rapture revelation in two of his books, and said it was “the first time anyone ever split the second coming into two distinct parts, or stages.”

So, if you can provide proof that Darby wrote that the second coming would be split in two distinct parts prior to 1830 then I will concede the point. I have not seen anything written by Darby prior to that time that proves this to be the case. But I am willing to stand corrected.

I have the earliest source:

The idea of a pretrib or "at any moment" coming/rapture existed back in Paul's day due to people misunderstanding something he wrote.

1Th 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.

He shouldn't even have to speak of these things because he would have told them in person when he was with them but for some reason he decides to re-tell them this:

1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.


This is it. The idea that Christ could come suddenly without any warning before the tribulation and Antichrist etc is what started the Pre-trib theory. This one sentence will be misunderstood and the idea that Christ could come at any time, even before the tribulation happens, is born. The facts are that Christ cannot and will not just suddenly appear because there are major events that have to take place first before he arrives but those who are unsaved and spiritually blind won't know this and so the second coming will surprise them without warning as a thief in the night but not those who are awake and watching for the right signs.


1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
1Th 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.


And this is the part that was missed or ignored. Christ only comes suddenly and without any warning to those who are deceived and in spiritual darkness, and are worshiping a false god in the tribulation. Christ's actual appearance will be sudden and shocking to them! But not to us!


1Th 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
1Th 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
1Th 5:7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night



So the confusion about Christ appearing suddenly at any moment reached Paul and he wrote a second letter to explain what he meant in the first one!


2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

He is saying DO NOT BE WORRIED THAT CHRIST CAN JUST SUDDENLY RETURN AND SURPRISE YOU!

Look at his words:

1. by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ

That is the second coming!

2. and by our gathering together unto him

That is the rapture!

3. that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Don't be worried that the second coming and the rapture "is at hand" meaning they could happen at any moment instead of after the tribulation as Christ said in the gospels.



2Th_2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Some people think "at hand" means happened already in the past but that isn't what it means.

"at hand" is used elsewhere where the meaning is clearer:

Mat 26:18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

Of course that time had not come already in the past. It was near...same in 2 Thess where people thought the second coming was near. They did not think it had already happened. There would literally be no reason to think they missed the second coming given all of the major events that happen that day. No one will be here during the second coming and not realize it had happened due to the absolute change to the world and the changes to the lives of all peoples.



"at hand" means something that is near, not something that had already happened. It is the same when Paul wrote it. The Thess's thought Paul was saying Jesus could come as a thief in the night but he only meant that in regard to the unsaved and blinded...not the Christian watchmen.

G1764
e???´st?µ?
eniste¯mi
en-is'-tay-mee
From G1722 and G2476; to place on hand, that is, (reflexively) impend , (participle) be instant: - come, be at hand, present.
Total KJV occurrences: 7

The word can mean something present or something near:

im·pend
/im'pend/

verb

1. (of an event regarded as threatening or significant) be about to happen : "it seemed certain that some great trial of strength impended between the opponents"

Barnes:

The phrase “at hand,” means near. Grotius supposes that it denotes that same year, and refers for proof to Rom_8:38; 1Co_3:22; Gal_1:4. Heb_9:9. If so, the attempt to fix the day was an early indication of the desire to determine the very time of his appearing - a disposition which has been so common since, and which has led into so many sad mistakes.

Gill:

as that the day of Christ is at hand; or is at this instant just now coming on; as if it would be within that year, in some certain month, and on some certain day in it ; which notion the apostle would have them by no means give into, for these reasons, because should Christ not come, as there was no reason to believe he would in so short a time , they would be tempted to disbelieve his coming at all, at least be very indifferent about it


JFB:

is at hand — rather, “is immediately imminent,” literally, “is present”; “is instantly coming.” Christ and His apostles always taught that the day of the Lord’s coming is at hand; and it is not likely that Paul would imply anything contrary here; what he denies is, that it is so immediately imminent, instant, or present, as to justify the neglect of everyday worldly duties. Chrysostom, and after him Alford, translates, “is (already) present” (compare 2Ti_2:18), a kindred error. But in 2Ti_3:1, the same Greek verb is translated “come.” Wahl supports this view. The Greek is usually used of actual presence; but is quite susceptible of the translation, “is all but present.”


RWP:

Perfect active indicative of eniste¯mi, old verb, to place in, but intransitive in this tense to stand in or at or near.



2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.


All the disciples and Apostles did think they were going to live to see the second coming so the idea that the last days were coming soon is no surprise. Here the same Greek word is used but the writer is not saying the end times have already happened but is yet to come but with the implication is is near, as in near your hand or as we would say, "almost within reach". It's the same idea in 2nd Thess. When Paul is comforting them by telling them Christ will not show up as a thief in the night and surprise you. There are signs that will tell you it is very near ie: at hand or almost within reach or close.




2Th 2:3 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;
2Th 2:4 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.

There are major things that happen first which will let the faithful know the return of Christ is soon! That is mainly the Tribulation and Apostasy where essentially the whole world, all religions and even Atheists, will believe in this person who will claim and seem to be God! I believe he will claim to be Jesus Christ leading so many astray.

So Paul has just said don't be worried that the second coming and rapture can happen before the tribulation and the Apostasy led by the Antichrist! IE: a pre-trib rapture is not true, right from the mouth of Paul himself.

2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?


Now he has to remind them...but some will never let go of this "any moment" doctrine that Christ can return suddenly to "rapture the Church away".

The Bible makes it clear that there is no pre-tribulation rapture. The tribulation and the appearance of the Antichrist will come first before any rapture takes place. Scripture speaks of the same order of events elsewhere:


1Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Context is the second coming!

1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

Context is the second coming!

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

This is the second coming!


1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

So, the proper order of events according to scripture:

1. the second coming begins/Christ leaves heaven. (1Th 4:16) (this doesn't happen until the tribulation has ended, Mat_24:29)
2. the resurrection. (dead saints resurrect bodily in heaven and follow Christ as he returns to the Earth-second coming) (1Th 4:14-16)
3. the rapture. (living saints on Earth are gathered together from where ever they are on the Earth in order to meet Christ in the clouds when he arrives)(1Th 4:17)
This proves the pre-trib (and mid-trib) rapture to be false because the second coming comes after the tribulation not before or during it, Mat 24:29-30


A rapture before the tribulation is impossible according to Mat 24:29-30, and a rapture before the second coming is impossible according to 1Th 4:13-17.


So, the proper order of events according to scripture including Mat_24:29:

1. the great tribulation ends. (Mat_24:29)
2. the second coming begins/Christ leaves heaven. (1Th 4:16, Mat_24:30)
3. the resurrection. (dead saints resurrect bodily in heaven and follow Christ as he returns to the Earth-second coming) (1Th 4:14-16)
4. the rapture. (living saints on Earth are gathered together from where ever they are on the Earth in order to meet Christ in the clouds when he arrives)(1Th 4:17)


Again we see that certain events must happen first before a rapture takes place!

The thing is... the wording in the Greek text (2Th2:2) has this verb as TRANSITIVE (not "intransitive"):


"as [/purporting] that is present [transitive verb] the day of the Lord"






check out proof of the word order in the Greek here:

-- https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2th/2/2/t_concf_1118002

-- https://biblehub.com/text/2_thessalonians/2-2.htm



[so... as a "TRANSITIVE verb," the meaning is "[purporting that] IS PRESENT [PERFECT indicative; TRANSITIVE verb] the day of the Lord"--of course, that was the "false claim" (v.2)]

I just supplied (in my Post #88 of this thread - https://christianchat.com/threads/revelation-a-cyclical-view.214798/post-5288040 ) a LINK to a previous post I'd made (Post #2594 in a different thread) at which post I provided the ACTUAL QUOTES by a writer who existed A HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE Darby, who [ALSO] SPLIT the timing of our Rapture from that of His Second Coming... (did you read those quotes?)



I can't help that "Norton" (or whoever) was unaware of that [previous] 1744 writer (Morgan Edwards). = )

[see the post at the LINK to my Post #2594... quoting the writer in 1744, a HUNDRED YEARS earlier ]

^ In another past post (or posts, of mine), I also explained how Irenaeus did the SAME ( ^ ) ... but that modern readers tend to inject [modern] ideas BACK INTO what he wrote, thus mis-understanding his intended meaning (on that particular point).

I agree the Bible speaks of the Second Coming. My point, throughout the thread has been that it was not until the 1800s that the idea of a ”secret rapture” was ever discussed. None of those Scriptures you posted said anything about a secret second coming that is only visible to believers that removes the Church from the world so that God can focus on the nation of Israel.