Mid-week and Mid-trib
 

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.

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

I will hold my peace.

Peace>>>AJ

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:

. . . 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).

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.

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.

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

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.

Isn't this a common pattern for prophecy? More than one fulfillment, and both don't have to be physical fulfillments. The Jews understood the kingdom to be brought in by the Messiah to be an earthly kingdom that would be over all earthly kingdoms, they weren't anticipating the Kingdom of God brought by Christ.

Anyway, as I said, in the time of Antiochus Christ had not yet come so the temple sacrifices were legitimate; after Christ they are not, they could only be a blasphemous usurpation of His once-for-all sacrifice. That doesn't mean a temple will not be built in Jerusalem though.

I don't know what it means, Jerry, I just know that the temple is no longer legitimate because of Christ, so I have to take that as a crucial condition for understanding references to the temple. In the New Testament the temple always refers to the body of believers; whether that is how to understand the temple Ezekiel measured or not I don't yet know.

What is the Biblical basis for placing this temple in the "millennium" and if it is to be built by the Lord or His people why couldn't it be figurative of His people? As I say, I don't have a certain answer to this: ALL I know is that a literal temple after Christ has come would be blasphemy.

OK, that's reasonable, but Christ DID destroy the temple itself so rebuilding it is sort of like rebuilding Jericho after God destroyed it. In any case, your interpretation of the Antichrist's role has him stopping the sacrifices so sacrifices are expected to be occurring.

I don't know the answer to that. All I know is what I've been saying, that after Christ has died for our sins it is no longer needed.

The idea is that if Antichrist can defile it as Antiochus's pig sacrifice did, then it is being treated as a legitimate temple and the temple was the center of Jewish life and its functions holy. If it can be defiled then it must be holy is the idea.

OK, but the point was that if it can be "defiled" then it is being treated as legitimate or even holy somehow or other, and it is certainly UNholy because it usurps the place of Christ, that's my only point.

Have you done the studies about how the tabernacle was a type of Christ? The temple design was based on the tabernacle. It is symbolic. The veil to the holy of holies was rent when Jesus died, symbolizing our access to God made possible through His death. I don't know why the temple is being so literally measured in Ezekiel and in Revelation, but given its function as a type of Christ I suppose this measuring also has a symbolic meaning although I don't know what that is.

I agree, it may be built and its rebuilding is being planned in Israel even now.

Why would God give specific measurements if they were not meant literally? We also have a literal temple mentioned in Revelation. Perhaps you are forcing your theology into the Bible where it doesn't fit. The Bible in various places teaches an endtimes temple.

How does an Pope defile God's temple of believers? He can't - that is a spiritual temple that only the Holy Spirit can dwell in.

There is no such things as a fulfillment of prophecy that is not literal (how could you ever know if it was fulfilled then or not? You couldn't - beyond guesswork or making something mean whatever you wanted it to). Even prophetic types are still fulfilled literally. Eg. Jesus being the Lamb of God that would take away our sins - He was still literally sacrificed for our sins.

I have a real hard time listening to people denying something in the Bible and then stating it would be blasphemy if such and such were true. The cultists do that with an eternal Hell and the suffering of the wicked. Some Calvinists do that with some of their teachings about predestination. Before you start making claims that something is blasphemy, you better make sure you study out the Bible and know clearly what it says. Ezekiel quite clearly indicates it will be a literal, physical temple that God gives dimensions for, refers to the servants of, the (memorial) sacrifices in it, its location, etc. In the same chapters also describes a literal dividing of the land of Israel - doesn't make sense to have so many literal things referred to, and then spend about 5 or 6 chapters describing the dimensions of the temple, etc. if He didn't mean them to be taken literally as well.

There will still be animal sacrifices in the Millenium, according to Ezekiel - we can't base our theology on "it shouldn't be." That is why above I used the word "memorial" in reference to these sacrifices, as I think that has to be the purpose for them. Either way, Ezekiel makes it very clear that it will be God's temple, where sacrifices are made by His people, offered by His priests, and where His glory dwells.

The same purpose is in view - literal dimensions picturing things about Christ. Symbols have the same meaning, regardless of where they are used in the Bible. What the temple/tabernacle symbols pictured in Exodus and Chronicles, they still picture in Ezekiel - however, it will still be a literal temple.

When you start saying I'm denying something in the Bible I think it's time to end the discussion. I'm basing what I said ON the Bible. All I'm "denying" is your interpretation, not the Bible. You may have a different interpretation, and you may even be right, but treating your reading as the only honest reading takes the conversation to a level I don't want to go.

Thanks for the discussion to this point though.

Back to leave this link with you. This is from a series of talks on signs of the end times that I've been following for a few months now. I think the guy is right on in general and that all Christians should be paying close attention to these signs as the last of the last days are fast coming upon us, but the reason I'm posting this latest one is because he mentions that plans are underway for the temple to be built in Jerusalem -- about 15 minutes into the talk. (It's specifically about the Da Vinci code stuff and a new movie out about it).

I've said that on this thread already but I wanted to be very clear that I'm not with those who say it isn't going to happen just because they disagree with this or that interpretation that involves the temple. I am definitely expecting it to happen, even though I see it as blasphemy against Christ.

So I recommend this talk. http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...SID=4140820705

The point of Jesus' coming was to restore what was lost in "one day"
Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Now, how did He go about it?

That is what the Book of Revelation, and the rest of the books is all about.

It is not the works of mankind that is the subject, but Jesus' works.

One day, a day in the life of Jesus was dedicated, as God, to deliver the world out of eternal damnation due to the separation.

DAN 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make """an end of sins,""" and to make reconciliation for iniquity,""" and to """bring in everlasting righteousness,""" and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

THE DAY OF THE CROSS IS THE 1,000 YEAR REIGN OF CHRIST, THE 70 YEARS DEAD OR DESOLATE IS JESUS AS THE CITY JERUSALEM. THE DAY IS ALSO FOR AN HOUR, A DAY, A MONTH AND A YEAR. THE 70 YEARS DEAD, ARE ALSO THE 70 WEEKS OF DANIEL. THE SHORT TIME JESUS IS PHYSICALLY DEAD FROM SUNSET TO SUNSET.

Jesus accomplished it all in one day, the whole 6 day creation and rested on the Sabbath.

Went to hell, and burst open the gates, and opened the gates of heaven, so that all who lived prior to Jesus would be included in the redemption.

Peace>>>AJ
That day is divided into 7 equal parts, one part for each day of creation.

In my last post I gave an outline of that day: 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 heavenly Jerusalem, which is Christ, came down to mankind, and was lifted up.
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

This next verse is Jesus who endured to the end on our behalf and not as many think, as being us.

Yes, we can endure till the end, but only in Jesus.

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.


Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

There is absolutely no threat to anyone seeking to get revelation from God concerning any questions we might have.

Sometimes we are taken for aride on the other side so that we might be able to see clearly what God wants us to understand.

And I can tell you I have traveled on the other side, meaning I have looked into other religious beliefs, practices and considered cults.

The temple that the Jewish people need to build is not an earthly temple, for that one can be destroyed readily, but the one that they need to build is in their hearts.

That time will come I believe around 2029. When they will see Jesus as the Son of God and this verse be fulfilled:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

When Isreal does that, they will not need an earthly temple, for the temple will be in their hearts.

This is mostly true, but the whole seventy weeks was not completed in that time. There is one week of the seventy that remains unfulfilled. Yes, Jesus' death and resurrection fulfilled that prophecy in one day, but there remains a portion of the prophecy yet to be completed. I don't understand how you think the millennium was fulfilled in that single day or some of the other equations you make, but the seventy weeks of years counts the time from -- as I understand it -- the decree of Cyrus to the first coming of Christ, and He did finish the transgression and made an end of sins at that time, for those who believe in Him. The complete fulfillment is yet future, and very very close I think, a lot closer than 2029.