Social Network Links
Powered by Squarespace
Search the Riddleblog
"Amillennialism 101" -- Audio and On-Line Resources
« The Canons of Dort, First Head of Doctrine, Rejection of Errors, Paragraph Six | Main | "Klaatu Barada Nikto" and Other Stuff from Around the Web »

Eschatology Q & A -- "What About the Great Tribulation?"

eschatology%20q%20and%20a.jpgJeremy asks (July 29, 2006), “In the amillennial system, where does the tribulation fit in? Are we living in it now, or will it be a distinct time before the return of Christ?"


This is an important question for several reasons.  First, when most people think of the great tribulation, they are thinking of the dispensational idea that at (or about) the time of the Rapture, the world enters a seven-year period of tribulation in which the Antichrist comes to power after the unexpected removal of all believers.  The Antichrist then makes a seven-year peace treaty with Israel, only to turn upon Israel after three and a half years, plunging the world into a geo-political crisis which ends with the battle of Armageddon.  Dispensationalists believe this is a time of horrific cruelty and that only way to be saved during this period is to refuse to take the mark of the beast, and not worship the beast or his image.  The main problem with this interpretation is that it is
nowhere found  in Scripture.

A second reason why this question is important has to do with the rise of various forms of preterism (full-preterism, which is considered a heresy; and so-called “partial” preterism, which is not) which contend that Christ returned in A.D. 70 to execute judgment upon apostate Israel, the city of Jerusalem, and the Jewish temple and its sacrificial system.  Those who hold to the various forms of preterism believe that this great tribulation spoken of by Jesus (Matthew 24:21) has come and gone with the events associated with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans.

In light of the tendency to relegate a time of "great" tribulation to the distant past or imminent future, it is important to survey the biblical teaching in this regard.  As we will see, this time of “great tribulation” cannot be tied exclusively to the events of A.D. 70, or to the very end.  God’s people may face such tribulation throughout the entire time from Christ’s redemptive tribulation on the cross, until the end of the age.

Virtually all scholars agree that the basis for the three references in the New Testament to a “great tribulation” (Matthew 24:21; Revelation 2:22; 7:14) is Daniel 12:1, which reads: “At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.”

In Daniel’s prophecy not only  is this period of suffering tied to the time of the end (i.e., the mention of the general resurrection in vv.2-3), but the basis for the tribulation God’s people face is their covenant loyalty to God in the face of external persecution (by the state) and false teaching (from within) which causes the apostasy of many within the covenant community (cf. Daniel 11:30-39; 44; 12:10).

The same idea is found in the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3.  Three of the churches mentioned (Ephesus, Sardis, and Laodicea) are suffering greatly, and two other churches are thoroughly compromised in their witness to Christ (Pergamum and Thyatira).  In the light of struggles these churches are experiences, in Revelation 2:22, we read “behold, I will throw her [the woman Jezebel] onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works.”  Here, “great tribulation” is meted out upon those in the church of Thyatira who delight in this woman's false teaching.  This, the text explains, is a time of "great tribulation" for unbelievers (apostates).

In Revelation 7:14, one of the elders tells John that “these [John sees] are the ones coming out of the great tribulation.  They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”  This refers to the faithful remnant across time who endured the persecution of the world and who have been put to death.  Having been given white robes, every tear is wiped from their eyes as they serve in the heavenly temple.  They hunger and thirst no more!

In both passages in Revelation then, the idea of a “great tribulation” refers to events occurring at various points between Christ’s own tribulation on the cross and the end of the age.  As Beale puts it, “the great tribulation has begun with Jesus’ own sufferings and shed blood, and all who follow him must likewise suffer through it.”  Beale goes on to say this is the point of passages such as Revelation 1:9 (where John states he is already a participant in tribulation because he follows Christ); Colossians 1:24; and 1 Peter 4:1-7, 12-13 (cf. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 433-435).

While Jesus speaks of “great tribulation” in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple--the events of A.D 70 (Matthew 24:21)--in Revelation, John speaks of such periods of “great tribulation” as re-occurring throughout the course of this age, perhaps even intensifying at time of the end.

So, with that in mind, we are now in a position to answer Jeremy’s questions.

1).  "Where does the tribulation fit?"

 We may face tribulation at any point throughout the course of the interadvental age.  In the providence of God, we may even face a time of “great tribulation.”

2).  "Are we living in it now?"

Yes and no.  While we live in an age where unbelievers and government authorities will attempt to persecute us or deceive us, it is surely not right for me (in answering this question) to compare my current situation (indeed, my life-long situation), with a Christian who lives in Darfur, or in China, or in a Muslim nation.  Some of God’s people will face unspeakable rage and hatred throughout this period.  Some will be martyred, and many will live in depravation.  Others will be spared and prosper greatly.  The reason as to why one suffers and another does not, is to be found not in the worthiness of the individual Christian, but in the mysterious providence of God.

3).  "Will it be a distinct time before the return of Christ?"

 Not in the sense taught by dispensationalists who believe in a seven year tribulation which is tied to the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27.  I believe this to be a messianic prophecy already fulfilled in Christ.  But will there be increasing tribulation (both in intensity and frequency) before the time of the end?  I would say that is a real possibility, and that Scripture warns us that we may be called to suffer during a time of "great tribulation", while at the same time encouraging us with God's promise of all-sufficient grace under the most difficult of circumstances.  

Reader Comments (34)

wayne-- to say that the resurrection of Jesus physical body is the model for the resurrection of our physical body is erroneous for the simple fact that our bodies were "of Adam". Christ body was not. By that very simple admission, Paul's statement contrasting spiritual body and physical body now makes sense. Hence, flesh and born cannot inherit the kigndom of God. But you object! paul is talking about flesh and blood in an unregenerate state you say. but i ask you wayne one very simple question-- does our body still die for the penalty of adam's sin even after regeneration? if it does-- i know of not one ancient saint who is still living-- then you better look for a "spiritual body that is being sown in this physical body" as paul would say in 1Cor1542-43. Almost anticipating the false distiction between regernate/unregenate in the statement"flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" paul adds the very next conjunction "nor does the perishable inerit the imperishable." the perishable nature, wayne, of flesh and blood cannot inherit the imperishable nature of the spirit. their is a close connection between "being in the Spirit" and the spiritual body. that is why paul could say that he held out a future "hope of righteousness", that being the adoption of his body.
June 1, 2008 | Unregistered Commentertodd stevenson

Your entire line of argumentation, in addition to being almost incoherent, is sadly illogical at about every point. It also might be helpful if you learned to spell.

Here's my response:

1) You say that Jesus' physical resurrection cannot be a model for our physical resurrection because we are of Adam and He is not.

While it's true that there's an Adam/Christ contrast in I Corinthians 15, as well as in Romans 5, and that a person is either "in Adam" or "in Christ," your unbiblical philosophy of a resurrection that is not physical in nature does not follow from these contrasts! Not at all!

For example, when Jesus became flesh (His incarnation) He took to Himself a genuine, human, physical body! Likewise, when He came forth from the grave (His resurrection) He did so in a genuine, human, physical body! He really became flesh and blood, just as Hebrews 2:14 says, and shared in that which we share: namely a physical body. And He really possessed a physical body after His resurrection, as witnessed by the reality of His hands and feet which could be seen and touched (Lk. 24:39f), as shown by His eating a piece of fish (Lk. 24:41-43), and as indicated by Jesus' own statement in differentiating Himself from spirit and in identifying Himself with flesh and bones (Lk. 23:39).

Surely you believe that Jesus possessed a genuine, physical, human body before His crucifixion! (And I'm assuming you believe, as do other preterists, that He also possessed a genuine, physical, human body after He rose from the dead.) Yet our bodies are patterned after Jesus, and we will bear the image of the Man from heaven, Jesus ... who had a has a genuine, physical, human body! So what's the problem???

2) Paul did not contrast a spiritual body with a physical body, as you insist. He contrasts a "pneumatikos" body with a "psychikos" body.

Your reliance on a bad translation in seeking to contrast a spiritual body with a physical body is showing. The Greek text makes no such distinction.

3) You seem to believe I think flesh and blood refers to unregenerate humanity. I do not! The terminology of flesh and blood is found in a handful of passages (Mt. 16:17; Eph. 6:12; Heb. 2:14 ... and, of course, I Cor. 15:50). These terms are used to refer to that which is human as opposed to that which is divine (Mt. 16:17) or demonic (Eph. 6:12). In fact, in Hebrews 2:14, where we're told that the Son of God partook of flesh and blood, it's clear that Jesus, though He partook of human nature, did not partake of man's sinful, unregenerate nature. As Paul puts it in Romans 8:3, God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Not in sinful flesh ... for Jesus was not sinful (II Cor. 5:21). Not in the mere likeness of flesh ... for Jesus really became flesh (Jn. 1:14). But in the likeness of sinful flesh because Jesus, though He shared in genuine human flesh, partook of our human nature such that He was not sinful. Assuredly, He was not unregenerate!

So what's really going on in I Corinthians 15:50 when Paul says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God?

The context, including the second half of the verse, makes it all clear: It's our dishonorable, weak, perishable, mortal bodies that cannot inherit the consummated kingdom. Only when our bodies are transformed, and conformed to the likeness of Jesus' own resurrection body, so as to be made glorious and powerful and imperishable and immortal, will we be suited for eternity. And with such bodies --physical bodies-- we will be suited for life in the new heavens and earth.

What cannot inherit the kingdom is the body in its present humble state. That's why the body needs to be glorified. And that's why Jesus will transform the bodies of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory. So in speaking of flesh and blood, we're speaking of man in his humble state, prior to his glorification - including the resurrection --the physical resurrection-- of his body.

4) As for your question about the occurrence of physical death after regeneration, I think it's abundantly clear that though those who once were spiritually dead can be regenerated, per Ephesians 2:1-10, yet such regenerate people can indeed physically die.

But so what? Your point rather mystifies me!

When a person passes from spiritual death to spiritual life (regeneration), though the body is dead yet the Spirit is life (Rom. 8:10). Nevertheless, a day will come (i.e., the day of Christ's return, when He raises the dead) on which the One who raised Jesus from the dead will give life to our mortal bodies (Rom. 8:11).

As Jesus Himself said, He is the resurrection and the life; so the one who believes in Him will live even if he dies [physically], and the one who lives and believes in Him will never die [spiritually] (Jn. 11:25f).

In conclusion, I fully realize that there's a spectrum of biblical beliefs concerning the exact nature of the resurrection body. Some argue for more continuity with our present bodies; others for more discontinuity. But the preterist notions re: Jesus' return and mankind's resurrection and judgment and the renewal of heaven and earth are clearly outside the bounds of what Scripture says, and thus it's no wonder that Bible-believing Christians rightly view such extreme preterist beliefs as heretical. They are heretical!

And it doesn't take much of a rocket scientist to see the difference in what Christians have believed and defended for centuries, namely a genuine, human, physical body for Christ and for His people vs. the shoddy approach of extreme preterists, who would have us believe that Jesus has already returned, raised and judged the dead, and brought in a new heaven and earth!

Maybe we just live on different planets.
June 1, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterWayne Rohde
Wayne, forgetting your ad hominem attacks for just a moment: if i can get you to agree that when the apostle paul spoke of flesh and blood, he said what he meant and meant what he said, viz, that in EITHER a regenerate or unregenerate state, flesh and blood would not see the kingdom of heaven and that it required a spiritual body. if you can agree on this, then hyper-preterism is a valid hermenuetic. consider also this: paul states "if our earthly tent is destroyed, we have a building FROM God, a house not made with hands [that is not from this creation], eternal in heavens. 2Cor 5 That is Paul's two tent arguement, and it destroys the one Tent but two phases arugement (ala robert strimple, ken gentry)ofunregnerate/ regenerate. That is why your interpretation of 1Cor 15 is forced. paul is making a dualism between flesh and spirit, NOT unregernate, regenerate. i wish futurists would admit that much. For it is the Spirit that gives life, is it not? i mean, why else would we groan, and long to PUT ON our heavenly dwelling, so that we would not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent.....
June 1, 2008 | Unregistered Commentertodd stevenson

To begin where you ended, "Why else would we groan, and long to put on our heavenly dwelling ... ?" the answer is really pretty simple. We groan in these bodies and long to be clothed with our resurrection bodies for one reason, as the text goes on to say: "in order that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life" (II Cor. 5:4).

It's really that straightforward. The bodies in which we now live are liable to death and decay. What we long for are bodies which are not subject to death and decay, but are immortal and imperishable. II Corinthians
matches, precisely, the burden of I Corinthians 15 (cf. vv. 42,50-54).

We groan now, because our bodies are subject to disease, disability, death and all sorts of suffering. We live in humble bodies! We long therefore to be transformed, to have our bodies conformed to the glorious body of Jesus ... who Himself experienced a physical, bodily resurrection!

Yes, Jesus' body is a physical body - precisely what a body is by definition. And our bodies will be patterned after His body. How interesting that hyperpreterists can't ever seem to understand something that's so clear!

You also claim (1) that a spiritual (by which you mean non-physical) body is required by the statement that flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom - regardless of whether a person is unregenerate or regenerate; and (2) that hyperpreterism is thereby a valid hereneutic.

I take issue with both statements.

First, the issue in I Corinthians 15 is not essentially about whether resurrected persons are regenerate or not (although the focus in this chapter, to be sure, is on the resurrection of believers); rather the contrast is between the bodies we now have (suffering bodies subject to death and decay) and the bodies we will yet have (glorified bodies not subject to death or decay). Paul is almost relentless in these perishable vs. imperishable, mortal vs. immortal, dishonorable vs. glorious, and weak vs. powerful contrasts. The contrast, then, is that of a body prior to resurrection and that of the body after the resurrection.

(Your insistence that I take the position that Paul is seeking to differentiate between the unregenerate and the regenerate is simply not true. What I distinguish between is what Paul distinguishes between: the pre-resurrection non-glorified body and the post-resurrection glorified body.)

And the very body that is sown is raised (cf. v. 36 with v. 42). When Jesus comes again, and we're transformed, the text says that "the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed" (v. 52). Our bodies are not left in the grave, to be exchanged for "spiritual bodies." Our bodies come forth from the grave; the dead are raised/changed. This means continuity as well as the transformation that comes with glorification/resurrection.

Second, it's a mighty stretch to think that your conclusion about the resurrection body somehow validates the hyperpreterist hermeneutic. It does no such thing. Why not? (a) In the first place, your conclusion is itself invalid. (b) In the second place, even if your conclusion re: the resurrection were valid, there's a whole string of hyperpreterist beliefs which are out of touch with what the Bible teaches, including a grossly over-realized eschatology that smacks of unreality. (c) What any theological conclusion really says about the validity of a hermeneutic is beyond me. Good theology ought to arise from the foundation of a proper hermeneutic.

In regard to the last point, you insist on reading I Corinthians 15, especially verses 44 and 50, through the lens of an interpretation of the text that doesn't square with the context, and is in conflict not just with the time-honored creeds of the church but also with Scripture itself.

I've previously addressed (as have others) why I believe a "pneumatikos" body is still a body ... a physical body. And I've previously addressed (as have others) why I believe "flesh and blood" is a reference to man's physical body in its state of humility, prior to glory, and thus not a denial of the concept of a physical and bodily resurrection.

The context makes it all clear: Read I Corinthians 44 in light of verses 35-49, and read I Corinthians 50a in light of verse 50b as well as verses 51-57.

You also cite II Corinthians 5:1 to the effect that our resurrection bodies will be from God, and not made with hands, and eternal in the heavens.

I concur!

But this does not lead to your conclusion that such bodies are not physical bodies! I guess this is just another hyperpreterist non sequitor. Ultimately, the whole of who we are, both before and after resurrection, is from God. We're the product of the divine hand, not a human hand. And our resurrection bodies are eternal. Excellent! But how does this in any way take away from the fact that we're raised physically with bodies that last forever? It doesn't.

One final comment, and that will end my exchange with you. I trust my attempt to uphold the Scriptural teaching about our Christian hope of a resurrection body has proven at least somewhat substantive. Others can judge whether that's the case or not.

You refer to my ad hominem attacks. I rest may case. My defense of a physical resurrection in the future was not tied to your spelling errors or illogical arguments. Others will need to decide which side in this debate best represents what Scripture teaches.

I concur with those who label hyperpreterism as heresy (cf. II Tim. 2:16-18). And if I'm a tad emotional about it all, it's because I take our Christian hope seriously.

I find it sad that when so many believers are coming to a new consensus that the final consummation of all things will entail body and spirit, and earth and heaven, that hyperpreterism prefers the old Platonic disparagement of the physical. My God is in the business of saving His people and His world, not discarding them or it.

June 1, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterWayne Rohde
wayne, i have heard a lot about "humble, lowly, bodies being subject to decay." and why are they being subject to decay if not for sin? There is a 1 to 1 correspondence between being "in the flesh" and being "in sin" paul makes the distinction between bodies "sown in dishonor" and sown "in Adam" so get to the point, Wayne, Our bodies are fragile and lowly because they are conceived in sin (Romans 5; psalms 51;5). Second, read 2cor5. paul is arguing for a tent from God as opposed to our earthly tent. that is two tents not one. paul makes the point clearly: it is sown a physical body (rather that means soulish or natural matters little--it is fallen is it not?) against a spiritual body. Second, Paul's point is that the Spirit gives this body life, even while in the physical when he writes "And what you sow is not a body is to be, but a bare kernel, perphaps of wheat or of some other grain." and again, "IT [the spiritual body] IS sown in paul is arguing that the heavenly, spriitual body is being sown while the earthly body is still alive.
lastly, i am not aruging that there is no continuity between the spiritual and the physical, just like a futurist is not arguing there is no DIS-continuity between the physical and the spiritual. you mentioned that above. For example, philippians 3:21 is a death knell to any hyperpreterist that argues for strictly a spiritual body. That is what i meant about hyper-preterism being a valid "hereneutic" [your spelling, not mine :^)]. Finally, you mentioned that you get emotional about this subject, as if emotions make right the arguement. They do not. So let me characterize my position. i am not "neo-hymenian"" in that i believe that the resurrection IS in a real sense, the New Covenant and is a present reality to all believers. i DO believe that Jesus actually rose from the death bodily, being as it was already sanctified by the Holy Spirit at birth. i believe that the spiritual body is NOT STRICTLY a spiritual body, but has some continuity with our fallen bodies, but can happen in a way that validates a Parousia in the first century.
lastly, you mentioned why you get emotional: the blessed hope of believers. but what about the blessed hope of the diciples and followers of Christ in the first century! it was THEIR tribulation. it was THEIR hope to see Christ again shortly (tachos). it was not a vain hope they had. Jesus told his followers, " i go to prepare a place for YOU so that i may come again to YOU. Jesus isn't playing gnostic word-games, Wayne. why else would the first-century followers of Christ endure so much pain, so much death and hardship not only from the Jews, but from the Romans as well if they had not the unshakable trust that Christ would in fact come and bring them to himself. now THAT'S getting emotional! That is one reason that the resurrection of believers cannot be divorced from the Parousia of Christ. if the time frame fits, wear it. it is not the "almost-not quite" view of herman riddebos that translated the greek word for generation to mean "a frame of mind" and not a frame of time (see RC Sproul's book The Last Days According to Jesus). So what camp is being dishonest with the greek, wayne?
June 1, 2008 | Unregistered Commentertodd stevenson
ps. i just wanted to add that your greek interpretation of "soul" or "natural", while correct in part, is not the full story. the greek implies one of sensualness. it implies a falleness. hence, my critique of your position as unregenerate, regenerate holds.
June 2, 2008 | Unregistered Commentertodd stevenson
To all who embrace the biblical truth re: the physical resurrection of the body...

Todd, in his eagerness to promote the idea of a spiritual body for believers that is, evidently, at least somewhat nonphysical, employs not only the words of I Cor. 15:44 re: a spiritual body, but also the statement in I Cor. 15:50 that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

Clearly man has fallen, and clearly there are many who are unregenerate. But to insist that the term "flesh and blood" refers to one who is unregenerate makes me wonder what Todd would do with Hebrews 2:14: "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise partook of the same."

Would Todd have us believe that Jesus Himself fell, and became unregenerate, in the incarnation?

Just wondering... ... ...
June 3, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterWayne Rohde
wayne, we have already debated the first point. as to the second, the term "physical" or "natural" or "soulish" to refer to the body that is oppossed to the spiritual is that, as RC sproul as noted refers to the term "this age" (also cf 1cor.2.14), as oppossed to the age to come. for a fuller treatment of the apostolic data concerning two ages read, for example, hebrews 9:9. A more fuller treatment can be found in rc sproul's book "Last Days..."
Wayne is placing creedalism over sound biblical exegesis. in logic it is called a fasle appeal to authority. it was the same false logic that the Roman Church used against martin luther, "Are you alone right? And what church father do you bring against Sacred Tradition?" also, wayne believes that the "new heavens and new earth have not happened,hence hyperpreterism is wrong." well, wayne, if we aren't in the age of new heavens and new earth, then Jesus is a false prophet and we are still in the old covenant, because Jesus said "all these things will happen in this generation."(genea)
June 3, 2008 | Unregistered Commentertodd stevenson
ps. obviously Jesus didn't partake in the exact same nature as fallen man, being born by Divine Fiat.The verse refers to Christ becoming the God-man so there is little correlation between that and paul's use of flesh and blood in 1cor15. again, as a good student of Scripture knows, context is everything.
June 3, 2008 | Unregistered Commentertodd stevenson
Well, well, well ... this series (as far as I'm concerned) has gone on for too long, and needs to close.

It should be obvious to anyone that:

1) I have not been depending on creeds to support what I've said. Not once. I've appealed to Scripture repeatedly, and sought to explain it and uphold it. I've not referred to a single creed. Yet, as I said, I do think it's clear that the creeds reflect what Scripture says, whereas hyperpreterism is what it is: heresy.

2) The new heaven and earth have not arrived. Whatever else may be said against hyperpreterism (and there's lots to be said against it), how anyone can think that this age has already given way to the age to come is beyond all sense (as well as Scripture). The new heaven and earth are without the curse (Rev. 22:3), and without any sorrow or pain or death (Rev. 21:4) ... and I'll bet just about anyone besides hyperpreterists and "Christian Scientists" (an oxymoron if there ever were one) has the sense to know that we still live in the age characterized by sin and death. As Paul says in Romans 8:24, why would anyone hope for what he sees? Our hope is not for this suffering world in which we, along with the rest of creation, are subjected to futility and groaning and corruption, and are anxiously longing and eagerly waiting to be set free from it all, but in the future libertation of creation itself and the redemption of our very own bodies!

Jesus taught nothing different. As I write these final words, the sun is rising. But one day that sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, and the very stars of the heavens will fall from the sky, just as Jesus said. And then (and only then) the Son of Man will come and make all things new. And not one second earlier. The generation of which Jesus spoke is the generation which witnesses the unmistakable and cataclysmic return of Jesus - just like lightning flashing from one end of the sky to another; and any claim that Jesus comes prior to this is simply false (cf. Mt. 24:23-31).

The Bible says a lot about this age and the age to come, and the difference between the already and the not yet. It's really not too difficult to understand that whereas the old covenant has already given way to the new covenant, the present heaven and earth are yet to give way to a new heaven and earth.

With that, I'm done.
June 4, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterWayne Rohde
wayne, as any student in prophecy will know, one interprets prophecy to the language of prophecy. again, Jesus said that the new heavens and the new earth would take place within his generation. The "almost-not quite" mispresents the greek for genea. EVERYTIME genea is used in the NT, it always refers to the generation living at the time. Also, even ken gentry, who is a partial-preterist, admits the the phrase "new heavens, new earth" is prophetic phrase to indicate a new economy (cf Isaiah 65:17, which refers to the economy of Israel after the captivity). Prophetic language uses brilliant metaphor to describe radical changes. We do the same. For example, we often say that 911 was the "day the world changed forever." So, Wayne, you are imposing a literal sense to a prophectic sense, ala a pre-mil dispy. The Church of God can do better.
Wayne, i DO hold you in honor for being a brilliant mind. Whatever nonsense we have engaged in, charge it to my account. But it is good we are exchanging swords, it serves the people of God better on a topic of eschatology (which i believed cannot be divorced from soteriology).
The two ages, as i mentioned refer to the OLD and the New. Hebrews 9:9 is an excellent proof to show that "present age" was the age of the Old because the Temple was still standing. Again, i refer YOU to RC Sproul's book "Last Days According to Jesus." for a BEGINNER or primer which, no offense, i can tell you need on the fascinating subject of preterism. you, wayne, need milk not solid food.
June 4, 2008 | Unregistered Commentertodd stevenson
"Iran is developing nuclear weapons..."

Firstly, this is entirely speculation by those with ulterior motives, in some cases by narcissists who are so caught up in their dispensationalist beliefs that they'll ignore God's commandments to make sure Armageddon happens in our lifetimes. Secondly, even if Iran DOES develop a nuclear weapon (believing in which takes a pretty large leap of faith considering they haven't been able to even get a nuclear power plant operational in three decades), the idea that they'll assure their certain destruction to destroy Israel is betrayed by the fact that Iran's actions over the years haven't shown the slightest hint of suicidal tendencies, but rather a pragmatism that isn't even close to being equaled by Israel herself.

"...and they have pledged to destroy Israel."

Outside of some early revolutionary hot-headed proclamations, this means nothing. And no, Ahmadinejad did not pledge to wipe Israel off the map, he doesn't have the power to command such an action if he wanted to, and Iran as a nation couldn't dream of doing it neither with their military, which is designed for DEFENSIVE purposes, nor with its fictitious nuclear bomb.

Perhaps people should put their glory of Jesus over their glory of non-Biblical Israel.
June 5, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMac

If you believe that I Cor 15 speaks only about the spritual nature of bodily ressurection of believers without physical nature you are clearly in errs. Jesus eat with his disciples after his supernatural ressurection. What about your theology on the nature, that unbelievers are going to inherit when they will ressurected for final Judgment, about Elijah, Melkizedek still living so long in the heavenly kingdom, about the 2 wittness of Rev 11:11 and their ressurection( can we compare Jesus with these passage?)

Pastor. Philip Lazar, India.
August 14, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterPhilipLazar
I am a former Southern Baptist Deacon and I am currently a member of the United Methodist Church. I have been a Pretribulational Premillennialist; however, I have converted to Partial Preterist Amillennialism. Therefore, I believe that the Great Tribulation was in 70 AD. Chapter 20 of Revelation is the millennium or Church Age in which we are living now. The Anti-Christ was probably the Roman Emperor Domitian who called himself Dominus et Deus, which means Lord and God. Under his reign, the ancient church suffered a great deal. I like the eschatology of RVG Tasker, MA, BD and Dr. Ray Summers of the Southern Baptist Convention. I do not look for a future Anti-Christ that the Pretribulationists look for. May the Lord Jesus bless each of you in spite of our differences. I love studying the Book of Isaiah since the New Testament Gospel is so clear there.
January 24, 2014 | Unregistered CommenterCharles E. Miller, BA, MAR

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.