A Little Horn Among Little Horns

Well, it has certainly been a while since I've written an article. Unfortunately, with summer comes baseball and softball tournaments, which, of course, means I am actually kept busy at work for once. But more than that, I've had some difficulties feeling motivated. I thought, “Why not try to write something and see what happens? Perhaps it will be all I need to jump over this hurdle [or mountain] of writer's block.” Let's see what happens.

Not too long ago, I was confronted by a Historicist claiming that the “little horn” of Daniel 8 is the same “little horn” of Daniel 7. I found this to be incorrect. I still find this to be incorrect. However, the smallest detail had always eluded me, and it is something that has eluded countless others, I believe. And when I share this with you, I hope you have the same reaction I had: “Uh...duh!”

Thus, the focus of this article will be Daniel 7 and 8. I simply wish to share some observations with you as we study the scriptures together.

Identifying the Beasts

Daniel 7 is at the heart of prophetic texts pertaining to the last days. And while much of Christendom is united in a general interpretation of which kingdoms the four beasts of Daniel 7 represent, there are still those who have their own interpretations. Let's first observe the text, then draw our conclusions:

2I Daniel beheld, and, lo, the four winds of heaven blew violently upon the great sea. 3And there came up four great beasts out of the sea, differing from one another. 4The first was a lionness, and her wings as an eagle's; I beheld until her wings were plucked, and she was lifted off from the earth, and she stood on human feet, and a man's heart was given to her. 5And, behold, a second beast like a bear, and it supported itself on one side, and there were three ribs in its mouth, between its teeth: and thus they said to it, Arise, devour much flesh. 6And after this one I looked, and behold another wild beast as a leopard, and it had four wings of a bird upon it: and the wild beast had four heads, and power was given to it. 7After this one I looked, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and exceedingly strong, and its teeth were of iron; devouring and crushing to atoms, and it trampled the remainder with its feet: and it was altogether different from the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. 8I noticed his horns, and behold, another little horn came up in the midst of them, and before it three of the former horns were rooted out: and, behold, there were eyes as the eyes of a man in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:2-8)

What we have here are four beasts. I believe these beasts represent Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Consider the following:

Babylon:

When prophesying of the coming of Babylon against Judah, Jeremiah wrote:

5Declare ye in Juda, and let it be heard in Jerusalem: say ye, Sound the trumpet in the land; cry ye aloud: say ye, gather yourselves together, and let us enter in to the fortified cities. 6Gather up your wares and flee to Sion, stay not: for I will bring evils from the north, and great destruction. 7The lion is gone up from his lair, he has roused himself to the destruction of the nations, and has gone forth out of his place, to make the land desolate; and the cities shall be destroyed, so as to be without inhabitant. (Jeremiah 4:5-7)

Jerusalem had been called to repentance so that they could be saved from the coming wrath of the Babylonian kingdom (Jeremiah 4:14). As we know, they did not repent, and Babylon came at them like a lion, just as the Lord declared. This harmonizes with Daniel's vision in Daniel 7. In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed of a colossal figure in the image of a man. This figure was made of various metals. The head, which was made of gold, was identified by Daniel as the Babylonian kingdom (Daniel 2:38-39). Nebuchadnezzar's dream correlates with Daniel's own vision in Daniel 7, and therefore, we are to interpret the lion as Babylon.

Medo-Persia:

Identifying what the bear in Daniel 7 represents is quite simple to do. The kingdom which followed Babylon was that of the Medes and Persians. When Medo-Persia conquered Babylon they also managed to take Lydia and Egypt, symbolized by the three ribs in the bear's mouth. The fact that this bear was raised up on one side likely symbolizes the dominance of Persian power over the Medes.

Isaiah prophesied against Babylon quite some time before the kingdom's fall. And who did God promise to stir up against them? The Medes:

17Behold, I will stir up against you the Medes, who do not regard silver, neither have they need of gold. (Isaiah 13:17).

Therefore, I find it accurate to identify the second beast of Daniel 7 as the Medo-Persian empire.

Leopard:

In Daniel 8, Daniel prophesied of a ram and goat. This was two years after his dream in Daniel 7. The ram depicted the kings of Media and Persia (Daniel 8:20), and the goat depicted Greece (Daniel 8:21). Daniel's vision of the ram and goat portrays the Greeks overthrowing Medo-Persia (Daniel 8:5-7), and therefore, identifying the leopard of Daniel 7.

I believe the leopard was used to portray swiftness. Alexander the Great, arguably the greatest conqueror in history, expanded his kingdom with more ferocity than kingdoms before him, and he did so with great speed. When he died, his kingdom was divided between his four generals. Notice that the leopard has four wings and four heads (Daniel 7:6). I believe one of these sets of four (likely the heads) represents this division. Likewise, we read in Daniel 8 of broken horn on the goat, which spawned four more horns in its place. I believe this broken horn is Alexander the Great, and the four horns in his place are his generals.

Fourth Beast:

A number of scholars believe the fourth, indescribable beast of Daniel 7 is the Seleucid empire from which Antiochus IV Epiphanes would come. A few things weigh against this. For starters, Gabriel attributes the power of Antiochus IV Epiphanes to one of the horns spawned from the fall of Alexander the Great. Pay attention to the context:

21The he-goat is the King of the Greeks: and the great horn which was between his eyes, he is the first king. 22And as for the one that was broken, in whose place there stood up four horns, four kings shall arise out of his nation, but not in their own strength. 23And at the latter time of their kingdom, when their sins are coming to the full, there shall arise a king bold in countenance, and understanding riddles. 24And his power shall be great, and he shall destroy wonderfully, and prosper, and practise, and shall destroy mighty men, and the holy people. (Daniel 8:21-24).

The one that would come and destroy the holy people was Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Daniel says he would come from the division of the Grecian empire. While the Seleucid empire is distinct from the Grecian empire of Alexander the Great, this terrible and mighty king who would destroy the holy people was still being attributed to the power and image of the goat by Gabriel.

A second strike against the Seleucid view is a rather simple one. In Daniel 7, Daniel notes that the fourth beast would “excel all other kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth” (Daniel 7:23). The Seleucid empire, while quite ferocious, did not obtain the same power the of the Roman empire. Encyclopedia Brittanica notes the following: “The Seleucid kingdom began losing control over large territories in the 3^rd century BC. An inexorable decline followed the first defeat of the Seleucids by the Romans in 190.” The Seleucid empire did maintain its power for a fair share of time, but it hardly had the power of the Roman empire. This empire had a difficult time holding onto its larger territories.

Another strike against the Seleucid view is that Daniel prophesies of the coming of the Messiah during the time of this fourth beast. When the “little horn” “shall wear out the saints of the Most High,” the everlasting kingdom of the Most High would be given to the saints (Daniel 7:27). Nebuchadnezzar's dream also depicted God's kingdom at this time (Daniel 2:44-45). This is depicted again in Daniel 7:9-14.

Is the “Little Horn” of Daniel 7 the same "Little Horn" of Daniel 8?

As stated earlier, Historicists claim that the “little horn” of Daniel 7 is the same as the “little horn” of Daniel 8. The logic behind this is that we should be interpreting scripture with scripture, and since Daniel 7 has a “little horn,” the “little horn” in Daniel 8 must apparently be the same figure. However, we've already begun dismantling this position, for the persecuting power in Daniel 7 is part of the fourth beast, which is not the same as the goat in Daniel 8, earlier identified as the Grecian empire.

I will elaborate on this a little further in due time, but for now I'd like to observe something else. At the beginning of this article I had mentioned finally coming across something that had eluded me. That which eluded me has to do with this “little horn” in Daniel 7. The question that came to mind was, “Which little horn?” What do I mean? Glad you asked. Note the following:

7After this one I looked, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and exceedingly strong, and its teeth were of iron; devouring and crushing to atoms, and it trampled the remainder with its feet: and it was altogether different from the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. 8I noticed his horns, and behold, another little horn came up in the midst of them, and before it three of the former horns were rooted out: and, behold, there were eyes as the eyes of a man in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:7-8).

This is the first instance in which we read of the fourth beast's horns. This beast had ten horns. Were they large? Were they small? Notice that Daniel says “another little horn” came up. How could there be another one if none of the other horns were little? Have you ever noticed how numerous interpretations rely on this horn's size to determine the figure it represents? This is not to say whether I agree or disagree with this interpretation, but note the fact that a number of Preterists identify this “little horn” as Titus, son of emperor Vespasian. Titus, who was not yet emperor, is the one who laid waste to Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Because he was not yet emperor, many see him as “little,” or inferior to his father. But is this necessarily the accurate way to interpret the eleventh horn? Even if the interpretation itself is correct, the text doesn't actually portray this “little horn” as a different size than the others, for it is “another little horn,” suggesting that there are others of similar size.

I, too, have tried to interpret the eleventh horn according to its size. However, I'm not certain that's actually accurate. Thus, when we read of a “little horn” in Daniel 8, we can't actually interpret it the way some claim we should, for all of the horns on the fourth beast in Daniel 7 are seemingly “little.” Historicists could do themselves a greater service to rely solely on the characteristics of the two horns to find correlation, instead. The point I am trying to make is that I believe Historicists, and others who interpret similarly (Partial Preterist James B. Jordan comes to mind), cannot maintain a consistent interpretation by these means. (James B. Jordan believes the horns in Daniel 7 are the Herods, and thus, the “little horn” of Daniel 8 must also be a Herod. I don't wish to determine whether he is correct or incorrect, but simply point out his hermeneutic. For more on this, read his commentary on the book of Daniel.)

My scripture citations have come from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of Old Testament. In order to read of a “little horn” in Daniel 8, an alternate translation must be used. I'll switch to the King James Version for this:

8Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. 9And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. 10And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. (Daniel 8:8-10 KJV)

This “little horn” is simply a “strong horn” in the Septuagint. This horn is most certainly strong, too! The similarities between this “little horn” and the one in Daniel 7 are also quite obvious. Both of these horns are persecuting powers and maintain quite the strength. So, the similarities are certainly there. However, the Historicist interpretation crumbles when one understands that the “little horn” of Daniel 8 comes from one of the four horns that spawned from the great horn of the goat! Again, when Alexander died his kingdom was divided among his four generals. Of this division was the Seleucid empire from which Antiochus IV Epiphanes would come. Therefore, if the Seleucid empire was one of the four “notable [horns]” of the Grecian empire, and a “little horn” would come from one such horn, then clearly the “little horn” of Daniel 8 cannot be the “little horn,” or eleventh horn, of Daniel 7! Gabriel concurs when he identifies the goat as the Grecian empire. The “little horn” in question comes from this empire, not the Roman empire.

Conclusion

I believe the Historicists are doing the best they can to interpret Daniel 8 with consistency. I do not believe they are coming to the proper conclusions, however. Gabriel did all of the interpretation for Daniel. There is no question as to what the ram and goat of Daniel 8 are representing, for Gabriel explained all of this. Historicists, therefore, must ignore Gabriel's explanation of the prophecy's imagery. They improperly attribute this prophecy's fulfillment to the time of the fourth beast. But as we have seen, the goat of Daniel 8 is the Grecian empire, which was the third beast of Daniel 7, not the fourth.

I believe we do ourselves a disservice to base our interpretation of the eleventh horn of Daniel 7 on the characteristic of size, as well as identify the “little horn” of Daniel 8 as the same “little horn” in Daniel 7. The text doesn't actually support such a distinction between the eleventh horn and the other ten. Since probably 99% or more of Christendom refers to the eleventh horn as a “little horn,” it is accurate to assume that the majority of Christians believe there is such a distinction given by the text. And again, I was one such individual until recently. I find this to be an error now, however, and simply wish to share this with you for your own consideration.

Blessings,

Jason Watt

Preterism vs. Futurism: The Malachy Prophecy

I had considered taking a break from the Preterism vs. Futurism series I have been doing so that I could focus on a few other topics, afterward continuing the current series. That was until the end of band rehearsal tonight. On the pulpit was a magazine called, Endtime. One particular article caught my attention, and I am going to address it.

The executive editor, Irvin Baxter, is a Pentecostal minister. He is also the founder and president of Endtime Ministries. The ministry's purpose is to preach the gospel of the kingdom to every person on Earth, for the end is now.

Or so they think.

Like so many others who focus on eschatology, Baxter's intentions are quite pure. I've little doubt of that. I find that he is knowledgeable of what it is he believes, though I find his beliefs unscriptural in so many ways. In the May/June 2013 issue of Endtime, Baxter has written an article titled, “Is Pope Francis the False Prophet?” This caught my eye because I have been awaiting a thorough analysis concerning St. Malachy's “prophecy” (if only Christians realized this “prophecy” is no more than a 16^th century forgery...).

The Background Details

The first heading reads: “St. Malachy's Prophecy of the Last Pope.” Baxter begins with some details concerning Malachy:

“St. Malachy was the Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland. He claimed he experienced a vision while visiting Rome in 1139 AD. He said he saw every pope that would exist from the time of his vision until the last pope. The last pope would be the 112^th from the time of his vision. Malachy also stated that God would judge His people and the city of Rome would be destroyed during the reign of the last pope. In Malachy's vision, a clue was given as the the identity of each pope, including the 112^th one. The clue for the 112^th pope was 'Peter the Roman' (Baxter, Irvin, Endtime, 10, 2013).

The manuscript containing Malachy's prophecy was supposedly stored in the Vatican Secret Archives, and forgotten, until the end of the 16^th century. By the time John Paul II was nearing his death, observations concerning this line of 112 popes began to become more common. The 111^th pope was identified as “Gloria Olivae,” or “the glory of the olive.” While the 111^th pope, Joseph Ratzinger, had no ties to an olive, his papal name did. Ratzinger occupied the papacy under the name Benedict XVI. Baxter writes:

“The original Benedict became the founder of the Benedictine order, one of the most prominent orders in the Roman Catholic Church. And the symbol of the Benedictine order? The olive! Now Malachy's prophecy seemed more credible than ever!”

Of course, Ratzinger wouldn't purposefully choose that name to fulfill Malachy's “prophecy,” would he? Nah. That's absurd...right?

In February of 2013, Benedict XVI resigned. Uh-oh. If Ratzinger was the 111^th pope, that means the next pope would be the one, two, three...112^th pope! The following month would see the naming of the “last pope,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina. Bergoglio decided to occupy the papacy under the name Francis. Pope Francis is unique, for he was Argentina's superior of the Society of Jesus, otherwise known as the Jesuits. Why is this interesting? Jesuits do not seek ecclesiastical offices.

Elements of Malachy's Prophecy

Baxter, on page 12, lists five elements of Malachy's prophecy: 1) There is going to be a final pope; 2) During his reign, the Roman Catholic Church will be judged; 3) During his papacy, Rome, the city of seven hills, will be destroyed; 4) The last pope will be the 112^th pope from 1139 AD; 5) The clue to his identity is “Peter the Roman.”

Baxter writes, “The prophecies of the Bible perfectly agree with the first three points of the Malachy prophecy” (p.12). Actually, that's not true at all. According to Baxter's Dispensational paradigm the Bible may agree with the first three points, but as for what's actually written in the Bible it shares no such relationship. Before addressing this, I'd like to take a look at Baxter's analysis a little more.

Baxter took the time to list how the Bible's prophecies differ from Malachy's: 1); The Bible states that a final pope is coming. However, it does not say he will be the 112^th pope from 1139 AD; 2) The scriptures say nothing about “Peter the Roman”; 3) The Bible says the last pope will be in alliance with the world's last political leader – the Antichrist; 4) The scriptures call the last pope the False Prophet; 5) The biblical prophecies say the final pope will perform many signs and lying wonders, even pulling down fire from heaven. These miracles will be used to deceive the people of the world; 6) The final pope will influence the world to give their allegiance to the Antichrist and his one-world government; 7) The False Prophet will endorse a program of global socialism, causing all people to receive a mark or number that will be required for buying and selling. This “Mark of the Beast” will apparently be a global scheme for wealth redistribution (social justice); 8) The Second Coming of Jesus will end the reign of the Antichrist and the False Prophet. At that time they will both be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20).

Amazingly, after listing eight biblical “facts,” Baxter provides one citation of scripture for proof. And why is this? Because everything else he lists is based on interpretation, not what the text is actually saying.

Malachy and Baxter Analyzed

In our list of five elements contained in Malachy's prophecy, the first thing Baxter noted was that there would be a final pope. Baxter claims scripture agrees with this. According to Futurist theology, there will be an end to the current world someday. Thus, a final pope someday is simply natural ratiocination per Baxter's paradigm. Scripture, however, does not even address an “end of the world,” rather an “end of the age.” This “end” was already present in the first century (Acts 2:16-21; Hebrews 1:1-2). For more on why the “last days” are already past, read my article on how to identify the last days (http://fulfilledfocus.blogspot.com/2013/03/preterism-vs-futurism-last-days.html ).

The second aspect of Malachy's prophecy is the judgment of the Roman Catholic Church during this final pope's time in office. If Dispensational theology is correct, it would make sense this would take place (he would have to be the final pope if the Catholic church is going to be destroyed during his time as pope). Baxter comes to this conclusion because he interprets Mystery Babylon as being the Roman Catholic Church (http://www.endtime.com/urgent-questions/mystery-babylon-who-is-it/ ). He, of course, cannot provide scriptural proof for this (the Bible doesn't name Mystery Babylon as Rome, but it does apply all characteristics to Jerusalem), because none exists. Scripture does, however, support Jerusalem as the harlot city. I've also written on this (http://fulfilledfocus.blogspot.com/2013/04/preterism-vs-futurism-zionists-are.html ).

The third aspect of the Malachy forgery—er, prophecy—is that Rome would be destroyed at the time of the 112^th pope. Baxter likely agrees with this because of his identification of Mystery Babylon. It would make sense. But this isn't scriptural, either. The fourth beast was the Roman empire of antiquity, not the Roman Catholic Church, or a “revived Roman empire.” That is all nonsense. The last days came to a close in A.D. 70. Rome was certainly prophetically relevant at one time! No doubt about it. But that relevance ceased at the end of the last days, when Jerusalem was laid to waste by Titus and his army.

The fourth aspect is that the final pope would be the 112^th pope from A.D. 1139. Baxter does agree that this is not scriptural, though he does believe in a final pope in general.

The fifth and final aspect is the name “Peter the Roman.” I have found one attempt at making this work with Pope Francis, and it was a pathetic effort. In Baxter's lists of differences, he does note that this is also not supported by scripture.

Conclusion

Baxter has made it quite clear that he believes the pope to be the False Prophet. But even if God had given Malachy prophetic insight into the future of the Catholic church (which I don't believe happened), it certainly wasn't a vision pertaining to the end times. I'll be writing articles dedicated to the False Prophet, Antichrist, and others in the future, but for now consider the following:

The last days were taking place in the first century and were already present during Christ's ministry (Hebrews 1:1-2). Peter affirms this when the Spirit is poured out on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4,16-21). He quotes Joel's prophecy and tells us this was for the last days, and was fulfilled at that very moment (cf. Joel 2:28-32). Jesus said that some standing there, at that moment, would be alive to see the Messiah return in glory (Matthew 16:27-28). Likewise, he told his disciples in the Olivet Discourse that this same generation—his generation—would not pass away before the Son of man returned (Matthew 24:34). I think it is pretty obvious that they were to expect Christ's parousia before that generation passed away, don't you?

The book of Revelation runs parallel with the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). Mystery Babylon (who Baxter identifies as Rome/RCC) is also seemingly where the False Prophet resides, who he claims is the pope. However, if the judgment of harlot Babylon is the time of the avenging of the saints (Revelation 18:24; 19:2), and Jesus said his own generation would experience this when Jerusalem is destroyed (Luke 21:22-24), by what logic can one conclude that the identification of the False Prophet/Mystery Babylon is a person/entity outside of these restrictions!? It is impossible to make such a claim!

Case in point, Baxter fails to apply any form of consistent hermeneutic to his theology. He is guilty of the same newspaper exegesis of every other Dispensationalist. I say again, I believe he is sincere in what he believes. I also appreciate his ministry's concern for spreading the gospel (says a lot more about him than most Full Preterists). But Baxter only hurts his efforts with these ridiculous and silly interpretations. He isn't preaching the true gospel, which is a fulfilled gospel!

Perhaps Baxter will change his views someday. I'd like to see someone like him teach the one eschatological view that isn't make believe.

Blessings,

Jason Watt

Preterism vs. Futurism: Engaging the Critics

Consistent with the way my luck usually goes, now that I am over my longer-than-usual writer's block I have had some difficulty in choosing topics to discuss for this Preterism vs. Futurism series. Until now. Thank you, Craig Chilton, for your "devastating" article.

I simply typed "Preterism refuted" into Google and came across this link: http://www.egalitarian.biz/Preterism-Refuted.html. Chilton writes:

"Those who believe that the prophecies pertaining to the Tribulation were fulfilled in 70 A.D. are known as 'preterists,' and they couldn't be more wrong if they worked 24/7 at it. We'll explore why."

Let's explore his explorations.


The Facts that Devastate Preterism

1. Several Prophesied Circumstances still were Impossible back then.

Chilton's first argument comes from using Matthew 24:33-34. He writes:

"It's noteworthy that Jesus used the phrase, 'all these things,' twice in those two short sentences. Because never before our current day have all of those signs ever occurred concurrently, and some of them not only never happened before, but could not have happened until recently."

Notice that Chilton provides no proof for his claim. He tells us, the readers, that these things haven't happened. Yet, if he took the time to study a little bit of history, he'd find that these things did occur. I'd like to recommend the works by first century historian Flavius Josephus, called, The War of the Jews. If you want a complete history of Jerusalem's destruction from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes IV to Titus, son of emperor Vespasian, read this work.

We can also note that Chilton believes Christ was a false prophet, a liar, a fraud--however one wishes to word it. Notice that Jesus says the generation he was speaking to--his own generation--would NOT pass away before all those things in the discourse occurred. If they did not, Christ was a false prophet, plain and simple. And how foolish of Chilton to use a time text to make a point.

2. Many events prophesied by Jesus to happen when he returns have never yet taken place.

Chilton begins to get a little more specific in this section. As we will see, Chilton will once again shoot himself in the foot. His first proof in this section is Matthew 24:14. He writes:

"Only since the advent of communication satellites has this been possible. 'Sputnik,' the first satellite ever, was launched only 52 years ago."

Chilton is under the impression that "whole world," or "all the world," should actually be understood in terms of the globe. This is not correct, however. The word translated as "world" in Matthew 24:14 is "oikoumene," which simply means the inhabited earth from the perspective of the writer or speaker. In other words, the Roman empire. If the globe as a whole was to be addressed, then "kosmos" would have been used. Simply put, the apostles needed only preach to the "inhabited earth" at that time. Paul affirmed the fulfillment of the great commission given by Christ:

23If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; (Colossians 1:23)

In essence, not only should Chilton find Christ to be a false prophet, but he should also find Paul to be a liar. Apparently Paul, an inspired apostle, had no clue what he was talking about. And if we can't trust Paul's words here, can we trust them anywhere? Likewise, can we trust Christ? After all, Christ apparently had no clue when the signs of the end would occur (as believed by the "great" Christian theologian, C. S. Lewis).

The next argument he makes comes from Matthew 24:21, in which we read of Christ's warning of distress like never seen before. Jesus was actually quoting Daniel:

1And at that time Michael the great prince shall stand up, that stands over the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of tribulation, such tribulation as has not been from the time that there was a nation on the earth until that time: at that time thy people shall be delivered, even every one that is written in the book. (Daniel 12:1)

Daniel is told that this would be when the power of the holy people is scattered, or shattered. In A.D. 70 the temple was destroyed, along with Jerusalem, bringing about an end to the old covenant and fulfilling the law and prophets (cf. Luke 21:22-24). Consistency forces Chilton to either maintain his view and subscribe to a binding Mosaic law, or discard his view and accept its fulfillment. Implications, implications, implications; so little often do we consider them.

To end this section, Chilton uses Matthew 24:22,27,29-31 as proof of a yet future tribulation. For this, I recommend reading my article on the coming of the son of man (http://fulfilledfocus.blogspot.com/2013/02/understanding-matthew-24-coming-of-son.html).

3. The Final Preceptible Warning Sign

Chilton writes:

"As mentioned above, all of the foretold prerequisites for Jesus' return -- to trigger the Rapture -- after which the seven-year Tribulation Period will immediately get under way, have already happened, except one. (Interestingly, the Tribulation will begin when the Anti-Christ negotiates and finalizes the seven-year long peace pact with Israel that he later will violate. At which time the world will learn his identity. So those who don't miss the Rapture will (according to the Bible) miss out on learning who that mysterious person is!) Now -- notice the wording of this passage:"

He then proceeds to offer Matthew 24:7-8 as unfulfilled. Jesus tells his disciples that nation would rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There would aso be famines and earthquakes in various places. These, however, are just the beginning of birth pains. Chilton conveniently leaves out verse 6:

6And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. (Matthew 24:6)

Nation rising against nation is no doubt a slight elaboration of "wars and rumours of wars." Thus, the verses are connected. Notice that Christ tells them not to be troubled, for these things would happen, but the end is NOT yet! So, not only are these things not necessarily signs of the end, Chilton has disregarded audience relevance completely!

He writes, "Almost everyone will almost surely drift blisfully [sic] unaware right into the moment when this happens." Chilton proceeds to offer Matthew 24:37-44 and Luke 21:34-36 as proof. These verses depict how the days leading up to the coming of the Son of man would be as the days of Noah were, in which people were eating and drinking, giving in marriage, etc., up to the day the flood came. In other words, they did not heed Noah's warnings, just as the Jews of Jesus' day would not heed his or the apostles' warnings. Again, audience relevance relates this to those living in that generation (Matthew 24:34).

4. The Rapture Generation Nears Its Fulfillment

All I have to say is this: http://fulfilledfocus.blogspot.com/2013/05/preterism-vs-futurism-disarming-rapture.html


Conclusion

Craig Chilton's article (and I say this as kindly as possible) lacks the kind of scholarship necessary to even put a dent in the Preterist view. I will be the first to admit that Preterists have some work to do in assembling a more consistent theology. However, while Preterists have some holes here and there to fix up, the arguments in this article certainly aren't among them.



Blessings,

Jason Watt

Preterism vs. Futurism: Disarming the Rapture

Lately, I have been writing articles for the Preterism vs. Futurism series. Truthfully, any article I write in support of Preterism (i.e., all of them) can technically fall in this category, but this series is designed to target select beliefs popular to Futurism. Thus, what better topic to tackle than the rapture?

In fact, I was recently sharing my thoughts with a friend of mine. She was curious about a comment I made pertaining to the rapture and asked for elaboration. Not too long after that, I was engaged in a debate with someone in regards to the pre-tribulation rapture. So, given the topic's current relevance in my life, why not go ahead and write about it?

I had considered giving you a history lesson on the origin of the rapture, but as I try to keep these articles relatively short I thought it best to leave such research up to you (just ask if you'd like some sources and I will be more than happy to help). Instead, I would like to focus on the doctrine itself, specifically the pre-tribulation rapture since it is the most popular.

Pre-tribulation Rapture Defined

According to the Dispensational view, Daniel's 70^th week (Daniel 9:24-27) is separated from the rest of the weeks by a gap of nearly 2,000 years and counting. This final week is the tribulation period, they claim. This gap is not supported by any verse in any book of the Bible, however. Personally, I believe Daniel 9:24-27 find completion through Christ. Dispensationalists, however, turn this into a prophecy about the Antichrist. If you'd like to read my refutation of their gap theory, I encourage you to check out my article on the abomination of desolation.

With this 70^th week supposedly yet future to us living today, Dispensationalists await the day in which the bodies of believers are teleported out of here to literally meet Christ in the air. The fact that this supposedly happens before the tribulation means it's a pre-tribulation rapture. Pretty simple, right? However, the doctrine isn't actually in the Bible. And I don't mean the fact that the word “rapture” isn't in the Bible; the concept itself isn't there, either.

Disarming the Rapture

1 Thessalonians 4 is perhaps the most commonly used chapter for rapture defense. By observing verses 13 through 17, we will be able to see if the pre-tribulation rapture view fits with the text.

13But 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. 14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15For 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. 16For 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: 17Then 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. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17)

Things to observe from this passage: 1) This “hope” concerns them which sleep; 2) Those who “sleep in Jesus” will be raised; 3) Those who are alive will not precede the dead; 4) Christ will come with a shout, the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God; 5) They would be caught up in the clouds.

First, we need to understand what Paul meant when he used the word “hope” in verse 13. For this, we move to the book of Acts:

6But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. (Acts 23:6)

15And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. (Acts 24:15)

Could it be that this hope is the same hope of Israel, promised to their fathers?

6And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God, unto our fathers: 7Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. 8Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? (Acts 26:6-8)

If Paul is writing of the hope of Israel (Israel had a number of hopes, I might add), and that hope is the resurrection of the dead, how can one place this event before the time of tribulation? Revelation 20 places this resurrection at Christ's parousia, not seven years prior. In fact, so does Paul (1 Thessalonians 4:16). This covers points one through three in our list, for we know the resurrection to be when the dead are raised, and if the dead are not raised until Christ's coming in judgment, then truly there can be no pre-tribulation rapture!

This brings us to our fourth point, in which we noted that Christ will “descend from heaven with a shout, the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God. Rapture doctrine revolves around this idea of a “secret,” or “silent” rapture, yet Christ's descent sounds awful noisy! This idea of a “secret” rapture comes from some verses claiming Christ will come like a “thief in the night” (1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 3:3). We will identify the details of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 in just a moment, but first it is important to know if the so-called “rapture” is silent, or secret. Turning to 1 Thessalonians 5, we can accurately answer this question, starting with the second verse:

2For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh a thief in the night. 3For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as a travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3)

The trick is to catch why the day of the Lord will come upon them as a thief in the night. Notice that these people have let their guard down, assuming there is peace and safety. This is when the day of the Lord strikes, and because they would be unaware, it would be as though they were robbed while sleeping. This is reinforced as we continue reading:

4But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5Ye are all the children of the light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. (1 Thessalonians 5:4-5).

Did you catch it? Those at the church in Thessalonica are described as not in darkness, which means the day of the Lord would not come as a thief in the night. Paul then tells them to remain sober and watchful (1 Thessalonians 5:6). It would seem as though the day of the Lord, when the resurrection would occur, would be a day that could be watched for. If this day came as a thief to all, why would Paul tell them to watch for it? He plainly tells them they are not in darkness, the very same darkness that would cause many to be caught off guard.

It seems clear that rapture advocates misidentify the resurrection, and in doing so neglect the manner in which it occurs. This can be further understood by properly identifying the Lord's shout and trump of God upon his coming. Why the voice of an Archangel? What about the trump of God?

The first verse that comes to my mind in regards to an archangel is Daniel 12:1. In this verse, we read of Michael the archangel standing up at the time of tribulation, when those written in the book of life are delivered. This deliverance, and the reference to the archangel, can both be found in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. First, it is necessary to read the verse in the book of Daniel:

1And at that time Michael the great prince shall stand up, that stands over the children of thy people: and there shall a time of tribulation, such tribulation as has not been from the time that there was a nation on the earth until that time: at that time, thy people shall be delivered, even everyone that is written in the book. (Daniel 12:1)

For the Lord to come with the voice of the archangel may very well be seen as representative of deliverance. It seems likely to me that Paul was drawing from this imagery to make such a connection. As such, the day of the Lord, the resurrection, while certainly a time of judgment, is also a time of deliverance. To add to that, this deliverance occurs at the last trump:

51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (1 Corinthians 15:51-52)

If there is a last trump, then we can expect a first trump. After all, if something is going to be labeled quantitatively, we should expect there to be more than one. If there were just one trumpet, it would be first and last, the only one. Yet, Paul distinguishes this trump from others, labeling it as the last trump. He also calls this a “mystery.” Of course, we know this mystery to be the resurrection. Therefore, what is left is for us to discern the number of trumps there actually are. To do so, we need to dive into the book of Revelation.

2And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets. (Revelation 8:2)

It seems there are seven angels with seven trumpets, which means the last trump must be the seventh. Simple enough. In relation to this, consider the following verse:

7But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. (Revelation 10:7)

Both Paul and John record the seventh trump to reveal the “mystery.” I believe it is a mistake not to see this connection. Note what happens when the seventh trump is sounded:

15And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. (Revelation 11:15)

18And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. (Revelation 11:18)

When the seventh trump sounds, the dead are judged and the prophets and saints are rewarded. Failure to make the connection between the seventh trumpet and the seventh vial causes many of today's interpretative problems. Note the events of the seventh vial:

17And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done. 18And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. 19And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the win of the fierceness of his wrath. (Revelation 16:17-19)

Now, compare this to the details of the seventh trumpet:

19And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. (Revelation 11:19)

The details of the seventh trumpet are identical to the details of the seventh vial. However, when we read of the seventh vial we are given some more information, such as the destruction of Mystery Babylon. Yet, while Revelation 11 lacks these specifics, the identical imagery reveals that Revelation 11 is detailing the very same judgment. The last trumpet and last vial are one in the same.

After witnessing the certain details of the seventh vial, John is taken to witness the destruction of Mystery Babylon in fuller detail (Revelation 17-19). What occurs after Mystery Babylon's destruction is the most noteworthy detail of all:

2For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. 3And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. 4And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia. 5And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great. 6And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. 7Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. (Revelation 19:2-7)

When the last trump sounds, Christ reigns. Likewise, when the last vial is poured, Christ reigns. It is at this time, upon the marriage supper of the Lamb, that the resurrection occurs. This puts the rapture doctrine in the land of make-believe from which it came. The fact that the seventh trumpet and the seventh vial occur at the same time tells us that the visions in Revelation are not entirely consecutive. There is a lot of overlapping. Knowing this, it should be easier to see that there cannot be a pre-tribulation rapture, or resurrection, rather. This resurrection occurs at the end of the tribulation period at the coming of the Lord.

Rapture Arguments

My favorite rapture defense is the belief that the Bible contains actual examples of people being raptured. The Futurists will say, “Enoch was raptured, and so was Elijah! This is proof of a rapture!” Of course, one would have to be certain that Enoch and Elijah were actually raptured, which I argue they were not. Since the most popular example is Enoch, I will begin with him.

In the case of Enoch, he was a man pleasing to the Lord (Genesis 5:21,24). Little is known about him apart from a few verses in Genesis 5 and Hebrews 11, but we know he begat sons and daughters (Genesis 5:22), and lived to be three hundred sixty-five years old (Genesis 5:23). At this time, Enoch was “translated” (Genesis 5:24). This use of “translated” is what fuels the use of Enoch in rapture defense (cf. Hebrews 11:5).

According to rapture advocates, this is the first instance of a rapture, because Enoch apparently did not die. One claim is that Enoch was raptured before the Flood, which, since the last days were to be as the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37-38), Enoch's “rapture” was a shadow of the last days when all the believers are supposedly raptured. This is ridiculous. According to pre-tribulation rapture doctrine, believers are taken to heaven for the seven years of the tribulation. Since Enoch was “translated,” or taken by God (“for God took him” KJV), rapture advocates automatically assume he was taken to heaven. There's a slight problem with this.

The promise of heaven was not yet in reach of believers during the Old Testament times (John 3:13; Hebrews 11:13). Thus, Enoch was not taken to heaven, nor entered what is commonly called “paradise,” without first seeing death. Note the King James Version's rendering of the following texts:

24And Enoch walked with God: and he was not: for God took him. (Genesis 5:24 KJV)

13And they say, Thy servants are twelve brethren, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan: and behold, the youngest is this day with our father, and one is not. (Genesis 42:13 KJV)

Enoch “was not,” just as one of the brothers “is not.” Let's assume for a moment that “and one is not” simply means “and one is not with our father.” The youngest brother was with the father, while “one is not.” It might seem to make sense like this upon first glance. Consider the following verses:

14And Joseph said unto them, That is it that I spake unto you, saying, Ye are spies. 15Hereby ye shall be proved: by the life of Pharaoh ye shall not go forth hence, except your youngest brother come hither. 16Send one of you to fetch your brother, and ye shall be kept in prison, that your words may be proved, whether there be any truth in you: or else by the life of Pharaoh sure ye are spies. (Genesis 42:14-16 KJV)

The key here is recognizing that Joseph only called for the youngest brother to be found. Why not the one who “is not”? Could it perhaps be that this brother was deceased? This is exactly the reason! “Was not,” or “is not,” are ways of expressing one's absence from this world. The New Testament affirms this:

18In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, a great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. (Matthew 2:18)

I can assure you Rachel was not weeping because they were alive. She was weeping because her children were dead, made clear to us when we read “...because they are not.” This is the same phrasing as found in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, its use expresses death. Why not in the Old Testament, too? If we're to be consistent, our first action should be to consider how this phrase is used in one place, then apply it to similar passages. If Enoch was raptured, and did not die, we'd have to apply this to the other passages we've observed. Was the brother who “is not” raptured? Were Rachel's children raptured? Similarly, if Rachel's children were deceased, was one of the twelve brothers deceased? Could Enoch have been deceased? Seems to make a lot more since than the idea of a rapture.

The Greek word for “translated” is “metatithemi,” which means to transfer, or to put in another place. Hebrews 11:5 says Enoch was “translated,” just as the Septuagint does in Genesis 5:24. Enoch lived to be three hundred sixty-five years old, died, and the Lord took him. He simply died! Hebrews 11:5 seemingly contradicts my argument I am often told. This analysis could not be complete without analyzing this verse:

5By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death, and was not found, because God had translated him: For before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Hebrews 11:5)

If Enoch “was not,” that is, died, then why was Enoch translated so that “he should not see death”? Consider that no verse declares Enoch to have been taken to heaven, or paradise, while in his physical body. The text only says this when one's preconceived ideas enter the text. In Genesis 5 and Hebrews 11 we read that Enoch pleased God. Because of this relationship with God, Enoch was taken and could not be found. If Hebrews 11:5 is referring to physical death, perhaps it is in the sense that Enoch would not literally “see” death, or would not be aware of death, in other words. Another way to word it might be to say that Enoch was laid to rest as not to suffer the typical human death caused by old age or sickness. At this point, all views rest on speculation to a certain degree. However, I believe the view in which Enoch had physically died is far more consistent than the rapture view. This consistency is made evident when we make our way a bit further into Hebrews 11, for the next verse we read actually contradicts the belief that Enoch never saw biological death:

13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. (Hebrews 11:13)

Preceding this verse, the Hebrews author makes note of Enoch's, Noah's, Abraham's, and Sara's walks of faith (Hebrews 11:6-12). Then, he writes, “These all died in faith...” If these all died, how could Enoch have not seen physical death? We know Noah, Abraham, and Sara all physically died. Again, while it is not wise to be dogmatic when speculating, it does seem quite consistent to view Enoch as having tasted physical death. I believe all the points made so far suggest just that.

For the rapture advocates, the prophet Elijah is another example of rapture evidence. Honestly, it's no surprise such a conclusion is drawn, either. The points I am about to present are often missed. Though, when understood, these points provide an irrefutable rebuttal against Elijah's “rapture.” For this, we first refer to the fourth book of Kings (hereby referred to 2 Kings as in the KJV and all modern translations):

11And it came to pass as they were going, they went on talking; and, behold a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and it separated between them both; and Eliu was taken up in a whirlwind as it were into heaven. 12And Elisaie saw, and cried, Father, father, the chariot of Israel, and the horseman thereof! And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his garments, and rent them into two pieces. (2 Kings 2:1)

Elijah (Eliu) was “taken up in a whirlwind as it were into heaven.” Elisha (Elisaie) recognized this chariot as God. In essence, God had translated Elijah, literally moving him from his current position. Rapture advocates argue that Elijah was taken into heaven, the throne room of God. However, “heaven” (Heb. shamayim) is most commonly understood as the sky, while it can also mean the abode of the stars, or the throne of God. In the following verses, we find Elisha returning to the “sons of the prophets who were in Jericho" (2 Kings 2:15). These men were concerned with where Elijah was taken, worried that the Spirit of the Lord had dropped him into the Jordan, or on a mountain (2 Kings 2:16). Thus, they urged Elisha to send men to find him. Finally, Elisha agreed to the search (2 Kings 2:17). However, after searching for three days, the men could not find Elijah. One must wonder how they knew it was the Spirit of the Lord that took Elijah, yet had concerned themselves with Elijah's drop-off point. They clearly knew Elijah was to remain on Earth.

There remains further proof against Elijah having been taken into space or the throne of God, however. In fact, the very next chapter of 2 Kings helps begin the foundation of this next point:

1And Joram the son of Achaab began to reign in Israel in the eighteenth year of Josaphat king of Juda, and he reigned twelve years. (2 Kings 3:1)

So, sometime after Elijah's “rapture”, Joram, the son of Achaab, takes the throne in Israel. Josaphat, the king of Judah, was currently in his eighteenth year of reign. Josaphat also happened to have a son named Joram, who took over when Josaphat died, reigning as co-regent before Josaphat's death (2 Kings 8:16). Joram took full control of Judah upon his father's passing:

1And Josaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David: and Joran his son reigned in his stead. (2 Chronicles 21:1)

Joran, or Joram (the spelling of names often changes slightly in older translations like the Septuagint and 1611 KJV), took the throne of Judah during the time Joram of Israel was reigning. Joram of Judah was “walking in the way of the kings of Israel” (2 Chronicles 21:6), just like the house of Achaab from which his wife came, doing deeds that were evil in the sight of the Lord for a number of years. Because of Joram's evil, he receives a message from a familiar character:

12And there came to him a message in writing from Eliu the prophet, saying, Thus saith the Lord God of thy father David, Because thou hast not walked in the way of thy father Josaphat, nor in the ways of Asa king of Juda, 13but has walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and hast caused Juda and the dwellers of Jerusalem to go a-whoring, as the house of Achaab caused Israel to go a-whoring, and thou hast slain thy brethren, the sons of thy father, who were better than thyself; 14behold, the Lord shall smite thee with a great plague among thy people, and thy sons, and thy wives, and all thy store: 15and thou shalt be afflicted with a grievous disease, with a disease of the bowels, until thy bowels shall fall out day by day with the sickness. (2 Chronicles 21:12-15)

Amazing! Years after Elijah's “rapture” we find that Elijah had written to Joram of Judah for his wickedness. If Elijah were taken to the throne of God via the rapture, how was it Elijah could still write to Joram? He wouldn't have been able to lest he were on Earth! Thus, no such “rapture” into the throne of God occurred. Elijah remained on the Earth, very much aware of Joram's wickedness.

In the end, do Futurists have any reasonable arguments for their rapture doctrines? I wouldn't suggest so. I believe the Futurists' failure to recognize what passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-53 are actually regarding is causing them to place hope in an idea that was never promised, and will never occur. What effects this may have on one's faith in the end is anyone's guess. My only prayer is that people are willing to consider the only logical explanation: the resurrection of the dead.

I hope this brief analysis was beneficial. It is difficult to be persuaded of views that contradict something we hold dear. If you have questions, please ask.

In the Lord's service,

Jason Watt

Preterism vs. Futurism: Lunar Tetrad

Wow. It has been a month since my last blog post. Unfortunately, it's been about two months since I really had it in me to put major effort into my articles. For some reason, my brain works insanely hard for many months, then all of a sudden I crash and burn for an undetermined amount of time. Nevertheless, I am starting to feel a bit more refreshed, so I think it is time to continue this Preterism vs. Futurism series.

In this article, I am going to be sharing my thoughts on this idea of the coming lunar tetrad as a sign of the imminent return of Christ. A Futurist friend of mine shared this video with me on Facebook: Lunar Tetrad. I provided a response to him that covered every major point in the video, and I wound up finding my response detailed enough to perhaps benefit someone looking to understand Preterism. So, I decided I'd share it on my blog.

Before I share my response it might be beneficial to define just what a lunar tetrad is. It is a rare event, in fact, and seems to have only occurred seven times since Christ's first advent (at least as I understand it and as claimed in the video). A lunar tetrad is four consecutive lunar eclipses that are all total eclipses. Space.com defines a total lunar eclipse as follows:

"Earth’s full (umbral) shadow falls on the moon. The moon won’t completely disappear, but it will be cast in an eerie darkness that makes it easy to miss if you were not looking for the eclipse. Some sunlight passing through Earth’s atmosphere is scattered and refracted, or bent, and refocused on the moon, giving it a dim glow even during totality. If you were standing on the moon, looking back at the sun, you’d see the black disk of Earth blocking the entire sun, but you’d also see a ring of reflected light glowing around the edges of Earth — that’s the light that falls on the moon during a total lunar eclipse." (http://www.space.com/15689-lunar-eclipses.html)

This tetrad in 2014-2015 falls on Jewish feast days, or "appointed times." The video seeks to connect the tetrads of 1949-1950 and 1967-1968 to major events in Israel, thus laying the foundation for the relevance in the coming years. Below is my critique (it would be beneficial to watch the video first to keep up):

The video lists these four appointed times as fulfilled:

1) Passover (the cross)

2) Unleavened Bread (removing spiritual adultery from the temple)

3) First Fruits (Christ's resurrection)

4) Pentecost (outpouring of the Spirit)

I concur.

The video then mentions Revelation 12:1-2 as the sign of Christ's birth. I also agree with this, and I do not maintain a December 25th date for his birth.

I do not agree with these last four being unfulfilled, however:

1) Feast of Trumpets (rapture, per Dispensational thought)

2) Day of Atonement (parousia; i.e., "second coming")

3) Feast of Tabernacles (dwelling together)

4) The Last Great Day (1000-year reign of Christ)

One frame reads, "The Bible warns in the 'Last Days' many in the Church will be caught unaware regarding the return of our Saviour."

Did you know Christ's first advent was for the last days?:

1 In many parts, and many ways, God of old having spoken to the fathers in the prophets, 2 in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages; (Hebrews 1:1-2)

In fact, the video makes the claim that the Feast of Pentecost was fulfilled via the outpouring of the Spirit. Joel prophesied of this event (Joel 2:28-32). Peter, immediately after the outpouring, quotes Joel's prophecy verbatim, affirming that it was for the last days:

16 `But this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel: 17 And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 and also upon My men-servants, and upon My maid-servants, in those days, I will pour out of My Spirit, and they shall prophesy; 19 and I will give wonders in the heaven above, and signs upon the earth beneath -- blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke, 20 the sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the coming of the day of the Lord -- the great and illustrious; 21 and it shall be, every one -- whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, he shall be saved. (Acts 2:16-21)

The video claims that the lunar tetrad of 1949-1950 is connected to Israel's independence in 1948. As Israel's independence has nothing to do with Bible prophecy, I would have to disagree. Contrary to popular belief, this text has not one thing to do with Israel's national re-establishment:

32 `And from the fig-tree learn ye the simile: When already its branch may have become tender, and the leaves it may put forth, ye know that summer [is] nigh, 33 so also ye, when ye may see all these, ye know that it is nigh -- at the doors. 34 Verily I say to you, this generation may not pass away till all these may come to pass. (Matthew 24:32-34)

Not only does Jesus say this within the context of fulfillment within his own generation's lifetime, but a cross-examination of Luke's account will note a distinct difference that disrupts this theory of prophetic relevance in the fig tree simile/parable:

29 And he spake a simile to them: `See the fig-tree, and ALL THE TREES, 30 when they may now cast forth, having seen, of yourselves ye know that now is the summer nigh; 31 so also ye, when ye may see these things happening, ye know that near is the reign of God; 32 verily I say to you -- This generation may not pass away till all may have come to pass; (Luke 21:29-32)

I capitalized "ALL THE TREES" because Christ is not referring to the fig tree in any special way. What he is saying is that just as trees give signs of summer's imminence, so too will there be signs revealing the imminence of the parousia. The signs that he gave throughout the discourse were just that.

The video then gives Amos 9:13-15 as proof. However, I find it far more accurate to understand this in terms of the conditions of the new covenant. Note that the land promise to Abraham was fulfilled in such a manner as the "heavenly city," the "new Jerusalem":

13 In faith died all these, not having received the promises, but from afar having seen them, and having been persuaded, and having saluted [them], and having confessed that strangers and sojourners they are upon the earth, 14 for those saying such things make manifest that they seek a country; 15 and if, indeed, they had been mindful of that from which they came forth, they might have had an opportunity to return, 16 but now they long for a better, that is, an heavenly, wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God, for He did prepare for them a city. (Hebrews 11:13-16)

This, and Amos 9, coincide with Isaiah 65, in which we read of the new heaven and new earth, which I would say is not a new planet, but instead the phrasing the Hebrews understood as God's covenant. Compare Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4. Note, too, that Moses, speaking to the Israelites, called THEM heaven and earth (Deuteronomy 32:1). God, likewise does this (Isaiah 1:1-2). Truth be known, to the ancient Hebrews, this was the way to refer to something in a covenant context. This is something our Western minds neglect, or are not aware of. Of course, heaven and earth do not always have covenant relevance. That'd be silly to suggest.

But in the sense of prophecy, it is often the case. Revelation 21 supports this:

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth did pass away, and the sea is not any more; (Revelation 21:1)

If this refers to a literal new planet, this new planet will not have any seas. That's ridiculous. This is because "sea" has a different context. This is covenantal (note there being a new "heaven and earth" as in Isaiah 65). The reason for no more sea is because the sea is representative of Gentiles. The temple itself actually represented as much. The "molten sea," as it was called, was where the priests would wash before entering the temple. This "molten sea" was where the Gentile proselytes would worship. Note that the angel tells John the waters which the woman sat on were "many peoples, nations, and tongues" (Revelation 17:15). Also, notice that the four beasts in Daniel 7 come from the sea. This is because they are Gentile kingdoms. Same with the beast in Revelation 13. Thus, if there is no more sea in this new heaven and earth, the Jew/Gentile distinction must be done away with; God has ONE covenantal people made up of all peoples:

12 for there is no difference between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord of all [is] rich to all those calling upon Him, (Romans 10:12)

28 there is not here Jew or Greek, there is not here servant nor freeman, there is not here male and female, for all ye are one in Christ Jesus; (Galatians 3:28)

Now, as for how this all pertains to Amos 9, note the description of new Jerusalem. We are given its interpretation, and it's NOT a literal city:

2 and I, John, saw the holy city -- new Jerusalem -- coming down from God out of the heaven, made ready as a BRIDE adorned for her husband; (Revelation 21:2)

9 And there came unto me one of the seven messengers, who have the seven vials that are full of the seven last plagues, and he spake with me, saying, `Come, I will shew thee the BRIDE OF THE LAMB-- THE WIFE,' 10 and he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and did shew to me the great CITY, the holy Jerusalem, coming down out of the heaven from God, (Revelation 21:9-10)

As we can see, the imagery in the prophecy is a city, but the city represents something, and we are told that this is his bride. Interpreting scripture with scripture, we know that this is referring to the body of Christ, his believers (Ephesians 5:25-27; John 3:29; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Colossians 1:18-24). THIS is the city Abraham awaited, and is the fulfillment of Amos 9, which this video attributes to 1948. That is incorrect, however.

But if Revelation 21 is the establishment of the new covenant, then wouldn't it be at the cross? No. Hebrews 8:13 informs us that the old covenant was still in need of fulfillment. This was written in the 60s C.E. Christ, himself, said that the law could not pass until ALL was fulfilled, at which time "heaven and earth" would pass (Matthew 5:17-18). If the law passed at the cross, so too did heaven and earth. This would find fulfillment in 70 C.E. at the destruction of Jerusalem when all the law was finally fulfilled (cf. Luke 21:20-22), thus fulfilling Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21, for now the new covenant was fully established, ushering in a new heaven and new earth.

I'm sure this sounds heretical. I would be willing to elaborate further.

Moving on...

1967 is the next target for the lunar tetrad. Given the above information, I'm sure you will be able to see why I do not find Biblical relevance for this, either. National Israel has nothing to do with God's covenant. The promises to Abraham were fulfilled through Christ, and we find that only those in Christ are of Abraham (Galatians 3). His bride is his covenant people, not national Israel.

The video uses Luke 21:24 as proof of 1967's relevance to the end times. However, as I've already pointed out, this has first century relevance. I can provide articles on this, if you'd like. I've written a number of them.

You may have noticed that the video contradicts itself. When referring to the coming tetrad in 2014-2015, the video suggests the fulfillment of Matthew 24:31-32. Yet, notice that this video used Matthew 24:32 for Israel's independence in 1948. Hmm... Then, to make it worse, the video neglects audience relevance COMPLETELY. This is one of, if not THE most important hermeneutics to follow. Christ was speaking to his own generation. The video uses Matthew 24:34 to try and say that those who see these things will be that "last generation." That is not what Christ was saying.

The video mentions a generation as being 70 years. If this started in 1948, pre-trib rapture believers missed the rapture two years ago. If the tribulation is seven years long, which I beg to differ, then it should have already started. The video's claim is that 2018 should be the year to watch for as it pertains to the coming of Christ, but according to popular Dispensational theology, many things that should have happened by 2011/2012 did not happen. This should have caused a paradigm shift for millions.

So, there you have it. While intriguing, and certainly entertaining, I do not find the coming lunar tetrad Biblically relevant. This begs the question of whether we, as Preterists, find ourselves infallible to the point in which we shouldn't pay attention to such things? Are we so certain that we are correct that we do not stay on our toes when interesting analyses like this lunar tetrad theory appear? Most would say yes. I would, too, honestly. But while I do not believe this theory is relevant, you can be certain I will continue to follow it during the next couple years, for it will be at that time a new attempt at date setting is made.

Maybe they'll give up someday. Maybe.

Blessings to all,

Jason Watt