Keep sharing good news without ads.
Sunday School Rupture Date: 11/06/2022 Teacher: Pastor Brian Garcia
All right, church, let's pray. Well, God, we do come before you thankful, Lord, for the opportunity you've given us to meet this morning. Lord, thank you for the extra hour of sleep. But Lord, we don't look forward to less light in the evening.
But Father, we do give thanks to you that every good gift comes from thy bountiful hand. We pray, Lord, your blessing over our teaching and our time together. We pray these things in Christ's name, amen.
All right, so we've been doing this back to basic series. I'm gonna take a quick detour. Not really a detour, but I noticed I didn't have anything on eschatology. Now, I recognize I may have shared this with you a while back, I can't remember.
But either way, I think it'd be a good refresher. Did I ever do a rapture teaching with you guys? Yeah, I did, right? Well, this is gonna be a good recap. And it's gonna be a good kind of segue into the study of eschatology.
Anyone know, and you guys know me already, I love eschatology. It's a fun topic for me. Anyone know what eschatology means? Study of end times. Eschaton means end. And then ology obviously means study of, like Scientology or anything that has a tology at the end just means a study.
And so eschatology is a study of end times. Now, what's probably the most popular view of the end times in America today among Christians? Pre-tribulation rapture. Have you guys ever read the book by, yeah, Left Behind series by LaHaye or others, and then you've got those movies, Left Behind series with Kirk Cameron.
So when I became a Christian, this was kind of like the de facto eschatological view amongst most Christians and churches. So I kind of adopted it just because it was what everyone was talking about in teaching, but I never really felt comfortable with it too much because I always thought it to be really strange, that there's gonna be a secret rapture and there's gonna be a seven-year tribulation period.
I'm like, okay, but that sounds cool and all, but where is that in the Bible? Like, give me a text where I can sink my teeth in and say, oh, there's a seven-year tribulation, then there's a antichrist, and then there's all these things that happen and the rapture, but there's no text that teaches any of those things.
And so over time, my eschatology began to evolve and change and I began to study more in-depthly, and I've taken many different sides on this issue. I went from dispensationalist, historic pre-millennial, and being post-tribulation rapture to now being all-millennial.
And I was at ReformCon last weekend with a bunch of Reformed Baptists, but their flavor of eschatology was post-mill, so they told me, okay, you're almost there. You're almost there to post-millennialism.
And I said, I don't think so. I'm pretty convinced in my eschatology for good reasons, some of which I will share with you this morning. But eschatology is simply the study of the last things, study of last times.
And when we discuss eschatology, inevitably we have to talk about the rapture. Now, the rapture is what? What is the rapture? Yeah. Yeah, so it literally comes from the Greek word harpazo, which means to seize or to snatch away, right?
And so it's a seizing, it's a snatching away. It's almost like, think of the word like kidnap. It's almost like what that word means. It's like, is it being taken? And that's what the word, and we get the word rapture from the Greek translation of harpazo, which is raptura.
That's the English word rapture in English. Now, you'll notice that the word rapture in itself is not in any translation of the Bible. It is, again, it's kind of a transliteration of the Greek and Latin terms.
But what you do see is you do see the term caught up numerous times in the scriptures. Now, the view that teaches a pre-tribulation rapture is called what? What's the eschatological title for that view?
Search of a D. Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism, okay. Now, dispensationalism teaches that there are seven dispensations or seven epochs of history. And they break it up by like, you know, there's creation, there's the Noahic age, there's the Abrahamic age, then there's the Mosaic age, then there's the age of the judges and the kings, and then you've got the intertestamental period, and then you get the New Testament age or the age of the church.
And then ultimately, we're gonna have a 1 ,000-year age and then an eternal state. And so they have seven different epochs or ages. And dispensationalism, to some regard, you can kind of see those ages.
They're not necessarily a bad thing to break it up systematically like that. But there is a problem with that view. There is a problem with that view to say that there are seven ages. And do you know why there's a problem with that?
Because in Matthew 12, Jesus says there's two ages, this age and the age to come. That's what Jesus said, right? And so the problem with making a doctrinal system where you're slicing biblical eras into all these extra things is that Jesus taught us plainly that there's only two ages.
And so who are we gonna go with, John Derby, or are we gonna go with Jesus Christ? So Jesus is authoritative and we can trust him to deliver us the word of God and the truth about the ages since he himself plainly spoke of it.
And this is what I like to call a clean eschatology. A clean eschatology isn't one that we have to like, you ever seen those crazy charts? How about that meme where that guy's drawing on the wall and he's making the connections?
And that's what every dispensationalist looks like to me. They've got these charts of all these crazy things and Daniel's vision and all these dates on the wall. And to me, it's just nonsense. It doesn't, it's not very compelling.
So dispensationalism teaches, again, that there's seven ages. And one of the conclusions of the age of the church is that there's gonna be a secret rapture and that's gonna happen at the beginning of a seven-year tribulation period, okay?
So there's gonna be a seven-year tribulation period where the Antichrist is gonna show up. Different guesses for the Antichrist over the last 50 years has been Henry Kissinger, JFK. When JFK got shot in the head, they thought that he was gonna be raised from the dead and become the Antichrist.
A lot of the crazy dispensationalists believe that. Ronald Reagan. Now, Ronald Reagan was an interesting one. You know why? Because Ronald Wilson Reagan, this is Ronald Reagan's name, each letter or each name, Ronald Wilson Reagan, has six letters, 666, okay?
Oh, we've got it, we've got it, we've uncovered it. And then, of course, when it wasn't Reagan, it was Barack Obama. But most dispensationalists don't use Trump as an Antichrist, which is interesting.
They put him more like the Messiah than Antichrist, which probably means he probably is the Antichrist, if that's the case. But you see a lot of times where evangelicals, dispensationalists, will just continue to make conspiracies and make wrong predictions.
The Antichrist, according to historic Reform Baptist views, is the Pope. I'm actually very convinced of that. I have no reason to believe that it's anyone other than the Pope. And do you want me to give you some reasons why?
Yeah. Okay. It's really fun, actually. And so the Pope is the Antichrist. Why do I say that and why do I believe that? Well, there's a historic argument. All the Reformers, all the early Reformers, believed that to be the case, believed it to be true.
Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Spurgeon, everyone believed universally within the Protestant Reformation the Pope was the Antichrist. Charles Spurgeon went so far as to say, if the Pope of Rome is not the Antichrist, then no other person could be the Antichrist because he fits every single criteria.
One of the criterias, according to Scripture, for the Antichrist in Daniel 7 and Daniel 9 is that the Antichrist will spring from Rome, okay? And so that's why everyone, a lot of dispensationalists over the years have looked to Rome as to, okay, like there's gonna be a political figure and he's gonna do all these things.
But it never transpires because they're not looking at the Pope. Because a lot of evangelicals today kind of made their peace with the Pope. And there's almost like an alliance that's forming between evangelicalism in America and Rome, which is very dangerous.
And it's apostasy to return to the roots of Rome. But Daniel talks about this beast. So remember, Daniel gives us visions of these four terrible beasts, all representing nations. The last beast is one that's indescribable.
It almost looks like a dinosaur probably. And this beast has many horns. And out of this beast arises a little horn, okay? That's the son of perdition. That's the biblical antichrist, if we're gonna use that term.
And the little horn rises from Rome and he speaks blasphemous words and he has the power to change times and seasons. He changes laws and he changes times and seasons. Well, who else could that be? Who, and the little horn, as it says, has blasphemous words and he speaks as if he's God, okay?
And that's why in 2 Thessalonians chapter two, when Paul talks about the son of lawlessness or the man of lawlessness, the antichrist, he says the man of lawlessness will sit in God's temple and claim to be God, okay?
Now, the pope is the pope of the Holy Roman See and he sits in the church, the temple of God, and he claims to be God. Within the Catholic catechism, official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, the vicar of Christ, the pope, is the earthly incarnate representation of God on earth.
That's a quote. He is God on earth. That's Roman Catholic teaching, okay? And that's why he's called the vicar of Christ, okay? So he claims to be God, then he changed times and seasons. Yes, what calendar do we use today?
It's called the Gregorian calendar, named after Pope Gregory, okay? Our calendar is a solar calendar. The biblical calendar is a lunar calendar. Ours is a solar calendar that was chosen by the pope in the 1400s and we've been using the same calendar ever since, okay?
Changed times and seasons. We also know that he is the little horn of Daniel because Daniel says that this little horn will rise from the final beast, which is Rome, and he'll have influence over many nations.
Every time a president is elected, what is one of the things that they go do? They go to the pope and they kiss his ring and he has power and influence over the nations, okay? And he's still very influential.
He's the pope of over a billion people on the earth. And what's interesting is that the little horn seems to also be a nation. You know what's the smallest nation in the world today? It's the Vatican.
You know where the Vatican is? It's in the city of Seven Hills, which is ancient Rome. The ancient capital of Rome is the Vatican today. Now, one of the things about the Vatican that you should be aware of, you know when there's a new pope, they have like all these people come to what's called St. Peter's Basilica, and there's like an obelisk in the middle, okay?
You know, St. Peter was martyred by Nero on that very spot, by the emperor Nero, okay? And the obelisk was actually erected by Nero, and it is the center of the seat of the Holy Roman Empire of the pope.
And so the very place where Peter was martyred and Nero's statue went up, this is the very same place of power that the pope reigns from today. It just makes total sense. He fits every single mark of the Antichrist.
And so that's why Spurgeon, I think, rightfully said, if the pope was not the Antichrist, then no one else could be the Antichrist. Does that make sense? Any thoughts or questions on that? And one of these days, I'll give you a more in-depth teaching on that, and I'll give you all the scripture references, but Daniel chapter seven and nine are really good scripture references.
Second Thessalonians chapter two, and also Revelation chapter 13 all talks about the beast, the Antichrist, and all those things fit perfectly. You know, what Revelation 13 tells us is that he will make war on the saints, he'll conquer them.
He's gonna spill the blood of saints and martyrs. There's been no greater opponent of Christians in the world than the Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholic Church is responsible for the blood of more martyrs than any other group, okay?
And so the Bible says that the Antichrist is gonna make war with the saints. It's exactly what has happened in church history. The Roman Catholic Church burned people at the stake for reading the Bible, okay?
Burned people at the stake, tortured them in inquisitions. And so when people talk about the Dark Ages and how Christians were ruling the world, well, no, it was quite literally the rule of the Antichrist, and it was the rule of Rome, of the Pope.
So I'm pretty convinced that that's the case, which is why, when a lot of Christians talk about the rapture, and they talk about this seven-year tribulation period, I don't know what they're talking about, because it's not scriptural.
It's not scriptural. They're getting it, actually, from Daniel 9. Why don't you turn to it real quick, to Daniel 9, verses 24 to 27. Now, this is where they get the seven-year tribulation period, but they're very wrong, and I'll explain to you why, okay?
Starting verse 24, 70 weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city to finish the transgression. So notice what's said here right away, Daniel 9, 24. 70 weeks are decreed, so we have a timetable, okay?
Keep that in mind. Here's what's gonna happen within that timetable. 70 weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city. That's the Jewish people who are in captivity in Babylon, and the holy city being Jerusalem.
And here's what's gonna happen. To finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place, okay?
So you have 70 weeks, and these are the things that's gonna happen. They're concerning the people of the Jewish people, the holy city of Jerusalem. It's gonna put an end to sin. It's gonna make an offering for transgression.
It's gonna usher in everlasting righteousness, and it's going to seal both vision and prophet. Verse 25, know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of the anointed one, that's a prince, there shall be seven weeks.
Anointed one means what? What is it? Anointed one means, starts with an M. Messiah, okay? And a prince there shall be seven weeks. Then, so here's how, so you see there's a seven-week period there. Then for 62 weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
And after the 62 weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off. So you have 62 weeks, and at that 62-week mark, there's gonna be an anointed one, the Messiah, shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
Its end will come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week. And for half of the week, he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abomination shall come the one who makes desolate until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator. Now, admittedly, this is kind of a hard text to decipher to some degree. There's a lot of ambiguity here, and there's a lot of things that you may not understand right away.
Anyone know what the 70 weeks represent? What do the 70 weeks represent? How much time is that actually, biblically? Is it literally 70 weeks, or is it representative of something else? So there is a interpretive rule that the Bible gives us in the book of Numbers.
And it's that when the Lord gives us a timetable, you take a day for a year. 70 weeks would then be 490 years. When does this 490-year countdown begin? What does the text tell us in verse 25? Actually, you know what, in, yeah, in verse 25.
What's the timetable? When does the 490 years begin to tick? There's a what? No. Know therefore, understand, that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem. Remember, at this point, when Daniel's writing this, they're in captivity in Babylon.
The city's been destroyed, the temple's destroyed. And so he says, once you guys get the word, and this word is gonna come actually from King Cyrus, okay, we know that. And he said, and so when you get this word, know that when that word in the decree to rebuild Jerusalem happens, there's gonna be 490 years between the rebuilding of the temple and the appearing of the Messiah and the ushering of everlasting righteousness.
This is a messianic prophecy. It's about Jesus, okay? It's pointing us towards Jesus. How do we know that? Because it says, going out to the word, restore and build Jerusalem, to the coming of an anointed one, that's the Messiah, Mashiach in the Hebrew, a prince, there shall be seven weeks, okay?
Seven weeks being seven years, okay? Now, the Messiah is called a prince here, remember that, that's very important to this. And then after 62 weeks, an anointed one should be cut off. So basically, there's gonna be a 62-week period that's gonna be very important.
So here's what that looks like. So this begins to be counted down in the year 457 BC, okay? 457 BC, because that's the year where they got the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. And it says that they're gonna rebuild the temple, but it's gonna take a long time, and it's gonna be very troubling times in the history of the nations.
Because around that time, you had the fall of three empires, actually two empires and the rise of one. You had the fall, actually three, yeah, because you had the fall of the Babylonians, then you had the Assyrians rise, and then they fell, and then you had the Greeks rise, and then they fell, and then you had the final kingdom come, which was the Roman Empire, which is the time which Jesus was born in, right?
Jesus was born in the time of the reign of the Roman Empire. And so, if you do the math on this, from 457 BC, you get 62 weeks. 62 weeks would lead us all the way, remember, a day for a year, all the way to the year AD 27, which is the year in which our Lord was baptized by John the Baptist, okay?
It's very important. And he says that there's gonna be another week, a final week there, between the Messiah appearing, his cutting off, and there's gonna be a covenant made, and it's gonna be broken.
So, let's read what that, again, it says in verse 26. And after 62 weeks, the anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing, so the Messiah's gonna die. That's what Daniel's telling us. This is a great prophecy, because if you're talking to a Jewish person who doesn't believe the Messiah's gonna die, well, what do you do with this text?
Literally, it says the Messiah will die. And so, the Messiah will be cut off, shall have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city. Now, this is where the dispensationalists say, that's the Antichrist.
The Antichrist is gonna show up on the last week, which is seven years. This is where they get the seven-year tribulation period. He's gonna show up in the seven-year tribulation period, and he's gonna make a covenant with the Jews.
In the middle of that covenant, three and a half years, he's going to cut off that relationship, and he's gonna turn his back on them, and he's gonna try to destroy them. But that's not what this is saying.
Notice one very important thing about this prophecy. Each week is congruent. Each week is consecutive. It's one week after the other. Here's what dispensationalists, and most people do today, when they read this text, is they take the first 69 weeks, and they see that as consecutive, one after another.
Then they say, but the last week, they cut it off, and they put it all the way in the last day. So, it hasn't happened yet. The last week hasn't happened. They say that we're gonna cut the last week off to the 69.
Who told you to do that? What precedent do you have hermeneutically, exegetically, to cut off a prophetic week that is 70, and now you make it to 69, and you put that last week all the way in the future?
Is there any other precedent for that in Scripture that you're aware of? I don't know of any. It's very strange. It's not a very good interpretive rule. This is not hermeneutically consistent. And so, I don't think there's any good reason to cut off the 70 weeks, and make it 69, and then put the last week at the last days.
I don't think that makes any sense. Here's what you do have, okay? Because here's what has to happen. There needs to be a decree for the people, the Jewish people in the Holy City. There's gonna be a finishing of transgression, verse 24, an end to sin, to atone for iniquity, to bring an everlasting righteousness, and to see a provisional prophet to anoint a most holy place.
So we gotta ask ourselves the question, has this happened? The answer is yes, it has happened. The last week, if we let it be consecutive, without doing what most people do, which is cutting it off and putting it in the future, you go from 27 AD, which is the baptism of Christ.
In the middle of that, three and a half years later, Jesus is crucified, which is exactly what it says in verse 27. It says, and he shall make a strong covenant. Some people say, think that he here is the Antichrist.
It's not, this is the Messiah. He, the Messiah, shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week, he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. How does he do that? Well, because in the half of that week, Jesus is sacrificed, and by his sacrifice, he puts an end to every other sacrifice.
Here's what the dispensationalists would have to say. The dispensationalists say that there's gonna be a future temple. You've heard of this before, right? That the Jews are gonna rebuild the temple, they're gonna re-institute temple sacrifices, and in the middle of that seven-year tribulation period, the Antichrist is gonna come in and make them stop sacrificing, okay?
That's their theory. I think that's, first of all, very unbiblical. If the Jews built another temple, and they began to sacrifice animals, would that be God's temple? Does God delight in sacrifices of bulls and goats?
Would not a sacrifice using animals in temple ritual and worship be an affront to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, right? It would trample on the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. So I don't get it when Christians say, oh, there's gonna be a third temple, and it's gonna be God's temple, and it's gonna be the Jewish temple, and they're gonna start sacrificing, and these are all signs of the end times.
It's like, no, God would never rejoice in using animal sacrifices anymore. We know that from the book of Hebrews. Hebrews chapter nine says that God put an end to the temple sacrifices by using the blood of Jesus, which speaks to a better word than the blood of goats and bulls, right?
And so if we go back to temple sacrifices, we're neglecting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And so Jesus put an end to the sacrificial system by means of his death on the cross, which happened in the year 31 AD.
Now, okay, so we still have 3 1⁄2 years left. In that 3 1⁄2 years, we know, according to verse 24, we have to see the ushering of everlasting righteousness. Well, did that happen? The answer is yes. In the year 34, 3 1⁄2 years after Christ's death, something significant happened.
Do you remember what that is? It's spoken of in Acts chapter nine. Do you recall what happened 3 1⁄2 years after Jesus' death? Well, he rose on the third day, not 3 1⁄2 years, yeah. But something significant happened after, in the year 34 AD.
There's a man named Saul of Tarsus who was converted to the faith and became the apostle to the nations, ushering in everlasting righteousness to the nations, okay? So Paul is the one who is called to preach the gospel to the nations.
This is to fulfill scripture. If you read in Acts 15, when the Jerusalem council comes together, they quote from, I think, Hosea, and they say that the fact that, through the ministry of the apostle Paul, the nations, the Gentiles are coming to knowledge of God, coming to knowledge of the Messiah, that this was the fulfillment, this was the beginning of the fulfillment of everlasting righteousness in Acts 15, okay?
And so if you leave the 70 weeks to be consecutive, you go from 457 BC all the way to 34 AD, which is when the apostle Paul became the apostle to the nations, and the nations are now being discipled by the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Does that make sense? So Daniel chapter nine is really important to understand, because dispensationalists get their whole worldview of a seven-year tribulation period of this antichrist making a covenant and then breaking it in the middle.
And first of all, it doesn't say anything about Jesus breaking a covenant. He says in verse 27, he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week. Did Jesus make a covenant before he left? He did.
He says, this is my body, this is my blood, this is the new covenant in my blood. Do this in remembrance of me, okay? And then it says, and for half of the week, he should put an end to sacrifice and offering.
Well, he did that in 31 AD, which is in the middle of the seven-year period of the last week, and he did so by dying on the cross. He made an end to the sacrificial system. And notice what's gonna happen in the last part of verse 27.
And on the wing of abomination shall come one who makes desolate. Now, that's the antichrist. That's the antichrist. So we don't get to the antichrist until the very last sentence here, until decreed end is poured out on the desolator, okay?
And that's gonna happen. So basically, what Daniel leaves us with in Daniel chapter nine is at the end, after the 70 weeks are completed, the antichrist is gonna reign all the way until the end, okay?
So now for seven years, but until the end of the age. And that's the fact that we see in history through the pope. The pope has been reigning and unbroken succession of popes until the last day when Jesus comes and brings to nothing the son of perdition with the word of his might according to Second Thessalonians chapter two.
So the antichrist is definitely the pope, okay? So I'm sorry it's not as sexy of an answer as it being some politician or some crazy conspiracy, but this is just a biblical fact. So any thoughts or questions on this so far?
On Daniel or the antichrist? Well, let's, yeah, go for it. Dubonoit? Yeah, so Catholicism is interesting because you see the first instance of the use of the word Catholic is in the first century. We have very early church fathers who were, so here's my, here's my, here's what I believe.
I believe the whole Bible, New Testament specifically, was written before the year 70 AD. Most scholars put the New Testament completion around the year 96 to 100 AD. I think they're wrong. They're wrong by a couple decades because the internal evidence of scripture is very consistent and very clear.
And Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple. This was the crown prophecy of Christ. And if John had been writing in the time of the 90s, he would have certainly looked back in history and looked at the destruction of the temple and said, see, it happened just as Jesus said it would.
But he doesn't do that. Paul certainly doesn't do that because Paul died before the year 70. He died around the year 64 AD. None of the other New Testament writers who maybe lived past 70 AD mentioned, or like the Book of Hebrews, for instance.
Book of Hebrews is a perfect example. Most people put the Book of Hebrews very late. If you don't have a Pauline authorship for Book of Hebrews, you probably, most scholars will put the Book of Hebrews somewhere in the 80s or 90s.
But the problem with that is the Book of Hebrews mentions the temple still standing, which was the Jewish temple, which was as short as 70 AD. So, and Paul, or I think Paul probably wrote Hebrews, but the writer of Hebrews says that they were in a transitional period, that though Jesus made an end to the sacrificial system, that the old covenant was still fading away, which meant that they were still doing sacrifices, there was still temple worship, but it was fading away and it will soon be completely gone, is what Hebrews 7 says.
So clearly, Hebrews is talking about the temple. So I put the whole New Testament before the year 70, and so as a result of that, I forgot your original question. Oh, the Roman Catholic Church. So then the Catholic Church, the first mention of the Catholic Church is around the years 80 or 90 AD.
So the Roman Catholic Church, or Roman Catholic Church is not the right answer because Roman Catholic Church as an institution is really about a third or fourth century thing. But the usage of the word Catholic is very early.
So Polycarp, Irenaeus, Ignatius, all of the really early church fathers who were right at the time of the first century and second century all used the term Catholic, but they meant it in the sense of it being universal.
It was God's universal church of believers of all across the empire. And then the formulation of a Roman Catholic system of a pope isn't until around the fifth or sixth century where you have the first actual pope.
Now, you've always had bishops, and that's one of the unique things about church history is that you do see this line of bishops. And the Bishop of Rome has always been considered kind of the pope, according to Roman Catholic dogma.
But we don't see that really in stone until fifth century. But the Roman Catholic, the seeds of the Roman Catholic Church have been there, and the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church has been the church since the first century.
And we know this because in Acts chapter 20, I think it was Paul who said that after we go, there's gonna be ravenous wolves who are gonna come in our midst. And they said they were the ones holding it back, but when they died, they were gonna come in full force.
And so Paul is even alluding to the spirit of Antichrist by doing that. First John, John says that you've heard the Antichrist is coming, but I tell you the Antichrist is already here, and there's many Antichrists, right?
And so John affirms the fact that the spirit of Antichrist, the ministry of the Antichrist, had already been at work in the first century, right? And of course, it takes its final form in the manifestation of the Pope of Rome.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, right.
If you talk to a Roman Catholic, they would say that Peter was the first Pope, which is not true. Peter never refers himself as Pope or anything like that. But there is an unbroken succession of what's called bishops, and specifically the Bishop of Rome, right?
And that's what the Roman Catholic Church believes the Pope is a successor of, starting with Peter, and then going all the way to the guy today. But the institution of the Popery is about fifth century.
Yeah, about fifth century. But again, John makes a point in 1 John that there are many Antichrists already in the world, right? And Antichrist was just someone who, really, an Antichrist is someone who preaches a different Jesus.
That's what the biblical definition of Antichrist is. And so there's no greater Antichrist than the Antichrist of Rome, because they preach a different Jesus. Jesus who doesn't justify by faith, Jesus that is still on the cross.
If you go to a Roman Catholic Church, all the statues of Jesus on the cross, he's not on the cross anymore. Our Lord is risen, he's not on the cross. So, yeah, so I'm glad we were able to go through that a little bit.
Let's, the remaining time that we have, let's destroy this false concept of the rapture. So, the main text that's used for the rapture is 1 Thessalonians 4, 13 to 18. I have that there for you. And again, I know we've probably gone through this before.
In fact, I'm positive now that we have gone through this before. It's good to recapture this, though, and to frame it a little differently. And I'm actually teaching you a little bit more things that I didn't have time to do last time.
But just to go over it real quick, 1 Thessalonians 4, 13 to 18 says, we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. What does that mean?
Who are the ones who are asleep? What does that mean to be asleep? Those who have died, right? Paul uses the term sleep to speak of their condition. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.
For we declare this to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until when? Who are left until when? The coming of what? The Lord, okay? Will not precede those who have fallen asleep, for the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, with the sound of the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
Then we who are alive, who are left, so if you read the Left Behind series, you didn't wanna be left. But here, it's actually a good thing. If you're left, what's gonna happen? We'll be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.
Therefore, encourage one another with these words. So no Antichrist, no seven-year tribulation, no rapture secretly, no rapture before the coming of Jesus. The rapture, or the caughting up with Christ to meet him in the air, happens when, according to verse 15 and 16.
When does it happen? When are believers caught up? Opening words of verse 16. What does it say? You guys seem like so unsure of yourselves. Are you guys Reformed Baptists, or what? When he descends. When he descends, okay?
Not secretly, not when, you know, seven-year tribulation, none of this nonsense. When he descends, that's when believers are joined to him. Now, when does that happen? Verse 15 tells us. Those who are left until the coming of the Lord.
Okay, this is the coming of the Lord we're talking about. The second coming, the glorious manifestation of our great God and Savior. And so it is only then that believers are caught up to be with the Lord.
Dispensationalists say there's gonna be a seven-year gap between the two events. You're gonna be caught up, and then you gotta wait seven years, and Jesus descends. Is that what this text teaches? Is there any room for that interpretation?
I really don't see it. I don't see any room for that sort of interpretation. It is just plain loose with the text. And so, clearly then, the scripture is clear. Now, that's not clear enough. Let's see what Jesus himself says in Matthew 24, 29 to 31.
We have that text for you there. Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from heaven, the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds from one end of heaven to the other.
So when is the gathering of the elect? It's when the Son of Man comes in glory. Not a seven-year tribulation period, not this ambiguous thing. Jesus comes, and he gathers his people. This is not a hard concept.
So I would say to you that I believe in the rapture, but I believe in the biblical rapture. I don't believe in a seven-year, mysterious, secret rapture, but I do believe, of course, in the believers being caught up together with the Lord, but I don't think it happens secretly.
I'm sure of it, in fact. And this is important because a lot of Christians today believe that they will escape judgment or wrath. And so I had so many Christians tell me, and I hate it, where they say, Pastor, I'm not worried about the tribulation.
I'm not worried about that because I'm gonna be out of here, meaning that they're gonna be raptured. I said, don't be so sure about that. One of my pastors who, most of the church was dispensationalist, but he wasn't, and I gave him a lot of credit.
He was very diplomatic, and one of the diplomatic words or phrases that he would say is he says, I pray for a pre-tribulation rapture, but I ready myself for a post-tribulation rapture. Pre-tribulation meaning that the rapture happens before the coming of Christ.
Post-tribulation meaning that the rapture happens after, or after the tribulation, or at the time of Christ's second coming. And so he says, pray for pre, but prepare for post, right? And I think that's a pretty good diplomatic answer, but I'll go a step further.
Don't even consider pre. Don't even consider it, because it's not true. It's not biblical, and we're setting ourselves up for failure. We're setting false expectations, and in fact, I think that this doctrine, dispensationalism, has done more harm to the church than almost any other doctrine in the modern church because it has given us reason to not even worry about the affairs of this world.
We just give it over to Satan. We just give it, we gave up the culture. We gave up missions. We gave up everything because, oh, it doesn't matter. We're gonna be out of here. We're gonna be raptured. You know, we don't care about what's happening here because we're gonna go in the clouds someday, someday soon, and that is so harmful to Christian missions and to the future of the church.
So what do we do with some verses that they point to? You know, they point to some verses in the Bible that seem to indicate that Christians are not gonna be here during the time of wrath, what they call the time of wrath.
1 Thessalonians 5 9 says, for God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. So you say, look, it's there in the Bible. It says that we're not destined for wrath, so we won't be here during the tribulation.
What mistake are they making when they say something like that? What mistake are they making? What are they equating? Yep. Yeah, so they're conflating two different things. They're saying that the wrath is the tribulation.
The Bible doesn't necessarily teach that. I mean, the Bible does say in Revelation that these are bowls of wrath that are gonna come upon the earth. They say, oh, you see, look, that's wrath, and so we're not destined for wrath, therefore we're not gonna be here.
And that's a pretty bad, weak interpretation. Obviously, when the Bible talks about wrath, it's talking about God's wrath. It's talking about wrath against sinners. It's talking about, specifically, his wrath in hell.
And so, of course we're not destined for wrath. There's no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. We're not gonna be destined to wrath, but that doesn't mean that we're not gonna face tribulation. That doesn't mean that we're not gonna be here while there's difficulty.
And so, clearly, that's a weak interpretation. Notice how other scriptures use the term wrath, like John the Baptist uses it in John 3, 36. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. Whoever does not obey the Son shall not see the light, but the wrath of God remains on him.
The wrath of God remains on him. It's not talking about seven-year tribulation wrath. It's talking about the wrath of God. 1 Thessalonians 1, 10. And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come.
That wrath to come is a wrath, is God's wrath in hell. He delivers us from that wrath. Now, what do we do with, maybe, a really interesting text from Revelation? In Revelation 3, verse 10, and this is a text that's used by the dispensationalists often.
And Jesus says this to the church. Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world to try those who dwell on the earth. Okay, that's a pretty nice text.
That's a pretty good one, right? That might work in their framework to some degree. But here's where they're absolutely wrong. One, this is Jesus speaking specifically to a specific church in Asia Minor.
He's not talking to you, he's talking to a church in Asia Minor. He's talking specifically to the people who would have received this text. So this is called contextualization. We have to contextualize the Bible, understand that it was written for us, but not to us, right?
And so the text of scripture is very clear that Jesus is saying to them, they have kept my word. Some of the criticism that Jesus has for the other churches is that you didn't keep my word. In fact, he tells the church in chapter two, verse 22, in Thyatira, he says that they will be cast into great tribulation because they didn't keep his word, okay?
So here's the problem. If in chapter two, verse 22, in the church in Thyatira, they're gonna be cast into great tribulation, but Jesus says because of the patient endurance of the believers in Thyatira, they will be spared, okay?
That's the context. So then you have a problem if you're dispensationalist. Are there some Christians who are gonna be left in the tribulation and some who are not? Depends on the dispensationalist that you ask.
They might even say that that's what's gonna happen. But then, didn't we just read a text that you affirm to be true that Jesus is gonna deliver us from the wrath to come? So which one is it? Is he gonna deliver us from the wrath to come or is he gonna leave some of us behind?
You can't have it both ways. You see how this theological framework just completely crumbles under the evidence of scripture? It can't hold up. And so clearly, Revelation 3 is not talking about the church escaping the great tribulation, but rather about individual churches who are obeying the gospel, who are obeying his word, who are keeping his word, who are gonna be kept from trials.
That's what Jesus is talking about here in this context. Any questions on that? I think it's pretty straightforward. I also think that, there's a text I didn't get to, but this completely destroys, without a shadow of a doubt, the dispensationalist worldview that says that Christians are gonna be raptured and that Christians are going to be, not endure great tribulation or an attack on the Antichrist.
Most people believe that Revelation 13 is talking about the Antichrist. You know, the beast, 666. And in Revelation 13, notice what it says. Also, it was allowed to make war on the saints. So the beast was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them.
What a strange thing if the church has been raptured. Who are the saints? It's the church. Who's being conquered? It's the church. And we see this in history, when the Roman Catholic Church did indeed conquer God's people, and we call that the Dark Ages.
An authority was given in over every tribe and people and language and nation, and all those who dwell on the earth will worship it, even those whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world and the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
If anyone has an ear, let him hear. If anyone is to be taken captive, into captivity he goes. If anyone is to be slain with a sword, with a sword he must be slain. Here's a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.
What a weird call if the saints are gone, raptured. So this makes, this is incompletely incoherent with the dispensationalist perspective. And so clearly, Christians will be here, have been here, will be here for times of trials and tribulation.
Yet, we are called to endure, and this is why the church in Revelation 3, verse 10 is commended because they did obey Jesus. They did keep the faith, and Jesus, I'm gonna spare you from trials because of your patient endurance.
But the church of Thyatira, they weren't so obedient, and they were not spared. And so again, there's just no room in the scriptures for this mental gymnastics of dispensationalism. The Bible does not teach it.
The biblical rapture is the rapture that happens at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory when he gathers his people, his elect, from the four corners of the earth, and we are joined to him, one and for all time, into eternity, and that's it.
That's the rapture. Any questions or thoughts on it? Like the Olivet Discourse, Matthew 24.
I think that view would be that, and they would use it for biblical human beings that no man speaks unintelligibly. The people that Jesus was talking to were talking to so that they could understand what he was saying and what it meant to them, not just, like you said, the Bible had written for us but not to us, so they were listening to him and striving to understand what he was saying, and he was saying.
Statements like, truly, truly, I say to you, this generation will not by no means pass away.
Yeah, and I think that, so the Olivet Discourse, which is Matthew 24, where Jesus is on the Mount of Olives with his disciples, and they ask him the question, when will these things be? What will be the sign of your coming and the conclusion of the age?
So it kind of asks three questions there, and Jesus goes on to provide evidences. You'll hear of rumors of wars. You'll hear of kingdom rising against kingdom, food shortages, pestilence, all these things, and the good news will be preached in all the inhabited earth as a witness of nations, and then the end will come.
That's Matthew 24, verses one through 14, and then Jesus begins to talk about this great tribulation, this great tribulation that's gonna happen, and it seems to conclude with the destruction of the temple and it seems to conclude with the coming of Christ.
So that's kind of an interesting, problematic thing for people, right? Because if you're gonna take it very literally, it sounds like the destruction of the temple is the second coming event, which is why there's people who are called preterists, and we've had to deal with a preterist in our midst lately, and a preterist would say that the second coming basically already happened, okay?
That Jesus came in the year 70 when he destroyed the temple through the Romans and that this was the second coming event. Now, there's obviously a clear problem with that. What would be the clear problem with that view of saying that Jesus already came?
Have we been raised from the dead? We're not, if this is the new heavens, new earth, I want my money back, because this is not good. This is not a good state for the earth right now. The resurrection hasn't happened, and the Bible makes it clear, 1 Corinthians 15, that the coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead is one climactic event, it's one climactic event.
1 Thessalonians 4, what we just read, also teaches that. When the Lord descends from heaven, the dead in Christ will rise first, and those who are left will be gathered to him and be changed in the twinkling of an eye.
So that, clearly, the second coming and the resurrection happen at the same time. Paul even warns in 2 Timothy, he warns of a false teacher who was saying that the resurrection had already occurred, and he denied that flat out, because resurrection is a bodily resurrection, just as Christ was raised bodily from the dead, so we will be raised bodily with him.
Here's the answer, though, here's the clear answer. When we read Matthew's gospel of the Olivet Discourse, we're missing a very key verse that Matthew does not put in, but Luke does, so go to Luke 21.
Luke 21 is Luke's account of the Olivet Discourse, of the end times. So I'm reading first in verse 20, 21, 20. So you'll see clearly, and I love Luke's account the best, actually, because it's the most detailed.
And you'll see the missing key in Matthew's, which leads a lot of people to some error. Verse 20 says, but when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. That's exactly what we read in Daniel, right?
Daniel chapter nine, a desolation, okay? And he says, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance to fulfill all that is written.
So this is very important. So basically what Jesus is saying, if you're in Jerusalem, or you're heading towards Jerusalem, and you see armies starting to camp, he says, don't go in, he says, get out, like, go to the mountains, because when you see that, know that the desolation of Jerusalem is near.
She's gonna be destroyed. So leave, flee, he's telling them what they need to do. And these are the days of vengeance. Alas, verse 23, for the women who are pregnant, and for those who are nursing infants in those days, for there will be great distress upon the earth, and wrath against this people, that's the Jewish people.
They will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive among all nations, and this is the key that Matthew does not include. This is the bridge between the events of 70 AD, and the coming of Christ.
And Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Then there will be great signs in the sun, and the moon, verse 25, the stars, and the earth, the stress of nations, and perplexity, because of the roaring of the sea, and the waves, and people fainting with fear, foreboding what is coming on the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken, and then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with great power and great glory.
Now, when these things take place, straighten up and raise up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. So here's the bridge that is so important. Matthew makes it seem that right after those, right after that tribulation, right after the events of 70 AD, or congruent with the events of 70 AD, that's when Christ comes, okay?
But Luke inserts a very important detail, and the bridge is, there's gonna be a period of time, what's called the Gentile times, where the Gentiles are trampling under, are trampling Jerusalem under feet.
And when that time ends, that's when you see the coming of Christ. So we have not yet seen that time come. We're still in the era of the Gentiles. We're still in the Gentile times. That's how I would interpret it.
That's how I would see the text. So that's the bridge. Does that make sense, John?
But the scripture, the analogy of scripture, and what the scripture's saying about this event, about these things, not just focusing on one scripture. I think the problem that I hear from some prayers is that they'll find these scriptures, they'll focus on it, and they'll say, this is why I don't believe Jesus will come.
He's already come. Yeah. There's, and they use, they isolate texts,.
They don't bring in everything that's important,.
What the view is, because there are certainly things that haven't happened. We don't live in a time where the earth hasn't melted into perfect heat and changed. There's a number of things that haven't occurred.
So I can see, I'm listening to you, and I can see their retort and argument. I'm not gonna do that. They're not gonna, I'm not gonna do that. Right. I do see the support in the analogy of scripture, what other scriptures say to support the idea that it hasn't happened yet.
Yeah. So that's where, I'm not going to create a straw man.
Yeah, yeah, and I'm a partial preterist. I do look at the events of 70 AD to be very significant, but I don't think that, here's the problem. If we're gonna say that the events of 70 AD was a coming of Christ, we fall into the same problem as the dispensationalists who say that there's gonna be a secret coming of Christ in the rapture, and then a final coming of Christ.
That means there's three comings, and the Bible doesn't teach three comings of Jesus. It teaches two. It teaches two. His first coming, and when he appears again, he's gonna come the same way that he was taken, Acts chapter one, and Hebrews chapter nine says that when he comes again, he's not coming in relation to sin, but to bring an everlasting salvation to all those who waited on him.
And so there's not three comings, there's two. And so I don't like the preterist view that says that Jesus came in 70 AD, because then you're gonna have to have three comings if you're gonna be consistent and have some sort of fulfillment in the future.
And again, that's just not supported in scripture. And it also reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses, because the Jehovah's Witnesses believe in three comings of Jesus. His first one, he came in 1914 in kingdom power, and that was his second coming, but he's gonna come again a third time at the end of the age or the end of the system of things in Armageddon, and so it's just, it's too culty for me.
Yeah. Yeah, I understand that argument. The argument is that this is a coming in judgment. This is a, like Isaiah 19 or Isaiah 13, where the Lord rides in the clouds in judgment. And certainly, I think that's partially true in regard to the events of 70 AD.
But I think we have to be more careful of our definitions. We can't say that that is the coming of Jesus. The coming. Yeah, we can't, exactly. So, I mean, when Paul was visited by the Lord Jesus, was that his coming?
Right, I mean, he came, he was on the earth, he appeared before Paul, was that his coming? No, so can Jesus, yeah, but I think it's different. There's a difference between visitation and coming. Can Jesus visit his people?
Yes. Was there a visitation when he encountered Saul on the road to Damascus? Yes. Was there a visitation when he came in judgment in 70 AD? Sure, but this is not, a visitation is, I would, that's the definition I would use.
It's a visitation. That's actually a good definition.
That's a good way of looking at it. Yeah, right.
Absolutely, absolutely. So let me pray for us. God, we thank you that we can discuss these matters, that we can eagerly await the glorious coming and manifestation from heaven of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
We look forward to that day, Lord. May you give us and arm us with your truths that we may know the truth about what your coming will look like and what the implications will mean for us as believers, and we look forward to that day.
We'll be joined together in glory for you once and for all time, and we pray these things in Jesus' name, amen. So keep this and also, if you have it from the dispensations, give it to them. Let them read this, and hopefully they will come to some sense of understanding to what the Bible teaches on this topic.
