Prophecy Update Newsletter
IN TODAY'S NEWSLETTER...
Eschatology 101 - by Pete Garcia -
Several years ago, an Omega Letter member named Ron Maurno delivered to us the 'Bible Prophecy 101' letter, which I for one, was tremendously blessed by. He gives a summation of all the major points in the prophetic Scriptures. In a similar manner, what I would like to do now is to just focus in on one section of that summation, eschatology.
It's been said by many Christian to the author, that the study of prophecy is irrelevant to the here and now. I would counter, by quoting the famed comedian George Burns,
I look to the future, because that is where I'm going to spend the rest of my life.
While this present age darkens, and our world seemingly becomes more unhinged by the day, we know according to Scripture, that God has a grand plan for us, and a future beyond compare. I hope this helps you in your journey.
Bible Prophecy: God's foretelling of what's to come. Since God is exists outside of time, He is able to see the end from the beginning, and all therein. (Isaiah 46:9-10) 28% of the Bible is prophetic in nature, beginning with Genesis 3:15 (protoevangelium). There were 'near' and 'far' prophecies. Near being fulfilled in the life time of the person delivering the message, and far, would be any of which would come to pass beyond that prophets life.
Eschatology: the word being a compound of two Greek words, Eschatos, meaning last or final things; and ology, meaning the study of, so it is a part of theology concerned primarily with the study of last things or final events.
So while all Eschatology fits into the concept of Bible prophecy, not all Bible prophecy is eschatological in nature. For instance, Bible prophecies concerning Christ's first coming were prophetic when they were given, but are not considered eschatological today.
Probably the most maligned, and misunderstood theological doctrine in all of Christianity, is that of Bible prophecy. Granted, every major doctrine within Christendom has been abused and/or perverted to some extent, but none as much as Bible prophecy. So why would God give us something that has the potential to receive so much negative attraction?
~Defends the authoritative power, truth, inerrancy, and divine inspiration of the Bible (Isaiah 46:9-10; Jeremiah 30, 31; Ezekiel 36-39, etc.) "Thus saith the Lord"
~No other book, religious or otherwise contains the same claims, nor the perfect prophetic track record of the Holy Bible. (Isaiah 55:11)
~Ex: Christ fulfilled 109 specific prophecies concerning His birth, life, death, and resurrection.
Jesus used prophecy to confirm that His message was true, and did so by telling His disciples ahead of time, so when it happened, they knew it what was supposed to happen. (John 14:29; 16:4, Luke 24:25-27)
~Gives hope in dark days (2 Peter 1:19-21, 1 Thess. 4:13-18)
~ We are commanded to watch and understand the times we live in. (Mark 13:35-37; Luke 12:37; 1 Thess. 5:1-8)
~Gives a practical purpose for everyday life:
Prophecy is not meant to tickle the ear, but to turn our feet toward God.
~Meant to provoke us to holy living. (1 John 3:2-3; 2 Peter 3:11; Titus 2:13)
~A powerful tool for evangelism. (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9)
~Serves as warning that time had a starting point, and likewise, has an end.
~Revives a sense of urgency in our lives concerning the coming of Christ (Matt. 24:42)
~Is all about Christ (either directly, or indirectly). (Rev. 19:10; Luke 24:25-27)
Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible. It is part of the broader field of hermeneutics which involves the study of principles for the text and includes all forms of communication: verbal and nonverbal.
Understanding that Bible prophecy has a 'value added' to the Christian walk, we now turn to the differing viewpoints within eschatology. All of these viewpoints come about, by either one of two methods of biblical interpretation, or hermeneutics.
Literal: means the literal, grammatical, historical, and contextual reading of a passage is taken at face value, unless the surrounding passages convey otherwise.
Non-Literal: means the passage is not taken in the above manner, but either a spiritual metaphor or simile, or allegorical approach is applied to the text at hand.
Now, two common misconceptions are at play here:
Taking a passage literally, does not imply 'wooden literalism', as some would have it. When Jesus says, "I am the door..." (John 10:9), we know that Jesus isn't literally a 'door'. He is using a metaphor to convey a deeper meaning that one must enter through Him, in order to receive salvation.
Also, in Isaiah 55:12, when it states that "all the trees of the field will clap their hands", we understand that to be a personification of a non-human object. It is meant to convey a deeper, poetical meaning to the fact that nature itself will rejoice in God. Having a literal interpretation just means we take the text at face value, unless by doing so, makes the passage nonsensical. From Dr. D.L. Cooper:
WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE MAKES COMMON SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE; THEREFORE, TAKE EVERY WORD AT ITS PRIMARY, ORDINARY, USUAL, LITERAL MEANING UNLESS THE FACTS OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, STUDIED IN THE LIGHT OF RELATED PASSAGES AND AXIOMATIC AND FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS INDICATE CLEARLY OTHERWISE.
Secondly, a person who takes the non-literal position, is not to say that they take the whole bible in non-literal fashion. Rather, they take the non-prophetic passages literally, but then apply a non-literalism (allegorical, metaphorical, etc.) approach in varying degrees, to prophetic passages. So for the most part, they would think they have a literal understanding of the Bible (i.e....Creation, Noah's ark, Moses, David and Goliath, and even prophetic passages that pertain to Christ's first coming), usually are taken in a literal manner. Non-literal interpretation is usually only reserved for passages pertaining to events that have yet to take place.
Three main branches of hermeneutical thought within Orthodox Christianity based off of the framework in which one develops an eschatological view point, is derived usually, from one of three main views:
Dispensationalism; comes from the Greek compound word, oikonomia, which simply means 'house rules'. It is used some 20 times in the NT and represents the following words; Steward or stewardship, administration, dispensation, or manager. The definition, according to Dr. Charles Ryrie is as follows:
Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In His household world God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the passage of time. These various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute the dispensations. The understanding of God's differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.
It is based on three simple premises:
~A plain, normal, literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of all Scriptures.
~A recognition, that Israel is not the Church, and the Church is not Israel.
~ The overarching plan, is God's glory.
A Dispensational view point is a natural consequence of a consistent, normal, literal interpretation of scripture. Two points up front to consider: the first is that God never changes. The second, is that although the entire Bible is for the Christian, the entire Bible is not too the Christian. Anyone who goes to Church on Sunday with clothes on, doesn't sacrifice small animals, and doesn't consider themselves under the thumb of the Mosaic Law would have to agree.
We see in the Bible that there are three primary groups of people; the Gentiles, the Jews (Hebrews/Israelites), and the Church. Genesis 1-12 deals exclusively with mankind as singular group. Then, in Genesis 12, God separates one man (Abraham) and is set aside to become a new group. From Genesis 12-Malachi, the focus is exclusively on the Jewish people. Gentiles are only mentioned in so much as in how they interact with the Jews.
The New Testament makes mention of a new class of people...the Church; with Matt. 16:16-19 as the first mention. Acts 2 then is what is normally accepted as the birth of the Church, with the giving of the Holy Spirit at the day of Pentecost. So from Acts 2 through Revelation 3:22, the focus is exclusively on the Church. Jews and Gentiles are only mentioned, in so far as how they interact with the Church. (See 1 Cor. 10:32). Also, in 70+ times of mention in the NT, Israel is never recognized as the Church, nor vice versa.
The last piece is on God's glory being the overarching plan for God. This glory, supersedes even that of salvation. For example, the fallen angels (of which Lucifer is chief) have no manner or mechanism for redemption, yet, their condemnation, judgment, and damnation, serve to fulfill the purpose of God's glory. True, God knew from before the foundation of the world how this would all play out, but God's glory trumps every other purpose or plan that exists.
A Dispensationalist recognizes that God has interacted in differing ways with mankind through the ages. Not everyone has a forbidden tree to eat from. Not everyone has an ark to build. Not everyone has a burning bush to talk to, or a giant to slay. He/she also recognizes that the entire Bible wasn't given to Adam...it was given in varying measures to His chosen spokesmen over a period of 1,600 years. This is known as 'progressive revelation'. Middletown Bible Church gives a good demonstration of this below:
~Adam: "I had no Bible at all, but I walked with God in the cool of the garden."
~Abraham: "I had no Bible at all, but at different times God would appear to me and speak to me" (see Genesis 17:1; 18:1; etc.)
~Moses: "My Bible contained 5 books-Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy"
~David: "My Bible contained the same 5 books that Moses had as well as Joshua and Judges and many of the Psalms which I wrote, etc."
~Ezra: "My Bible contained most of the Old Testament books but not all of them"
~John the Baptist: "My Bible contained all of the Old Testament books but none of the New Testament books"
~Paul: "My Bible contained the Old Testament books and most of the New Testament books but not all of them"
~John: "My Bible contained all of the Old Testament books and all of the New Testament books. Shortly before I died God used me to write the last New Testament book."
So simply based off the idea that not everyone had a complete Bible (Old and New Testament), how could Moses know all that would be revealed to Paul? He didn't. He only knew what God had revealed to him at that moment in time, or over the course of his life. To assume anything beyond that, is to insert an idea into the text, that simply isn't there.
Two charges often laid at the feet of Dispensationalism, is that it is a new system (Johnny Come-Lately theology), and that it promotes multiple ways of salvation. Neither is true.
Dispensationalism is as old as the Bible itself...because it is the normal understanding one comes too, if you take the literal, grammatical, historical interpretative method. Going back to the early church, men like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus understood that God has worked differently, in different ages. Jonathan Edwards (1646-1719), published 2 vol. work- entitled "A Complete History or Survey of All the Dispensations". Isaac Watts (1674-1748) recognized the dispensations as conditional ages wherein God had certain expectations of men and made conditional promises and prohibitions to them.
It was systematized by John N. Darby in the 1800's, but that is not the same as it being 'invented'. No one accuses Martin Luther of inventing 'sola fide' in the 1500's. He simply rediscovered what the scriptures have said all along. Similarly, men like John N. Darby (and others) were rediscovering the plain, normative, understanding of all Scripture, too include Bible prophecy. Charles Ryrie sums it up like this;
The fact that something was taught in the first century does not make it right (unless taught in the canonical Scriptures), and the fact that something was not taught until the nineteenth century does not make it wrong unless, of course, it is unscriptural.
Infant baptism and Replacement theology began back as early as the 1st century, and neither are biblical, yet because they've been around as long as they have, does that give them credence to persist as mainstream Christian teaching? Clearly, no. So longevity is not an accurate standard in which we measure our orthodoxy on.
Dispensationalism has never promoted multiple ways of salvation. Certain statements by Dispensationalists, when taken in isolation and/or out of context, have been used as fodder to feed this argument. (See a detailed response here). Adherence to the Law never saved anyone, (Gal. 3:24)
Question: Since salvation is by grace through faith, how could the OT saints be 'saved' prior to Christ's coming?
Answer: Salvation is the wrong way to frame the question. Salvation is through Christ alone. (John 10:9, 14:6) One has to come to Christ in order to by baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ. (1 Cor. 12:13), sealing the believer into Christ forever. (2 Cor. 1:21-22; Eph. 1:11-14)
Since 4,000 years of human history had transpired prior to Christ's physical manifestation here on earth as the promised Redeemer, salvation was not yet possible. If it were, Christ need not come.
One was not 'saved' before Christ came, in the same sense that we are today (post-Calvary), but they were justified by their faith in God, and when they died, they went to Abraham's bosom, which is in Sheol (or Hades in the Greek), but separated from 'Torments' in a place known as Paradise, awaiting their redemption by the Redeemer. (Luke 16:22-26; 23:43; Eph. 4:8-10; 1 Peter 3:18-20)
In conclusion on the Dispensational view, it is the most accurate attempt by fallen men, to corroborate what Holy Scriptures tell us about God's outworking in the human race over the course of our common history. It is not perfect, because we simply don't know certain things, either due to silence in the Word, or because events have not yet played out. We hold that all Progressive Revelation ended with the Apocalypse, as given to John the Beloved on Patmos, in AD95.
What we have now, is Progressive Illumination, which continues to open our understanding of the how, in God's plan unfolds according to His time, and His purpose.
Covenant/Reformed Theology (CT)
Covenant and Reformed theology are terms that are often used interchangeably. They represent the other half of mainstream Protestant thought pertaining to Biblical hermeneutics. Sometimes referred to as Reformed Theology, but distinct in that one could be Reformed and yet not be CT. According to Dr. Richard L. Pratt,
Covenant theology refers to one of the basic beliefs that Calvinists have held about the Bible. All Protestants who have remained faithful to their heritage affirm sola Scriptura, the belief that the Bible is our supreme and unquestionable authority. Covenant theology, however, distinguishes the Reformed view of Scripture from other Protestant outlooks by emphasizing that divine covenants unify the teachings of the entire Bible.
CT Summarized: (Source: Is Covenant Theology Biblical?)
Covenant Theology views the covenants of Scripture as manifestations of either the CW (Covenant of Works) or the CG (Covenant of Grace). The entire story of redemptive history can be seen as God unfolding the CG from its nascent stages (Genesis 3:15) through to its fruition in Christ. Covenant Theology is, therefore, a very Christocentric way of looking at Scripture because it sees the OT as the promise of Christ and the NT as the fulfillment in Christ.
Some have accused Covenant Theology as teaching what is called "Replacement Theology" (i.e., the Church replaces Israel). This couldn't be further from the truth. Unlike Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology does not see a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church. Israel constituted the people of the God in the OT, and the Church (which is made up of Jew and Gentile) constitutes the people of God in the NT; both just make up one people of God (Ephesians 2:11-20). The Church doesn't replace Israel; the Church is Israel and Israel is the Church (Galatians 6:16). All people who exercise the same faith as Abraham are part of the covenant people of God (Galatians 3:25-29).
Systemization of CT dates back to the Reformation era with Martin Luther, John Calvin, Westminster Confession, Savoy Declaration, London Baptist Confession and claims early church father (ECF) roots (albeit with more ambiguity, since CT tends to only view one to three covenants for the entire Bible). CT and Reformed Theology lean heavily on traditional creeds and confessions made by the various Reformers, affirming or denying certain views they hold as Orthodox. Exclusively Calvinistic, but can vary in whether they hold to all five points within Calvinism, or some variation thereof.
CT is similar to Dispensationalism in that CT holds to the main, orthodoxical positions on key areas such as:
~The Deity of Christ
~The Triune nature of God
~The Inerrancy of Scripture
~Salvation by Grace through Faith
Where CT and DISP part ways, is in the following:
~CT sees only one people of God, whereas DISP sees two, the Church, and Israel.
~CT sees two to three covenants implied in Scripture;
~A covenant of works (Gen. 2:16-17)
~A covenant of grace (Gen. 3:15)
~A covenant of redemption. (Eph. 1:3-14)
These differ from the stated covenants actually found in Scripture
~Abrahamic (Gen. 15)
~Land (Deut. 29-30)
~Seed or Davidic (2 Sam 7:12-16)
~Blessing or Blessing (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
CT can accept or reject Premillennialism, but primarily rejects it based on the blurring between Israel and the Church. Primary eschatology tends to be either Amillennial, Post-Millennial, or Historic Premillennialism. CT can in varying forms, (mild to strong), be considered Replacement theology (i.e....the Church replaces or supersedes Israel) in the plan and promises of God.
The Roman Catholic Church, believes strongly in the idea of Apostolic Succession, by which they claim to trace their authority, back to the Apostle Peter, via the statement made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19;
When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
The Roman Catholic Church wrongly attributes Christ charge that the rock is Peter, rather than what Peter confessed. Thus, from Peter onward, the Roman Catholic Church claims to trace its right to organize, add, delete, translate, etc. the Holy Scriptures. History shows, that the Roman Catholic Church did not in fact, begin to be systematized, until at the earliest, the fifth century. Three things had to happen first:
Emperor Constantine's legalization of the Christian faith within the Roman Empire with the Edict of Milan (AD313). With Constantine's adoption of the Christian faith, he encouraged the Christianization of pagan beliefs, for which they bring into Christianity adding non-biblical practices. Ex: Mithraism, Cult of Isis, Patron saints, etc.
Augustine's publication of the "City of God", which laid a lot of the theological framework, in which Roman Catholic Theology would come from. (See here for summarized biography of this influential man)
Emperor Damasus commissioned Jerome to translate the Bible from its original Greek and Hebrew, into Latin beginning in the fourth century. Although Latin was a popular dialect within the Roman Empire at the time, this would come to prevent the common folk (who increasingly didn't speak Latin) from being able to understand or read the Bible. A clerical class arose (the Priests, Bishops, Popes) arose to be the mediators between God and man, thus allowing the Roman Catholic Church to completely control the message of what was being taught.
Needless to say, Roman Catholic theology dominated Christendom from the 5th through 15th centuries in a period largely referred to as the "Dark Ages". When the masses began stirring away from the blatant corruption of the papacy between the 13th through 16th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church began various Inquisitions in Europe to stifle dissent. Heretics (those who disagreed with the RCC) were tortured, burned at the stake, drowned, hung, beheaded, etc. for daring to own their own Bibles, or for belonging to non-Catholic sects. The below the more famous martyrs in the lead against Catholic theology.
-Jerome of Prague
Preterism: (Source: Wikipedia)
The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is listed in Webster's 1913 dictionary as a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond", signifying that either all or a majority of Bible prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70. Historically been general agreement with non-preterists that the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy was written by the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar during the Counter Reformation.
Full Preterism: all prophecy has been fulfilled since AD70. Christ returned spiritually and used the Romans to exact His judgment on Israel. (Heretical since it denies Christ's Second Coming)
Partial Preterism: Most of prophecy has been fulfilled (up until Rev. 19), except for the Second Coming of Christ, and the eternal state.
Pros: If one were so inclined, they are able to dismiss Bible prophecy as irrelevant, thus negating the need to study or handle prophetic passages in Scripture as anything other than, historical events.
Cons: In order for this view (either partial or full), one would have to apply serious allegorical or metaphorical interpretations to large sections of Scripture. Would also require historicism to be applied liberally, to which even Preterists differ on fulfillment.
Amillennialism: (Source: Wikipedia)
(Greek: a- "no" + millennialism), in Christian eschatology, is the rejection of the belief that Jesus will have a literal, thousand-year-long, physical reign on the earth.
Church fathers of the second and third century that rejected the millennium were Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyprian. These men were heavily influenced through Grecian Platonism. Since Augustine was also influenced in this Grecian philosophical thought, he leaned heavily on Origen's method of allegorizing Scriptural texts in which he became the first to systematize Amillennialism in his book "City of God". He considered the idea of a physical kingdom to be very carnal, and thus rejected it. Groups who hold to this are:
Amillennialism has been the dominant form of eschatological view over the last 2,000 years, simply because this was the main eschatological view of Roman Catholicism, which dominated Christendom from the 5th through 15th century. Although the Protestant Reformers broke away and returned to a more literal interpretation of Scripture, they brought with them the same eschatological baggage that initially stemmed from Roman Catholicism, and kept Amillennialism as their default view for the study of last things.
Pros: One is able to dismiss Bible prophecy as irrelevant, thus negating the need to study or handle prophetic passages in Scripture as anything other than, historical events.
Cons: In order for this view, one would have to apply serious allegorical or metaphorical interpretations to large sections of Scripture. Would also require historicism to be applied liberally, to which even adherents differ on fulfillment.
Pre-Millennialism: The view that Christ will return for His bride (the Church) prior to the Millennial Kingdom.
Pre-Tribulation: Christ returns for His bride prior to the beginning of the 70th week of Daniel (aka...The Tribulation). This is executed by the the Rapture of the Church. In 1 Thess. 4:16, it is referred to as the 'catching up' (Harpazo, GreekRapere, Latin, "Catching up", English). The Rapture of the Church does not begin the Tribulation, but precedes it as a necessity due to the role of the Holy Spirit as Restrainer (2 Thess. 2:7, Eph. 1:14), the wrath of God (1 Thess. 1:10, 5:9, Rev. 3:10), and the order of the judgment of the Church at the Bema Seat (1 Cor. 3:9-15; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Peter 4:17)
Mid-Tribulation: View's Christ returning at the mid-point of the Tribulation. The mid-point is noted in Matthew 24:15, with the 'Abomination of Desolation', in which the Antichrist desolates the new Jewish Temple's Holy of Holies.
Pre-Wrath (newest): See's Christ returning between the Sixth Seal and the Seventh Seal Judgment when the Church is raptured out. They do not see the wrath of God beginning, until the Trumpet Judgments.
Post-Tribulation: See's the Rapture and the Second Coming as the same event, thus the Church goes all the way through the Tribulation.
The main take away from all these views, is that only the Pre-Tribulation maintains the doctrine of imminence (or that Christ could return at any moment), maintains a clear delineation from Israel, thus negating the need for the Church to have to enter any portion of the 70th week of Daniel. (See Daniel 9:24; Jeremiah 30:7-11 for more context)
A primary problem with seeing the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming as the same event are:
Rapture/Translation 2nd Coming/Estab. Kingdom
1 Translation of all believers 1 No translation at all
2 Translated saints go to heaven 2 Translated saints return to earth
3 Earth not judged 3 Earth judged & righteousness established
4 Imminent, any-moment, signless 4 Follows definite predicted signs including
5 Not in the Old Testament 5 Predicted often in Old Testament
6 Believers only 6 Affects all men
7 Before the day of wrath 7 Concluding the day of wrath
8 No reference to Satan 8 Satan bound
9 Christ comes for His own 9 Christ comes with His own
10 He comes in the air 10 He comes to the earth
11 He claims His bride 11 He comes with His bride
12 Only His own see Him 12 Every eye shall see Him
13 Tribulation begins 13 Millennial Kingdom begins
Post-Millennialism: Christ returns at the end of an undefined period of time (the millennium is thus relegated from a 1,000 years, to???) This view was very popular around the turn of the 20th century, but the idealistic and optimistic tenets of Post-Millennialism, crashed into the rocky shores of reality with the onset of World War I, and World War II. It was largely marginalized over the past 50 years, but has found new legs within the Charismatic movements, and to some extent, re-popularizing within Reformed and Covenant theological circles.
Pan-Millennialism: (it will all pan out in the end) Unfortunately, the usual state of the modern (or post-modern) Christian who hangs their coats in Amillennial, Post Millennial, or Preterist Churches, is that they tend to amalgamate into the vast pool of Pan-Tribbers, or Pan Millennialists. Since prophecy has either been concluded in the first century, or life will continue on into an undefined and indifferent future, why bother studying? It is the natural state for those who hold to the aforementioned views to end up at. In his article addressing the devastating effects of Amillennialism upon the Churches of Christ over the last half century, Dr. Lynn Mitchell (Church of Christ member, theologian, and Professor), notes:
Instead, all we have left is ah-millennialism. We
are neither passionately radical nor invigoratingly
hopeful. We are only a-, from the Greek term meaning
"zilch." The eschatological character of our popular
preaching and teaching ended up becoming the
most bland, impotent, paganizing, ahistorical,
docetic body-soul dualism to arise out of the theological
confusion of frontier-rural America.
It was the kind of eschatology that Mark Twain and H. L.
Menchen could earn a living making fun of. From
our homemade eschatological vision, one would
think that the only purpose for our being on earth is
to believe the right religious doctrines, do the right
religious things, and associate ourselves with the
right religious folks so as to induce God to admit
our immortal souls, when we shuck our bodies, to a
place beyond the blue.
A sobering commentary indeed.
This brief does not cover many other movements pertaining to Christian Eschatology, particularly those which fall outside the main orthodoxy of the Christian faith due to their being outside of the boundaries of the true Christian faith on other core doctrines. These are:
In conclusion, one can see that many views have begun over the last two thousand years of Church history. We must be cautious in attributing all wrongs to one particular sect or group, because despite faulty theology, many earnestly are seeking God and the truth in Him. On the flip side, we should exercise caution in accepting all teachings and beliefs as valid or equal.
We must remember that belief-systems have consequences.
If one believes that the Kingdom began at the Cross, and we are in the Kingdom now, than one could justify the need for a Pope (Vicar of Christ), or Crusades, or Inquisitions. If one group believes they have replaced the Jewish people as God's chosen, they could justify ignoring national Israel and supporting things like Divestiture or Palestinian terror causes. The Nazi's managed to remove the Jewishness from their Bibles, in order to theologically justify the Final Solution.
I'm fond of saying that error begets only more error. And while eschatology is not core to one's salvation, it is key to one's understanding the complete word of God. How you understand the end, will largely drive how you live today. One recommended source for seeing how Christianity began its journey away from the first century construct, is in "Theology Adrift: The Early Church Fathers and Their Views of Eschatology".
Ahead of Bahrain summit, Trump's top Mideast envoy reveals insights in peace plan - By Israel Kasnett - https://www.jns.org/ahead-of-bahrain-summit-trumps-top-mideast-envoy-reveals-insights-in-peace-plan/
"This is a very detailed peace vision. You cannot have a successful peace agreement without a successful economic plan. We are worried about the days, weeks, months and years after," stated U.S. special envoy to the Middle East Jason Greenblatt.
It has been a busy week for Middle Eastern affairs. Israel announced the establishment of "Trump Heights" in the Golan, Iran has announced it will soon achieve higher uranium enrichment levels, and the United States has announced that Israel will not be attending next week's economic workshop in Bahrain. That workshop has drawn significant attention as it is the Trump administration's much anticipated first foray into the conundrum that is the Arab-Israeli conflict.
As a prelude to the workshop, the World Values Network, led by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, hosted an informal sit-down with Jason Greenblatt, chief Middle East negotiator to the White House, and New York Times' columnist Bret Stephens to explore whether peace between Israel and the Palestinians is truly possible.
Buried in the 90-minute-long discussion, but among the most important comments he made, Greenblatt emphasized that "blaming the settlements for the conflict and this constant focus on settlements is a farce. The lack of peace has nothing to do with the existence of settlements."
Stephens added to that, saying "what needs to change is that the issue is not about boundaries. If it was, we would have settled it long ago."
Contrary to, or beyond what the Trump administration has thus far been emphasizing, Stephens said that the conflict is also "not about economics."
"We've ripped off the Band-Aid; we are cleaning out the wound. Will we be able to stitch it back together?"
"The issue here goes to fundamental choices about what a Palestinian state is supposed to be for: essentially the destruction of the Jewish state," he said. "We need to talk directly to the Palestinians themselves. That is the difference America can make."
Greenblatt clarified that the Trump administration does not intend to forcefully impose a plan. He explained that the reason the White House is starting with economics first is that "this is a very detailed peace vision. You cannot have a successful peace agreement without a successful economic plan. We are worried about the days, weeks, months and years after."
As to why the peace plan is being split into two stages-the first economic, the second diplomatic-he said "we couldn't do it all at once. It would be a great deal of information for people to digest. We felt the best thing was start with the economics. Let the Palestinians [understand the benefits]. And there are some benefits for Jordan and Egypt as well."
He admonished the Palestinian Authority for rejecting the plan out of hand. "The P.A., in particular, Saeb Erekat, has been decrying what we are trying to do. He says we are trying to buy the Palestinians off. That is completely untrue. Nothing could be further from the truth."
With Israel's political situation on hold as another election looms on Sept. 17, the chosen candidate will have until Nov. 6 to form a coalition government. This delay has caused concern that the peace plan will be thrown into disarray. "In a perfect world, we would release the political vision shortly after the economic vision," said Greenblatt. "We will have to make a decision after the Bahrain workshop as to when we will release the [diplomatic] plan."
With the launch of President Trump's 2020 campaign this week, there are also concerns as to what extent the president can focus on the Arab-Israeli issue. However, Greenblatt said reassuringly that "this president has the unique ability to handle many complex tasks at the same time."
"So, you see the president fully engaged in the peace process in the midst of a turbulent presidential election?" asked Boteach.
"If we are lucky enough to get off the ground," replied Greenblatt.
'Prove to us you are worthy of having a state'
Returning to whether peace is even possible to begin with, Stephens pointed to three issues. The first, he said, is that "the fundamental problem that Israel faces is you have a Palestinian leadership today that is unwilling or unable to come to terms with the idea of peace with its Jewish neighbor in almost any conceivable scenario."
"There is merit in having a plan that begins with an economic vision and proceeds to a political one," he added, "but the predicate still isn't there, neither in the willingness of Hamas or Fatah to participate in either of them."
"We tell the Palestinian leadership: 'Stop blaming the State of Israel for all your woes. Stop blaming the U.S. for all your woes.' "
Second, Stephens insisted that the only way to move forward is for the United States and other world leaders to "start telling the truth to the Palestinian people." They must be told, " 'You will never destroy Israel. If you want a state, prove to us that you are worthy of having a state, and that you are not a liability.' "
Stephens said the Palestinian must also demonstrate "in some meaningful way" that they are capable of governing themselves. "So far, you are not," he said of the Palestinians.
The third issue, according to Stephens, is that there are "quasi-legitimate political groups that are sworn to their neighbor's destruction and committed to terrorism as a form of political end-seeking."
He said these three issues must be addressed "before the question of what you might offer the Palestinian. If the Palestinian leadership were interested in economic betterment, they would have gone for it long ago."
'Why should we put you at the top of the list?'
Stephens also emphasized that Western leaders should recognize that there are other peoples who yearn for statehood, such as the Tibetans, Tamils, Kurds and Catalans. He said the Palestinians should be asked point blank, "Why should we put you at the top of the list when it comes to a consideration of statehood? What is it that you are prepared to do to demonstrate that we will not be ushering into existence another South Sudan, another drain on the world's resources, another threat to the neighborhood? This is where I think it has to begin. With truth-telling by leading members of the Western community."
Boteach defended Greenblatt, saying he has made significant efforts to tell the truth. Boteach then asked him, "Why do you believe that an economic workshop is the way to begin?"
Greenblatt said "we could have changed the order of things. One of my biggest disappointments for me on this job is that we have been unable to get the Palestinian Authority from paying terrorists for killing Israelis. So we decided to break the audience apart into two. We can either preach to the P.A. and get nowhere, or we can speak to the people."
"We should say to the Palestinians: 'We wish you well. Here are our expectations, and we hope you meet them.' "
Greenblatt said that both he and Kushner have been speaking to the Palestinian people, and that "the feedback we are getting from ordinary Palestinians is very positive."
Boteach asked whether the reason for the summit first is to circumvent the Palestinian leadership and try to reach those people.
Greenblatt said he would avoid the term "circumvent."
He said he wants the message "to get out to the people. It would have been great if the Palestinian leadership had shown up to give feedback. Instead, they chose to boycott it. They chose to undermine it by telling everyone else not to attend or to lower the level of attendance. How does that help the Palestinian people? That is terrible for the Palestinian people. We want the people to understand what awaits them. We want the message to get out there. ... We are about speaking the truth. We tell the Palestinian leadership: 'Stop blaming the State of Israel for all your woes. Stop blaming the U.S. for all your woes.' "
Stephens said he didn't want to say that Greenblatt's efforts of succeeding were zero percent, though he thought they were low. "We should say to the Palestinians: 'We wish you well. Here are our expectations, and we hope you meet them.' "
But how far will the Trump administration try to push the peace deal if there is no traction?
Greenblatt said, "We've ripped off the Band-Aid; we are cleaning out the wound. Will we be able to stitch it back together? ... Trump is a huge supporter of Israel, and he also wants to try and help the Palestinian people. He is realistic. I don't think he would continue beating his head against the wall. We just don't know yet."
He added, "We're not naive. We understand the chances. ... We're not just looking for a photo-op. ... History will judge us if we don't try."
Are the U.S. and Iran careening toward war? - Yonah Jeremy Bob -
A series of events this week has increased the tension and saber-rattling between the US and Iran. Will both sides back down?
What seemed like a series of low-tension events this week has led to more formal signs of escalation between the US and Iran, which could be a prelude to a sudden deterioration into war.
US National Security Advisor John Bolton has said Iran was "almost certainly" behind the attack of four US-allied oil tankers on May 12. Next, a rocket was fired near the US Embassy in Baghdad on May 19 and Houthi rebels from Yemen escalated attacks on Saudi Arabia.
What followed was: June 14 mortar attacks on Balad Air Base in Iraq; a June 17 rocket attack against a camo in Iraq where US forces are stationed; a June 18 in Mosul; and a June 19 attack on oil facilities in the Basra area.
So will there be war?
The Jerusalem Post has been regularly evaluating the issue, with access to top Israeli and US current and former officials, including US Iran czar Brian Hook, US State Department counterterrorism official Nathan Sales, IDF intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Tamir Heiman and ex-Mossad and IDF general Amnon Sofrin.
In some ways, predicting that the outcome will end up being war would make a lot of sense.
There are hard-liners (or - as Wendy Sherman, a former top Obama administration Iran negotiator dubbed them on Wednesday in a New Yorker interview - "hard-hard-liners") in both the US and Iran who are spoiling for war, now that the nuclear standoff is reaching the later innings of the game.
Some of the recent moves each country has made have made war and the possibility of minor skirmishes escalating more likely. The latest act, Iran's shooting down of a US drone, may have upped the ante to an all new level and lead to a harsher US response.
But in some ways, predicting that the outcome will end up being war would make no sense. It seems apparent that neither US President Donald Trump nor Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei actually want war.
They are both very much in charge and have both made several recent moves that showed restraint to avoid escalation. So if they do not want war, logic would dictate that there will not end up being a war.
One problem is that both leaders are instinctively proud and risk-takers who are willing to go to the brink in any standoff just to try to get the other side to blink.
A related problem is that both leaders have set processes in motion which are designed to multiply tension on an increasing basis unless something dramatic intervenes. So if neither side blinks and no third party has an innovative compromise idea, the natural result would be gradual deterioration into conflict.
Having been afraid of Trump for some time, the Islamic Republic has been tossing pie in the US president's face repeatedly now for weeks and is convinced, from the fact that he has uncharacteristically turned the other cheek, that he will eventually back down.
The metaphorical pie has been the alleged multiple rounds of Iranian attacks on US assets or allies, especially as related to the oil market.
Though some Western analysts do not want to publicly jump to conclusions lest they give Trump a pretext for war, when Sherman and US Democrat House Intelligence Committee chief Adam Schiff, as well as England and some German officials, confirm Tehran's involvement, the only real question is how to understand the Islamic Republic's actions.
Assuming Iran carried out the most recent naval attacks, it means that it intentionally attacked a Japanese vessel, while Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was visiting so he could help achieve a diplomatic compromise.
And Iran thought that because doing so was such a crazy idea, it would then succeed in denying its involvement by pointing out how crazy it would be to do such a thing. (Or at least the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps thought so, if you accept the theory that sometimes Iran's actions are not part of a unanimous strategy.)
This is where the most hard-core Iran hawks in the US return to the point that Iran is a completely irrational messianic theocracy, and that regime change (read: using force) is the only solution.
Sherman would say that it is a partially irrational messianic theocracy, but that, paradoxically, some top Iranian leaders can still be reasoned with in a limited context.
She has suggested that if Trump puts something on the table, a compromise could be reached.
Presumably, this compromise would involve at least partial sanctions relief.
In some ways, this might not be hard for Trump. He has introduced partial tariff relief in every one of his trade wars.
Maybe he could do so now and claim victory, since Iran's oil imports have been eviscerated and its funding of terrorism in the region has been cut back. He could also say the sanctions relief is temporary, for 90 days or some other set period, in order to reach a bigger deal, with the option of snapping back sanctions if there is no deal.
But then he loses his momentum, and Trump likes his momentum. Also, Trump cannot cut a final deal and remove sanctions permanently, unless the Islamic Republic deals him something new.
The US has asked for: extending the nuclear restrictions; freezing ballistic missile tests; reducing Iranian terrorism in the region; wider International Atomic Energy Agency inspections, to include military facilities; and greater limits on advanced centrifuge research.
Could it live with one or two of those items being added to the deal, without getting some of the rest? Which one or two?
Or maybe a compromise deal is a smaller kick-the-can-down-the-road kind of agreement.
One of the signs that time for diplomacy is running out is that the European Union is finally doing something. England, France and Germany are making a unified loud push to get Iran not to breach the 300 kilogram enriched uranium limit on June 27, as it said it would this past Monday.
Rumors are flying around that after 13 months of stalling, the EU may finally make a significant transaction with Tehran through its INSTEX vehicle to avoid US sanctions.
Will that be enough for Khamenei to claim victory and back off of the June 27 and July 7 deadlines he set for Europe to help out?
Will the US take the gift, sigh in relief that it did not need to directly make a concession and look the other way?
Inject into all of this a significant decision about Iran's finances and access to international banking, which is coming this Friday from the Financial Action Task Force, a powerful intergovernmental organization which leads global efforts to combat money laundering and terrorism financing.
Will the FATF finally penalize Iran for an extended three-year failure to fully complete the checklist it was assigned to carry out to come into compliance with banking industry standards to avoid criminal transactions? Or will FATF give Tehran more time, as it has before?
Some more context is needed. Israel joined the FATF in December. Add that to the fact that the current FATF presidency is held by the US, with Friday's meeting and announcement in Orlando, and there had been raised anticipation that this past February's meeting or this Friday's meeting would lead to a heavier crackdown on Iran.
FATF'S mixed message that came out in February meant that Tehran was not yet under increased pressure, but it gave Iran a June ultimatum which was more specific and threatening than the typically mild-sounding statements that the organization tends to put out a few times a year.
Since the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, FATF has generally given the Islamic Republic more breathing space, taking its cue from its EU members who are still trying to hold the deal together despite US opposition.
Given this context, does increased Israeli and US influence and the ultimatum about June make a FATF crackdown on Iran finally more likely? Or will concerns about the Islamic Republic's June 27 and July 7 deadlines lead the FATF to back off again at the last second, under pressure from its EU members?
Incidentally, if the FATF does back off, it will be a clear indication that the EU members will do everything they can to avoid having to confront Iran, even if Khamenei orders more extreme violations of the 2015 nuclear deal on June 27 and July 7.
Those are some scenarios of finding a compromise.
THE GOING-TO-WAR perspective is much more straightforward.
Former Israeli national security chief and major-general Yaakov Amidror has essentially said that the US is getting smacked around and simply needs to decide whether it will punch back or back down. He prefers to punch back and views the region already as being in a state of war.
He is also not worried about Israel being drawn in, believing that Israeli deterrence of its neighbors is far stronger than US deterrence, because the neighbors view the Jewish state as a chronic overreactor.
If the US leans into this perspective, all it needs to do is to fire back at the next Iranian act of aggression, possibly with US Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham's idea of eliminating aspects of Iran's navy or some of its oil refineries.
A bigger escalation would be a targeted strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Any of these acts would likely either quickly lead to a broader war or lead to Tehran suddenly backing off.
There is an ongoing debate about whether such an attack would put Iran back months or up to a few years, but no one says that a onetime attack would end the nuclear threat.
So it seems that even if there is a military conflict, eventually there will need to be a deal.
Whether the US and Iran think that deal will be better or worse than what they can get without military conflict will likely determine whether there will be war.
Daily Jot: US, Iran tensions tangling with prophecy - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
The New York Times, which has a proven track record these days of distorting the facts, is reporting that the Trump Administration called off a retaliatory attack against Iran for shooting down a $140 million US drone in international airspace. Apparently, the attacks were to target Iranian radar and missile stations, but were called off in their early stages. The Times reports, "Senior administration officials said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; John R. Bolton, the national security advisor; and Gina Haspel, the CIA director, had favored a military response. But top Pentagon officials cautioned that such an action could result in a spiraling escalation with risks for American forces in the region."
AFP took a more analytical approach to the Times report, "The US president had struck a combative tone in his public comments before rowing back. "Iran made a very big mistake!" he tweeted in response to news Iran had shot down the Global Hawk surveillance aircraft. "This country will not stand for it, that I can tell you," he said later at the White House. But as the pre-dawn incident whipped up fears of open conflict between the United States and its declared foe Iran -- sending crude oil prices soaring -- Trump moved swiftly to dial back tensions. "I find it hard to believe it was intentional, if you want to know the truth," Trump said. "I think that it could have been somebody who was loose and stupid that did it." The president's mixed message left the world unsure what Washington's next move would be." Oil prices eased thereafter.
The Middle East is a hotbed to say the least. Iran's vassal state Syria is a war zone of many opposing forces, including terrorists, Russians, Americans, Turks, Syrians, Iranians, Israelis and probably others we haven't heard about. The powder keg left by the previous administration there was one of the remnants of the Arab Spring Muslim Brotherhood attempted takeover of the entire region for a revived Islamic caliphate. From a prophetic standpoint, this all bears watching and praying. The US and Iran tangling in a war could ignite a series of prophetic events leading to Biblical proportions, laying the ground work for perhaps the rise of the end time king as prophesied in Daniel, the beast/antichrist.
Keep in the mind the end-time chronology given by Christ in Matthew 24. In verses 4-8, he says, "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that you be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows." While we have seen types and shadows of these beginnings, we have not arrived in these times as yet. A major confrontation, such as the one reported by the Times, with one or more of the nations mentioned in prophecy may be a catalyst. Then again, the New York Times is a proven vehicle of deception.
Daily Devotion: Why We Should Worship - by Greg Laurie -
Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever. - Psalm 118:1
Worship can turn the most miserable circumstances into a wonderful time. In the book of Acts we read of Paul and Silas, who were beaten and thrown into a cold, dark, stinking dungeon for preaching the gospel. But at midnight Paul and Silas began singing praises to God. They worshiped the Lord. As they sang, an earthquake came, and the entire prison fell apart. (Talk about bringing the house down.)
It's wonderful when you can be lifted up through worship. I'm not talking about mind over matter; I'm talking about faith over circumstances. I'm not talking about positive thinking; I'm talking about honoring God, who is still on the throne no matter what you're going through.
God may deliver you immediately from your situation as He did with Paul and Silas. Or He may not. Sometimes when you worship the Lord, your problems don't go away, but they don't seem as significant. It's not because your problems have disappeared. It's because you have reevaluated things. As you worship the Lord and think about His glory, His power, His splendor, and His love, then you see Him in perspective.
The word worship comes from an old English word that means "worthship." We should worship God because He is worthy. No matter what we're going through, no matter what our circumstances may be, God merits our worship. The Bible says, "Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever" (Psalm 118:1). We worship God in spite of our circumstances, in spite of what we're going through, because God merits and deserves our worship. And He is always worthy of our worship.
God made us to worship Him. God made us to bring Him pleasure. And God is pleased when we worship Him with a proper heart.
FROM THE HEART
IF YOU HAVE BEEN BLESSED THROUGH THIS MINISTRY, THEN WE ASK THAT YOU WOULD PLEASE REMEMBER PROPHECY UPDATE IN YOUR GIVING - WE ARE TRULY, TRULY, THANKFUL FOR YOUR SUPPORT
Prophecy Update has no corporate sponsors. This ministry is paid for and prayed for by readers and supporters. Without your support, there would be no Prophecy Update, Please pray about becoming a monthly supporter - thanks!
If ever there was a time to invest in God's Kingdom, it's now!
What on earth are you doing for Heaven's Sake?
"Share in the Blessings and Rewards that will last Forever!"
"Folks, it's all beginning to unravel. America is in more danger of falling than at any time in its history. But I believe Bible prophecy predicts this very decline. From this point on, we believers have to get serious. We are going to face discouragement, disillusionment and, most certainly, persecution in the time between now and the Rapture. But don't be discouraged or disillusioned. The coming turmoil will provide us unrivaled opportunities to share the good news of the Gospel. So be ready to share your faith and your hope with those who need Christ. We still have time to reap a great harvest of souls for God's kingdom!" - Hal Lindsey
1) We need your prayers!- We proclaim the Truth of the Word of God and we are under constant spiritual and sometimes even physical attack.
2) We need your encouragement!- We need to hear from you, let us know how the Lord is blessing you through this ministry so that we can share it with others.
3) We need your input! - If you have a prophetic article or story or if there is a news related item we missed, let us know.
4) We need your financial support!- To put it quite simply, without your support, there would be no Prophecy Update.
I ask that you would prayerfully consider partnering with us to get the Word out and keep the world informed. Remember, your gift, no matter how small, does make a difference! You will be helping to touch lives, around the world, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, thanks to the internet your generosity carries a global impact! - Thanks!
Our Prayer for You- "Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God. This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of God's people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God. Because of the service by which you have proved yourselves, men will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with everyone else." 2 Corinthians 9:10-13
Prophecy Update is a 501 (c) (3) tax exempt - non-profit organization, and all your donations are tax deductible.
If you have been blessed by Prophecy Update and would like to help support this ministry financially. You can make a secure donation online by going to:
Or Visit our website:
Or write us at:
P.O. Box 40516
Bakersfield, CA 93384-0516