This is the main problem with allegorical interpretation of scriptures, it yields arbitrary conclusions inconsistent, if not contradictory, and without due regard to the immediate context.

Revelation has already, early on, referred to the Church as “Church” in chapters 2-3 identifying them each by name where they are based, namely, Church in Ephesus (Rev 2:1-7), Church in Smyrna (Rev. 2:8-11), Church in Pergamum (Rev. 2:12-17), Church in Thyatira (Rev. 2:18-29), Church in Sardis (Rev. 3:1-6), Church in Philadelphia (Rev. 3:7-13), and Church in Philadelphia (Rev. 3:14-22).

But early on, they were seen in a vision in the Prologue, along with the vision of the Son of Man (Rev. 1:9-20), as the seven golden lampstands, while the stars in the vision signify the messengers sent to deliver the letter (aggelos, in Gk, Rev. 1:20).

The reason why lampstands are used to depict them in the Prologue is probably because they are supposed to shine their “light into the world” or to give glory to God. “Lamp” in the Book of Revelation is used for the following purposes:

In Rev. 21:23, it says, “And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.” According to this verse the Lamb is its lamp because he is the glory of God in the city.

In Rev. 22:5, it says, “And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.” Indicating their glory shines in the city that it needs no luminaries.

In Rev. 18:23, it says, “and the light of a lamp will shine in you no more, and the voice of bridegroom and bride will be heard in you no more, for your merchants were the great ones of the earth, and all nations were deceived by your sorcery.” Referring to Babylon’s temporal glory that will cease to be because of God’s judgment.

Thus, they are depicted as lampstands because they function to shine the glory of God where they are, in Pergamum, in Ephesus, etc. And they do so by being the Lord’s faithful witnesses, like Antipas who was killed in Pergamum “where Satan dwells”, see Rev. 2:13.

That each and everyone of them are called to be witnesses is also evident in Rev. 19:10, when an angel told John saying, “I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” 

Therefore each and every member of the Church is also called to hold the testimony of Jesus or to bear witness to Jesus. And by maintaining his word of testimony will they overcome the Evil One (see Rev. 12:11).

And so, this is why their function to do so (as a lampstand) is threatened removed if they do not repent from where they have fallen. And this is what it says in Rev. 2:5 to the Church in Ephesus, “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.” Which is also the message of the Spirit to the other churches, see Rev. 2:7.

Being a lampstand is common to each Church because each of them is called to shine God’s glory where they are by maintaining their testimony to Jesus. And by being common, it means each and every member of the Church is also called to do the same. This brings to mind what the Lord says in the Gospels, for example in Mat. 5:15, “Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.” (see also Mk. 4:21; Lk. 8:16 cf. Jn. 5:35).

This is also why the Two Witnesses are called “two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth” (Rev. 11:4) because their function is not just to shine God’s glory by maintaining their witness to Jesus in a locality but “before the Lord of the earth“. Their role is given global prominence as the witnesses of God for the End Times (Rev. 11:3). And their function will be authenticated by signs and wonders (see Rev 11:5-6) like the prophets and apostles of old.

But when they finish their testimony for 42 months (the same period the beast was empowered compare Rev. 11:2-3 with 13:5), they will be killed like their Master (Rev 11:7) and will lie dead in the same city their Master was killed (Rev. 11:8). Their prominence will make sure their death will be known globally (Rev 11:9-11) so that even in life, death, resurrection and rapture, they continue to shine God’s glory by not loving their lives unto death (Rev 11:10-12). As a result those who survive the great earthquake in the city will also give glory to God because of their faithfulness to Jesus (Rev. 11:13).

Thus, it doesn’t make sense to interpret the Two Witnesses as representative of the whole Church because not all will given the same authenticating signs and wonders as they will be when the beast comes to power. We will exactly know their identity when their time comes .

6Iaj Jamito, Edward Esquierdo and 4 others55 Comments1 ShareLikeCommentShare

Modern Amillennialism (or Now Millennialism, NowMil for short) creates a strawman by saying “all flesh” in Rev. 19:17-18 refer to “all of mankind without exception” first by (1) double standard, (2) eisegesis, (3) selective bias, (4) scripture twisting, and (5) accusing the Lord of attempting genocide.

1) Double standard because they say Revelation is full of symbols and figures yet they make self-serving exception for Rev. 19:17-18 . Why can’t it be a hyperbole? But we’re not saying it is a hyperbole, see #2, #3, & #4 below. The point is this: NowMil is guilty of double-standard which is a form of intellectual dishonesty because they do this very thing.

2) Eisegesis because they imported a foreign meaning into the text to contradict authorial intent. The author of Revelation assumes we know that there will be survivors because after 1,000 years of the reign of the people of God, there still be enemies able gather in massive number surrounding the beloved city where the saints are encamped (Rev. 20:7-10). Furthermore, in Rev. 22:2, it says the “leaves of the tree” in the beloved city is for healing the nations. Why would it say nations will need to be healed if the survivors were not in the mind of the author? Also, Rev. 19:15 tells us the “sharp sword” from the mouth of the “Word of God” is meant to strike down the nations and rule them with rod of iron, not to wipe them all out, why would he write that if there will be no more nations to rule?

3) Selective bias because they only want to pick on Rev. 19:17-18 and want us to ignore its correlation with Zechariah 14:16 which tells us that after the attack (Zec. 14:2), when the Lord fights for his people (Zec. 14:3), there would still be survivors (Zec. 14:16) who will pay tribute to the Lord. Are they assuming that the author of the book of Revelation was unaware of what Zec. 12-14 prophesied before him?

(4) Scripture twisting because not only did they add foreign meaning into the text, something that contradicts the authorial intent (eisegesis, see #2), they also twist the intent of the author in the text which tells us that only combatants are being referred to, see Rev. 19:19, “gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army”. In the narrative, they’ve been gathering as early as Rev. 16:14-16. Even the “rest” in Rev. 19:21 based on context, authorial intent, and correlation with Zec. 12-14 can only mean “the rest of the combatants”.

(5) Accusing the Lord of attempting genocide because as explained above (see #2 and #4), with their scripture twisting, led them to the conclusion that all will be killed including non-combatants. They even fail to account the survivors of the Great Earthquake in Rev. 11:13, who, after witnessing the rapture of the two witnesses, got terrified and glorified God at the end of the 3.5-year Great Tribulation. Why would the Lord mercilessly kill them too since that is the eternal gospel proclaimed by the angel in Rev. 14:6-7?

Context in the Revelation Narrative Framework

Rev. 16:14 says, “They are demonic spirits that perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the GREAT DAY OF GOD ALMIGHTY.” Indicating that the deceived kings are going to gather their armies to the great day of God almighty (Compare this with Psalm 2:1-3). This gets picked up in Rev. 19:17 as the Great Supper of God, “And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, ‘Come, gather together for the GREAT SUPPER OF GOD.'”  (Compare this with Ezekiel 39:17). The constitution of these armies are stated in Rev 19:18 this way, “so that you may eat the FLESH OF KINGS, GENERALS, and the MIGHTY, of HORSES and their RIDER, and the FLESH OF ALL PEOPLE, FREE and SLAVE, GREAT and SMALL.” Although “the flesh of all people are mentioned” we know that the context of these all people is already given in Rev. 16:14. On top of that, their make up is also visualized in Rev 19:19, as the gathered kings and their armies,

“Then I saw THE BEAST and THE KINGS of the earth and THEIR ARMIES gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. “

Rev. 19:19

As you can see “the flesh of all people” are qualified by all that gathered in the GREAT DAY OF GOD almighty in Rev. 16:14 which is concluded in the GREAT SUPPER OF GOD in Rev. 19:17, and their make up is given by Rev. 19:18 as “THE BEAST and THE KINGS of the earth and THEIR ARMIES” and not ALL the EARTH DWELLERS.

Analogea Scripturae

Aside from the context within the Revelation narrative framework we can also appeal to the hermeneutical principle of analogea scripturae or analogy or correlation of scriptures, the Whole Bible Biblical Context also says in many places that there will be survivors, here are some of them:

“Then the nations around you that remain will know that I the LORD have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate. I the LORD have spoken, and I will do it.” (Ezekiel 36:36)

“I will set a sign among them, and I will send some of those who survive to the nations–to Tarshish, to the Libyans and Lydians (famous as archers), to Tubal and Greece, and to the distant islands that have not heard of my fame or seen my glory. They will proclaim my glory among the nations.” (Isaiah 66:19)

“He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.” (Psalm 110:6)

“…and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. …on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7, 10)

And so here were are wondering are they not aware of the warnings in Revelation 22:18-19? Or maybe they just disregard the warnings because they know that these survivors poses a great threat against their eschatological framework?

The student who has followed our argument will at once anticipate such a result, for the Kingdom, in its Theocratic aspect, with its design and connections (e.g. restored Jewish nation), cannot possibly be erected here on earth without a fearful commotion, the most terrible convulsions among the nations, in which nature itself is represented as partaking. The Millennial descriptions are introduced by this preparatory shaking, and every prophet, more or less, has portrayed its dreadful nature. It is sufficient to direct attention to two passages, which clearly announce it. Hag. 2:6, 7, “Thus saith the Lord of Hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earthy and the sea, and the dry land: and I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory,” etc. Heb. 12:26, 27, 28, “Whose (God’s) voice then (at Mt. Sinai) shook the earth: but now He hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. “Wherefore we receiving a Kingdom, which cannot he moved, let us” etc. Two facts locate the fulfilment of these passages in the future, viz., (1) that before and at the First Advent there was no such shaking, for universal peace (Kurtz’s Sac. His., p. 273) existed when Jesus came, and (2) that Paul in Hebrew speaks of this shaking, not as past, but as future.

Obs l. Unfortunately with the rejection of the doctrine of the Kingdom, many writers not knowing what else to do with the passages quoted, apply them to the First Advent, thus forsaking the Early Church view which understood them to refer to the future Advent. Notwithstanding this application, others who have but little sympathy with our doctrine still regard them as related to the future. Thus, e.g. Storr (Diss. on Kingdom of Heaven) affirms that this shaking of the heavens and earth is yet to be fulfilled, and suggests that the apostle in Heb 12:25 does not quote from Haggai, but from some saying of Christ’s uttered respecting the Kingdom of God (probably based on the prophet) and not recorded. Gildas (AD 540) renders Haggai as follows, “Thus, saith our Lord, I will once move the heaven, and earth, and sea, and dry land, and I will drive away the thrones of kings, and root out the power of the kings of the Gentiles, and I will chase away the chariots of those who mount upon them.” The reader will see that Gildas properly identifies Hag. 2:22 as explanatory of the other passage, and incorporates it, and thus, instead of applying the prophet’s language to an overthrow of the Jewish polity, etc. (as now so current, although the civil polity was overthrown at First Advent), assigns it to a complete downfall of Gentile domination, thus making it accord with numerous predictions. Augustine (City of God, B. 18, Ch. -35) says that Hag. 2:6 is partly fulfilled, but will only be fully accomplished “at His last Coming” (Gilfillan, in Christianity and our Era, adopts this double fulfilment.) Numerous opinions of this kind might be quoted, but these are sufficient to indicate now, in the light of prophecies which all admit are still future and pertain to the period of the Sec. Coming, it is impossible for some of those, who adopt the Church-Kingdom view, to confine these passages to the First Advent. Indeed, let any one dispassionately consider what really occurred at the First Advent, then what is here predicted, and finally what a shaking of the heavens and earth, of nations, etc., is still described as future, as e.g. under the last vial, Rev. 16:18-21; at the conflagration, 2 Pet. 3; at the time of the confederation, Key. 19; Joel, 3, etc., and it seems strange that believers in the Word should be so reluctant to acknowledge this shaking to be still future, when they freely locate the predictions mentioned, which include just such a shaking, at a time which is yet to come. The reason is apparent: the theory adopted respecting the Judgment and Judgment Day makes such an interpretation antagonistic to their expressed views, for they cannot reconcile with their theory the Coming of the Desire of all nations, the filling of the house with glory and making the glory of this latter house greater than that of the former, bestowing peace, etc. All these things are opposed to their notions of the ending of time, the winding up of sublunary things, etc., and hence, whether it fits or not, all these things must be engrafted in some way upon the First Advent. Our doctrine is not thus trammelled. The re-established Theocracy under David’s Son introduces the Desire of all nations, bestows peace and prosperity, brings a glory to the Davidic and Lord’s house transcendently greater than the world has ever yet witnessed. But this can never be realized without the most extraordinary revolutions, the most unprecedented changes and convulsions, which are characterized as “a shaking of the heavens and earth” Jesus (Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:25; Luke 21:26), in accord with the general tenor of prophecy, predicts that “the powers of the heavens shall be shaken” which is linked with “distress of nations” “mourning of the tribes of the earthy” “men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth” and “the Coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven.” The reader will notice that Barnes (Coin, loci) and many others, who, against a comparison of these predictions, apply this shaking to the Roman army destroying Jerusalem, etc., fully admit that it also refers to the period of the Second Advent. This shaking, too, as the connection shows, is for purposes of overthrow, utter destruction, and radical change; it is preliminary to the setting up of a Kingdom that cannot be moved, i.e. everlasting, ever-enduring. It is a shaking of Gentile domination (Hag. 2:21, 22) to its complete removal, making place for the incoming Kingdom of Jesus. It is a shaking similar to the shaking of the Babylonian heavens and earth mentioned by Isaiah (13:13). It is that shaking of the heavens and earth (Joel 3:16) preceding the dwelling again of God in Jerusalem and the Millennial glory. It is that terrible shaking of the earth described by the prophet (Isa. 2:19, 21), when the glory of the Lord’s Majesty shall appear. It includes that “great shaking in the land of Israel”, when God shall destroy the enemies and restore the Jewish nation to their own land, thus magnifying Himself in the eyes of many nations.

Obs. 2. One of the best dissertations on this subject is that given by Dr. Owen in a sermon. After refuting the interpretation of Rollocus, Piscator, etc. (who make earth the inhabitants and heaven the angels, which men and angels were shaken with amazement, etc., at events of First Advent and preaching of the Gospel), by showing that the shaking was not yet accomplished when the apostle spoke, that it must exceed all former shakings, and that the things shaken are removed; after rebutting the opinion of Junius and many Commentators (viz., that heaven and earth denote the material parts of the world, etc., and the shaking comprised the signs, prodigies, darkness, earthquake, opening of graves, etc., attending Christ’s birth and death) by similar objections, he then refers to the view of Paraeus, Grotius, etc., that this has reference to the dissolution of the heavens and earth at the last day, but argues that the things shaken are to be removed that the Kingdom of Jesus may be established, and pertinently inquires, taking such a sense as the ending of all sublunary things, what hindrance the material earth and heaven are to such an establishment, and concludes that the Kingdom will not be brought in until after the Sec. Advent or the judgment. He then enters into an interesting discussion, appealing to Hag. 2:6, 7, saying that “I will shake the heavens and the earth” and “I will shake all nations” is a pleonasm for 4 “will shake the heavens and the earth of all nations”—making the “heavens of the nations” the political heights and glory, forms of government, etc., while the nations’ earth is the multitude of their people, their strength and power, whereby the heavens are supported. Owen’s argument is materially confirmed; if we turn to the latter part of the chapter- in Haggai, and notice how the prophet explains by the parallelism how “the throne of Kingdoms will be overthrown” and “the strength of the Kingdoms of the heathen” will be “destroyed,” which finds an accurate correspondence in many prophecies as e.g. Ps. 2; Dan. 2:44; Rev. 11:13-18, etc., that describe the erection of the Messiah’s Kingdom to follow the fearful downfall of the Kings and Kingdoms of the earth, who are represented (as e.g. Rev. 19, etc.) as con-federated against the truth. In perfect agreement with the tenor of the old prophets, who describe the Gentile domination to come to an end (Prop. 164) and to give place to that covenanted Theocratic order which is everlasting, Paul most delicately (to avoid exciting unduly the hostility of the Roman Empire, under which the believers then lived) and yet effectively declares the result of this shaking, just as Daniel and all the prophets portray it, viz., “the removing of those things that are (marg. may be) shaken” (i.e. those Kingdoms), “as of things that are made” (i.e. temporarily allowed, or created), “that those things which cannot be shaken may remain” (i.e. the covenanted and oath-bound promises respecting the Kingdom now to be realized in the restored Theocratic arrangement under David’s Son), “wherefore, we receiving a Kingdom” (the same that is thus covenanted and which saints inherit), “which cannot be moved” (i.e. will never be thus shaken and destroyed like the others), “let us,” etc. It is hard to say which excites our greatest surprise and admiration, the remarkable nicety of Paul’s language, thus avoiding the prejudice (cruel and persecuting) of Gentile rulers, without in the least sacrificing truth; or the exceeding harmony, even in the minutest particulars, between him and men who spoke many centuries before him.

Obs. 3. But while fully endorsing this view, that the great, important meaning of such phraseology is the subversion, overturning, and destruction of Kingdoms, etc., yet this does not forbid our entertaining the firm belief that these things will be accompanied by physical marvels, earthquakes, etc., which shall cause “men’s hearts failing them for fear,” etc. Analogy, pointing to the plagues preluding the deliverance from Egypt, to the events connected with the birth and crucifixion of Jesus, should cause us to hold that when the most solemn crisis for the world comes, God will cause His Almighty energy to be displayed in an unusual manner in the material nature which is to be a participant in the glory following. God has hitherto thus condescended to warn and speak, and there is every reason to believe, that as the end of the age draws nigh and the stupendous issues dependent upon it approach, God will again plead with man in a startling, strange, supernatural manner. While it may be difficult, and even impossible (owing to this figurative use of language just designated), to tell in each individual case whether the fulfilment embraces a literal, physical, or moral, or civil, or political sign, yet such is the variety of expression, the attitude of man himself, the actual participation of the material heavens and earth (as will be shown in following propositions) in the changes then introduced, that the wisest and most profound students of the Word have unhesitatingly given their adhesion (see Prop. 174) to such a belief. Indeed, when the writer considers that this period is to be specially characterized by the denial of the supernatural by the worldly-wise, it seems eminently fitting and proper that such an exertion of power should be manifested, not only for the believing and prudent, not only for the admonition of the unthinking, but for the confounding of the crafty, who rely so much on nature.

This is self-evident, since this Kingdom is identified with the establishment of “the new heavens and new earth” of Isa. 65:17, and 66:22. Peter expressly alludes to these two passages in Isaiah and appropriates them as descriptive of “the new heavens and new earth” presented by himself, in the specific phraseology, “according to promise.” The Millennial new heavens and new earth thus claimed by the Apostle, and which are associated with the Kingdom itself, are necessarily preceded by the fire described. As this forms the leading objection to our doctrine, and as some have wrongfully (against the most explicit language of Peter) endeavored to locate this fire after the thousand years, it is proper to thus definitely state the facts and assume their weight.

Obs. 1. It has been noticed by various Commentators, etc., that the Jews, before and at the time Peter wrote, expected that the Millennial era, i.e. the times of Messiah’s reign, would be introduced by great convulsions and a terrible fire. Knapp, in using the word “perishing” as many do, goes too far when he says (Christ. Theol., s. 155, II. 2): “This doctrine of the perishing of the world by fire was unquestionably prevalent among the Jews at the time of Christ and the apostles, although Philo does not accede to it.” That the Jews believed in a mighty change, in a renovation, purification, regeneration (see Knapp, same place, quoting Philo), etc., of the earth, and that in some way fire (as the prophets predicted) should be employed as an agency, seems certain from various testimony, but that they believed in so widespread and extensive a conflagration as moderns have fastened upon Peter, is not only unproven but hostile to the expectations they had concerning the Messiah’s Kingdom. A little reflection should suggest, that a people who looked for the restoration of the Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom over the nation in the flesh, which Kingdom was ultimately to embrace the Gentile nations, could not, and did not, believe in that which would utterly demolish all hope. But, as stated, they did believe that this Kingdom would be preceded by the awful judgments of God, and that fire would be used in connection with them. Now the language of Peter accords with the belief that before the Millennial period could Be introduced, such a Pre-Millennial judgment by fire must be inflicted; and his undoubted reference to the only promises relating to the new heavens and new earth in Isaiah would immediately and inevitably— with the prevailing belief—direct the Jewish mind to the Millennial prophecies. If the latter are to be understood, as so many now teach, to be fulfilled prior to this conflagration, then Peter took the very means and language to confirm his readers in the opposite view. We hold that there is no antagonism between Peter and the Jewish belief on the subject.

Obs. 2. If we refer to the promises acknowledged by Peter and given by Isaiah, we find this view strengthened by the context. Thus e.g. Isa. 66:22 is preceded by “the Lord will come with fire and with His chariots like a whirlwind, to render His anger with fury and His rebuke with flames and fire. For “by fire and by His sword will the Lord plead with all flesh,” etc. While Isa. 65:17 only mentions the sword as preceding, yet, if we take the prediction and turn to its strictly parallel mates, we find that fire also is connected with its ushering in, as evidenced by the same things being delineated as then taking place. Thus e.g. take Isa. 51, and at the very time that God will “plant the heavens and lay the foundations of the earth,” that the redeemed return with singing and everlasting joy, the judgments of the Lord shall be poured upon the wicked and “the heavens shall vanish like smoke,” etc. At least one thing is apparent, that in the context of Millennial predictions (as Ps. 97:3; Joel 2:30; Mai. 4:1, etc.) there are sufficient intimations to warrant the Jewish belief that there would be, before Messiah’s Kingdom is established, an extraordinary manifestation of fire in some form, and that Peter in his prediction adopts this very belief by linking his prophecy with Isaiah’s.

Obs. 3. The reader will observe that Peter, instead of giving the least intimation that the Millennial period antecedes, in his account knows nothing of the Millennial era preceding, and gives statements utterly opposed to the notion that it will be witnessed previous to the conflagration. Without pressing into service his well-known views respecting the nearness of, and looking for, the Advent of Jesus Christ (which is antagonistic to such an idea), it is sufficient to notice that he speaks of the wicked existing continuously and boldly down to this very period, and of believers being subjected to their scoffing, etc., down to the same time. Deliverance is anticipated only when this era preceded by the conflagration arrives; and hence that Millennial glory, etc., which some describe as anteceding this conflagration is something that Peter fails to portray or intimate. More than this: the apostle links this era with the Millennial predictions by designating it “the day of the Lord” and “the day of God,” which all at that time understood as referring to the day (e.g. Prop. 138, etc.) when these Mill. prophecies would be fulfilled. It was the distinguished time when God should remarkably manifest His power in behalf of His people. The apostle only recognizes the one day future associated with this conflagration. This is in agreement with the general analogy. To illustrate: Mai. 4 describes the day of the Lord “that shall burn as an oven” utterly consuming the outrageous wicked and only leaving the righteous, and previous to this announced day there is no Millennial rest and blessedness for God’s children. So Joel 2 and 3, the day of the Lord comes when He shall “show wonders in the heavens, and in the earth blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke” and then follow the Millennial blessings, Peter, imbibing the same spirit of prophecy, introduces no discordant element.

Obs. 4. It is admitted, generally, that the scenes described by Peter follow the Second Advent. When Christ comes, He comes “in flaming fire taking vengeance,” etc. (2 Thess. 1:8), with “fiery indignation” (Heb. 10:27) that shall consume His enemies. It is at this Advent that believers are also delivered and exalted. The language of Peter, the entire tenor and scope of his description, evinces that he places the Advent—the object of terror to the wicked and of joy to the righteous—at this very period of time. This, therefore, is utterly irreconcilable with the theory (Shimeall and others), that this conflagration follows a thousand years after a personal Pre-Mill. Advent of Christ. The “appearing and the Kingdom” are united, and consequently the appearing, the glorification of believers, the fiery vengeance upon living unbelievers, and the Kingdom are also linked together.

Obs. 5. The reader will notice that the Kingdom (as our entire line of argument shows) is introduced at the Pre-Mill. Advent of Jesus, and that Christ then receives His inheritance as David’s Son. These two facts alone set aside the views of those (as e.g. Shimeall in I Will Come Again, and Lincoln in Lects. on Rev., and Burgh, Tyso, and Ogilvy), who make the conflagration Post-Millennial, introductory to an eternal state of things. Now on the other hand the Scriptures make the glorious Theocracy established at Jesus’ return one that is perpetual, ever-enduring (Comp. Prop. 159, where this is considered in detail), and consequently it does not run the risk of ever being removed or destroyed by the universality of the conflagration. The promises of God forbid it, and therefore, as e.g. in Dan. 7 (where the fire of vengeance, v. 10, 11, precedes or is connected with the establishment of the Kingdom) the Kingdom set up at the Coming of Jesus is declared to be one which shall not pass away or be destroyed. Again—to advocate such an opinion is virtually to say that Christ’s inheritance, promised under oath in perpetuity to Him, shall be swept away by a conflagration—an inheritance too for which He suffered and died, which is to be to Him a desire and joy and glory, and which He has already (Isa. 65 and 66) retouched with His creative energy. Surely the brethren who hold to the above opinion do not see that, in the attempt to avoid difficulties connected with Peter’s account of the conflagration, they plunge themselves into far greater by the adoption of such a Post-Millennial view. The fire of Peter must, of necessity, be so interpreted as to preserve the unity of divine teaching, and how this is to be done will be the subject of the next Proposition.

It is important to notice this in detail (and the reader will please observe that the following Propositions are part of the discussion) since two classes make the conflagration of Peter an insuperable objection to the reception of the doctrine of the Kingdom. Those opposed to Millenarianism, as Brown, Steele, Barnes, Waldegrave, and many others, inform us that owing to the universality of the fire it is impossible to conceive how nations in the flesh, Jewish and Gentile, can survive it to form the subjects of the Kingdom. Every work written against us produces the stereotyped difficulty, as if irremovable. Recently some Millenarians, as Shimeall and others (through an amiable weakness which impelled them to remove what they call “the great stumbling-block in the way of an acceptance of the truth”), have repeated this objection, locating the fire of Peter after the Millennial age. It hence deserves special consideration.

Obs. 1. As stated in preceding Proposition, the language of Peter was in accordance with the views of the Jews. They evidently did not consider the fire so disastrous in its effects that no nations would survive and that the Kingdom could not be set up over the nations as Daniel predicted. The proof is, that all the Jewish converts and churches, as far as we know, never supposed that this passage controverted such an opinion. Instead of being a stumbling-block in the way, this passage was thought to be confirmatory of their belief of the dreadful fire which should devour the adversaries (Dan. 7:10, 11, “fiery stream,” “the burning flame”), when the Messiah would come. Jewish believers held that Peter only transferred that which they had believed would occur at the First Advent, to the Second Advent. Hence the apostle’s statement strengthened them (by his appeal to Isa. and using the phrase “day of the Lord,” etc.) in the faith, expressed by the Babylonian Targum (on Gen. 49:10), “Christ shall come, whose is the Kingdom, and Him shall the nations serve,” or as the Jerusalem Targum has it: “The King Christ shall come, whose is the Kingdom, and all nations shall be subject unto Him.” Peter’s description, therefore, raised no controversy between the Jewish believers and others.

Obs. 2. The early Church, receiving its teaching direct from inspired teachers (and appealing to them, as Papias, Justin, Irenaeus), found no such limitation as was afterward engrafted upon Peter’s language. That Church which claimed (as Semisch, Herzog’s Cyclop. speaking of Justin’s, Dial, with Trypho, doctrinal position) its “belief as the Keystone of orthodoxy,” which in the person of Papias (as stated by Jerome), directly named Peter’s instruction, received the epistle without regarding it as presenting the slightest objection to their doctrine of the Second Coming of Jesus, the fearful overthrow (fire as an agency) of His enemies, the exaltation of the resurrected saints, the re-establishment of the Davidic throne and Kingdom over the restored Jewish nation and the spared Gentile nations. One and all held to .the fulfilment of the covenant and the prophecies based upon it as succeeding this conflagration: This is clearly announced in their writings. It may be justly claimed, that men who were so near to apostolic teaching, and acquainted with the language then spoken, were qualified to judge how far Peter’s statement of the fare was to be pressed.

Obs. 3. It is noticeable that no Millenarian author has taken advantage of the doubts cast upon the canonical authority,of the Second Epistle. This has been done by our opponents and not by us. That epistle was never urged in the first centuries as antagonistic to Chiliasm, for the leading objection to it was that derived from its being too favorable to our doctrine, owing to its “Jewish conceptions.” If we were to accept of its rejection—as suggested by opposers—that would at once end the discussion, seeing that the only passage relied upon to prove that the perpetuity of the Jewish nation and the race is irreconcilable with the universality of the fire at the end of the age, is to be found in this Epistle. But we are not forced to dispute its genuineness or authority, being willing to receive it, on the testimony alleged in its favor, as canonical. The opposition to the Epistle, if so fatal to our doctrine as assumed by many, ought to have come from Millenarians and not from its opponents.

Obs. 4. If there is a passage which should be examined and explained according to “the analogy of faith,” it certainly ought to be this one of Peter’s. The reason is apparent; it is the only passage of Scripture which our opponents allege as conveying an irreconcilable difficulty in the way of accepting what (as we have shown) is taught in the naked grammatical sense in Covenant and Prophecy, and what was unmistakably believed in by the primitive Church. To make a single passage overthrow the Jewish faith, the early Church faith, and, above all, that constant harmony of Scriptural statement down to that point, and to make it the necessity for introducing a spiritualistic interpretation of preceding Scripture, is imposing too much upon one text and is violating the proportion due to the doctrines of the Bible. The rules given by Horne (Introd., vol. 1, p. 342, etc.), are worthy of attention, and if applied will inevitably relieve our doctrine of the Kingdom from any alleged incubus said to be imposed by Peter. Surely when our doctrine of the Kingdom is founded in the oath-bound covenant given to David, is reiterated by prophets, is preached, etc., as Proposition after Proposition has proven, then it ought not to be set aside, or weakened, or condemned by one passage; then the passage assumed to be contradictory ought to be explained in the light of that vast amount of testimony preceding it; then the lesser ought to be interpreted by the greater, the more brief by the more extended, the doubtful by the plainly revealed.

Obs. 5. Peter’s representation of the Kingdom, as given in his own writings, would be vitiated, if we accept of the extravagant estimates made concerning the extent of this fire. Omitting the allusion to Isa. 65:17 and 66:22 and to “the day of the Lord” as used by the prophets and Jews, sufficient remains to snow that he looked for a Kingdom to appear on earth after this fire, and in the form advocated by us. In this same Epistle, Ch. 1, he knows no other Kingdom than the future everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for which he urges the brethren to strive, faith in which was confirmed by the Transfiguration (see Prop. 153), and which he represents (as 1 Pet. 4:7) as not very distant, thus connecting it with this same Advent and conflagration. Now in the First Epistle, in harmony with the Second, he makes the inheritance and salvation, “ready to be revealed in the last time,” dependent (1 Pet. 1:7, 13; comp, with 2 Pet. 3:13, 14) upon “the appearing of Jesus Christ” and “the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ” corresponds with “the new heavens and new earth.” In both Epistles believers are “pilgrims and strangers,” suffering, etc., and urged to hope for deliverance, etc., at the Second Advent. The entire spirit expressed is, a deferring of the Kingdom—promised by the prophets 1 Pet. 1:11, 13—until this period. This ignoring of a present Kingdom, and looking for one future, at the Advent, to fulfil the prophets—who locate Messiah’s Kingdom on earth as we advocate—is evidence, if we will but accept of it, that he himself had no idea of the prediction, such as multitudes fasten upon it, seeing that the “everlasting Kingdom” once established, is ever more perpetuated, and hence is not to be destroyed by fire at the end of the thousand years.

Obs. 6. It mast be observed, that while the Second Advent of Jesus is spoken of as a coming in “flaming fire,” etc., to destroy His enemies, etc., it is at the same time represented as a coming to bless the earthy so that the earth is called upon to rejoice in His Advent, as e.g. Ps. 96:11-13; Ps. 98:4-9, etc. Creation, as we have seen Props. 145 and 146, is to exult in this Coming for deliverance, so that it is declared to follow as a result from the antecedent humiliation, death, and exaltation of Christ, the resurrection of His saints, etc., as e.g. Ps. 69:34 (noticing how the Previous portion of the Ps. is applied to Jesus in his death, etc. See Prop. 126). Now such deliverance of creation, such a rejoicing of the earth in the removal of the curse, is not witnessed down to the Advent, and if fulfilled, as written and promised, necessitates, in the very nature of the case, a very material limitation to the destructiveness of this fire. Any endorsement of the sweeping assertions made respecting its universality and totality introduces at once an antagonism (unnecessary) between one passage and a host of others relating to the same time. This is the reason why so many (Prop. 146) employ language respecting the deliverance of creation, insist upon complete restoration, etc., and yet are afraid to mention the animal kingdom or animate nature, fearful that Peter’s conflagration would prove an objection to its utterance. Surely there must be something wrong in an interpretation, which builds up from this passage irreconcilable features to other portions of the Word.

Obs. 7. As just intimated, any view of Peter’s statement which makes an imperfect Redemption, in not restoring the earth, the animate creation, and the race of man to their forfeited position, ought at once to be rejected as inconsistent with the Divine Purpose respecting Redemption as given in covenant and promise, and with the perfection, honor, and glory of the Redeemer (Prop. 140, Obs. 7). To make this earth, animated creation, and the race of man, as such, all to be destroyed, rooted out of existence, or (as a climax) to have it all one mass of fire, perpetuated in this state to constitute (so Pres. Edwards’ His. Redemp., p. 421) an eternal hell (!) for sinners and devils—this is to make Redemption incomplete, to keep this earth forever under the curse, to restore only a few of the forfeited blessings, and to diminish, with fearful rigor, some of the most comprehensively precious promises that the Bible contains. Strange indeed that men should allow one passage to crush the hope engendered in a groaning creation, in a sin-cursed earth, in the longings of nations, and to limit the rich and full restitution of all things and the expressed ability and willingness of the Mighty King to perform it. The early Church could not be so illogical.

Obs. 8. Having clearly shown from the covenant made with David, etc., that the land and the earth is Christ’s, that the Jewish nation as such (associated with the Theocracy), and other nations through it, belong to Christ, that both form “the inheritance” of David’s Son, it is presuming to fasten such an interpretation upon 2 Peter 3 as will at once and forevermore destroy the very inheritance which is promised to Him. “Feeble and weak” as the apostolic and primitive Fathers were, in some resects, when compared with the profound learning of modern theologians, yet none of them has been guilty of so great a violation of propriety as to introduce a doctrine which sweeps away the inheritance of Jesus and that of His saints; which makes it utterly impossible for either to inherit promises most solemnly attested to by the oath of the Eternal One. It was reserved for men of real intellectual strength and mental ability to do this: for those ancient worthies, relying upon the simplicity of the scriptures and that every word of God is equally true, could find no such doctrine in Peter. Explaining (as justice and reason both suggest) Peter by the two Promises of Isaiah, they found, as we also find to day, ample evidence that Christ’s promised inheritance is not affected by the extent of the conflagration. Turn again to those two passages and see how associated with the new heavens and new earth is the restoration and perpetuity of the Jewish race, of Gentile nations, and even the continued existence and change of animals, and it will be seen how impossible it was for a faith which dung both to the covenant given to David and to Peter’s undoubted linking of Isaiah’s predictions with his own portrayal of what should take place in connection with this fire, to adopt an interpretation which virtually denies to David’s Son His own covenanted throne, Kingdom, people, land, etc. It is true, that those who do this strive to give to Him something which they esteem far better, and thus suppose that they honor Him the more; but this also is done at the expense of ignoring the covenant and going beyond the record.

Obs. 9. The time of this fire is the time when “the harvest of the earth” is gathered and the tares (Matt. 13:30, 39, 40) shall be “burned in the fire” (as “the ungodly men” mentioned by Peter), but this harvest (Rev. 14:14-20) occurs under the seventh trumpet preceding the Millennial age. When this conflagration takes place it is associated with the resurrection of the saints, for Peter encourages believers to expect a glorious deliverance at that period; this accurately corresponds with the resurrection (Rev. 11:15-18) and rewarding of the saints under the last trumpet when “the sovereignty of this world” shall be wielded by Christ. The mention of “the Day of Judgment” (comp. Props. 133 and 134) with a knowledge of the Jewish and Scriptural method of speaking of that day, viz., to be followed by Messiah’s Kingdom here on earth as the Millennial prophecies declare; these are additional reasons why we should not force upon Peter an interpretation which must result in introducing an element of discord, thus preventing a harmonious adjustment between the Old and New Testaments.

Obs. 10. This passage has received various interpretations. (1.) One class, to which we have alluded (Prop. 133, Obs. 1.; Prop. 141, Obs. 1, etc.), bring the most extravagant interpretation to bear upon Peter, by which they evolve not only the utter destruction of the earth but that of the planetary system. As the very prodigality of expression and profuseness of imaginary extent is—aside from the arguments herein presented—the best refutation of its unscriptural attitude, it may be passed by without additional remark. There is another class, allied with these in a rigorous interpretation, but far more moderate in their estimation of the ultimate result of this fire. While advocating its universality and the burning up of all things, etc., they at the same time deny that annihilation is denoted or such complete destruction is intended as to forbid the renewal and perpetuity of the same earth. In addition to the writers mentioned (Prop. 140, etc.) who hold to this, many others could be added, as e.g. Augustine, Griffin, Jay, Gregory the Great, Fuller, Pope, Benson, Urwick, Hodge, James, Brown, Pye Smith, etc. The distinguishing peculiarity of these two classes is, that they make the conflagration post-Millennial. Another class, who make the fire about as disastrous as the second class noticed, and yet hold that it is Pre-Millennial, that it will be followed by the setting up of Christ’s Kingdom as predicted in the Millennial prophecies—are represented by Cumming (The Or. Trib., Led., 12), Irving (Orations), Gill (Divinity), and others. These three classes, by the extent of the fire advocated, make no provision for the Kingdom to exist in its expressed covenanted terms, and none for the deliverance of inanimate and animate creation, having the same destroyed and an entire new creation erected from the ashes, etc. Instead of the curse being removed from the existing world, the world falls beneath the curse and is sacrificed, so that an entire new one which has never borne a curse may be created. The position, however, of the one party, that the fire is Pre-Millennial, is undoubtedly correct. (2.) Then we find a large class who make the entire fire a figurative description; and these again are divided into different parties. Thus e.g. that one which makes the destruction of the heavens and earth the overthrow of the Jewish polity, etc., and the new heavens and new earth the introduction of the Christian polity, etc.; so Dr. Hammond, and various of the destructive critics. Others, as Prof. Bush (Mill., p. 202, etc.), taking the figurative view, apply it to the overthrow of systems of error, etc., by the purifying influence of the truth (i.e. fire), which is yet to bring about “that renovated order of things, moral, mental, and political,” etc. Dr. Thomas (Elpis Israel), and Christadelphians generally, refer the destruction to the Jewish polity, but explain the new heavens and earth to be still future, the introduction of the new polity under the Messiah at His Sec. Coming (thus separating by a long interval what Peter unites in succession). In regard to such applications of the figurative sense, it may be observed, that the destruction here presented, whatever it may denote, is inseparably joined with the Sec. Advent, the Day of Judgment, and the Day of the Lord, and hence is still future; while the contrasting with the literal perishing at the deluge indicates that more must be attached to it than the simply figurative. Mede (Works, Exp. Peter), and others, in adopting the figurative conflagration, are more logical and consistent with the tenor of Peter’s statements when they make it adumbrating or symbolizing the overthrow of governments, systems, etc., at the close of this dispensation, preparatory to the establishment (comp. Lord, Apoc., 21:5) of the Kingdom or government under the Messiah. It must be admitted, when the figurative language of Scripture is consulted and compared (see Sir I. Newton’s Obs. on Proph., p. 1, Ch. 2; Faber’s Dis. on Proph., Daubuz, Perp. Com. on Rev., writings of Brookes, Bickersteth, etc.) with each other and with Peter’s language, there is sufficient force in the comparison instituted to lead to a belief that it is, at least, included. The Scriptures sometimes include the physical with the moral, etc., as in the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus, etc. To make it entirely figurative destroys at once the express contrast instituted by Peter respecting the perishing of the old world by water; and to make it entirely literal is to ignore the Scripture usage of such language. Taking into consideration the views then prevalent derived from the prophets, the style in which the prophecies are given, and the fact that both things (viz., the overthrow of all human governments and the renovation of the earthy are really embraced at this period, it seems the most consonant to believe that Peter comprehends both, that as water was used to destroy the old world, materially and in its governmental arrangements, so fire (not excluding other agencies) shall be employed in modifying and changing the present heavens and earth, materially and in the overthrow of earthly governments, and that the result will be the introduction of a new heavens, and new earth, materially renewed, and in the establishment of the Theocratic Kingdom. The old “heavens” really did not perish excepting as they adumbrate governments, etc. The contrasting of the three worlds—the three heavens and earth—seems to demand something like this interpretation, indicating that the truth lies somewhere between the figurative and literal application, embracing both in the manner pointed out. For, let us impress the reader with a fact, already noticed in Paul, that the apostles, in view of the enmity and persecuting spirit already prevalent, and which they knew was yet to come, could not be too cautious to express their views respecting the certain overthrow of earthly governments; and that all such teaching, to avoid bitter animosity and persecution, had, in the nature of the case, to be couched in prophetic language. The wisdom and admirable tact of Peter (as in Acts 3, using restitution) is noticeable, in his taking language not only correspondent with the usage of the prophets, but even in accordance with that employed by the nations around him, and which virtually comprehends both. (3.) Then again there is an able and growing party who advocate that the fire of Peter will be literally experienced, but that it is confined to localities (some few writers have confined it to Judea or Palestine, others to the Roman earth, and still others have made it local, and by slow degrees, gradually extending over the earth), and will not be so disastrous or extensive as many suppose. This view was early presented, has more or less continued, and recently has had a number of writers to express it in a most forcible manner. D. N. Lord in several of his writings, Dr. Seiss in his Last Times (see it eloquently presented in Third Dis., also “Day of the Lord”), and others, have argued against the universality of the fire (1) from the declared perpetuity of the earth; (2) the Noachic covenant, which promises no such destruction in the future as that of the deluge (3) the saint’s inheritance; (4) the meaning of Peter’s phraseology; (5) the design of the fire, “the perdition of ungodly men” (6) the agreements of Peter’s language with the descriptions of volcanic eruptions, etc.; (7) the language of the prophets describing the same events, etc. They exhibit those fires as dreadful and connected with “terrific phenomena.” In conclusion: looking at those various interpretations, the dispassionate student will certainly feel inclined—considering the Oneness of the Spirit through whom holy men spake—to give the preference to those who, instead of taking Peter’s prophecy isolated and then proceed to build upon it a series of tremendous doctrines, endeavor to ascertain its meaning by a comparison with the analogy of faith, with other predictions given by the same Spirit. Caution must be engendered by the simple fact that equally as strong language as Peter uses is employed by Nah. 1:5 in reference to Nineveh, and in Deut. 32:22; Micah 1:4; Isa. 13:9-14; Amos 9:5, etc., in such a way as to indicate a continuation of the earth, nations, etc., after terrible convulsions and punishments. The same is true of Isa. 24:19-23; Isa. 2:10-22; Jer. 4:23-28, and numerous other passages. The limitation even with which sometimes the word “earth” is used, the verbal criticisms (Crit. Eng. Test.) which unite men of opposite views, the fact that change and not such destruction is evidenced by Ps. 102:25-27; Heb. 1:10-12 (the parallelism limiting and defining the first clause)—all this should nave its influence in forming our decision. Even the “earnestly expecting and ardently wishing, and anticipating” (Bloomfield), “earnestly desiring” (Newcome), “awaiting with eager desire” (Barnes), this “coming of the Day of God,” corresponding again with that of the prophets, with the pious Jewish language, etc., should be regarded. While a comparison of the intent of this fire with the overthrow of the wicked—in which fire is also alluded to—Rev. 19:19-21; Matt. 25:31-46; Ps. 11-6; Dan. 7:9-11; 2 Thess. 2:8; Joel 3:9-16; Zech. 14:1-15; Ezek. 38:22, etc., leads to the conclusion that it must be—Peter also linking it with Isa. 65:17, and 66:22—Pre-Millennial. Linked with a coming of the Messiah, with which the restored Theocratic Kingdom is associated; with an earth, however it may experience the ordeal of fire, the same earth renewed; with a continued materiality (see Chalmers’s Sermon on 2 Pet 3:13), which, as in glorified humanity, etc., God employs, as the prophets teach, to display His attributes and glory and to make His creatures happy; with a new heavens and new earth, which was inseparably connected in the Jewish mind with the Kingdom of the Messiah and a return to a Paradisiacal state; with the extirpation of sin from the world and not with a destruction of that which is not in itself sinful; with the inheritance of Abraham, the saints, and Christ Himself, which cannot be effaced without violation of God’s faithful Word; with “the restitution of all things,” “the regeneration,” the deliverance of groaning creation, the shaking of heaven and earth, and numerous other promises which are then to be realized—surely with all this before us, the conflagration of Peter can only be explained consistently with the uniform and concurrent teaching of Holy Writ. It cannot, it does not form an exception. Taking, on the one hand, the most positive declarations that sin, suffering, opposing and hostile powers shall continuously exist down to the Sec. Advent, and then, on the other hand, the emphatic predictions that these shall be rooted out of the very same earth—that all sorrow, misery, and wickedness shall cease to exist in it—and that it shall become fruitful, beautiful, etc.,—it follows that the only position—consistently sustained by the reasons adduced—for a believer in all that God says, is that already indicated. Peter’s statement shows us, how both these Scriptural representations are sustained and verified; how the sin-stained vesture and fashion shall be changed for the garments alone suited for the manifested royalty; how this earth now can expectantly look for redemption and then can rejoice and exult in the possession of the same; how God can (for He is not wasteful of material) take the old and out of it bring forth the gloriously renewed without impairing His own workmanship; and how this earth, once pronounced good but now marred by sin, shall again be restored to all its forfeited blessings and to the singing of “the morning stars” and the shouting of “the Sons of God” over its recovery.

Obs. 11. But in this discussion we are not concerned in advocating any specific interpretation of Peter’s language. Let it be admitted, that all the explanations given are “pitiful subterfuges,” and that the fire is universal, yet a believer in God’s Word should find no difficulty even in this extreme statement of the case. Let the conflagration be thus universal or local, universal by slow advances or confined to the Roman earth, universal by uniting Pre- and Post-Millennial agencies, or entirely Pre-Millennial, one thing ought to be self-evident to the believer, viz., that this fire, whatever it maybe, and however extended in its effects, will not and cannot destroy the mortal men in the flesh, the Jewish nation and spared Gentiles, whom God has determined to save. The difficulty is, as alleged, that we cannot tell how, if the conflagration is general, at the same time, these can be preserved. Taking it for granted that it is thus universal, we are told that we cannot give a reason for “the hope that is in us,” and that our theory is “a stupendous theological misnomer” etc. Having already shown, in various places, the just connection existing between reason and faith, it is not necessary to restate our position. While advocating the use of reason, yet, after reason has once admitted the Omnipotence, etc., of the Eternal One, it must be regarded as very unreasonable to limit the Divine attributes. It is a characteristic of believers, in opposition to unbelievers, to receive all that God says He will perform, even if not able fully or satisfactorily to explain or reconcile all His words and predictions; —and this is properly based upon the reason (derived from reason apprehending God as described), that the wisdom and power of God will be found equal to any emergency that may arise in the fulfilment (in the order given) of His predictions, no matter how inexplicable they may appear unto us. Indeed, one of the writers (Shimeall) who expresses himself so strongly against us on the ground of impossibility, etc., gives us in the very same book a sufficient reply to his own objection in the following just lesson of faith urged against another party who lacked faith: We might ask, Is anything too hard for the Lord? Is our unbelief to be the measure of his truth? If a few had objected, before the events, the improbability, approaching not only to moral but to physical impossibility, that Messiah could ever be born of a virgin: suppose, further, he had objected to the improbability of such a religion as that of Christ, with such apparently inadequate support, and so contrary to men’s prejudices and passions, ever so prevailing in the world, as that one day all nations should bow to Him— how would such an objection meet this antagonist but by arguments that would equally refute his own, viz., faith in the truth and power of God. If this is so, why then urge “physical impossibility” against us, when we even by no means make the emergency for such to arise in our interpretation of Peter? A moral inconsistency or impossibility would be fatal to our argument, but that of mere “physical impossibility” (because the objector cannot see how it is to be done) has no pertinency or force relating to the accomplishment of any prediction that God has given, after the mighty exhibitions of His ability to perform anything and everything that He has determined. Witness the saving of a remnant in the flesh when the deluge encompassed the earth, the birth of Isaac, the salvation of Israel at the Bed Sea, the protection of the flesh and even the clothing of the Hebrews in the intense heat of the king’s furnace, the conception of Jesus, etc., and surely with such manifestations of God’s most wonderful ability to accomplish all things, we must utterly repudiate the principle that we are at liberty to reject any prediction, or to reverse its order of fulfilment, because we, forsooth, cannot comprehend or explain how it is to be done, or how it is to be reconciled with natural causes. Apply this unbelieving principle to the conflagration itself, to the resurrection of the dead, to the changing of the living saints, to the miracles of Christ, creation, the mode of our existence, etc., and see how little these, as well as a multitude of other things, are dependent upon our amount of knowledge concerning them. Prophecies, which before their fulfilment seemed of impracticable (from a human standpoint) accomplishment were exactly realized; and thus others are given (is it to test the faith of Abraham’s seed?) in relation to the future, which will be verified in like manner, no matter whether believed or not, simply because God will indeed perform “a strange work,” “a new thing,” and while engaged in it He is abundantly able to cover in the shadow of His hand, so that (Isa. 43:2) “when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle upon thee” (or as Delitzsch: “When thou goest into fire, thou shalt not be burned, and the flames shall not set thee on fire”).

According to the Lord’s own words, the commencement of the Great Tribulation will be marked by the Abomination of Desolation in the Temple as prophesied by the prophet Daniel,

“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),… For then will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.” (Mat. 24:15,21 ESV)

Everything else like it in history pale in comparison–its magnitude and severity will be unmatched in history. But if there’s any consolation, it will not last long (Mat. 24:22) and it will end with a bang: with great signs in heaven including the appearance of the Son of Man (Mat. 24:29-30) and the rapture or the gathering of the elect (Mat. 24:31) will trigger it’s violent end. [See What is the Rapture?]

The Abomination of Desolation

We find the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 9:25-27 is the prophecy about the Coming Prince (Dan. 9:26) who will put an end to sacrifice and offering in the Temple until his decreed demise (Dan. 9:27). The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906 marked it fulfilled through Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Greek King of the Seleucid Empire (BC 175 – 164), who desecrated their holy temple and transformed it into a pagan place of worship by setting up the idol Zeus in it. The idol itself was the abomination and Antiochus IV Epiphanes was believed to be the Desolator.

When Mat. 24:15 called for the reader’s understanding of the abomination standing in the temple, no other picture comes to mind other than what Antiochus IV Epiphanes did. Therefore it can be expected from the early Christians to anticipate something like it that will alert them to flee from Judea and run towards the mountains for their safety (Mat. 24:16-21). In fact, we find this recorded in the annals of Ecclessiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 5 written by Eusebius of Caesaria (AD 263-339), an entry describing Vespasian’s war with the Jews through his son Titus in AD 70,

“But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by revelation, vouchasafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pelia. And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those win ho had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed the impious men (verse 3)… finally the course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed the the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire—all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus” (verse 4).

But neither of these two ended human history with a bang. Jesus did not appear in heaven and the believers were neither resurrected nor raptured into glory.

The Day of the Lord

What Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Vespasian did not only give us a lesson in history but also a picture of how the future Great Tribulation will be like: it will be worse than what they did but will end with great signs in heaven including the Coming of the Son of Man and the gathering or rapture of the elect,

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and 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.” (Mat. 24:29-31 ESV)

In Paul’s second epistle to the church of the Thessalonians, he reminded the believers there that the coming of the Lord and the gathering or rapture of the saints (2 Thes 2:1) will not come unless rebellion happens first. When and the Man of Lawlessness, also called the Son of Destruction, is revealed (2 Thes 2:1). He then spelled out what this man will do:

• He will exalt himself above any so-called God or object of worship (2 Thes. 2:4a)
• He will take seat in the temple of God (2 Thes. 2:4b)
• He will proclaim himself to be God (2 Thes. 2:4c)
• He will perform false signs and wonders through the activity of Satan (2 Thes. 2:9)
• He will deceive those who refuse to love the truth (2 Thes. 2:10)

This man (2 Thes 2:3) is no other than the Coming Prince in Dan. 9:26, the same Desolator in Dan. 9:27a. Paul also described what will happen to him, how he is decreed to be destroyed (Dan. 9:27b) when Christ appears in heaven,

“And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.” (2 Thes 2:8 ESV).

Pauls also called it “the day of the Lord” (2 Thes. 2:2), a well known tumultuous and bloody eschatological event predicted in the Old Testament Scriptures. It is in this day that the fullness of God’s wrath is poured on evil, his vengeance inflicted on the wicked for their iniquity, and his justice exacted on earth (Isa. 13:3-19; 34:1-8; Joel 1:15-20; 2:1-11; 3:9-16; Zep. 1:2-18).

Already At Work.

What Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Vespasian and all the many murderous and deceptive tyrants in history confirm what Paul said in 2 Thes 2:9a, “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.” Even in John’s first epistle, it is written that even now, “many antichrists have come” (1 Jn. 2:18b). And so, while Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Vespasian fit the bill of the many antichrists in history, they too pale in comparison to the coming end-time Antichrist (1 Jn. 2:18a).

When the 6th seal that unlocks the scroll of destiny in the Book of Revelation was broken, the signs of the day of the Lord appeared in heaven signifying its arrival, a question was asked: “Who can stand?” (Rev. 6:12-17)

Who Can Stand?

After the 6th seal was broken, there was an interlude between the 6th and 7th seal where John saw a multitude of 144,000 marked with God’s seal (Rev. 7:1-8) [See Who are the 144,000 in Revelation]. It was then followed by a vision of  great multitude of people (Rev. 7:9-17). This prompted him to ask, “Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where they have come?” (Rev. 7:13). One of the elders in the heavenly court of God replied,

“These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb. Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will shelter them with his presence. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore; the sun will not strike them, nor any scorching heat. For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd and he will guide them to springs of living water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.” (Rev. 7:14-17 ESV)

The meaning of the vision of the great multitude is undeniable. They represent the multinational people of God who were able to stand the Great Tribulation because (a) they were redeemed by the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7:14; 12:11); (b) they kept the Lamb’s word about patient endurance; and (c) they were kept from the hour of trial (Rev. 3:10).

The vision of the redeemed in the interlude of Revelation chapter 7 follows this order: first the Jews (Rev. 7:1-8) and then the Gentiles (Rev. 7:9-17).

The etymology of the word takes us to Medieval Latin called “raptura”and “rapto” which means “seizing and carrying off.” In the Latin Bible, we find them used as follows:

• In Acts 19:29 which tells of the people seizing [rapto] Gaius and Aristarchus;
• In 2 Cor. 12:2, 3 when Paul tells of a man who was caught up [raptum] the third heaven and to paradise; and
• In Rev. 12:5 which tells of a male child who was snatched up [raptus] to God and to his throne.

And in Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 5, Verse 1, Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 140-202) taught that Enoch and Elijah, in anticipation of what will happen to the just and the spiritual, were translated and caught up to Paradise and there they will remain until the end of all things. But in Chapter 9, Verse 1, Irenaeus taught that the Great Tribulation shall be the last “contest” that the righteous will have to overcome to be crowned with incorruption,

There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be. For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.

In other words, the translation and carrying off of Elijah and Enoch anticipate what would become of the Church at the end of the Great Tribulation, when they are translated and carried off to eternal life.

The first sentence of that quote from Irenaeus should be very familiar because it’s from Mat. 24:21, 29-31,

For then there will be great tribulation [thlipsis, Greek], such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. …Immediately after the tribulation [thlipsis] of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and 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.  (Mat 24:21, 29-31 ESV)

In the Lord’s own words, the elect will be gathered and carried off by angels immediately following the end of the Great Tribulation which will be marked by great signs in the heavens including his appearance from the clouds.

The Apostle Paul had to write a follow up epistle to the church of the Thessalonians in order remind them that the coming of the Lord and our being gathered together to him will be preceded by rebellion and revelation of the Man of Lawlessness.

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? (2 Thes. 2:1-5 ESV)

Both the coming of the Lord Jesus and the gathering of the elect by rapture are inseparable and Post-Tribulational (after the Great Tribulation). This is true even in his first epistle to them,

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will 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.  (1 Thes. 4:16-17 ESV)

But one might ask, what is the point of being carried off into the clouds just to go back down again?

What is the point of such a meet-up?

Aside from 1 Thes. 4:17, the Greek word used, apantesis, is also used in the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins. However, only the wise virgins had enough oil to keep their lamps going as they went about to meet (apantesis) the arriving bridegroom. They were well prepared for his delay and they had enough oil to keep their lamps going as they waited till they were able to escort him into the wedding banquet (Mat. 25:10).

And so, the meet-up when the people of God are carried off into the clouds is meant for them to welcome their coming Bridegroom-King and to escort him into his wedding banquet to be united with him forever.  But it is also the timing of the resurrection of the  departed saints and the translation to immortality of those who remain alive waiting for his return.

This is the very same mystery that the Apostle unveiled in his epistle to the church of God in Corinth,

Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” (1 Cor. 15:51-54 ESV)