It was with the rise of John Darby in the early nineteenth century that men began to explore the Jewish prophets in order to come to an understanding of the prophecies of the Apostle John in “The Revelation of Jesus Christ.” There had been a couple of papers published two hundred years earlier that spoke of a pretribulation rapture, but it was the publication of Darby’s work that gave Dispensationalism a structure and a name. He is rightly seen as the “father of Dispensationalism,” although the first references to Dispensationalism and a pretribulation rapture were discussed in the second and third centuries by writers of that era.
The interpretation of Daniel 2, 7, 9; and The Revelation that form the basis of what is the consensus view today was founded on a very different geopolitical stage than the current world stage. It was in 1806 that the “Holy Roman Empire” was dissolved. Therefore, it was natural to presume that the last form of that empire would be a resurrection of it, as the infrastructure was still in place, and could have been accomplished, had that been God’s purpose. It made sense at the time, and was the only interpretation of these prophecies that did. The United States was still in its nascent state when Darby presented his interpretation, and it was nowhere evident that the States would ever become the great empire that it has become.
Even then, and until now, expositors have adopted one form or another of Darby’s views. Some theologians have suggested a Mediterranean antichrist. Others anticipate a European state, since Rome was a European Empire. Lately, some have identified the rise of the antichrist with the formation of the United Nations, and still others, more recently, with the European Union. There are fringe groups that see Russia as the nation of the beast, or Iran, or even a revived city/state of Babylon, out of the ruins of the ancient city that are now being excavated.
The problem with all of those interpretations is that they offer little hope for the rapture occurring anytime soon, as many dramatic geopolitical changes must occur before the antichrist can arise. While the rapture has always had the quality of imminence, in this emerging view, it has also the sense of immediacy. The conventional view places the rapture at some point in the relatively distant future. Imminence is explained by saying that God is able, in an instant, to wreak the changes that must be made in order for prophecy to be fulfilled.
We know the things that follow the rapture of the true Church. If the United States must suffer a sudden collapse, and if some other state must arise in order to gain world power, then a considerable period of time must elapse before the world stage reflects the conditions of any of the conventional views.
Modern theologians are correct in saying that God can make the changes in an instant; indeed, He will certainly make many distinct and dramatic changes in a very short time during the Tribulation. Nevertheless, prophecy always been fulfilled through the natural evolution of political events. The prophets were not told that at such and such a time God would wreak cataclysmic changes, but that, when the objective circumstances on the ground matched the writings of the prophets, then certain things that were prophesied would occur.
For example, as far back as Moses’ day, in declaring the whole Law to the Jews, he prophesied that if they did not obey the Law, then they would be carried away captive. Nearly seven hundred years later, Hezekiah was king in Judah. He was a righteous king, and was favored by God for the steadfastness of his faith. Hezekiah became gravely ill, and was told he would die. He prayed that God would extend his life, and God agreed to do so. During those “additional” years, Hezekiah received emissaries from Babylon. His great error was to take them into the temple treasury and show them the riches of Israel, including the armory. Some few years later, after Hezekiah did die, Nebuchadnezzar was king in Babylon. He knew of the report of the emissaries of his father, and sent a contingent of men to capture some of the royal youths. Daniel was among this group. Jeremiah the prophet, was not taken, and his “weeping” prophecies concerning the impending captivity of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar were written, in which he laid out the specifics of Israel’s departure from God. Nebuchadnezzar did capture Judah, and did carry the Jews captive into Babylon, in 586 B.C.
All of this unfolded naturally, although God raised up those whom He knew would perform the dastardly deeds. (They weren’t actually dastardly, as God was using Nebuchadnezzar to chasten His people.) Though God raised Nebuchadnezzar to the throne, He was not responsible for the deeds of Nebuchadnezzar. Mankind has always been responsible for his own deeds, though God certainly foresaw every individual sin of every individual human being before the earth was even created. The point here, however, is that, though Moses predicted this same captivity, God didn’t stick His finger in the pot, so to speak, and stir it so that those things could come to pass. He allowed the natural evolution of political events to bring around the objective circumstances that would culminate in the fulfillment of those prophecies.
In that same manner, according to the emergent view of an American antichrist, God has allowed the world stage to evolve to its present state. Now, when one reads the prophets of Israel and the Church, he quickly sees that the objective circumstances on the ground of the world match precisely the things that must follow the rapture.
Not only are the named nations in the same relationship with Israel as they would be when the prophets wrote of them and when the prophecies would be fulfilled, but the most important reference point, the beginning of the things that follow the rapture, is the brokering of a Middle East peace treaty between Israel and “many.” Since we see the current world’s attitude in favor of this treaty growing in intensity on every front, we can expect a treaty to be imposed, if not actually agreed upon by the signatory nations and peoples.
The question then remains as to who constitutes the “many” of Daniel 9:27. First of all, no treaty between Israel and anyone has been possible from 70 A.D., until 1979, when President Carter hosted Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat at Camp David to hammer out the Camp David accords. That treaty was between Israel and Egypt, and did not constitute the “many” of 9:27.
When President G.W. Bush hosted a Middle East summit in the waning months of his presidency, at Annapolis, the attendees would all have been signatories of any treaty that might have been negotiated. Among those would have been several European nations, many Arab peoples, a representative of the United Nations, and, of course, the president of the United States. However, no accord was reached, and Israel essentially ended the negotiations when they began a large-scale retaliatory bombing campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians walked away and resumed a hostile attitude.
At this present point in time, President Obama has annealed the world’s heart toward finally settling this thorny issue once and for all. He is working tirelessly to make Middle East peace the crowning jewel in his legacy. Many are pessimistic that these negotiations will bear any fruit. But many also understand the intense intention of the Gentile world to see this thing done. It appears that Mr. Obama will do whatever is necessary to accomplish this mission, even if he must use coercion to force the hands of Israel and the Palestinians. He has gained the open, vocal support of Europe, Russia, the U.N. – all members of the Quartet – as well as of many individual nations and peoples.
Seeing that we may well at last be approaching the prophecy of Daniel 9:27, we must realize that the rapture, which precedes the ratification of that treaty in the Israeli Knesset, must be even closer. It was this fact that unrelentingly pressed me to write Midnight Rising.
In fairness, it should be noted that God could have translated the saints at any point in history, without reference to the tribulation period. If He had done so a thousand years ago, for example, the world would have gone on until now, when Daniel’s treaty was to be “confirmed.” That is, it has never been necessary for the Church to be on the earth until that time. If the body of Christ had been completed earlier, then the Church would have been gone, and the world would have continued until the objective circumstances on the ground matched the words of the prophets.
However, the rapture did not occur in times past. Nor, at any point in history, until 1948, was it possible for 9:27 to occur, because there was no nation of Israel with which to negotiate. Now, there is, and the negotiations are determined and almost certain.
Finally, the question remains, “Is this that treaty?” The truth is, we cannot know. It looks like it might be, and even probably will be, but there may come another treaty a few years after this one. Just as there is NAFTA in North America, there may be a MEFTA in the near future of the Middle East. Commerce is more profitable than war. It might be the MEFTA treaty that is the ultimate goal of even these present negotiations. The salient point in all of this discussion is that today, the objective circumstances on the ground match perfectly those which must exist during the Tribulation, and the United States is the primary broker of this desired treaty. If that does not sway rigid opinion, then many will be red-faced when the shout and the trumpet sound.
Wm. Anderson Simpson author of Midnight Rising-Warning Signs For This Generation-Deep River Books 2010. www.midnightrisingbook.net
No comments:
Post a Comment