Are We Living in Earth’s Final Hours? (Part 1)
By way of introduction: I am Rev. Travis Heide, pastor at Mt. Calvary Evangelical Lutheran Church in Swift Current, Saskatchewan. I was baptized, confirmed, and ordained in the Confessional Lutheran Church – although, in imitation of the late, great professor Arthur Carl Piepkorn (d. 1973), I prefer to think of it is a “reforming movement within the Western Catholic Church”. That is, however, a mouthful.
My point is that Confessional Lutheranism is not a sect. Our doctrine is derived from the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures, and it is in line with the manner in which those Scriptures have been interpreted throughout the Church’s (roundly) two-thousand year history. Contrary to popular misconception, we were not “founded” by Martin Luther. Our foundational document is the Augsburg Confession, which was signed by several respectable officials of the pre-reformation Church and government. During that period in history, those who agreed with Luther were called “Evangelical” (Evangelisch for our German speakers); however, since the pejorative name “Lutheran” stuck, we leave the name “Evangelical” to Christians holding vastly different theological viewpoints to our own. That said, when I am told how an “Evangelical” church understands itself, the answer is given to this effect: “An Evangelical Church preaches the whole Bible.”Well, we preach the Bible cover-to-cover.
That includes the Book of Revelation. (There was also a time when Lutherans quoted the Apocryphal books in their sermons. But many good and useful things were lost when North American churches switched to English, unexpectedly found themselves beholden to English Protestant sensitivities, and… to cut a long story short, many practices and positions are assumed today to be “too Catholic!” which are, in fact, verily Lutheran. But I digress.) From my limited vantage point, however, I see the need to clarify one point: Revelation is the book which appears last in the canon of Scripture because it is meant to be read last in order.
I wish to acknowledge the varied and diverse interpretations of Revelation, all of which spring from that very fact. It is last. Many have surmised with convincing logic that Revelation chronicles the time period following that covered by the Gospels and Acts. To be sure, it is evident that the Second Coming described in Revelation is a future event; therefore to some extent, Revelation can be read in a futuristic sense by everyone.
On this note I give my respect to Ron Swanson, Th,D for his desire to present a Biblically faithful understanding of Christ’s identify and mission. In writing this book Swanson has helpfully steered the reader away from a “spiritualizing” tendency which is endemic in Modernist circles. (What is meant by “spiritualizing?” It is an interpretive lens which reads the miracles of creation, the Flood, the Exodus, and other such events – the miracles of Jesus, including his resurrection – not in a historic sense as though they actually happened; such breed of Modernists, according to their own wisdom (Pr. 3:7), counsel us to glean a “spiritual truth” from these “stories” like morals from a fairy story. They style themselves with the more transparent term “demythologizers.”) The Second Coming of Christ would be in no way immune to this impulse; Swanson rightfully calls out those who would “spiritualize” that up-and-coming event.
Like Swanson, I look forward to the coming of Christ. It will be a culminative event in salvation history. We at Mt. Calvary pray every week in our Eucharistic liturgy: “Come, Lord Jesus!” (a true echo of the first Christians’ Aramaism, Marana tha!) This understood, I am also constrained to follow St. Paul’s instructions: “Do not despise prophesies, but test everything; hold fast to what is good.” (1 Thess. 5:20-21) Careful study of Scripture, including Revelation, leads me to different conclusions from Swanson. Some are from shared premises, others from markedly divergent ones. What the reader may perhaps find most striking is my disavowal of so-called “Biblical” Zionism. A firm position like this arises from a genuine interest the central Pauline doctrine that “one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom. 3:23). Personally, I have always found tragedy in modern use of Romans (chs. 9-11) to support a theology that by all appearances creates an alternative route to salvation by status of birth rather than by faith. (By way of further apology: I cannot reconcile myself to Dispensationalist theology, explained in the body, primarily for this reason. As a secondary reason I cite the poor representation of Dispensationalist theology in the orthodox Christian tradition from at least the age of St. Augustine till the nineteenth century – a considerable lacuna that bears explaining.) However, I furnish the above example hoping to demonstrate my avoidance of any false attributions to the author. I do not believe he means by writing this book to undermine what he considers fundamental Christian doctrines such as sola fide. Borrowing the words of Anthony A. Hoekma (one theologian whose insights I refer to in my critique of Swanson’s book): “I trust that he and others who share his views will be willing to recognize my interpretation arises not from a liberal approach to Scripture nor from a cavalier disregard for the text but from a different understanding of the words before us.”
I pray this critique of Swanson’s work will yield fruitful discussion between us concerning the End-Times and Christian teaching in general. It is by no means my intention to attack the possibility that we, today, may be living close to the end of history. I have taken pains to state my agreement with the author on the Doctrine of Imminence – one common premise from which we arrive at conclusions that are (in an almost literal sense!) worlds apart. More fervently, though, I pray as pastor of Mt. Calvary Evangelical Lutheran Church that this work will be found free of anything contrary to the “pattern of sound teaching” and the “good deposit” (2 Tim. 1:12-14). Aware of the grave responsibility (Luke 12:47-48; 1 Cor. 3:10-15) I put forth this response to: Swanson, Ron. Earth’s Final Hours. Calgary, AB: Victory International Publishing. 2014.
Out of personal respect for Swanson, I refer to him as “the author” throughout my critique. My responses do not unfold in logical manner, as they might in an original work. Rather, each counterargument is organized point-for-point as each item appears in Swanson. Greek and Hebrew terms are transliterated into English instead of transcribed in order to make them intelligible to lay readers. Finally, following my resolve to answer the book according to its own organization, I have divided my response into two parts (or sections).
“Let the reader understand what this means.” (St. Matthew the Evangelist)
Criticism of Earth’s Final Hours (Ron Swanson, Th.D.)
Chapter One – What Happens When?
In this opening chapter, the author correctly calls the reader’s attention to the importance of prophecy. Although he does not clearly declare which definition of the term “prophecy” he is using, it seems clear to which he is referring among the various possibilities. “Prophets” may refer to the middle section of the Old Testament canon (Torah/Law, Navi’im/Prophets, Ketuvim/Writings; cf. Luke 24:44). The Prophetic books do overwhelm the other two in size. At least once the entire canon of Scripture is referred to as “prophecy” (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The singular noun “prophecy” typically designates the literary genre – this is the definition of “prophecy” under which the author seems to operate. With this distinction in mind, much of the content of the Prophetic books is not prophetic literature. Rather, these books include historical narratives (ex. Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, and whole chapters from the book of Isaiah) and parables (e.g. Is. 5:1-7; Ezek. 17). Again, the word “prophecy” may be taken in an even broader sense as encompassing the entire inspired Word of God.
Omitting an important recognition of literary genres in Scripture, the author leaves the reader vulnerable to misinterpret prophetic passages in the literal sense. See Chapter 8, in which he states his conclusion that a Pre-Tribulation End-Times chronology is supported by a literal interpretation of prophecy. (Ron Swanson, Earth’s Final Hours, 69) However, the historical-grammatical method of reading Scripture (that is, the plain sense) does not in every passage demand a literal interpretation; instead, it must take account of the literary genre. The plain sense of such genres as parable, poetry, figure of speech (ex. Matt. 12:40, “three days and three nights” indicating any period spanning three calendar days), and apocalyptic passages, is not literal. Again, certain prophetic passages are also written in poetic or parabolic form (ex. Is. 9:2; Hosea). Figurative interpretation of “prophecy” must not be ruled out.
The reader is left naïve to the fact that certain prophetic passages speak with a present, not necessarily future, reference. There are examples of prophecies given and quoted, not to predict future fulfillment, but to indicate events fulfilled at the time of writing (Mic. 7:2; Matt. 4:15-16). Moreover, the author never introduces apocalyptic literature, which is a distinct but not entirely separate genre from prophetic. See D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, still a standard reference for identifying marks of apocalyptic literature. (But be wary of dated historical-critical theories regarding the composition of certain Old Testament books, ex. Daniel.) When St. John introduces the book of Revelation as a “prophecy” (Rev. 1:3), he may well be referencing the prophetic passages contained in Revelation. However it seems most likely that John is applying the term “prophecy” in the broadest sense of 1 Pet. 1:20-21. “The fact that John understood his Revelation to be a prophecy suggests that he believed this writing would be the last message from God to his people before the End” (Louis A. Brighton, Revelation, 38).
Whatever the case, it must be recognized that prophetic passages include various literary genres and temporal references. With this qualification I agree with the author’s presupposition: “[God] must want us to understand [prophecy]!” (Swanson, 9) The author finds warrant to read the book of Revelation with an entirely future reference. Again, see Chapter 8 on Preterism, in which the author rejects the view that “the majority of the Bible’s prophesies have already been fulfilled, (including those in the Book of Revelation).” (p. 66) Contrariwise I demonstrate how a literal, futuristic interpretation of certain prophetic passages – especially those exclusive to Revelation – is precluded by other passages of Scripture.
Chapter Two – The Rapture of the Church
The author in this chapter explains his understanding of the “Rapture” – that is, a future event in conjunction with the Second Coming, in which believers are “taken up” bodily. For my point of disagreement with the author, see Chapter 8 for the author’s defense of his Rapture theory which involves a Pre-Tribulation End-Times chronology. (pp. 65-66)
The author furnishes the Rapture doctrine with alleged precedents in the Old and New Testaments (Enoch, Gen. 5:24; Philip, Acts 8:39; Paul, 2 Cor. 12:4). “That’s exactly what will happen to the Church prior to the Tribulation period!” (p. 17) This statement is, however, difficult to verify, considering that even these three examples differ from one another. The Greek verb harpazō, translated as “raptured” in 1 Thess. 4:17, is not present in the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Genesis account. The word used is the middle/deponent verb metatithēmi, translated as “taken up”; this does not have the violent connotations of harpazō, “snatch”. When Paul describes his own experience being “caught up” (harpagenta), he qualifies: “whether in the body or out of it, I do not know” (2 Cor. 12:2), whereas the rapture of 1 Thess. 4:17 is bodily. Different from this passage, Philip was not raptured “in the clouds” but to the earthly locale of Azotus (Acts 8:40).
The author posits an interval between the Rapture and the “Second Resurrection” (p. 28) later identified as “the resurrection of the lost” (p. 33). See Chapter Three, in which the author rejects the view that the spirits of believers and nonbelievers are reunited with their bodies at the same time. Yet the parallel passages cited from 1 Corinthians 15 mention no time lapse between the “two resurrections” (p. 27). Paul speaks only about the resurrection of the just (1 Cor. 15:50-58). Although this does not lead to a major interpretive blunder, the author makes an artificial parallel between the Corinthian and Thessalonian passages: 1) “the corruptible must put on corruption” and 2) “this mortal must put on immortality” (v. 53). These descriptions are taken to refer strictly to 1) “the dead in Christ” and 2) “those of us who are left” (1 Thess. 4:16-17). Instead, it bears to consider Paul’s use of Semitic parallelism as the two statements in 1 Cor. 15:54 describe the same event using synonymous terms. Parallelism is a key interpretive device which the author seems to miss in crucial passages of Scripture.
Again, it must be established there is no debate that believers will be “raptured” in the manner described in 1 Thess. 4:17 and 1 Cor. 15:50-55. However, the author’s Rapture theory in connection with his faulty End-Times chronology is not supported by either passage. The plain sense of 1 Cor. 15:52 supports the view of a single event measurable “in the winkling of an eye” – “a period of time that is so small it cannot be divided any further.” (p. 91)
See N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, in which he posits the theory that believers are “caught up together to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess. 4:17) in order to greet Christ as he returns to earth as the triumphant judge. The author would say the same about this theory as he does deridingly about the Post-Tribulation Rapture theory: “the church is caught up to meet the Lord on the final day of the Tribulation; only to do a U-turn and come back down with Him at the Second Advent.)” (p. 66) Yet the view expressed by Wright is Scripturally and historically favoured. It allows for a single event involving the Second Coming of Christ, a General Resurrection, and a Final Judgment.
Such an End-Times chronology is supported everywhere in Scripture. Passages that may be interpreted in support a different chronology (ex. Rev. 20:5-6) are exclusive to Revelation. I find these misinterpreted by the author over and against clear passages in other books which instead ought to be given their plain (literal) sense. The following chapter is a helpful case study.
Chapter Three – Completing the Timeline
The author interprets Jesus as referring to two separate events when he says: “the hour is coming when all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (John 5:28-29) In his view, “The Bible speaks of two resurrection days that are separated by more than a thousand years.” (p. 27) But the literal interpretation of this direct speech would indicate a single (General) Resurrection of all people living at all times. This passage would be misleading if it referred in a single breath to events in reality separated by more than a thousand years.
Consider the singular time marker: hōra, “the hour”. (In the original Greek, the absent definite article is implied by the relative pronoun he, “in which”.) This passage echoes the concluding chapter of Daniel (Dan. 12:1-2), in which the Hebrew time marker “at that time” (ʿeth hahhiʾ) carries the same meaning as the Greek (hē) hōra. “In what Jesus tells the Jews about this hour he states only what they themselves believed about the resurrection and the judgment” (Richard C. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Gospel of John, 397).. However, by “all” (Greek panta), Jesus includes nonbelievers. Other definitive statements in John predict that the dead will be raised on the “last day” (eschatē hēmera) (John 11:24). (The adjective is derived from the root eschaton from which is the term “eschatology”, the study of the End-Times, is derived.) Again, this reference to a “last” day – if “day” is to be read in the plain sense of one calendar day – cannot be taken seriously if it were only the beginning of any substantial period to follow. Either “day” or “last” would need to take on a meaning different from the literal. Otherwise one is left with an apparent contradiction between this direct discourse in the Gospels and the following apocalyptic passage in Revelation: “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years… but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” (Rev. 20:5-6) In this contest, the author privileges Revelation – an impulse which, however, seems to run counter to the “exegetical principle in the Scriptures figurative expressions must be interpreted as figurative and thus in harmony with plain literal statements.” (Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation, 588)
See Chapter Two and Chapter Five in which the author highlights the word mystery (musterion) (1 Cor. 15:50) and finds warrant for such an interpretive framework as may undermine the plain sense of Jesus’ words. “Whenever you find one of these ‘mysteries’, keep in mind that what you’re reading doesn’t appear anywhere in the Old Testament. It is exclusively a New Testament doctrine.” (Swanson, 21) Here the author sets the Rapture doctrine before the reader; however, his entire Pre-Tribulation End-Times Chronology is held in the background, which involves two separate resurrections separated by a precisely 1007-year period. He would be incorrect if he were to apply the two resurrections as a “mystery” unknown to Jesus’ Jewish audience. The General Resurrection is present in the Old Testament (Dan. 12:2) – and, in any case, he iterates it without explanation or apology before his original audiences. (John 5:28-29; 11:24).
A better interpretive framework takes account of the respective genres of the texts under study. The passage in Revelation is filled with symbolism: “Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into a pit, and shut it and sealed it over him… until the thousand years were ended.” (Rev. 20:1-3) The period of “a thousand years” (chilia, “Millennium”) – nota bene, exclusive to this single passage – stands as part of the verbal picture which includes an angel (commonly understood to represent Christ himself), a “dragon”, and a “bottomless pit” (abussos, “Abyss”) with a “key”. The reader sees no indicator why the Millennium alone, out of all these clearly symbolic figures, should be taken as literal. A more reasonable alternative exists: “The book of Revelation is full of symbolic numbers … Since the number ten signifies completeness, and since a thousand is ten to the third power, we may think of the expression ‘a thousand years’ as standing for a complete period, a very long period of indeterminate length.” (Anthony A. Hoekma, The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, 161) The number seven will also come into play when I later discuss symbolic numbers. Here, though, let it be settled that the apocalyptic character of this passage, when held in comparison with the direct speech of Jesus (John 5:28), clearly shows which of the two passages is to be interpreted literally. Taking the “last day” of John 11:24 also as a literal, definitive statement, the apparent contradiction disappears.
Verbal parallels in the Gospels, the Epistles, and even the book of Revelation itself support what Hoekma calls a “realized Millennium” (p. 155) – that is, that the “first resurrection” and the reign of Christ has begun to be realized in the present era. In the Gospels, Jesus declares that: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed (metabebēken) from death to life.” (John 5:24) The verb is in the perfect active indicative, denoting a completed action. In the debated passage – which closely follows this verse – Jesus employs future verbs: “all who are in the tombs will hear his voice (akousousin) and [will] come out (ekporeusontai)” (28). Jesus, carefully minding his verb tenses, makes no mistake in saying the believer has already taken part in a resurrection compatible with the “first” of Rev. 20:5-6. Such a reading makes sense of the rhetorical statement found in Jesus’ self-referential Bread of Life discourse: “This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die” (6:50) This is not to say that believers will “not die” in a physical sense, but rather in a spiritual sense. This allows for a spiritual interpretation of the “resurrection” spoken of in Rev. 20:6. Further evidence is in the “second death” later mentioned in the same passage (unless unbelievers are fated to die physically a second time). Such a spiritual death-and-resurrection event that concerns believers only, and one which for them lies in the rear view, is described in-depth by Paul: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life … consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 6:3-4, 14) “These are things worth noting.” (Lenski, 587) One purpose of the First Resurrection is that believers “will be priests of God and Christ, and they will reign with him for at thousand years.” (Rev. 20:6) This is the present reality witnessed in 1 Pet. 2:9: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation … so that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Another purpose is that “authority to judge (krima)” (Rev. 20:4) may be given to believers. Paul reminds the Corinthians that “The spiritual person judges (anakrinei) all things, but is himself judged by no one.” (1 Cor. 2:15) Present fulfillment.
As a final point: even a strictly chronological reading of Rev. 20:1-6 would indicate no time lapse between the First Resurrection and the Millennium. However the author states that “the First Resurrection takes place at the Rapture of the Church (just prior to the Tribulation period)” (Swanson, 28) – a period which, according to his Pre-Tribulation Rapture chronology, is to last seven years (pp. 43, 87). Yet this passage leaves no room for such a seven-year gap between the Tribulation and the alleged Thousand-Year Reign of Christ, making a total 1007-year period.
Chapter Four – The Two Judgments
Consistent with his separation of two resurrections and two Comings of Christ, the author posits two Judgments: 1) the “Judgment Seat of Christ”; and 2) the “White Throne Judgment”. See Chapter One and Chapter Five on the “Coming” of the Lord, in which the author distinguishes between 1) the Rapture and 2) a Second Advent allegedly to follow later. (pp. 12; 42) In support the author draws an artificial division between Christ’s 1) “appearing” (parousia) and 2) “coming”. However, he never furnishes a New Testament Greek word for “coming”. He would need to identify such a Greek word and cite uses in Scripture that parallel the contrasting nuances he sets between the two English terms. As it stands, there is no case on linguistic grounds.
The author cites the Greek term Bēma, if only to artificially confines its meaning to “judge of the contestants” (p. 33). Yet the author does not care to cite one of Paul’s metaphorical references to the Olympic games (1 Cor. 9:24; 2 Tim. 7) – it would seem this is because there is no mention of the bema at all in these contexts. See A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG). St. James does not idly warn his readers, all of whom are believers: “Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged (krithēte); behold, the Judge (krites) is standing at the door.” (Jas. 5:9) This warning finds a direct parallel to the Pauline passage cited by the author (Rom. 14:1-12), in which Paul uses the term bema clearly in the judicial sense. More to the point under debate, Paul also cites a prophetic passage, Is. 45:23: “every knee shall bow to me, and every knee shall confess to God”, and concludes: “So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.” In Phil. 2:10-11, Paul (in his Rabbinic manner) amplifies the Isaiah passage in his conclusion of what many call the “Christ-Hymn”: “so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” “Under the earth” includes nonbelievers consigned to the place of judgment. “When an unbeliever dies, his spirit and soul immediately descend into hell.” (p. 37) By all appearances, the accounting (judgment) Paul has in mind in Rom. 14:10 unites believers and nonbelievers in a single event before Christ. Neither in 2 Cor. 5:8-10 is courtroom judgment eschewed in favour of a contestant judge; contrariwise, “we must all appear before the judgment seat (bēma) of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” The result clause is significant. It would be unnecessary for Paul to mention “whether good or evil” if, as the author concludes, only good works find their desert here (p. 33). Rather, the plain sense of this passage indicates that both the reward of the just for their good works and the degree of punishment for the lost are both determined. Not even the book of Revelation hints at more than a single event. Rev. 20:11-15 only mentions “a single book and a set of books” (p. 38) opened at the same time. One single Final Judgment “according to what they had done” is rendered in all-inclusive terms: “And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and they were judged, each one of them” (13). (“Hades” here refers to the ground housing bodies that had been buried in the traditional way, as evidenced by “the sea” holding the remainder; there are not separate subterranean and subaquatic regions of hell.) In the memorable passage from Matt. 25:31-46, Jesus predicts a Final Judgment in which the parabolic “sheep” (believers) are separated from the “goats” (nonbelievers) and the works of both are made public. The Pauline principle of justification by faith (Rom. 3:28; Eph. 2:8) is not violated here; as per Ps. 31:1, “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered”, only the good works of the sheep are called to attention. Reception of free forgiveness through Christ (1 John 1:7), however, does not necessitate a special judgment seat (bēma) for the believer. One is purely an invention.
Chapter Five – The Last Days according to Jesus
The author characteristically fails to note the Semitic parallelism in the disciples’ question put Jesus in Matt. 24:3: “What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?” In the genitive clause to sēmeion tēs sēs parousias kai sunteleias tou aiōnos there is a single, definite “sign” (to sēmeion) assigned to both which, furthermore, share the same set of articles – one definite (tes) and the other second-person possessive (sēs). See Chapter One, in which the author has driven a fictional wedge between the “appearing” and “coming” of Christ. (p. 12) On the strength of this artificial division the author posits that Christ’s “coming” (parrēsia) is a separate event from the “end of the age”. In like manner he asserts that the disciples “asked three questions in this verse.” (p. 41) One of these “questions” allegedly pertains to the Rapture, another to an event that is to follow 1007 years later according to his Pre-Tribulation chronology.
See Appendix A, in which the author presents before the reader a seven-period timeline patterned after the Scofield Reference Bible. C. I. Scofield popularized Dispensationalist theology, which divides human history into seven different ages or “Dispensations”. The author defines “dispensation” as “a period of time, in which God dealt with man in a certain way.” (p. 87) He identifies the fifth Dispensation with a “Jewish Age”, and the sixth with a “Church Age”, leaving a seventh, final age: the Millennium, or Thousand-Year Reign of Christ.
In such wise the author interprets the word “age” according to the seven-age Dispensationalist chronology of Scofield, insisting, “They [the disciples] had to be referring to the Jewish Age because the Church Age was also part of the ‘mystery.’ As such, the disciples had no idea it was coming.” (p. 42) Oddly the author cites (in an endnote) Rev. 1:20 as evidence, although this verse does not use the Greek term musterion. It should be noted in fact that no part of the book of Revelation is designated as a “mystery.” See Chapter Two, in which the author contends that the word “now spoke of something that had been ‘hidden in the past [i.e. the Old Testament era], but had ‘recently been revealed’ [i.e. during the New Testament era].” (p. 21) There is no evidence in support of the vague notion that “the Church age” is one of the “at least six things that are called a ‘mystery’ in the New Testament.” The existence of the Church as a community is never designated as a “mystery” by Paul in Eph. 3:4-6; his focus is more narrowly defined: “When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” (emphasis added) The parallel passage in Col. 1:26-27 confirms the true nature of the “mystery”. (Also worthy of note: to classify Paul’s marvel at the union between Christ and the Church as his Mystical Body [Eph. 5:32] as a “mystery” in the author’s restricted sense is to miss the meaning.)
The author’s chronological division between a Church Age and a future prophetic fulfillment concerning ethnic Jews rests on the assumption that “The Church and Israel are two distinct groups with whom God has a divine plan. The church is a mystery, unrevealed in the Old Testament… This mystery program must be completed before God can resume His program with Israel and bring it to completion.” (J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, 193; cited in Swanson, 69)
This scheme sits at irreconcilable odds with Paul’s entire theology. The reader must be pointed toward culmination of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians: “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ Jesus have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Gal. 3:25-29) A dilemma exists in which one is either free to use the plan sense of Paul’s every statement regarding the “mystery” of Gentile inclusion; or one feels constrained, like the author, to identify “Israel” with the modern State of Israel founded in 1948. Zionistic interpreters favour the latter. As a matter of procedure they ignore Romans 9:6-8: “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel … it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” (emphasis added) Passing over this all-important interpretive key, the author fails to properly identify the Church as Israel. He proceeds to rejects any notion that “God has permanently placed Israel aside and replaced her with the Church.” (p. 70) Anthony A. Hoekma exposes the intrinsic fallacy: “the church is often spoken of in the New Testament as spiritual Israel and that the basic dispensationalist principle of an absolute distinction between Israel and the church, involving two distinct purposes of God and two distinct peoples of God, has no biblical warrant.” (Hoekma, 55) In Rom. 11, where the Apostle digresses to speak about his compatriots, he evenly applies the same metaphor of “grafting in” to ethnic Jews and Gentiles. Members of both groups shall be saved “if they do not continue in their unbelief.” (Rom. 11:23) The only manner in which Paul conceives of people being saved is by conversion to faith in Christ. This was firmly established (10:5-12) with the concluding note that “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek.” It must not be missed that the prophetic statement “all Israel will be saved” is the result clause of the preceding “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in”; therefore clearly “all Israel” is a mixture of the two. (vv. 25-26)
When the community of Israel is properly understood as a two-sided ingrafting of Jews and Gentiles, there is no basis for the author’s mischaracterization that “God is not finished with Israel” (Swanson, 70). St. John the Baptist makes startling use of apocalyptic imagery, not to mention hyperbole, in preaching the need for repentance equally incumbent on both Jews and Gentiles: “And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.” (Luke 3:8) To the contrary: in view of its present fulfillment Church, the same St. Luke (a close personal and theological companion of Paul) who recorded the above words spoken by John, also records the question asked by the disciples: “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6) The reader of 1 Pet. 2:9 knows the answer: “you are… a kingly (basileion) priesthood, a holy nation…” (Nota bene these exact same words addressed to historic Israel in Exod. 19:6!)
The author undermines the plain sense of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse in order to shoehorn his Pre-Tribulation End-Times chronology. He theorizes that: “if you read the two accounts together (Matt. 24 and Luke 21), it looks like they’re referring to the same event. But, that’s not the case. Luke discusses the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and Matthew looks ahead to the Tribulation Period!” (p. 41) But if he is correct, the Lukan passages in which Jesus clearly predicts his coming must be ignored. In fact, exclusive to Luke’s Gospel is this clearly eschatological verse: “Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” (Luke 21:28) The author must furthermore account for the lack of “signs in the sun and moon and stars” and the shaking of the “powers of the heavens” in connection with the Destruction of the Temple if he longs for consistency with the literalistic, futuristic interpretation of apocalyptic passages upon which he insists (p. 68).
The reader need only consult the passages under debate and surmise whether the identical structure is intended shed light on the same event:
Prescript: Rebuke of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 23; Luke 20:45-47)
Prediction: Not one stone will be left on another (Matt. 24:2; Luke 21:6)
Question: “When will these things be?” (Matt. 24:3; Luke 21:7)
Warning and Prediction: Do not be led astray; false Christs will appear (Matt. 24:4-5; Luke 21:8)
Prediction: Wars and tumults, famines, signs from heaven (Matt. 24:6-8; Luke 21:9-11)
Prediction and Encouragement: persecution, testimony (Matt. 24:9-14; Luke 21:12-19)
Prediction: Destruction and desolation (Matt. 24:15-25; Luke 21:20-24)
Prediction: Coming of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:26-31; Luke 21:25-28)
Postscript: Parable of the Fig Tree and Application (Matt. 24:36-44; Luke 21:34-36)
It is by no means clear (p. 41) that these accounts are twofold because they deal with two separate events. On this assumption, the presence of St. Mark’s account of the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13) would imply three events. A parallel study of the Markan passages (which must go unacknowledged by the author) yields the identical structure:
Prescript: Rebuke of the Scribes (Mark 13:38-40)
Prediction: Not one stone will be left on another (13:1-2)
Question: “When will these things be?” (vv. 3-4) Note the parallel structure!
Warning and Prediction: Do not be led astray; false Christs will appear (v. 6)
Prediction: Wars and tumults, famines, signs from heaven (vv. 7-8)
Prediction and Encouragement: persecution, testimony (vv. 9-13)
Prediction: Destruction and desolation (vv. 14-23)
Prediction: Coming of the Son of Man (vv. 24-27)
Postscript: Parable of the Fig Tree and Application (vv. 28-37)
The reader is alerted to Mark’s references to the “abomination of desolation” (Mark 13:14) and warning for those in Judea to “flee to the mountains”. These details are explicit in Matthew, yet elsewhere Mark’s account more closely resembles Luke’s. One must ask how this convergence serves the purposes of clarity if, as the author asserts, “the outcomes are very different” (p. 41).
Such divergent outcomes as the author desires to find would, naturally, concern two different groups of people: the believing community, or the Church, and ethnic Jews. He rests on the Dispensationalist premise that the Rapture (1 Thess. 4:17) serves the purpose of ridding the earth of the Christian Church, to be replaced with a modern nation-state of Israel as the visible manifestation of God’s activity on earth. According to this theory, it is not present-day believers who experience the “Tribulation”; rather, the reader is led to believe such passages in the Gospel of Matthew and the book of Revelation predicting “tribulation” (thlipsis) specifically mean political turmoil for Israel. Yet the full scope of Scripture (not least Matthew and Revelation!) must be examined to provide an interpretive matrix for understanding “tribulation”.
Chapter Six – The Tribulation Period
The author redirects Jesus’ words of warning, “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation” (Matt. 24:9), to the Jewish people – evidently excluding his own disciples. Simply put, Scripture never promises special exemption from the “tribulation” to any believers; there is no foundation for the assertion that “No instructions are given to the Church concerning how to go through the Tribulation period.” (p. 70)
The author fails to alert the reader to the word that Christ uses in this above verse: “they will deliver you” (paradousin). This is the same verb (in the exact same verb form!) used in his earlier, and more explicit, warning to the Twelve Disciples at their commissioning in Matt. 10:17-20: “Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to the courts and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour,” etc. inserts this exact material into the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21:12-19) so there may be no mistaking the intended audience. With this in mind, the reader cannot miss the parallelism in Matt. 24:9: “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.”
The author shows his Zionist hand when he omits to cite the name of Christ – occupying the place of importance in all the above passages – as a cause of the world’s animosity… against what? Not the Gospel. Instead, the author cites current political initiatives that involve secular nations becoming “more and more hostile toward [the modern nation-state of] Israel, until she doesn’t have a friend in the world.” In this scheme the Christian faith does not at all factor. (pp. 49-50) It ought to be clarified no one wishes to diminish the sufferings undergone by victims of Middle Eastern conflict zones – on both sides! – any more than those suffered in any region of the world in any historical period. This is not done when “tribulation” is properly interpreted as the particular struggles that believers bear; only once in the New Testament is the Greek word thlipsis applied to people outside the Church (Jas. 1:27; yet, in view of the situation described in Acts 6:1ff, the “widows and orphans” may likely be themselves believers). Finally, as though intently to remove any confusion, the Gospel of John shows Jesus predict “tribulation” for his disciples in the same terms as those of the Lukan Olivet Discourse and the Matthean commissioning (John 15:18-27). Christ ends by saying: “In the world you will have tribulation (thlipsin). But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (v. 33)
The word “tribulation” occurs five times in the book of Revelation; the first four apply directly to believers (Rev. 1:9; 2:9-10, 22). John identifies himself as “your brother and partner in the tribulation” (emphasis added – what would the definite article suggest?) The last occurrence introduces the adjective “great” (megalē). “Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, ‘Who are these clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?’ I said to him, ‘Sir, you know.’ And he said to me, ‘These are the ones coming (erchomenoi) out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” (7:13-14) Notice the present participle “coming”. Without any desire to minimize whatever sufferings may come upon the Church prior to the Second Coming, Brighton’s sound and sobering words are worth noting: “Some tribulations and sufferings will be so piercing and poignant that the very faith and foundation of the believer’s hope will be severely tried, almost to the point of despair and defeat. For that Christian at that moment, his sufferings and trials are his great tribulation. And every Christian will experience tribulation.” (Brighton, 199)
The Siege of Jerusalem leading up to the Destruction of the Temple is the main subject of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse. Here is a clear Scriptural example of typology: that is, comparing one subject or event to another. The author explains it best: “What happened in AD 70 under Titus the Roman General was a foreshadowing of what will happen in the Tribulation Period, under Antichrist.” (p. 41) In this direct discourse, the Second Coming is compared to the greatest disaster that would impress itself on the minds of the Jews within living memory of Jesus’ ministry (and the fact should not be glossed over that a large component of the first-century Church was Jewish, or at all events “living in Judea”, Matt. 24:16). Matthew’s injunction, “let the reader understand” (v. 15), would be nonsensical if it referred to an event his original readership would not live to experience. In Jesus’ sympathetic speech, “women who are pregnant” and “nursing infants in those days” (Matt. 24:19; Mark 13:17; Luke 21:23) are singled out for good reason. See Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, which describes the horrific acts to which such mothers were driven by starvation.
Recall that the author attempts to place the Destruction of the Temple outside of Matthew’s scope, and rather insists that Matthew speaks exclusively about the Second Coming. He resorts to devising an idiosyncratic interpretation of Jesus’ words in the Olivet Discourse: “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” (Matt. 24:32-34; emphasis added) The honest reader must allow the relative pronoun “this” to convey its ordinary sense: “the generation I am speaking to this moment.” The author correctly notes that “a generation in the Bible (most often) refers to a period of forty years.” (p. 55) Indeed, the Destruction of the Temple followed Jesus’ crucifixion by approximately forty years. Yet the author interprets “this generation” idiosyncratically to mean “the final generation” (Ibid.) solely to preserve his notion that the Olivet Discourse in Matthew cannot refer to the Destruction of the Temple.
The author protests that his Pre-Tribulation Rapture theory is the only view which allows for Jesus’ imminent return: “the belief that Christ could return at any moment” (p. 71). By this endeavour he shows a desire to follow the plain sense of Jesus’ direct discourse “concerning the day or the hour no one knows” (v. 36ff). However, the author’s convoluted End-Times chronology is by no means the only view which allows for Jesus’ imminent (that is, undatable) return any time after 70 AD. The typological approach allows for a dual fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy, according to which view the Destruction of the Temple is a “type” of the tribulation and disaster that precedes the Second Coming (called the “antitype”). See Chad Bird, The Christ Key for many examples of typology and dual fulfillment in the Old and New Testaments. Because the Siege of Jerusalem occurred in the past, Christ’s Second Coming may occur at any time from the present onward.
It bears returning to the author’s dubious premise that the Church should be exempt such a Great Tribulation as would come to test believers to an extent Jesus promises his disciples in the Gospels. Consider the suffering of Christians worldwide that has taken place beginning at the time of the Apostles down to the time of writing. The reader ought to wonder what sort of trials are left to the Great Tribulation! Whatever the case, it also bears wondering why believers before the Rapture should warrant such a privileged exemption from the Great Tribulation. If this is one’s lot, then exhortations such as Peter’s lose much force: “Resist (the devil), firm in your faith, knowing that your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.” (1 Pet. 5:9-11)
To dwell on Peter’s First Epistle, he also sheds unmistakable light on the “great multitude” of Rev. 7:9-19, who the reader has seen “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” “And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without spot or blemish.” (1 Pet. 1:17-19) “Without spot or blemish” clearly corresponds to the whiteness of the robes they wear, washed (paradoxically) in the blood of that spotless lamb. The American spiritual “are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?” should come to mind, a song sung by many saints on earth today. Each believer emerges “out of” his or her “great tribulation” when they join the heavenly chorus.
This host arrayed in white symbolizes present-day believers, whether those dearly departed (known as the Church Triumphant) or those “still with us” (traditionally known as the Church Militant) Instead, the author identifies them offhand as the “Tribulation Saints” (p. 51) – that is, people who come to faith after the Rapture has removed the Church from the earthly plane.
The author attempts to establish a need for present-day believers to exempt themselves from the Great Tribulation. See Chapter Eight, in which he identifies the Church as the “Restrainer” of 2 Thess. 2:6-7. There are two problems. First, the “Restrainer” (ho katechōn) is masculine in gender whereas, in a footnote, the author himself calls attention to the fact that the Church (hē ecclēsia in Greek) is feminine, grammatically speaking; the Church is also symbolized as “the bride of Christ.” The author attempts to reconcile this discrepancy by citing the Church as “the body” of Christ; however, the Greek to sōma translated as “body” is neuter in gender. The author clearly means that the Christ and the Church (as the body of Christ) are simply equated in this passage – a conflation nowhere made anywhere in Scripture! Secondly, citing this passage also complicates the author’s own Pre-Tribulation Rapture chronology which posits a return of Christ before the revealing of the “man of lawlessness (i.e. Antichrist)” (p. 73). Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians follows a different sequence of events: “Now concerning the coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him … Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion (apostia) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed”. (2 Thess. 2:1-3; emphasis added) The Antichrist is revealed before believers are “caught up” (1 Thess. 4:17) to meet Christ “in the clouds”. The author contrariwise connects the activity of the Antichrist with the Great Tribulation which, according to his Pre-Tribulation chronology, is to last seven years. As was the case with the “thousand years” of Rev. 20:1-6, however, such an artificial timeline unravels if the alleged seven-year period is shown to be figurative rather than literal. Following a symbolic interpretation of this passage from Revelation, the “Church Age” (so called by the author) corresponds to the “thousand years” while the Great Tribulation corresponds to the “little while” in which Satan is to be “released”.
That Jesus has the Church Militant in mind during the Olivet Discourse is further evidenced: “For then there will be great tribulation (thlipsis megalē), such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and ever will be. And if those days were not cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.” (Matt. 24:21-22; emphasis added) The New Testament everywhere applies the word “elect” to present-day believers. (Rom. 8:33; Col. 3:12; 1 Tim. 5:21; 2 Tim. 2:10; Tit. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Pet. 1:1; 2:4, 9; 2 Pet. 1:10; Rev. 2 John 1, 13) This Greek word eklektos (literally, “one who is called out”) is the source of the term ecclesia, that is, “Church”! It naturally includes who are to be alive during the events described in Revelation (Rev. 17:14). Therefore Jesus’ use of this synonym for believers indicates that the close of the Great Tribulation – and, by extension, the Rapture (1 Thess. 4:17), Second Coming, and Final Judgment – will be coterminous with the Church Age.
As the Church persists on earth during the period of (Great) Tribulation promised to Jesus’ followers, beginning with his own disciples, there is no need for the author to establish a different agent of conversion for the period allegedly following the Rapture (pp. 51-52). He displays some imagination in doing so, however.
The author collapses three different chapters of the book of Revelation, chapters that do not follow one another sequentially, all into the alleged seven-year Tribulation period. This method poses a serious problem if the reader is to interpret Revelation in a strictly chronological manner (which the author demands in other places). The author cites the “two witnesses” of Rev. 11:1-14; the “angel flying overhead” of 14:6-7; and the group of 144 000 first mentioned in 7:1-8, together with the so-called “Tribulation Saints in the verses that follow. He identifies the purpose of each distinct subject the same way: “there are four primary ways the Message will be proclaimed after the Church leaves.” (p. 51) Dealing with each subject in no particular order: John describes the angel’s message as “an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people.” The author attempts to reconcile this allegedly Church-less gospel with Matt. 24:14: “the gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end (eschatos) will come.” However, the plain sense of this direct discourse from the Saviour prevails. The clear agent of proclamation is the addressees: the disciples (as has been established above touching their “tribulation”). Otherwise, Jesus’ “Great Commission” to his Twelve Disciples at the close of the Gospel of Matthew loses force: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations … And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (28:19-20) The reader must not to suppose Jesus to be exaggerating when he told his eleven surviving disciples that “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) To the contrary, the author claims that the Church will be unable to accomplish this before the Rapture (p. 52) with an audacity supported, not by the plain sense of Scripture, but as in every case by a faulty End-Times chronology that must be inserted into every passage. Concerning the two witnesses, the author correctly identifies them with Moses and Elijah by the description of their divinely sanctioned powers (Rev. 11:6). They “have power to shut the sky, that no rain may fall”, corresponding to Elijah’s exploits (1 Ki. 17-18); and “power over the waters to turn them into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague”, corresponding to the plagues on Egypt (Exod. 7:14-25). Yet the reader need only be reminded that Moses and Elijah did appear at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-13); in connection with this event, Christ goes out of his way to point out that, figuratively in the person of John the Baptist, “Elijah has already come”. (The reader is also called back to Acts 1. The “two men” who stood by the eleven “in white robes”, v. 10-11, have traditionally been identified as angels. However, there is no Scriptural evidence to confirm this possibility. Another possibility exists, in light of one detail exclusive to Luke’s Gospel: during the Transfiguration, “two men” Moses and Elijah “appeared in glory” next to Jesus, Luke 9:30-31. Whatever the case, these men urge the disciples from gawking at the clouds to carry out their preaching commission.)
Most regrettably, the author sets aside the fact that “faith comes through hearing” (Rom. 10:17), and Jesus’ blessing on those who would come to believe in him without having seen (John 20:29). He entertains the crass notion that “the greatest revival the world has ever seen will happen about five minutes after the Rapture, as people realize that the Bible was true after all!” (p. 51) The reader ought to wonder why such people would privilege such an easy conversion. Revelation predicts the Second Coming as a moment of reckoning for nonbelievers (Rev. 6:15-17), not a second chance to believe (cf. Luke 16:30). On this point Dispensationalism absolutely falls.
Concluding Remarks after Part One
I commend this critique of Section 1 of Earth’s Final Hours to the faithful reader. Any missing items for clarification will be supplied in Part 2. I will also append the author’s End-Times timeline against my own, including references to the disputed passages from Revelation and elsewhere.
In closing: I sympathize most heartily with Swanson’s desire to stir a desire to read Revelation. Christ is depicted there as “the conquering King of Kings and Lord of Lords, with every enemy vanquished and every knee bowing before Him.” Furthermore, I am also “confident that if we spent more time looking at that picture of Jesus, we’d be less intimidated by our skirmishes with the enemy today.” The view of a realized Millennium put forth in this critique can only strengthens that confidence: Christ is reigning now on earth, judging and receiving priestly worship through his saints. Satan is bound. No matter how deeply our surrounding culture may plunge into darkness, our city on a hill cannot be obscured (Matt. 5:14). We are bound not to lose our saltiness. We are likewise bound not to lose heart in the face of the dour assurance, a word from our Lord that believers will suffer through the Great Tribulation: “For the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.” (Matt. 24:22) Suffer, only to be delivered; put to death, and raised to life again.
Some have mischaracterized my realized (or, more commonly, Amillennial) view with good reason. Well-intentioned Amillenialists are known to shy away from efforts to be salt and light when it goes too starkly against the grain. They start from the premise that the world is only going to get worse, so our calling is simply to recede into the background until the deux ex machina arrives. Well, one must ask. How do we know that the world will not recover from its current disaster? The Church has seen harder times and fiercer foes than the guardians of popular opinion.
In the seventh century, Venerable Bede chanted alone with his abbot during the plague. St. Elizabeth of Hungary founded hospitals; John Frederick the Magnanimous campaigned against the Holy Roman Emperor to preserve religious toleration in the sixteenth century; William Wilberforce lobbied for the abolition of slavery. C. S. Lewis and Bo Giertz fought doctrinal degradation in their respective church bodies. They did all this without the expectation of a literal Thousand-Year Reign of Christ on earth. They did this understanding that Christ has already placed limits on (bound) what the Devil can do to stop the spread of his Gospel. “Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.” (Matt. 12:29)
We must study Revelation. A weakness for End-Times theology (eschatology) only leaves church bodies vulnerable prey to outside agendas. Let me imitate that master of paradox, G. K. Chesterton, in observing: a church body that refuses to get involved in politics in order to avoid blindly following the State will end up blindly following the State in order to not get involved in politics. Christ did not shrink before void displays of force. Not even when he was enclosed in the tomb. We can’t know the specifics of it, but that was when started proclaiming victory – in hell! Who are we afraid of? “Though this world’s prince may still / Scowl fierce as he will, / He can harm us none / He’s judged; the deed is done! / One little word shall fell him.”
It will give me pleasure to examine the latter chapters in Daniel and prophesies of Antichrist. But, of course, without losing focus of the final conclusion to every apocalypse: the resurrection. “And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above, and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.” (Dan. 12:3)
Father Heide
