God intended that every generation believe that the Lord could return in their lifetime, because God could cause the events prophesied in his Word to be fulfilled so Jesus could come in their lifetime. If we really believed that, the way the first century believers did, it would impact the way we live more than anything else on the face of the earth. So the early Church lived in expectancy of the Lord's return, but did they believe in the IMMINENT return that would cause an any-moment, secret rapture to take place? The early believers lived and worked with the expectation that Jesus could come in their lifetime and so should we, so we can be prepared for the events that are associated with His coming.
The doctrine of Imminency-The belief as taught and understood today, by pretribulationist, that since Christ's ascension back to heaven recorded in Acts chapter one verses 9,10, and 11, no prophetic event needs to be fulfilled before Christ's second coming. In other words, He could come at "any moment." This position is the critical cornerstone of pretribulationism.
In order for the pre-trib view to be correct imminence has to be a sure thing, if imminence is not taught in scripture then the pre-trib view crumbles in its own ashes.
2000 years ago, the LAMB of God CAME to earth to die for the sins of mankind--that is paramount in history. One day, the LION is COMING back again to reign as King of kings and Lord of lords--that is inviolable prophecy. For those who believe God's Word, there is no speculation or disagreement about this supreme event.
Jesus is coming again and, in a world beset with indescribable suffering caused by sin, that certain fact stands as a beacon of incomparable and blessed hope of the Church.
But when does the blessed hope of Christ's return to rapture the Church--which we now, through faith, await--happen?
Is His coming for His Church signless and possible at any moment, can He come, as we hear preachers say, "before this service is over"? Or must the Church enter the seventieth week of Daniel and confront the Antichrist before rapture? Obviously, from a human and natural point of view the former is to be preferred, no one relishes the prospect of severe difficulties--but is it biblical? Will one generation of believers be whisk into glory on beds of ease, or will that same generation be called upon to suffer persecution, or even martyrdom, for "His name's sake"? And if so will that generation be spiritually prepared for the conflict?
The Bible is God's revelation to man. Therefore, it is the Bible, not church associations, highly esteemed schools, favorite Bible teachers, denominations, or long held traditions, which should ultimately determine what we believe concerning the Second Coming. God's Word alone should be the final authority.
Only one event, in the still-to-unfold future that awaits mankind, will be able to compare in significance with the first coming of the Son of Man. That event can be summed up in four words: Jesus is coming again.
BUT IS THE RETURN OF CHRIST IMMINENT?
For those who believe and honor God's Word, the fact of the return of Christ to earth is beyond debate. Concerning that return, a large number of Bible-believing Christians believe the bible teaches that Christ's return will be pre millennial that is, after His return He will personally establish a literal, thousand year kingdom on the earth. And with that position, I'm sure you and I concur.
However, there has been considerable, spirited debate with regard to the seven-year period (often, but mistakenly, referred to as the Tribulation Period but rightly known as the seventieth week of Daniel) immediately preceding Christ's physical return to the earth and its relationship to the timing of the Rapture. Some believe that the Rapture of the Church will occur prior to the commencement of that seven-year period, or pretribulationally.
Intimately associated with the pretribulational view of the Rapture is the belief in imminence. Imminence is commonly expressed by the concept of an any-moment Rapture. It is sometimes voiced with the sentiment, "I'm looking for the upper Taker (Christ), not the undertaker (the Antichrist)."
Imminence is also suggested in a number of hymns by their lyrics such as, "When the tribulation enters I'll be gone" or "I don't know when He's coming, He may come tonight.
Many popular seminaries, Bible colleges, denominations and local Churches include imminence in their doctrinal statement. Many Churches believe in it so strongly, they have made a dogma out of that doctrine and will not allow people to be members of their church if they do not believe in imminence.
A number of those who hold to a pretribulational and imminent return of Christ view imminence as an important doctrine, but not a divisive doctrine. Others, however, have "set" pretribulational rapturism "in concrete," and in such circles to even raise genuine questions concerning imminence is to incur wrath and to be held as a suspect that would cause division.
Amazingly, a doctrine which was virtually unknown in North America 150 years ago has now become, for some, a fundamental of the faith. Of course, the bottom line--the final authority in any spiritual debate--is to be the Word of God; never tradition, church doctrine, or human preferences.
The Origin and Early Definitions of Imminence.
Some writers have attempted to anchor pretribulational rapturism and its handmaiden, imminence, in the rock of antiquity and the early church. It has been suggested that extant historical documents show that the early church believed in an any-moment pretribulational Rapture. But the facts reveal that quotations from the early church fathers suggest that (1) They believed that Christ could return in their lifetime, and (2) that his return would be preceded by a period of difficulty. But in no sense did they teach that the Rapture was pretribulational or imminent.
William Kimbal in his book, "The Rapture" p. 20-21 says:
A review of Ante-Nicene writings overwhelmingly substantiates the reality of this statement. Every Ante-Nicene writer who touches in any detail upon the tribulation, resurrection, rapture, or second coming displays the church on earth while the Great Tribulation is taking place. Neither the writings of Clement of Rome (30-100 A.D.), "The epistle to Barnabas" (130 A.D.), "The Shepherds of Hermas" (150 A.D.), "The Didache" (150 A.D.), Ignatius (50-115 A.D.), Polycarp (70-167 A.D.), Papias (80-163 A.D.), Pothinus (87-177 A.D.), Justyn Martyr (100-168 A.D.), Tatian (130-190 A.D.), Irenaeus (140-202 A.D.), etc.) lend support to the validity of a pretribulational rapture."
The following direct quotes from some of the above men give further evidence to that truth.
Justin Martyr: The man of Apostasy [Antichrist]...shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians. (Trypho, cx)
The Shepherds of Hermas: Happy ye who endure the great tribulation that is coming. (Pastor of Hermas, Vision Second) Those therefore, who continue steadfast, and are put through the fire, will be purified by means of it....Wherefore cease not to speak these things into the ears of the saints. This then is the type of tribulation that is yet to come. (Pastor of Hermas, Vision Fourth)
Irenaeus: And they [the ten kings]... shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the church to flight. (Against Heresies, V, 26, 1. But [John] indicates the number of the name [Antichrist] now, that when the man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is. (Against Heresies, V, 30, 4)
John Sproule, writing in defense of pretribulational rapturism in his book "In Defense of Pretribulationism," nonetheless with candor and integrity, noted concerning imminency:
"...one of the recognized deans of pretrib. eschatology, refers to imminency as the heart of pretribulationism. Yet he is able to muster only a few vague quotations from the Early Church Fathers plus a few debatable scriptures (Jn. 14:1-3; 1 Thes. 1:10, 5:6; & 1 Cor. 1:7) to support his statement".
Sproule goes on to write:
"Pretribulationalism can ill afford to rest on the shaky foundation of traditionalism and eisegetical [reading into the text what is not there] statements. If its [i.e., pretribulationism's] "heart" is a debatable and inductively determined doctrine of imminency then, an exegetical "heart transplant" may be in order".
Far from having its roots in the early church, pretribulational rapturism and an any-moment rapture didn't exist before 1830, and there is considerable documentary proof that it was initially introduced in England by Edward Irving, the father of the charismatic Apostolic Church, and not John Darby. Edward Irving probably picked up the idea of an "any moment rapture" from his work on the translation of Emmanuel Lucunza's book, "The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty, a Catholic priest who initially wrote the book in Spanish under the pen name of Rabbi Ben Ezra. In reality, with whom the pretrib position originated really does not make that much difference other than the fact that it contradicts the first 1800 years of prophetic thought and contradicts the plain teaching of the New Testament. On the other hand, the basic tenant of prewrath (that the Church will undergo the persecution of Antichrist before the return of Christ) was taught clearly and consistently by the early Church fathers. Among evangelicals, what of Scripture, other than pretrib,has been "discovered" in the past 160 years and directly contradicts the basic, accepted teachings (as a whole) of early Church fathers? There is none. Some pretrib pastors heard in Bible School that, yes, it is correct that the early Church fathers believe that the church would go through the tribulation. But because of "progressive revelation" we know different now. Listen, whatever progressive revelation we come to know it must never be in contradiction to the Word of God. If it is, the revelation that we received is not from God.
In any case, neither its recent origin nor its source proves or disproves its correctness. But if pretribulational rapturism is used for a badge of fellowship and orthodoxy, one is faced with the perplexing question of what to do with the millions of godly believers who, for almost 1800 years, did not hold to pretribulational rapturism. Among them are heroes of the faith like John Wesley, Charles Wesley, Charles Spurgon, Matthew Henry, John Knox, John Huss, William Carey, John Calvin, Isaac Newton, Jonathan Edwards, John Wycliffe, John Bunyan, and many more. Would these men be spurned today because they were not pretribulational?
The pretribulational view of Christ's return made its way from England to North America in the 1870's and with it, unfortunately, came friction and division. The Scofield Reference Bible (which has helped millions of people in their personal Bible study) made pretribulational teaching a major facet of its 1917 revised edition. Untold multitudes became pretribulational as a result of Scofield's notes which, because attached to his reference Bible became highly authoritative in the minds of many.
It was the Niagara Bible Conference, however, which initially spearheaded the growth of the pre- tib. rapturism and the concept of an any-moment rapture in America. In 1878, the Conference adopted a 14-point doctrinal statement. The fourteenth section dealing with the return of Christ stated:
"This personal and pre millennial advent is the blessed hope set before us in the Gospel for which we should be constantly looking." This was a broad statement which could be embraced by all pre- millenarians. However, later that same year, The First General American Bible and prophetic Conference (closely aligned with the Niagara Conference) in New York City passed five resolutions. In article 3 they went beyond the Niagara Statement. Their resolution stated: "This second coming of the Lord is everywhere in the scriptures represented as imminent, and may occur at any moment."
Debate on the interpretation on the meaning of imminence followed. Some argued that imminence meant that signs could be fulfilled and that Christ could return within the lifetime of any individual generation of believers. This view of imminence could be better described as expectancy. It conveyed two facts: (1) Christ could return in any generation and (2) signs could precede His coming. If the word "could in point two (2) were changed to "will," their statement would agree exactly with what I believe. A second group argued that imminence meant that the coming of Christ was possible at any hour.
It was the position of this latter group which, in the years that followed, dominated pretribulational thinking.
With the passing of time, the definition of imminence was more closely defined. John R. Rice wrote:
"Christ's coming is imminent. That means that Jesus may come at any moment. That means that there is no other prophesied event which must occur before Christ's coming. Nothing else needs to happen before Jesus may come. No signs need precede it. Jesus may come today."
Any moment -- no prophesied event must occur -- nothing else needs to happen -- it could be today; These are the points Rice emphasizes. These points, nowhere in scripture can be substantiated.
John Sproule defined imminence this way:
More representative of the pretrib. concept of imminencey is the belief that, without qualification, Christ can return for His Church at any moment and that no predicted event will intervene before that return.
In this definition, the emphasis is changed from no prophesied event must occur to no prophesied event will intervene before Christ's return.
It is one thing to speak of the Rapture as imminent and mean by that Christ could come in one's lifetime and signs can precede that coming. It is another thing altogether to define imminent to mean that Christ could return at any moment; that his return is signless, and that no prophecies will intervene before He returns.
IS IMMINENCE A BIBLICAL DOCTRINE?
It has already been noted that there is no historical evidence to demonstrate that the early church believed in an any-moment Rapture. But the early church was premillennial. In fact, biblical statements substantiate that the early church did not believe in imminence. The gospel had to be preached throughout the world before Christ could return (Acts 1:8). For the early church, that precluded an any-moment Rapture. The Temple was to be destroyed before Christ returned (Mt. 24:1- 3). For the early church that did away with an any-moment rapture.
Some, attempting to circumvent this very real dilemma, have suggested that after those events were fulfilled the Church began to believe in imminence. Not only is there no valid evidence for that reasoning, but it continues to contradict scripture.
Based on Daniel 9:27 and the prophet's words, "he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week," pretribulationist have historically and continually insisted that the Antichrist will make a covenant with Israel to protect her for seven years (the seventieth week of the book of Daniel). It is that event which triggers what has been commonly referred to as the Tribulation Period. But from the defeat of the Jewish nation in 70 A.D. until the emergence of the modern state on May 14, 1948, no Jewish nation or representative government existed. Could Christ have come before then, no, there was no Jewish nation for the Antichrist to make a covenant with until then.
Hal Lindsey has written:
The events leading up to the coming of the Messiah Jesus are strewn throughout the Old and New Testament prophets like pieces of a great jigsaw puzzle. The key piece of the puzzle which was missing until our time, was that Israel had to be back in her ancient homeland, reestablished as a nation. When this occurred in May 1948, the whole prophetic scenario began to fall together with dizzying speed.
It would have been impossible for the Antichrist to sign a covenant of protection with a non- existent nation. An any-moment Rapture, therefore was not possible before the modern State of Israel was resurrected out of the ashes of the Second World War. Now Israel could have become a nation in any generation -- but the Rapture could not have preceded that event.
Above all other issues, the fact remains that there is not one verse of scripture that teaches imminence, if by imminence it is meant that Christ's return is signless, any moment, and without the possibility of fulfilled prophecies preceding it. The student of the Word will search in vain for exegetical evidence to support imminencey. The fact that men are to "wait for," "expect," "look for," "keep awake," "be free from excess," "be alert," (and similar phrases) does not substantiate the claim that no prophesied event can occur before the Rapture. A listing with the text and basic meaning of the text follow:
Luke 12:36 Titus 2:13 Wait for, expect.
Romans 8:23 Galatians 5:5 Hebrews 9:28 Await eagerly.
James 5:7 Expect, wait for.
Matt. 24:50 2 Peter 3:12-14 Wait for, look for, expect.
1 Thess. 5:6,8 Be sober, self controlled.
1 Peter 1:13; 4:7 Free from excess.
Matt. 24:42&43 Rev. 16:15 To be awake, to keep awake.
Mark 13:33 Hebrews 10:35 To see, look a.t
1 Thess. 1:10 To wait for, expect, near.
Philippians 4:5, James 5:8&9 At hand.
If church history and the Bible do not support an any-moment, signless, no prophesied-events- can-occur-first concept of the Rapture, from where did such a concept come, and how did it grow to dominate much of the Bible-believing church.
Pretribulationist have rightly understood that the book of Daniel provides the backbone of prophetic interpretation; that at the end of Daniel's sixty-ninth prophetic week the Messiah (Christ) would be cut off (Dan. 9:26). They also understood that an undefined period of time intervened between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week. Coupled with that was the belief that Israel's prophetic time clock will again commence when the seventieth week is initiated with the signing of the covenant between the Antichrist and Israel. Of necessity, for pretribulationism to be correct, the Rapture must occur before God's prophetic time clock begins again with the seventieth week of Daniel. Pretribulationism requires a signless, any-moment, imminent Rapture of the Church. Without imminence pretribulationism is dead. Or, put another way, if pretribulational rapturism could be exegetically proven, imminence would be demonstrated to be the logical result. Imminence would be the necessary outgrowth of a proven pretribulational Rapture, but an unproved concept of imminence cannot be used to prove pretribulationism. Here is a classic illustration of putting the cart before the horse, and it is routinely done in defense of pretribulational rapturism. The battle cry is sometimes voiced this way: Christ can come for His Church at any moment. Prophetic signs cannot occur. Therefore, the Rapture must be pretribulational.
Pretribulational rapturists, believe that the Day of the Lord commences with the Rapture of the Church. The Scofield Reference Bible is typical of this position. It teaches that the Day of the Lord will commence with the translation (Rapture) of the church on page 1,372. However, since the Day of the Lord is a period of direct, divine wrath upon the earth (Isa. 2:12-21; Joel 1:15, 2:1-2, 10:11, 30-31; Zeph. 1:14, 2:3; 1 Thes. 5:2-4) and since Paul thought that believers are "not appointed ... to wrath" (1 Thes. 5:9), it is convenient for pretribulational rapturists to commence the Day of the Lord with the Rapture of the Church. Doing so, however, has created monumental problems for the belief in an any- moment, no-prophesied-event-can-occur before the Rapture position. We will mention only a few of these problems briefly.
First: The Bible makes it clear that cosmic disturbance must precede the Day of The Lord. See (Joel 2:30-31; Isa. 13:9-11; Matt. 24:29-31; Acts 2:19-20; Rev. 6:12-17.)
Second: There remains a word from the last of the Old Testament prophets concerning that future day. It is a message that holds out some hope. Before the Day of the Lord begins, God will send a messenger to call the nation of Israel to repentance, Malachi, God's spokesman about 400 years before Christ, recorded: "Behold I will send you Elijah, the prophet, before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord; and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Mal. 4:5-6).
Third: In the clearest possible way, the apostle Paul notes two events which must precede the Day of the Lord. There must be (1) the apostasy which is the great falling away and (2) the revealing of the man of sin in the Temple of God, as confirmed by 2 Thes. 2:2-4, "not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
The Word of God clearly teaches that cosmic disturbance must precede the day of the Lord, that Elijah must appear before the Day of the Lord, and the apostasy and the revealing of the man of sin must occur before the day of the Lord. Since pretribulationism states that the Day of the Lord starts at the beginning of the seventieth week, it is in direct opposition to what the bible says. And the concept of an any-moment, no prophesied-event-will-occur-first position, is biblically impossible to sustain.
EXPECTANCY - YES, IMMINENCY - NO.
Many believers within the early church had either seen Christ during His incarnation or known fellow-believers who had known Him. Consequently, Christ's life, death, burial, and resurrection were not abstract issues of theology -- they were vibrant realities. His promise of personal return was dominate in their thinking. their Lord was coming again in power and glory. Things would be different when that occurred. God, not Rome, would be the victor. Christ, not the emperor, would reign. Righteousness, not wickedness, would be the order of the day. Unlike today, The heart of the Apostolic Age burned with the prospect of their Lord's return. They knew full well that the Church Age had commenced. Paul had revealed that fact in Eph.3:4-6, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel.
But they had absolutely no concept of its duration. It is easy for believers in the twentieth century to look back through 2000 years of church history, but the first century church had no basis for anticipating that kind of extended period of time between their own day and the return of Christ. They believed that their Savior could return in their lifetime and their lives revolved around the expectation of that event.
That expectancy can be seen in Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians. He wrote:
"But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them who are asleep, that you sorrow not, even as others who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also who sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him. for this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not precede them who are asleep" (1 Thes. 4:13-15).
With the use of the personal we in the phrase, "we who are alive and remain," Paul clearly includes himself among those who could be living at the time of Christ's return. In his second letter to the Thessalonians, he emphasized the same truth. He wrote:
"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit or by word as that day of the Lord is present" (2 Thes. 2:1-2)
The adjective "our" in the phrase "our gathering together unto Him" again demonstrates the Apostle's expectancy of Christ's return.
A score of verses teach the Second Coming of Christ. All are consistent with the thesis that Christ could return in any generation. Among those verses are the following: (Titus 2:13), (1 Cor. 1:7), (Phil. 3:20), (Heb. 9:28), and (1 Thes. 1:10).
Expectancy--yes. Imminencey--no.
There simply are no verses in the Bible which teach that Christ's return can occur at any- moment, is signless, and that no prophesied events will precede it--an absolute necessity to sustain pretribulation rapturism.
What the Word of God does teach is that every generation should be living with the expectation that Christ could return in its lifetime. That fact should be so real -- that expectation so conspicuous -- that it becomes a catalyst for holy living.
But the generation which enters the seventieth week of Daniel will know that Christ's return is near. They will know because indicators will be given to that generation. The Lord taught, "now learn a parable of the fig tree: When its branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, you know that summer is near" (Mt. 24:32). They did not know the hour or day that summer would begin, but they did know the general time period. for the Jewish person of the first century, the fig tree was a sign of approximation. When the branch was tender and put forth leaves, one knew that summer was getting close. That was a non debatable fact. And then, using the parable, the Lord taught this truth: "So likewise ye, when you see all these things it [My return] is near, even at the doors" (Mt. 24:33).
The things that indicated that Christ's return was near had just been revealed by the Lord in Matthew 24:3-28 in answer to the disciples' question. They had asked, "and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and the end of the age?" Those things are (1) the emergence of the Antichrist, (2) war generated by the Antichrist, (3) famine as a result of the war, (4) pestilence because of the resultant unsanitary conditions, (5) martyrdom of some who will not submit to the Antichrist, (6) cosmic disturbance. These events will indicate that the Rapture is near. Like the fig tree, they will be the signs of Christ's return. They will not indicate the hour or the day, but the general time period.
These signs of His coming cannot possibly have reference to Christ's physical return to earth at the end of the seventieth week as some contend. That event will occur precisely three and one-half years (or 1,260 days) after the abomination of desolation occurs at the midpoint of the seventieth week. But nobody will know the precise time of His return for His church.
The coming of the Lord for His Church can best be described by the word expectancy. Jesus can come during any generation of history, but only those who are alive when the seventieth week of Daniel commences will know that the Lord's return is at the door. They will not know the hour or day, but they will know that it is the season because of the indicators that will precede His coming. That is the significance of the Lord's teaching. "Verily I say unto you, This generation [the generation that enters the seventieth week] shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Mt. 24:34).
THE CHURCH WILL ENTER THE SEVENTIETH WEEK!
God never exempts His children from the normal and natural difficulties of a sinful, unregenerate world. The destruction of Sodom was God's work -- so He told Lot to get out of the city, God warned him of the destruction of the city and told him to get out. God did not secretly remove him before telling him of the city's destruction. The universal flood was His judgment -- so He told Noah to get into the ark. These men were protected by God while the destruction's were taking place. The difficulties of the first part (the first six seals) of the seventieth week of Daniel are the results of the emergence of the Antichrist and the rebellion of unregenerate men against God. From those events the Church will not be raptured, but God will provide protection for the faithful Church (Rev. 3:10). She will be exempted, however, and raptured before God's wrath commences with the opening of the seventh seal (Rev. 6:17; 8:1).
Therefore it must be concluded that the Church has yet before her a period of great difficulty related to the activities of Antichrist before her final deliverance. No normal person enjoys persecution, and the prospect of entering an unprecedented difficult period of time (the seventieth week of Daniel) is not a pleasant prospect. Understanding that fact should not cause God's people to recoil in fear and intimidation. It should be a call to holiness, obedience and preparation.
The Church is the Bride of Christ, and the Bridegroom would never harm His Bride. The Bible teaches that He does not -- He raptures her before His wrath against the wicked commences.
The first part of the seventieth week is not the wrath of God. It is a period of time when the Antichrist will arise; he will deceive many; he will enter the Temple erected for the glory of God; he will demand worship from men that should be directed to the true Bridegroom only. In that day, the true Bridegroom will be under attack through His Church and the Jewish people. While this is taking place a false lover will seek to capture the hearts of men.
It would not be proper for the Bride to be absent herself during such an hour of history. A faithful, true and courageous Bride will want to remain, and if need be give her life in martyrdom, to condemn the false lover and tell the world that Jesus Christ alone is the true Lover of her soul.
Nearing the end of His life and anticipating the approach and anguish of Calvary, the Lord asked three of His disciples to watch and pray with Him. They could have been of great help -- an encouragement to the Savior in His time of need. However, when the Lord returned from His awesomely difficult time in the Garden of Gethsemane, He found His disciples asleep. Then He asked this question, "...What could you not watch with me one hour?" (Mt. 26:40). Gethsemane means olive press, for in the garden olives were squeezed to produce olive oil -- and in that garden the Lamb of God was squeezed as He anticipated that which was before Him, and He "sweat ... great drops of blood." He desired the support of His disciples in an hour of great need, but they did not give it.
During the seventieth week of Daniel the Lord will need and want a courageous church to stand for Him and speak of His exquisite perfection and to prove to the world and the compromising church that He is who He says He is, the Son of God, with all of His power working through His Church to stand against the gates of hell that will be arrayed against His character through the Antichrist who will be directly empowered by Satan (Rev. 13:14). Will the Church, His Bride be asleep, having been convinced of an any-moment, signless, imminent Rapture? Will she have become so complacent and worldly that her only concern will be her well-being and escape, rather than the glory of the Bridegroom? Will she neglect the oft-repeated warnings to be ready, watching, and expectant?
The apostle Paul taught an important principle that the church in the western world would do well to be reminded of: "If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He will also deny us" (2 Tim. 2:12). This could very well be the generation that will enter the seventieth week of Daniel. Some of us may be called upon to suffer even to the extent of martyrdom. If we are not willing to make such a sacrifice for our Lord, we are not deserving to be called His disciple.
Jesus is coming again. The dead in Christ will be raised, the living caught up -- both to meet the Lord in the air and be forever with Him. The true believer just can't loose -- JESUS IS COMING AGAIN, CHRISTIAN ARE YOU READY.
No comments:
Post a Comment