Well, today the subject is the reason why we believe in the premillennial pre-tribulation rapture of the church. It used to be in my young years, but it was simply enough to say that we were premillennialists. This identified us to a great extent as being pre-tribulation, premillennial rapturous. Today there is a great distinction in terms. So perhaps a brief outline of the major thoughts would be helpful. A pre-tribulation premillennial rapturist is a person who believes that following the church dispensation, there will be a rapture of the church preceding a seven-year period in which God will again speak to Israel. This ancient people whom he knew will again be established in their land. And God will reveal himself to them again, and the resultant blessing will usher in a millennial period and reign with Christ. But during the tribulation period, there will be a time in which, through affliction, and the judgment of God, not only the world, but Israel itself, will be judged by the Lord. Following the tribulation period, the Lord comes to establish his millennial kingdom. Besides that today, there are those who believe in, although this is not as common today as others, a partial rapture, which is a belief that only a portion of the church will be raptured. depending upon their faithfulness to the Lord. They use such verses, if we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him, meaning that only those who suffer with the Lord will be raptured at the rapture of the church. There is, of course, the mid-Tribulation rapture, which is a belief in the rapture in the middle of the tribulation, a post-Tribulation rapture. And this is gaining, quite frankly, ascendancy among certain assemblies today. And this is the belief that the church will go through the tribulation period. Surprisingly enough, George Mueller himself believed that the church would go through the tribulation. Then finally, perhaps the last major area is the ah-millennial position. Ah-millennialism coming from the Greek, ah meaning no, no millennium. That is, there will be no period of Christ's reign on earth following his coming. Generally speaking, these people reject the concept of a tribulation, feeling that God will never again deal with Israel nationally. That's simply what takes place is the coming again of the Lord, that the saints go up to meet the Lord in the air, and return with him to earth, and then return back to heaven. There is no such thing as a millennium as such. The pre-millennial pre-tribulation view of the rapture of the church was a view that perhaps as far as we know, began back in the seventeen hundredths. I feel that it was revived, of course believing that Paul himself taught this truth. But strangely enough, the early church, as far as our record of their writings is concerned, does not specifically mention the pre-millennial pre-tribulation rapture of the church. All of the church fathers, though writing of many things concerning this, do not in a definite way define this belief. The first that we see of it in writing is probably by a Jesuit priest who lived in Spain. If you want to study the history of this, you can read Dr. Tattford's book, God's Program for the Ages. And in the front of it, he discusses the origin and propagation of this particular vein of truth. And he traces it to this Jesuit priest who lived in Spain. However, in the early eighteen hundreds, great prophetic conferences came into being. Many of these were associated with assemblies of believers as we know them. such men as J.N. Darby and William Trotter and William Kelly and others all had great prophetic conferences some of them in the home of Lady Powell's court who was a wealthy woman but lended her her mansion to the Lord's people for this use It might be interesting for all of you to know that the Schofield Bible, which is probably the leading exponent of this belief as far as Bible commentaries are concerned, was once known as the Schofield-Darvey system. of interpretation in regard to prophecy. Schofield learned much that he knew, as do most premillennialists today, from the research that was done by the early brethren in their writings by John Nelson Darby, William Kelly, William Trotter, and other great intellects at that time. One of the great legacies left by assemblies at that time. The history is much more checkered or you no doubt will be surprised to learn that in England a great majority probably of assemblies in that country no longer holds this view. There are some sectors of missionary efforts where missionaries quite frankly believe in the post-tribulation rapture of the church. America is still the stronghold as far as assemblies are concerned of this view. There are those who are attempting to infiltrate the assemblies in this country with opposing views. Perhaps one of the leading assembly-related colleges in this connection is Regency College, where many of the men there are, quite frankly, all-millennialists. Some view probably in other ways, but Nevertheless, the attempt is being made to infiltrate assemblies in the United States and to turn them away as their English counterparts have been turned away from a belief in this kind of rapture that we believe in. Now, the question that confronts me today is to suggest to you why I believe in the pre-millennial pre-tribulation rapture of the church. I want to suggest four reasons. There are many more. It would be almost impossible to cover all of the reasons why a person should believe in this, but I want to cover them in four principal headings. First of all, I believe that the premillennial pre-Tregulation rapture of the church. Now on I'm going to refer to this as premillennialism rather than giving you the whole title. The premillennial view of the rapture of the church is taught in picture in the Old Testament. I would be the first to admit that this is perhaps the least strong of all arguments. Yet coupled with the other arguments, I think very clearly gives us a view of the premillennial rapture of the church as we believe it. I believe that the premillennial rapture of the church is taught by a proper correlation of Old Testament prophecy with New Testament prophecy. I don't think you can understand the history and doctrine of hermeneuties. This is a great big word, but it's simply the study of interpretation. That is how verses of Scripture fit together. Without properly believing in... the premillennial rapture of the church third when you study in the New Testament the doctrine that involves the apocalypse as compared to the pharisea you've heard these big words Greek words I'm sure what we're talking about in the pharisea is the coming of the Lord Jesus for his people in the apocalypse the revelation of the Lord to earth in which he reveals himself in judgment against the world. Now, as you study these two things in the New Testament scriptures, you'll see that different things are involved in each one. We're going to mention that. And then finally, no proper understanding of prophecy can be given without a system of interpretation for the book of Revelation. And as far as I am concerned, there is nothing that can unlock the door to that book, like a belief in the pre-millennial pre-tribulation rapture of the church. Now let's take each one of them point by point. First of all, in picture in the Old Testament. I couldn't possibly begin this afternoon to give you all of the times that this occurs, but The life of Joseph is perhaps one of the most beautiful illustrations of this that I know. Joseph was raised one of twelve children. He was the child whom his father lost, his brethren hated him, just as Israel hated Christ when he lived on earth. And they rejected him and sold him to the Midianites. merchantmen, just as Israel rejected Christ. He came into his own, his own brethren, and his own received him not. Later in Egypt, he was sold to Potiphar, the captain of the king's guard, and was there rejected by the Gentiles, symbolizing the rejection of Christ not only by the Jew, but the Gentile powers off as well. He was put in the prison house where he proclaimed liberty and death to those that were there, just as Christ in his sacrificial work proclaimed liberty and death in one sacrifice, liberty to those who believe in him, death to those who reject him. As a consequence of this experience, he was raised to the pinnacle of exaltation in Egypt, just as Christ is now informed at God's right hand. But following this exaltation, there followed two seven-year periods. The first was a period of great grace, great alpore. It was during this time that Joseph took to himself a Gentile bride, and from that union there came the fruit, children. This is typical of the fact that during the seven church dispensation, The Lord Jesus Christ has, in his exaltation, taken unto himself a Gentile bride that has produced fruit in the church of God. Following this period, there was a seven-year period of leanness. Here the Gentile bride is not spoken of as far as I know. The only thing that is spoken of is Joseph's brethren. This was a time of great leanness, you might say, a time of great tribulation. To me, the typical teaching is very clear. Joseph symbolizes the Lord Jesus, revealing himself to his brethren. Here we have in the Old Testament scripture then a beautiful picture in the life of Joseph of the birth, death, resurrection, exaltation of Christ. The fruit of that being, on one hand, the church, the seven-year period of grace, and in the resurrection of Israel, in that which followed, in the seven-year period of tribulation. You could also see this in Enoch and Moses quite distinctly. Enoch was translated that he should not see death. He never died. Methuselah, who was his offspring, did die. But when he died, the flood came. But Noah is the type of the remnant of Israel who were not transported to heaven. Incidentally, in the Old Testament, it says of Enoch that he walked with God. But that's the Hispahel form in the Hebrew language and means he really walked with God. It's the intensive reflexes. He really walked with God. But it's the same thing as said of Noah. Why wasn't Noah translated? Because his life was to portray something else. And Noah, instead of being translated, wrote on the waters of judgment in the ark, even as Israel. The remnant of Israel, Christ, will not be translated as the church is, but will live and exist on an earth undergoing the awful judgment of God. Alright, now, There are two pictures in the Old Testament of the premillennial pre-tribulation rapture of the church. Enoch represents this, and the two turies are represented in the light of Joseph. Now, the second point that we made is the proper correlation of Old Testament prophecy with New Testament prophecy. Most of us are familiar, I'm sure, with the frequent mention in the Old Testament of the day of the Lord. Now here again you have to go back to the study of Hermeneutics, the study of interpretation to understand that the mention of this in the Old Testament was made in reference to Israel. The prophecies are so vivid, leave little to the imagination, and detail outrightly the fact that God is going to deal nationally with a people that over and over in their history rejected his prophets, rejected his word, rejected his promises. God tells us that he's going to punish them nationally and individually as a people because of this. He's also going to punish the nations equally for their iniquity. But in order for you to really believe in the accuracy of the Word of God, you have to believe in a literal fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Day of the Lord. As far as the New Testament is concerned, it mentions the Day of the Lord, but it adds too to this. It adds the Day of Christ and the Day of God. Personally, I believe that the day of Christ has to do with the revelation of Christ for his people, that is, in the rapture, the time when the Lord will reveal himself in connection with the rapture. I believe that the day of the Lord has to do with the end of the tribulation period, the last three and a half years of the tribulation period, and that this is the period when God deals in judgment on the earth. And finally, I believe that the day of God has to do with the time following the millennial period when God brings in a final way His judgment upon an earth that has rejected Him. But today of the Lord is the subject of Old Testament prophecy, and it is as well the subject of New Testament prophecy. If you're going to understand a proper eschatology or proper understanding of prophecy, you have to correlate these two together. Paul speaks of the day of the Lord in Second Thessalonians, and he tells us that that day will not come, and he was speaking to the Thessalonian believers that lived at that time. until the man of sin be revealed, the son of tradition, that opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God. As far as I am concerned, the man of sin has never been revealed. There has never been a personage since Paul wrote those words that is completely fulfilled what Paul said of him in Second Thessalonians. And if the day of the Lord will not come until that takes place, then the day of the Lord that is spoken of in the Old Testament has not come to this present time. Also, you can study in such chapters as the ninth chapter of Daniel, and you'll see that there is a period of time, a seven-year period of time, that has not been fulfilled to this point. Though we can't go into great detail, it might be well to mention that in Daniel... Chapter nine, the prophecy concerns the end of the transgression, bringing an end to sin. It reads literally, seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon the holy city to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness. I mentioned before that there are three principal words used for sin, what we call sin in the Old Testament. One of them is translated transgression. One of them is translated sin. One of them is translated iniquity. In this chapter, the prophecy concerns all three. These three are mentioned in Psalm thirty-two, where David said, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute iniquity, who forgives sin. He also speaks of iniquity in that verse. But in Psalm thirty-two, what's involved is forgiveness. In Daniel chapter nine, what's involved is the end of these things, the finishing of them. It's quite interesting to notice that when Paul having the ability to choose either one of these verses in reference to the sacrifice of Christ, doesn't choose Daniel chapter nine when he quotes this in Romans chapter four but rather quotes Psalm thirty two seeming to suggest that what Daniel said in Daniel chapter nine had not yet been fulfilled that is transgression was not ended there was not an end of sin and there was not complete reconciliation for iniquity He only speaks of Psalm thirty-two where they're forgiven. I suggest to you from this that what Daniel speaks of here awaits a future fulfillment. The seventy weeks themselves are an interesting study. Sir Robert Anderson has done what is perhaps the most complete work on this in his book The Coming Prince. He shows that these seventy weeks are actually seventy periods of prophetic weeks. That is, four hundred and ninety weeks of years. Four hundred and ninety years. And he shows us that the prophecy started in Nehemiah chapter two, where the commandment went forth to restore and build Jerusalem. And that this took up the first week of years, forty-nine years. Then following that were the sixty-two weeks, which took the period from the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, and that this probably consummated with the completion of this work, through the period when God was silent to his people. But in Daniel chapter nine, it says, After the sixty-two weeks, shall Messiah... be cut off after three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off but not for himself that is at the end of first the seventh week and then the sixty two weeks Messiah wants to be cut off but what about the seventieth week where does it come in to view now if Messiah was cut off at the end of the sixty ninth week what you have is the Lord dying at the age of thirty-three, approximately the year thirty-three AD. If this prophecy was a consecutive prophecy, and as Mr. Anderson has proven, that it was exactly fulfilled as to the sixty-nine weeks with the death of Christ, then what happened to the seventieth week? The fulfillment, if it was consecutive, must take place around forty AD. Strangely enough, no great personage appeared on the world scene at that time. There was a ruler in Israel that attempted to make the oblation to cease, to sacrifice to cease, but he died before he accomplished this. Almost as though God was putting his hand upon him and saying, nothing shall happen. That will confuse people into thinking that this is the fulfillment of this prophecy. The all-millennialist is constantly embarrassed by this prophecy. You cannot fit this into what took place in AD. Because if you do, again, you've lost the chronology of this chapter. You've lost the import of the chapter. It can't have its fulfillment in AD. Because it would have to be fulfilled in AD. So, even if you believe that it was completed in AD seventy, you would have had to put a gap between the sixty ninth and the seventieth week. We believe today that there is a longer gap than this. That God ceased to deal with his people when they crucified his son. But God is again going to take up his people. This is what's mentioned in Romans chapter nine, ten and eleven. Here again. The on-millennialist is constantly, the man who doesn't believe in the tribulation period is constantly baffled and constantly put to sport, shall we say, to find an answer for the parenthetical section in the book of Romans. There is no other answer for that parenthetical section except to believe that God is again going to establish his people. Just as he says here in the book of Daniel, the seventieth week is yet to be fulfilled. That's just a brief summary. We could go on and on about this, and I tried to go over it quickly. But we believe from this prophecy that there is yet to be a seventieth week, and that we can correlate this week together with the day of the Lord. For instance, in Jeremiah, I think it is that the day of the Lord is connected with the time of Jacob's troubles. Paul speaks of the day of the Lord as being this final period. The book of Revelation speaks of the great tribulation. By a correlation of all of these scriptures put together, you can see that the seventieth week of Daniel, the day of the Lord, the great tribulation period, the man of sin, the one who in Daniel causes the sacrifice, an oblation to cease in the midst of the week, all fit into this given period. Without this system of interpretation, there is no coherent, for as I am concerned, there is no coherent way of understanding Old Testament and New Testament prophecy in reference to this subject. All right, the third point. That is that when the New Testament speaks of the Perusia, the coming of the Lord, When it speaks again of the Apocalypse, the revelation of the Lord, that the events that surround these two things are spoken of in a different way. For instance, in First Thessalonians chapter four, where the Perusia is in view, the Apostle Paul ends by saying, Cochrane one another with these words. But in Second Thessalonians chapter one, he says he will come in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. What possible comfort did there be in this? For instance, if you were living through the tribulation that some would have us believe, and your children were not saved, what comfort could there possibly be to you in knowing that soon the Lord was to come and to to destroy in flaming fire those whom you knew and loved if the imperative of the gospel has driven men today to such lengths what will it drive men to in that day what possible comfort could there be then in the revelation of the Lord in open judgment but there is comfort in the rapture of the church for the Lord is going to deliver us out of this period of trouble and we will like peanut be translated we will never see the judgment of God upon the earth. Now there are many points, Mr. Van Ruyden, in his book, The Tribulation in Relation to the Church. There are seven or eight of them, though this book is out of print. Now finally, the book of Revelation. No proper system of interpretation of prophecy can ever be given unless you have a coherent system of interpretation for the book of Revelation. There are three major systems. probably have never studied this, but even a simple book like Wycliffe will give these to you. Wycliffe lists four. I feel there are only really three major. There is the system of interpretation that spiritualizes the book of Revelation. In other words, it finds in all the graphic illustrations in that book simply the spiritual history of the church in its fight against evil and in the attempts of Satan to to destroy the church of God. Kind of like a modern Bunyan's holy war. They see the book of Revelations in this light. But of course we reject this if for no other reason that it leads too much to speculation. The people of God have always fallen into problems when they have attempted to in this dispensation which we believe is outside of the circle of prophecy attempting to put the church into prophecy has always run into problems remember when men said that Mussolini was the Antichrist and when Hitler they even said that Napoleon Bonaparte was the great imperial beast and all of these prophecies have failed it's because prophecy is outside the parenthetical period of the church. So we must reject this because this does not satisfy. The second system of interpretation is the historical view. This historical view views the history of the church. Take the seven churches of Asia to be the churches of that time. And then following that, the great history of the church and of nations down through the years till the present time. this again must fail for the same reason not only this it would give you a good idea as to when the coming of the Lord would be which the Lord says is not possible knows no man not the son but the father the third system of interpretation which is the system that I think all of us at least all of those who are leading they can't believe in is the futurist viewpoint and this viewpoint understands first of all the first three chapters of Revelation as referring to the church through its history. It sees all of the book of Revelation as symbols and signs and pictures of what will take place in the future. Use the seven churches of Asia as being a revelation of the history of the church from the time of Christ till now. Four of the churches are mentioned as continuing to the end. O fast till I come. says the Lord. Then from chapter four, when John says, Come up hither, we believe that this suggests the rapture and following this, the time of the outpouring of God's judgment upon the world. We see in all the awful judgments of that that are described in the book of Revelation as being the result of God's prophecy and of God's action, the day of the Lord, all the things that surround this, in which God reveals himself to his people and judges the world for their sin. Frankly, as far as I am concerned, it's the only system that gives sense to the book of Revelation and gives logical sequence to its prophecies. If you don't believe in this, it seems to me that you're bound up in a hodgepodge of interpretation that doesn't satisfy and that is contradictory, really never enables the soul to find rest in the interpretation of a book whom the Lord said, Blessed is he that studies and understands the symbols and the teaching that is involved therein. Well, may the Lord bless these thoughts to us this afternoon. It's been brief, and perhaps you haven't understood all that I've said. Perhaps I haven't made myself clear, but I'm sure that with your questions and with the help of other brethren, we can proceed now. Yes. Yes. Now there's always a danger that we've tried to forestall, almost impossible to do it completely, and that is of having a panel that it looks like you've got some kind of a board of supervisors or something. It looks like you've got some reading on authority. Here's the last word. Well, this is not what our panel is intended for. I think I can safely speak for my three brethren that none of us claim to be the last word an official authority on any particular subject. The thing that all of us desire is that we find what the Scripture teaches and learn together and not one of us are immune to changing our minds if we find out something is wrong. I'm going to be one of the first ones who, when I am thoroughly convinced that the pre-tribulation, three millennial view of prophecy is wrong, well, I'm going to change my mind. But as of other times, I have no indications, no inclinations, no nothing has even given me the slightest idea that I ought to change my view. So I call it stuck in the mud or whatever you want to, but here we are. There may be differing views in the audience. As you've heard from John, many people are changing their minds in some places. I'd like to say this, no matter what the assemblies so-called in England do, it worries me. I'm concerned about it, but we're not related to them. If the Springfield assembly decides that they're going to start teaching... The all-millennial view, the assembly in Auschwitz doesn't have to do it, and we have absolutely no fellowship with it in that respect. Every assembly is on its own foundation. Every assembly is responsible to the Lord, and the elders of that assembly are responsible for that assembly in the teaching. So when we start talking about assemblies, we also must be careful that we don't link all the assemblies together as some kind of a denomination with a cord running through each one, tying them all up together. There is a fellowship, an interfellowship that exists between all Christians who meet according to the Word of God. There is a fellowship to a certain extent with all Christians because they are Christians. We can have more fellowship with Christians who at least make an honest effort to go by the Word of God. So when these things come in, they do hinder. And we need to be aware and alert and cautious and everything else to protect ourselves from anything that is not according to the book. Does anyone have a question or a comment? If you do, I would like for you to raise your hand. I'll give you a chance to speak. One person speak at a time. If there's any dissenting viewpoint, we want to go at this in a brotherly way, Christ-like understanding. And I guess that's what I'm here for. Okay. Brother, yes. You had your hand up, Brother Anderson. If this view that he talked about would be changed different than what I understand, it would be the first time that God has ever pronounced judgment without making a way of escape through his faith. That was a statement rather than a question that somebody want to comment on it. That's good. We don't have to have all questions. Statement. Any one? Could you repeat what that another statement goes? Okay. I'm not sure I can repeat that. That sounds very profound. You want to repeat it again? Turn around a little louder so they can hear. I said if Christians weren't fractured before the tribulation, It would be the first time that God has pronounced judgment without making a way of escape. And He said they're going to have a flood. He first had a boat that took a hundred and twenty years and those that wanted to go in, went in, those that didn't stay out. I don't think you'll have any choice. I think that any challenge is difficult to read. Any comments that one of the family members want to make on that? All right. Yes, brother. I'm interested in hearing some comments as to the various arguments as to why Christians will be raptured. I believe that's true, but I think just for completeness here in the discussion that it will be worthwhile to list various scriptures that say in the New Testament that it would support this view. I think this would be helpful especially for people who are taking notes just to hear a list of these scriptures. Thank you. Okay. Two things that we want to be sure and do is get the scriptures for what we're saying. The other thing we must be sure that we understand terminology. We must be specific in defining terms. So that when we talk about pre-tribulation, we must remember we've got young people here, we may have new Christians here. Let me plead with myself and all of us that we don't get so deeply involved in this that the younger folks feel completely out of it. Let's define our terms, know what we're talking about so that the young people know what we're talking about and then lay the scriptural foundation. I saw a hand, Brother Albert. I read the scripture where it doesn't connect with the judgment of God, where it speaks of the wrath of God. Usually, at least to me, it tends to be that God's wrath that is coming on the earth, on the earth's love. The verse will come after the wrath. In Romans chapter five, we read it. In Romans chapter five, verse nine, much more than being out justified by his blood. We shall be saved from wrath to him. I don't think it's held you safe from hell and the lake of fire. This is a wrath that's coming upon the earth. Well, if you're upon the earth, you have no repentance. And the wrath of God comes out upon you. In the first epilome of chapter, one. I've got a new Bible and a new Bible parable, you know, that old Bible and old people. It tends to be... In verse nine of chapter one, for they themselves know of us what manner of entering into heaven, to be with him how he turned from God to the mighty church of living and to God and to wait for his son from heaven, whom he raised in the dead and in Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come.