Thanks Anca, I always cherish your views. For you may be correct. Although our views may differ, I really appreciate that you heart cares to interact on such themes. It is quite a blessing among saints. And edifying regardless of how we might process differently on some matters
I just posted a reply to Robbie you might find of interest to see where some of my views derrived from. Anca, I would admit that the likelihood of a rapture prior to whatever happens in 2024+ does have a theological appeal. And stands a solid reasonable consideration. Where I would have pause is in being so close to an event like a falsse light event and be removed prior to its ultimate playout. I would also admit that my first seal view could be nothing more than your false light view. They could be one and the same. And that would be consistent with it being the first seal of a train of judgements.
The reason i would have pause though is because I tend to back out of the book of Revelation. Which is a different typical view we hold today of driving into it. What i mean is that i try to look at where it ends, and back out slowly to see how it might be trailed into. Whereas, the conventional approach is to see it from its start just believing we definately trail into it.
The other main reason for pause for me is the epicentric different views we have as transition occurs. Here are what i would see as two very different filters of focus as it relates to “transition.”
- Transition A – The main theme of transition is beast system from age of grace to tribulation
- Transition B – The main theme of transition is Israel’s 70th week.
Of the two, one focuses on the beast system and one focuses on Israel. One focuses on AC, the other Israel. One focuses on judgement, and one on Israel. This is a rather “fine” and “technical” point, but i believe a lot hinges on it perhaps. Is the trajectory we hold “beast system” transition or “Israeli” transition? See this is something i would see in view if I “backed” out of Revelation rather than approached it from a “diiving” into it approach. Regardless of our themes (and including the world being judged as a given), I believe we would see a 70th week proper by it as 70th because there was a 1-69 too. And those were labeled as “weeks given to a people,” the Jews. So in this sense i would see the 70th week being about Israel more than about the beast system. Although both themes coexist in the tribulation.
As for a transtion though, if we hold Israel in view we might see some very different things than if we hold beast system as a main themeatic transition focal point. I believe it is possibly a miscaculation to favor a beast system transition focus in part because of Romans 11:18-20 as somewhat prophetic. In considering how this kind and type of verse might play out in the transtion period, it could look something like this:
The church views “beast system” as the go to focus toward tribulation. It is our understanding of our context with our filter to percieve our understanding of the blueprint.
If Israel is to be the transitory focus perhaps she herself might also become a filter by which to view end time events. By esteeming Israel as a filter to interpret what other things in transition mean, it might parce out to more accuracy perhaps in how things unfold and what is their meaning in proximity to her.
In the first view prophecy is about the esteem of the church’s view. In the second view, we might consider that as God is the architect of how the end time road map works, He might prefer the church to defer to how God is looking at Isreal in this transition period over and above our own senses of our own blueprint of how that should look. If this has relevance, then no matter how spiritual a context might appear to be, if it is a perspective of the church, by the church, for the church (in contrast to an Israeli transtion – tradiing off the baton) it could be seen as a temporal or earthy view regardless its otherwise wise and helpful spirtiual ramifications of insight. I don’t mean here to address the accuracy or innacuracy of church ideology as it relates to how certain themes we have of current concern might or might not be spiritual. i am only trying to view this finite point on the hinge point of “transition,” as it relates to Israel or as it relates to the beast system.
So if we as a church are to look at how things transition from age of grace to tribulation using our own logic, senses, or leanings (even though some are actually very spiritual…amen) of our own understanding (and our significance to hold such views) in contrast to a simple differene of: It should have been on how God was looking at Isreal in transition instead…well…yeah…so that is where i would have concern. In that way, don’t you find it in the slightest peculiar in the 70th week being about her, this kind of consideration is on no one’s discussion table?
In holding a church centric view we see NAR doing it. We aslo see the reformed camp looking for Christian Nationalism as the answer. We see the reformed camp of John Macarthur asserting a focus on how we lose down here (a similarly shared motif of JD’s) and we just wait for the Lord as we occupy. Not a bad view. Likely a very spiritual view. But do you recall the saying that discernment isn’t so much between right and wrong but rather what is better and what is potentially best (Phil 1:9-10)? Well this is the sort of notion I would suggest is possibly on the table for us. Not that the false light view might not be best…but how do we arrive at “best” wihtout a contrast? Where is the contrast? NAR? lol
If the focus is best Israel, how might false light theory look? At this point Anca the best i could put forth (if accurate at all) would be that if we are still here when all this goes down…at that point we might have a choice to make. If we rapture and false light happens, we won’t face it. If we do face it though, then what? If the Lord tarries, and we see it, I believe we have a choice to see what we will. We coud see that the only way it makes sense is if the rapture is really soon but a bunch of people might be really deceived on the way out. But if Israel is the focus, might NWO conquer possibly mean: “Hey Israel, remember the promise to rule on the seat of David coming? Talk to the church on your way out…or be refined.” Looking at the heart of God in that (especially if Ez 38 is on the horizon at that point), would it not make some sense to see some “earthly/temporal” conquer for a benefit outside of perhaps the churches view not seeing how it might extend to Israel from the heart of God? Must we insist upon a sense of it as evil because God would never lovingly provide such a apocolyptically unique opportunity for Israel to rapture with church? God would never allow it to be about that? I mean, in all honesty though, for it to have to be only about the cultural themes “we” see more than a possibility of it being for Israel, could this not sensibly not be considered to be looked at? Yet where in the church is that?
Perhaps we never need to consider. But if we are still around a year or two from now…we might have a choice in believing what we are seeing. Again, wow thanks so much for your heart Anca and even to consider such a discussion. You may be correct dear sister and we never come to this, amen. But in like fashion to leaving tracts behind for family after the rapture, perhaps this might be symbolically a sense of leaving ourselves a tract prior (to our future selves) to the rapture. Thanks for reading blessed and dearest sister. Blessings.