The coming of 2000 did not bring the end some predicted, but speculation continues about a rapture, anti-christs, rebuilding the Jewish temple, tribulation, Armageddon, and a thousand-year reign. Recent books about being "left behind" at the rapture fill best-seller lists, and some among us are wondering if they have been "left out" of something good. In this and two additional articles, we will summarize the teaching of those who hold such a view and briefly compare seven of its principal elements with scripture.

Hal Lindsey, well-known proponent of pre-millennialism, will be our source for these beliefs. This position, held by most but not all denominations, states that at Jesus' first coming He intended to establish the prophesied "kingdom" that would restore a physical kingdom to Israel. But, the view says, since the Jews rejected Jesus, He had to postpone starting this kingdom until He came a second time. The church was "an interim program" to operate until the kingdom was established.

Next, says Lindsey, the "signs of the end" in Matthew 24:4-14 will reach their height, thus launching the remainder of his scenario. Then comes "the rapture" when all living and dead Christians are changed and go to heaven for seven years. On earth, during the seven years of tribulation, two anti-christs rebuild the Jewish temple, and war over Israel erupts, climaxing in the battle of Armageddon when 300 million soldiers fight over Israel. Jesus now returns to start His postponed kingdom which lasts a thousand years. In this kingdom are those raptured, who return with Him, the Old Testament good, who are raised, and those who became Christians on earth during the tribulation. After a thousand years of wonderful peace on earth, the end comes with the resurrection of the wicked dead and their judgment. Then all go to heaven or hell.

This and two following articles will examine seven basic elements of this theory in the light of scriptures. First, that Jesus failed to establish the kingdom He intended to at His first coming. Certainly Old Testament prophets like Daniel (2:44) prophesied a coming kingdom. John the Baptist said it was "at hand" and so did Jesus who also said, "Some of you standing here shall not taste death until you see the kingdom come with power" (Mark 9:1).

• (1) Since Jesus said the kingdom He came to establish would come during the lifetimes of those who heard Him in the first century, Jesus would be a false prophet if it did not.
• (2) The kingdom Jesus came to establish was not an earthly kingdom of Israel because when He perceived the Jews were going to make Him that kind of king, He would not let them (John 6:15). So they did not turn Him down from being that kind of king, rather, He turned them down. Those who think Jesus came to establish an earthly kingdom misunderstand the spiritual nature of the prophesied kingdom just as the Jews did.
• (3) As Jesus taught about the kingdom with parables and other statements, He was not speaking of a physical kingdom over physical territory but of a spiritual kingdom which "was not of this world" (John 18:36).
• (4) Since Jesus could not have fulfilled the prophecies about dying for the sins of the world and have been a triumphant earthly king in the same lifetime, he did not come with that intent.

• (1) But later in that chapter (36-51), Jesus says only God knows when He will return; even Jesus doesn't know. If He didn't know, how could He give signs to tell when? He adds that just as normal days preceded the flood and suddenly it came without warning, so shall be His coming. He says He will come "when you do not think he will" and here, as elsewhere, Christ's return is said to come "like a thief," thus being without any warning or signs. Taking this list as signs by which to tell when Jesus will return, is contrary to these passages.
• (2) The list occurs in the section of Matthew 24 that is about the fall of Jerusalem and not the end of the world. All the events mentioned prior to verse 34 are to happen during "this generation," those then living. And when He says to hope they don't have children in those days or that the time not come in winter or on a Sabbath, He is clearly speaking of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, not of the end of the world.
• (3) The list would make very poor signs. How would we know when there were enough earthquakes and wars to be a sign? Thus so many, like Lindsey, have set wrong times when trying to use this list as signs.
• (4) Jesus, rather, is telling the apostles that while such events as wars and earthquakes will be going on between then (30 AD) and when Jerusalem would be destroyed (70 AD), they must not be fooled by such events into thinking the destruction of Jerusalem is immediately upon them. The real sign of the fall of Jerusalem, rather, is the coming of an army to surround the city as Daniel predicted (Matthew 25:25; Luke 21:20). From this sign, the coming army, they can know exactly when to flee the city to escape the destruction. In verse 36 He begins to speak of His second coming.

--Stafford North