The first article of this series reviewed the scenario many suggest for the end of time: the rapture, the two anti-christs rebuild the Jewish temple, war over Israel concluding with the battle of Armageddon, Jesus' return to establish a thousand-year kingdom on earth, the final judgment of the wicked, and eternity in heaven or hell. Also in that article we denied two elements of the theory: (1) that Christ came intending to set up an earthly kingdom and (2) that Matthew 24:4-14 is a list of signs by which we can tell when the end of the world will soon come.

This second of three articles treats three more basic elements of this theory: the rapture, anti-christs, and rebuilding of the temple.

The "rapture" suggests a moment when Christ shall "return" for His saints--all dead Christians to be raised and all living Christians to be changed into new bodies, then both go up into heaven to be with the Lord. After seven years they return with Him to earth enter His thousand year reign. At this same time, the good dead from Old Testament times are raised also to enter the thousand year reign, at the end of which the wicked dead are raised. So, two comings of Jesus and three resurrections.

The Bible, however, tells a different story. John 5:28-29 says "an hour" or moment is coming when "all in the tombs" shall come forth--both good and bad at the same time. In John 6:40, 44, and 54, Jesus adds that the righteous will be raised "on the last day." But if Christians, certainly among the righteous, are raised a thousand and seven years before the last day, as Hal Lindsey claims, then Jesus was wrong. John 12:48 adds that the wicked will be judged "on the last day." So Jesus' timetable of the end shows both the wicked being judged and the righteous being raised on the last day. No room for a "rapture."

But doesn't 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 say "The dead in Christ shall rise first?" Yes, but "first" compared to what? The two events being compared here are the resurrection of dead Christians and the transformation of living Christians. Those living shall not be changed before the dead are raised for "the dead in Christ rise first."

1 Corinthians 15:50-53 places this same transformation "at the last trumpet," again putting the resurrection of Christians at the end of time, not a thousand seven years before. 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 says that when Christ returns, death is "abolished" by the resurrection of the dead and then comes "the end." No room here for a thousand and seven years between the resurrection of Christians and the end of the world.

So, three different resurrections are not taught in scripture.

The fourth concept of pre-millennialism to consider is that two powerful men, whom the Bible calls anti-christs, emerge near the end of time to plunge the world into war. Lindsey says these men, now alive, will arise from the European Common Market (the Roman Empire revived) and the World Council of Churches.

But what does the Bible say about anti-christs? Only John, in his epistles, uses this term and he, very carefully, defines it. I John 2:18-22 says an anti-christ is one who "denies that Jesus is the Christ" and, thus, is against Christ. Even in his day John says there were "many" anti-christs who fit this definition. So in the Bible, anti-christ is used to describe one who denies that Jesus is the Christ and many such began coming even in the first century.

The Bible, then, never uses the term anti-christ to describe some political ruler arising near the end of the world. In 2 Thessalonians 3:3-12, Paul speaks of "a man of lawlessness" whom some call "anti-christ. But Paul, like John here speaks of a departure from the faith and not a political or military action. He also says the process that would produce this departure "is already at work," thus, again like John, suggesting an apostasy starting in the first century.

So, the Bible does not use "anti-christ" or "man of lawlessness" to speak of some terrible, powerful ruler appearing near the end of the world.

The fifth concept in our review is that two anti-christs will rebuild the Jewish temple. Some give Ezekiel 40-44 that meaning. While the passage speaks of rebuilding the temple, Ezekiel lived during the Babylon captivity when the temple was in ruins. Here God promises the Jews He will return them to the land and give them a temple, and He did. That Ezekiel is speaking of his own time is clear because Ezekiel 36 speaks of their land being "desolate," of "forsaken cities," and issues a curse against Edom. These all fit the situation then, but not today. Moreover, Ezekiel says to mountains of Israel that the people who left them "will soon come."

Some say the rebuilt temple did not match Ezekiel's description here, so another temple is to come. But Ezekiel's description uses figurative terms no actual building could entirely match. Ezekiel's words, then, are not to be take literally. And what would be the purpose of a rebuilt temple today? Do we need to re-institute the sacrificial system? Certainly that would come as a great surprise to the inspired author of Hebrews who declares Jesus to be both a better sacrifice and a better priest.

The third article will deal with Armageddon and the thousand year reign.

--Stafford North