"How Long Is The "Coming" of Christ?" (II)

This posting will be a follow up to my previous posting "How Long Is The "Coming" of Christ?" (here)

J.A. Seiss in "The Apocalypse" (pg. 578-79, here) elaborates on what I presented in that posting, showing how the "coming" of Christ is no singular event nor encompassed within a particular moment or 24 hour day. He said (emphasis mine):

"When we speak of the day of the Lord, or the judgment period, many have the notion that it is but one day, or a very brief space of time. They are consequently led to wonder how we can speak of the impending nearness of that day, and yet look for the rebuilding of a great city then to be destroyed. The difficulty, however, does not lie in the nature of the things, but in the popular misapprehensions of what the day of the Lord means, and the length of the period which it covers. The mistake is in taking the day of the Lord, or the coming again of our Savior, as if one particular moment of time, and one single event or scene were to be understood. What the Scriptures describe as the day of the Lord, and the second coming of Christ, is no more limited to a single event or moment of time than was the day of his first coming, which extended over more than thirty years, and embraced various stages and successive presentations. If we take the prophecies concerning the first advent, we find it impossible to apply them to any one day, year, or scene, in the evangelic history. Micah said that Christ should “come out of Bethlehem” (Ephratah), but Hosea said that he would come “out of Egypt.” Malachi said that he should “suddenly come to his temple,” and Zechariah that he would come to Zion “riding upon an ass, upon a colt the foal of an ass;” whilst, according to Isaiah, “the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali” were to see the “great light.” All these presentations were his coming. He did come when he was born at Bethlehem; he did come out of Egypt; he did come when he announced himself at Nazareth; he did come as a great light among the people of Northern Galilee; he did come riding into Jerusalem on the ass; he did come suddenly to his temple when he twice drove out the money changers; and he came when he reappeared after his resurrection. Each one of these particular incidents is alike called his coming; but they were only so many separate presentations, at different dates, extending through a period of thirty-three years, all of which together are required to make up the first advent as a whole. And just as it was then, so it will be again. The second coming, like the first, is complex and distributive, extending through a variety of successive and diverse scenes, stages, events, and manifestations, requiring as many, if not still more, years." 

I think that any bible believer should be able to understand and accept as true these words of Seiss even though it goes against the "popular" shallow thinking of many upon this subject. 

Seiss wrote:

"The Antichrist does not appear at all amid the scenes of the Apocalypse until after the seven seals have been opened, and six of the succeeding trumpets have been sounded. How many years those seals and the six trumpets may consume we are not informed, but we have every reason to believe that they may be counted by tens, if not by scores, subsequent to the opening of the door in the heaven and the taking up of the saints, which is the first act in the great drama. The space occupied in narrating what occurs under the seals and trumpets would indicate this. The long waiting of the Ten Virgins for the coming of the Bridegroom, which is subsequent to the first translation, indicates the same thing. Forty years, at least, perhaps a whole jubilee period of fifty years, or even a full seventy years, answering to the period during which the judgment was upon Israel for its sins, are likely to be embraced in what the Scriptures call the day of the Lord, and the second coming and revelation of Jesus Christ."

Seiss is a Pre Tribulation Premillenialist. He has Dispensational leanings. Yet, he did not, like many of them, believe that Antichrist would come into the world till late in the great tribulation. Many today want to put the appearance of the Antichrist in Rev. 6: 1 in the appearing of the white horse rider. But, in this they are wrong. Though Seiss is wrong on his putting the rapture in Rev. 4: 1, yet he is right in where he chronologically puts the rise of Antichrist.

When he says that "many years" take in the time of the seals and trumpets of the Apocalypse he is correct. Though he does fit Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy of the seventieth week (7 years) into the time period of the day of judgment (great tribulation) he does not limit the entire time period of the tribulation to those seven years, but sees it as much longer, as I do. See my posting "Tribulation Period - 7 Yrs. Or More?" (here). Though I do not think the great tribulation, or the day of wrath and judgment, will be twenty to fifty years, yet I do believe it will be longer than seven years as does Seiss. 

Seiss wrote:

"Supposing, then, that Babylon should not even begin to be rebuilt until after the day of the Lord has commenced in the rapture of the eagle-saints (Luke 17:34-37; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17; Revelation 4:1), there still would be ample time for it to come up in all the grandeur and force indicated before the great acts of destruction in which that day reaches its consummation. Much can be accomplished in forty, fifty, or seventy years."

Seiss wrote this in the latter part of the 19th century. Were he alive today he would see how the world has the technology today to build a new mammoth city in quick time, especially when all the world is united in its construction.

But, the rapture does not take place before the building of Babylon. Babylon will be built either immediately before the great tribulation or at its commencement.

We do not have two comings of the Lord in Revelation, one in Rev. 4: 1 (rapture) and the other in Rev. 19. There is only one second coming. There are so many arguments to prove this. We have mentioned them many times.

In closing let me say that the main point of this posting is to see how the "coming" of the Lord, or his "day," is not to be limited to a single day but rather encompasses years, just as did his first coming. 

On the building of the commercial city of Babylon (Rev. 18) I will have more to say in an upcoming post, the Lord willing.