Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
VII. Seiss, the Bride, and Tribulation Saints
Seiss should not be reduced to the crude formula “some Christians are raptured early and other Christians are raptured later.” His structure is better described in terms of distinct redeemed companies or orders. The Bride or overcomer company is represented as glorified before the judgment sequence, while Revelation subsequently depicts other redeemed groups, including the great multitude emerging from the tribulation and those who suffer martyrdom under the Beast. Revelation itself clearly allows salvation during the tribulation. Revelation 7 presents an innumerable multitude from every nation who are identified as those coming out of the great tribulation. Revelation 12:11 describes faithful witnesses who overcome by the blood of the Lamb and “loved not their lives unto the death.” Revelation 20:4 is more explicit still: those beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for refusing the Beast, his image, and his mark are raised and reign with Christ.
These texts make the older popular teaching “missed the rapture equals no possibility of salvation” exegetically indefensible. Second Thessalonians 2:10–12 describes judicial delusion falling upon those who refused the love of the truth and took pleasure in unrighteousness. Paul does not say that every person alive after the gathering is thereby rendered incapable of salvation. Revelation explicitly depicts redeemed people during the tribulation.
This does not make delayed faith a safe strategy. Scripture portrays extraordinary deception, coercion, persecution, and martyrdom during that period. The proper conclusion is both sober and hopeful: the Bride’s gathering does not terminate God’s saving activity, but those who come to faith during the tribulation may pay for their allegiance to Christ with their lives.
VIII. Israel, the Church, and Covenant Continuity
Romans 11 provides one of the most important controls on the relationship between Israel and Gentile believers. Paul’s image is not a replacement tree but an olive tree into which wild Gentile branches are grafted. Gentile believers are explicitly warned not to boast over the natural branches: “thou bearest not the root, but the root thee” (Rom. 11:18). The natural branches can be grafted in again, and Paul anchors hope for Israel in the irrevocability of God’s gifts and calling (Rom. 11:29). At the same time, neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament equates outward covenant identity automatically with inward spiritual reality. Paul writes, “they are not all Israel, which are
of Israel” (Rom. 9:6), while the prophets repeatedly distinguish the faithful remnant from the larger nation. The visible New Testament Church likewise contains both genuine and merely outward participants.
The resulting formulation is more precise than either replacement theology or radical separation: Gentile believers truly participate in the covenant blessings rooted in God’s promises, but they do
not replace Israel or erase the continuing prophetic identity of the natural branches. The faithful within Israel and the faithful gathered in Christ belong to the one redeemed people of God, while Israel retains a distinguishable historical and prophetic calling.
IX. Jerusalem and the Holy City
Daniel 9:24 addresses “thy people and thy holy city.” In the immediate grammatical context, Daniel’s people are Israel and the holy city is Jerusalem. This referent should not be erased merely because the saving accomplishments announced in the prophecy ultimately bless all who belong to Messiah.
The New Testament does not require the permanent displacement of Jerusalem by Rome or by any other earthly ecclesiastical center. Jesus speaks of Jerusalem being trodden down by Gentiles “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). The prophets repeatedly associate Zion and Jerusalem with future messianic rule. Revelation then carries the identity of the Holy City into the eternal consummation through the New Jerusalem.
Care is necessary here. Earthly Jerusalem in prophetic history and the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21–22 should not simply be collapsed into a single undifferentiated city. Nevertheless, the
continuity of biblical language is significant. Jerusalem remains embedded in the scriptural
theology of consummation, and participation of Gentile believers in covenant blessing does not require the erasure of that identity.
X. Daniel 9 and the Future Seventieth Week
Daniel 9 provides substantial support for a future prophetic period focused specifically upon Israel and Jerusalem. The seventy “sevens” naturally form a 490-year framework in the context of
Daniel’s meditation on Jeremiah’s seventy years. After the seven and sixty-two weeks—sixty-nine weeks in total—Messiah is cut off, and the city and sanctuary are destroyed. Only then does verse
27 introduce the final one-week period.
The text does not state that a two-thousand-year interval will separate the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. It does, however, place significant events after the sixty-nine weeks and before the description of the final week. The existence of an intervening period is therefore textually substantial, even if its length is not revealed within Daniel 9 itself.
The final week contains covenant activity, a midpoint, cessation of sacrifice, abomination, desolation, and predetermined judgment. Daniel’s repeated three-and-one-half-year expressions correlate strikingly with Revelation’s forty-two months, 1,260 days, and “time, times, and half a time.” This makes a future seven-year final period a strong interpretation, although Daniel does not itself identify the entire seven years with the technical phrase “the tribulation.”
Daniel 9 does not state when the Church is gathered. That chronology must be established elsewhere. This is an important methodological point: Daniel establishes the prophetic week; other passages must establish the relationship of the Bride to that week.
XI. The Restrainer and the Biblical Theme of Lawlessness
Second Thessalonians 2 introduces one of the most difficult questions in New Testament eschatology. Paul says that the “mystery of lawlessness” is already working, yet something—or someone—restrains the final revelation of the man of lawlessness. Historically, proposed
identifications have included the Roman Empire, civil government, gospel proclamation, Michael or angelic restraint, the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit working through the Church.
The text does not permit dogmatism. Paul had apparently explained the matter orally to the Thessalonians: “Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” (2
Thess. 2:5). They possessed explanatory context that later readers do not.
A broader canonical theme may nevertheless help. Scripture repeatedly portrays divinely ordered authority as a restraint upon lawlessness. Romans 13 assigns legitimate government the task of restraining wrongdoing. Judges vividly portrays the social and moral collapse that follows the rejection of recognized authority. The book ends: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 21:25).
This suggests that the restraining principle may be broader than one institution. God may providentially restrain lawlessness through law, conscience, legitimate government, gospel witness, the Spirit-indwelt Church, and perhaps angelic agency. The final removal or alteration of restraint allows lawlessness to become concentrated in the lawless one.
The canonical contrast is striking. Judges ends with the absence of rightful kingship and everyone determining right for himself. Revelation culminates with the public appearing of the One
identified as “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS” (Rev. 19:16). The ultimate answer to lawlessness is not merely improved legislation but the rightful King.
XII. First Resurrection and Ordered Resurrection
First Corinthians 15:23 provides an important principle: “every man in his own order.” The Greek tagma denotes order, rank, or ordered company. Paul explicitly names Christ as the Firstfruits and afterward those who belong to Christ at His coming. Christ’s resurrection and the resurrection of
believers are therefore already distinct in time while belonging to one resurrection program. Revelation 20 adds further detail. John sees those who were killed because of their testimony for Jesus and because they refused the Beast. They “lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years,” while “the rest of the dead” do not live again until the thousand years are completed. John identifies participation in this life-resurrection as “the first resurrection.”
The most natural synthesis is that the “first resurrection” is the resurrection unto life as a category or order rather than a claim that every participant must be raised at precisely the same chronological instant. This makes room for Seiss’s instinct that Revelation distinguishes redeemed companies and phases within the resurrection program without requiring the language of multiple unrelated salvations or a simplistic series of raptures.
Matthew 27:52–53 records that “many bodies of the saints” were raised in connection with Christ’s resurrection. Caution is necessary: Matthew says many, not all. The passage should not be used to place the entire company of Old Testament faithful at that moment. Hebrews 11 and Daniel 12 counsel restraint concerning the precise timing of their full resurrection. The defensible conclusion
is simply that Christ is the Firstfruits and that some saints were bodily raised in connection with His resurrection; the timing of the full Old Testament company remains unsettled.
