I’m Confused


I am confused when I compare two of your teachings. In the article “Signs of the Times … Times of the Signs” you indicate that the anti-Christ will rise as a charismatic leader in the aftermath of Ezekiel’s war. This makes Ezekiel’s war a pre-trib event.

In your article “The End Times According To Paul … Part 3, 2nd Thessalonians” you teach the rapture must occur before the anti-Christ is revealed.

I cannot determine an order of occurrence for these two events. If the rapture occurs before Ezekiel’s war and this war must be fought before the anti-Christ is revealed then it is not the restrainer preventing the revelation of the identity of the anti-Christ. He must still wait for this war to be fought.

On the other hand, if this war must be fought, then the rapture reveals the identity of the anti-Christ, how can the rapture be taught to be imminent?


I believe that the Rapture will happen slightly before the Battle of Ezekiel 38, but the important issue here is that when God reinstates His covenant with Israel, as He does at the end of Ezekiel’s battle, I believe the Church has to be gone, since God’s dealings with Israel and the Church seem to be mutually exclusive. The re-instated covenant will kick off Daniel’s 70th week at which time the anti-Christ will emerge as a peace maker to enforce his 7 year treaty.

One of the provisions of this treaty will be the permission to build a Temple in Israel, which the anti-Christ will later defile in his official revelation. (This is why I don’t think the Oslo Accords are the same as the covenant of Daniel 9:27. As far as I know there’s no provision for a Temple in the Oslo Accords.)

But please remember, the Rapture doesn’t reveal the anti-Christ. It just makes his revelation possible. It doesn’t officially happen until the middle of the 70th week, several years after the Church is gone.