I'd like to provide evidences for the belief that the "Lord's Day isn't what's taught in most prophecy club ideologies. In my proposition for the timing of the “Day of the Lord,” I'd like to present three main reasons as to why I think many of the views are wrong.
My contention is that it begins at the Second Coming rather than at the start of the seventieth week (tribulation). I'll make use of three core reasons for this, supported by Joel 2, Matthew 24, Revelation 6, Isaiah 2, 2 Thessalonians 2, Zephaniah 1, and 2 Peter 3.
Does this help clarify some things?
MM
My contention is that it begins at the Second Coming rather than at the start of the seventieth week (tribulation). I'll make use of three core reasons for this, supported by Joel 2, Matthew 24, Revelation 6, Isaiah 2, 2 Thessalonians 2, Zephaniah 1, and 2 Peter 3.
Reason 1: Prerequisite Cosmic Disturbances Occur After the Tribulation
- Joel 2:30–31 states cosmic signs occur “before the great and terrible day of the Lord.”
- Matthew 24:29–30 places these signs “immediately after the tribulation” and just before the Second Coming.
- Revelation 6:12–17 (sixth seal) shows global upheaval and declarations that “the great day of His wrath is come,” aligning the Day of the Lord with events at the end of the seventieth week and the Second Coming.
Reason 2: The Lord Alone Is Exalted in That Day, Not the Beast
- Isaiah 2:11–12: “The Lord alone shall be exalted in that day,” with human pride humbled.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4: During the seventieth week, the “man of sin” exalts himself as God in the temple.
- Therefore, the tribulation cannot be the Day of the Lord, since it features the beast’s exaltation rather than the Lord’s exclusive exaltation.
Reason 3: The Day of the Lord Is the Presence of the Lord
- Zephaniah 1:7 links the Day of the Lord to the presence of the Lord, which arrives at the Second Coming.
- The Lord’s presence continues through the millennium, great white throne, and new creation, marking the Day of the Lord as the era of His manifest presence beginning at the Second Coming.
- Objection A: Revelation 1:10 (“on the Lord’s day”) equals the eschatological Day of the Lord.
- Distinction by prepositions and scope: “on the Lord’s day” indicates a 24-hour period; “in the day of the Lord” denotes a prolonged epoch.
- Also, “the Lord’s day” in Revelation 1:10 refers to the Sabbath as a 24-hour day belonging to the Lord (Exodus 16:23, 16:25; Exodus 20:10; Exodus 35:2; Leviticus 23:38; Isaiah 58:13), not the multi-era Day of the Lord. It would be inappropriate to say “on the millennium.” Passages such as Lamentations 2:22; Ezekiel 13:5; Zephaniah 1:8, 1:18; Zephaniah 2:3; and 2 Peter 3:10 use “in” when describing the Day of the Lord.
- Objection B: “Thief in the night” demands inclusion of the entire seventieth week because the Second Coming’s year becomes knowable.
- The “thief in the night” motif is prophetic, not tied to the mystery of the rapture (Matthew 24:43–44 precedes Pauline revelation; 1 Corinthians 15:51 identifies the rapture as a mystery; Ephesians 3:9; 1 Corinthians 2:7–8).
- The unknown element concerns the specific “day and hour,” not the general timeframe (Matthew 24:36, 42–44, 50; Mark 13:32; Luke 12:39–40, 12:46; Revelation 3:3).
- A thief comes during the night unpredictably; the “night” is a period of cosmic darkness prophesied for the Day of the Lord (Amos 5:18–20; Zephaniah 1:15; Joel 2:1–2). God darkens the sun and moon “immediately after the tribulation,” and within that darkness the Lord returns unexpectedly, preserving the “thief in the night” aspect without placing the Day of the Lord at the tribulation’s start.
Does this help clarify some things?
MM