Regardless of when the rapture occurs in relationship to the 70th week, people must be saved post-rapture and thus without the benefit of the church's "great commission." It also occurs in an environment under the wrath of God. The closer the rapture event to the beginning of the millennium, the more problematic and redundant the Sheep-Goats Judgment event becomes.
Gavin Finley (End-Time Pilgrim) claims a solution to the problem:
They (pretribulationists) do not discuss the Millennial entry issue in any detail at all. Curiously the subject is kept rather vague. They certainly do not discuss the entry of mortals into Millennium in terms of the Sheep-Goat Judgment. Post-Tribbers are beginning to look into this. And why are they interested? It is because they, (unlike the Pre-Tribbers), have a personal interest in the blood covenant issues inside the 70th Week of Daniel. Post-Tribbers know that they will be going up on stage to bring in the final witness during the final seven years of this age. (Emphases mine)
One popular posttrib response has been to simply refer to Zechariah 14 to show that people make it into the millennium. But Finley raises the issue because it has been a problem, not because there's some biblical "blood-covenant" that needs to be addressed. That's a whole other issue.
His solution involves coming up with a third category of people who aren't saved, yet merit a pass at the Sheep-Goats Judgment. We should note that Revelation speaks of only two kinds of people - the saints and the earth dwellers (Rev 13:7-8).
In Finley's scenario, the Sheep and Goats are unsaved. The Sheep avoid the Mark of the Beast and escape the "Wicked Tares Judgment." Conveniently, they resist the everlasting gospel (Rev 14:6-7) which is preached to all to those who dwell on the earth (every nation, tribe, tongue, and people). Hence they also evade the rapture in order to progress to the Sheep-Goats Judgment.
The Sheep merit a last-minute reprieve because of a works/heart based judgment (Matt 25:34-40). They are not judged "for entry into heaven or eternity." They are attributed this "blood-covenant" righteousness as a passport into the millennium. He claims that Matthew 25 clearly shows that "a human person to human person blood covenant loving-kindness is the central issue."
He writes:
As we [posttribulationists] see it, the Sheep-Goat Judgment appears to be based on matters of heart attitude and character. These heart issues may in turn evidence themselves in works to be sure. But the heart issue revolves around blood covenant commitment to someone in trouble who happens to belong to Messiah. This is the lovingkindness (sic) Messiah is looking for and finds in the sheep. The Sheep-Goat Judgment is not a judgment of works as we have been told. (Emphases mine)
Finley works hard to avoid a faith-by-works salvation, or a different dispensation application to the Sheep-Goats Judgment. He simply needs a vehicle for the unsaved to access the millennium.
The Goats (a fourth category) also escape the Tares Judgment because they haven't taken the Mark of the Beast. However, this category does not make it into the millennium because of its lack of "heart attitude and character" towards the persecuted (Matt 25:41-46). How they could posses the character to resist the Beast yet not possess the heart/attitude to be Sheep is not explained.
The scheme fails to explain the conditions outlined in Hosea 5:15; Matt 23:39 and Matt 24:22. How do any saved individuals (including Israel) enter the millennium in their physical bodies? It also ignores what Revelation consistently says of the Earth Dwellers. See Thomas Ice's article HERE and Tony Garland's article HERE.
Only the righteous inherit the kingdom. Finley has created a quasi-righteous millennial passport in order to solve his posttribulational dilemma. Pretribulationists might respond that if these Sheep were not "saved" then they rejected the gospel (2 Thess 2:8-12; Rev 13:7-8; Rev 14:6-7).
Interestingly, posttribulationist Robert Gundry avoids these convoluted explanations and simply relocates the Sheep-Goats Judgment to the end of the millennium. Ron Rhodes responds to him HERE
This Blood Covenant theory appears to owe some debt to Word of Faith pioneer E. W. Kenyon. Whatever the case, Finley holds the view that the church must do its part by participating in the events of the tribulation. Sadly, he ignores the purposes for the tribulation, and poisons the well by asking leading questions:
Is the Bride of Christ passive and out of the loop, as we see in the pre-tribulation rapture scenario?
But how about this pre-tribulation Rapture of an unsuspecting uninvolved 'bride' leaving early without Israel?
Is the Church to be unaware and passive in the Rapture, as our present day Bible prophecy teachings have suggested? Will God’s faithful witnesses be engaged in cheap, Hollywood style melodrama? Is the end time merely a boring, ho-hum story of survivalist Christians scurrying around like rats after being 'Left Behind' (sic).
Do we just work and play, watch the ballgame and the soaps on TV, talk with our stockbroker, attend church, and wait around for the rapture? Is the bride of Christ, passive in the covenant?
Gavin Finley has turned the rapture debate into an emotional one where the non-pretribulationalist adopts the higher moral ground. Given the website's popularity, it's no wonder many parrot this sort of bias.
Addendum:
I came across an attack on pretribulationism from a prewrath proponent who claimed pretribbers overstate the millennium population problem. He writes:
They are essentially two groups:
1. Those who have been “Jesus’ own” (i.e. were saved) prior to His second coming. This group includes all Old Testament saints as well. This is the group who will “reign” with Jesus during the Millennium.
2. Israel and the remnants of other nations who did not literally participate in the war against Jesus in the last days (and also did not receive the “mark of the beast”). This is the group who will be “reigned” over by Jesus and the saints.
It is a (sic) simple as that. This view is supported by the following passage from Zechariah...
Sound familiar?
But, no, for the reasons stated above it's not that simple at all. This individual also seems to limit the Antichrist's reign. It doesn't help him. In another attack on pretribulationists he ironically quotes Matt 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
However one might want to interpret the parable of the Ten Virgins, it is quite clear that only the righteous will inherit the kingdom (Matt 25:1-13). There is no sitting on the fence in the 70th week waiting for the last minute so that non-glorified people can populate the millennium. If they haven't become saved by the time of the prewrath rapture (whenever that might be) they are likely to have taken the Mark of the Beast.
It's that simple.
Eric Douma on the 70th week (Part One)
Showing posts with label Millennium. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Millennium. Show all posts
Friday, September 5, 2014
Friday, August 8, 2014
After the Tribulation - Is Steve Anderson right?
Steve Anderson's viral After the Tribulation video is still popular around the traps. It's hardly in-depth exegesis. In fact it's more of an extended rant. Still, some people love to see criticism of pretribulationism regardless of where it comes from. But how much sense does Anderson's view make?
Non-pretribbers like to point to the sequence of events in Matthew 24. Jesus comes after the tribulation and the gathering is mentioned there, hence that's when the rapture occurs. I saw a fairly typical remark the other day that went something like this:
"[As opposed to pretribulationists] we believe in a face-value of God's word and Jesus said that the rapture would happen immediately after the tribulation."
I can understand where they're coming from. After all, the disciples asked Jesus when all these things would be (the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple), the sign of His coming and the end of the world (age). Oh, and the rapture - don't forget the rapture. They recognized v 31 immediately as the rapture. It was foremost on their minds just before Jesus' ascension (Acts 1:6).
What happens after the tribulation?
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Mat 24:29-31
First note that this gathering occurs after the tribulation and after the signs. If the rapture is the gathering after the tribulation then it cannot cut the tribulation short. If the rapture occurs after the tribulation, after the cosmic signs and after the sign of the Son of Man; then it is also unlikely that the Great Multitude of Rev 7:14 has arrived via the rapture. It is more likely that this group of people is continuously arriving from out of the tribulation (See Robertson's notes).
How long is the great tribulation (Jacob's trouble)? See Dan 7:25, Dan 11:36, Dan 12:7, Rev 13:5 and Rev 12:14. It is 1, 260 days. Now that's a problem for Anderson's view right there.
Most importantly, why is the tribulation terminated? It is terminated otherwise no flesh would be saved (Matt 24:22). This flies in the face of the argument that Rev 3:10 means protection within (Gundry), rather than out of the time of trial. If God protects within, there is no reason for Him to terminate the great tribulation. That there are tribulation saints to be resurrected at Rev 20:4 also rejects that view.
What happens to the church at the rapture? According to 1Co 15:51-52 and 1Thess 4:16-17, the dead in Christ are resurrected and the living are glorified.
These verses suggest that the tribulation is brought to an end to preserve the "elect" in their physical bodies (flesh) in order to populate the millennium. To say that God intervenes otherwise no believers would remain alive to be raptured makes absolutely no sense within the context of Matt 24:22.
Matthew 23:39 & Hosea 5:15 state that Christ's physical return is contingent to Israel's repentance, and supports the former observation. The millennium must be populated with saved non-glorified Jews and Gentiles. If the rapture is the "gathering of the elect" then the remnant of Israel must also be raptured at the end of the 1,260 days.
Why then the need for a Sheep-Goats judgment? And who populates the millennium?
I mentioned Steve Anderson's popularity. Anderson has also produced anti-Israel videos which support Replacement Theology. These appear to be gaining popularity with some non-dispensational premillennialists. How sad!
One final thought:
I recently read a prewrath response to a scholar's denial of the rapture doctrine. The respondent offered up 1 Thess 4:17, John 14:2-3, Matt 24:31 and Rev 7:9-14 as proof texts. I can agree with the first two examples, although I'd like to point out that Marvin Rosenthal denied that John 14:2-3 were rapture passages. The reason was that he had Christ coming only once and then staying in the earth's atmosphere for the balance of the tribulation.
The last two examples are the result of circular reasoning for the reasons I gave above. There is no mention of a rapture or resurrection at Matt 24:31 or Rev 7 - these are assumed, as is the connection between these verses. In fact John Feinberg notes that many commentators "of various stripes" see the parallel between Zech 12:10 and Matt 24:29-30. It should be patently obvious that Israel is in view here (not the church). In context, the very next verse is its final gathering in the land as per OT promises.
Non-pretribbers like to point to the sequence of events in Matthew 24. Jesus comes after the tribulation and the gathering is mentioned there, hence that's when the rapture occurs. I saw a fairly typical remark the other day that went something like this:
"[As opposed to pretribulationists] we believe in a face-value of God's word and Jesus said that the rapture would happen immediately after the tribulation."
I can understand where they're coming from. After all, the disciples asked Jesus when all these things would be (the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple), the sign of His coming and the end of the world (age). Oh, and the rapture - don't forget the rapture. They recognized v 31 immediately as the rapture. It was foremost on their minds just before Jesus' ascension (Acts 1:6).
What happens after the tribulation?
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Mat 24:29-31
First note that this gathering occurs after the tribulation and after the signs. If the rapture is the gathering after the tribulation then it cannot cut the tribulation short. If the rapture occurs after the tribulation, after the cosmic signs and after the sign of the Son of Man; then it is also unlikely that the Great Multitude of Rev 7:14 has arrived via the rapture. It is more likely that this group of people is continuously arriving from out of the tribulation (See Robertson's notes).
How long is the great tribulation (Jacob's trouble)? See Dan 7:25, Dan 11:36, Dan 12:7, Rev 13:5 and Rev 12:14. It is 1, 260 days. Now that's a problem for Anderson's view right there.
Most importantly, why is the tribulation terminated? It is terminated otherwise no flesh would be saved (Matt 24:22). This flies in the face of the argument that Rev 3:10 means protection within (Gundry), rather than out of the time of trial. If God protects within, there is no reason for Him to terminate the great tribulation. That there are tribulation saints to be resurrected at Rev 20:4 also rejects that view.
What happens to the church at the rapture? According to 1Co 15:51-52 and 1Thess 4:16-17, the dead in Christ are resurrected and the living are glorified.
These verses suggest that the tribulation is brought to an end to preserve the "elect" in their physical bodies (flesh) in order to populate the millennium. To say that God intervenes otherwise no believers would remain alive to be raptured makes absolutely no sense within the context of Matt 24:22.
Matthew 23:39 & Hosea 5:15 state that Christ's physical return is contingent to Israel's repentance, and supports the former observation. The millennium must be populated with saved non-glorified Jews and Gentiles. If the rapture is the "gathering of the elect" then the remnant of Israel must also be raptured at the end of the 1,260 days.
Why then the need for a Sheep-Goats judgment? And who populates the millennium?
I mentioned Steve Anderson's popularity. Anderson has also produced anti-Israel videos which support Replacement Theology. These appear to be gaining popularity with some non-dispensational premillennialists. How sad!
One final thought:
I recently read a prewrath response to a scholar's denial of the rapture doctrine. The respondent offered up 1 Thess 4:17, John 14:2-3, Matt 24:31 and Rev 7:9-14 as proof texts. I can agree with the first two examples, although I'd like to point out that Marvin Rosenthal denied that John 14:2-3 were rapture passages. The reason was that he had Christ coming only once and then staying in the earth's atmosphere for the balance of the tribulation.
The last two examples are the result of circular reasoning for the reasons I gave above. There is no mention of a rapture or resurrection at Matt 24:31 or Rev 7 - these are assumed, as is the connection between these verses. In fact John Feinberg notes that many commentators "of various stripes" see the parallel between Zech 12:10 and Matt 24:29-30. It should be patently obvious that Israel is in view here (not the church). In context, the very next verse is its final gathering in the land as per OT promises.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
More on Acts 1:6-7 etc
The reason I frequently point to the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 is because it challenges the supercessionist view. Their question was driven by a virtual tidal wave of OT passages and literal expectation. Jesus’ response is notable in that He does not correct their anticipation. In contrast to this the supercessionist response is significant because it doesn’t resolve the problem for that view. The supercessionist fabricates an answer that he feels comfortable with but ultimately doesn’t gel.
An example of this is Stephen Sizer’s “Christian Zionism, Road-Map to Armageddon?” (p169). Sizer cites John Calvin: “There are many mistakes in this question as there are words.” He appeals to O Palmer Robertson when, reflecting on Jesus’ response, he states:
“Jesus redefines the boundaries of the kingdom of God and thereby the meaning of the chosen-ness. The expansion of the kingdom of God throughout the world requires the exile of the apostles from the land. They must turn their backs on Jerusalem and on their hopes of a materialistic kingdom. They are sent out to the world but never told to return. Subsequent to Pentecost, under the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the apostles begin to use old covenant language concerning the land in new ways...”
Sizer uses 1 Peter 1:4 as an example of this “new old covenant” concept.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 1Pe 1:3-5
The context of these verses is resurrection and salvation. Sizer assumes a redefined kingdom in a text where it isn’t to be found. Salvation and resurrection are expectations found in the OT alongside the land promises to Israel. One does not cancel the other. Nowhere are the disciples told to go out and expand the kingdom (compare Acts 1:7-8 & Matt 28:19). Neither are they told to forsake the mountain of scriptural evidence of future land fulfillment for Israel as indicated in the OT; which was the same source from which they had expected a literal Messiah. Nothing is changed – compare Jer 31 with Acts 3:25-26 and Romans 11:26-29.
On p 160 he appeals to metaphorical language and the alleged redefinition of the OT by the NT (Acts-Joel-Amos). Speaking of the prophecies of the “fulfilled” return from the Babylonian exile, Sizer declares:
“While it is true that only 50,000 exiles had returned in around 538 BC, compared with the 603,550 men (excluding women and children) that had come out of Egypt a thousand years earlier (see Num 1:46), and although they returned to only a small part of their original territory and built only a small replica of Solomon’s temple, God’s prophets nevertheless describe this restoration as so wonderful that it goes that it goes well beyond the limitations of any literal realization. Haggai and Zechariah, for example, describe a glorious future where Jerusalem becomes a great city surrounded by a wall of fire and into which the Gentile nations stream to worship. As Palmer Robertson explains, the imagery here metaphorically bursts the limitations of the old covenant wineskin.”
Sizer would have made a great car salesman – “We don’t have the Ferrari you’re looking for but that VW Beetle in the back corner of our lot is a better choice.” I love the old VWs but they aren’t a patch on a Ferrari. I once owned a tricked up Karmann Ghia; as nice as it was it didn’t have the prestige or power of a Porsche 911.
What is missing from his narrative is the lack of exposition of texts that deal with God’s promises to Israel. Go to the Index of Biblical References (p 296) and you’ll find Amos 9:14 referenced on pp 154 & 158 but there is no exposition and neither is the text given. Moreover, he fails to reference v 15 and omits Jeremiah 31 entirely! Amos 9:15 declares:
“I will also plant them on their land, And they will not again be rooted out from their land Which I have given them," Says the LORD your God.”
Was God speaking metaphorically?
On pp 106-108 of “Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate”, Matt Waymeyer lists 8 biblical reasons why a restoration of Israel in the land is still future. One reason is Zech 10:8, which Sizer perhaps inadvertently acknowledges (see above). Also, the sinful nature and consistent disobedience of Israel cannot be reconciled with the passages that speak of spiritual renewal following that restoration. God said He would destroy the nations to which He had scattered the Jews, yet this hasn’t happened. The promise of the return was presented as an integral part of the New Covenant but that covenant wasn’t inaugurated prior to Christ.
Speaking of Matt Waymeyer, you can read his commentary on Acts 1:6-7 and the Restoration of Israel HERE.
Waymeyer:
According to Luke 24:45, Jesus not only taught His disciples during this time period [the 40 days], but He also “opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” The Greek verb translated “opened” is the word used in Acts 16:14 of how the Lord “opened” Lydia’s heart to respond to the gospel. In Luke 24:45 it speaks of a supernatural opening of the disciples’ minds which enabled them to understand the things spoken about Jesus throughout the Old Testament.
In light of this, how can one insist that the disciples were deceived in thinking that God was planning to restore the kingdom to the nation of Israel? Jesus Himself instructed them clearly, and He even enlightened their minds to understand the things He taught, so how could they be so radically misinformed about features of the kingdom as basic as its nature and recipients?
An example of this is Stephen Sizer’s “Christian Zionism, Road-Map to Armageddon?” (p169). Sizer cites John Calvin: “There are many mistakes in this question as there are words.” He appeals to O Palmer Robertson when, reflecting on Jesus’ response, he states:
“Jesus redefines the boundaries of the kingdom of God and thereby the meaning of the chosen-ness. The expansion of the kingdom of God throughout the world requires the exile of the apostles from the land. They must turn their backs on Jerusalem and on their hopes of a materialistic kingdom. They are sent out to the world but never told to return. Subsequent to Pentecost, under the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the apostles begin to use old covenant language concerning the land in new ways...”
Sizer uses 1 Peter 1:4 as an example of this “new old covenant” concept.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 1Pe 1:3-5
The context of these verses is resurrection and salvation. Sizer assumes a redefined kingdom in a text where it isn’t to be found. Salvation and resurrection are expectations found in the OT alongside the land promises to Israel. One does not cancel the other. Nowhere are the disciples told to go out and expand the kingdom (compare Acts 1:7-8 & Matt 28:19). Neither are they told to forsake the mountain of scriptural evidence of future land fulfillment for Israel as indicated in the OT; which was the same source from which they had expected a literal Messiah. Nothing is changed – compare Jer 31 with Acts 3:25-26 and Romans 11:26-29.
On p 160 he appeals to metaphorical language and the alleged redefinition of the OT by the NT (Acts-Joel-Amos). Speaking of the prophecies of the “fulfilled” return from the Babylonian exile, Sizer declares:
“While it is true that only 50,000 exiles had returned in around 538 BC, compared with the 603,550 men (excluding women and children) that had come out of Egypt a thousand years earlier (see Num 1:46), and although they returned to only a small part of their original territory and built only a small replica of Solomon’s temple, God’s prophets nevertheless describe this restoration as so wonderful that it goes that it goes well beyond the limitations of any literal realization. Haggai and Zechariah, for example, describe a glorious future where Jerusalem becomes a great city surrounded by a wall of fire and into which the Gentile nations stream to worship. As Palmer Robertson explains, the imagery here metaphorically bursts the limitations of the old covenant wineskin.”
Sizer would have made a great car salesman – “We don’t have the Ferrari you’re looking for but that VW Beetle in the back corner of our lot is a better choice.” I love the old VWs but they aren’t a patch on a Ferrari. I once owned a tricked up Karmann Ghia; as nice as it was it didn’t have the prestige or power of a Porsche 911.
What is missing from his narrative is the lack of exposition of texts that deal with God’s promises to Israel. Go to the Index of Biblical References (p 296) and you’ll find Amos 9:14 referenced on pp 154 & 158 but there is no exposition and neither is the text given. Moreover, he fails to reference v 15 and omits Jeremiah 31 entirely! Amos 9:15 declares:
“I will also plant them on their land, And they will not again be rooted out from their land Which I have given them," Says the LORD your God.”
Was God speaking metaphorically?
On pp 106-108 of “Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate”, Matt Waymeyer lists 8 biblical reasons why a restoration of Israel in the land is still future. One reason is Zech 10:8, which Sizer perhaps inadvertently acknowledges (see above). Also, the sinful nature and consistent disobedience of Israel cannot be reconciled with the passages that speak of spiritual renewal following that restoration. God said He would destroy the nations to which He had scattered the Jews, yet this hasn’t happened. The promise of the return was presented as an integral part of the New Covenant but that covenant wasn’t inaugurated prior to Christ.
Speaking of Matt Waymeyer, you can read his commentary on Acts 1:6-7 and the Restoration of Israel HERE.
Waymeyer:
According to Luke 24:45, Jesus not only taught His disciples during this time period [the 40 days], but He also “opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” The Greek verb translated “opened” is the word used in Acts 16:14 of how the Lord “opened” Lydia’s heart to respond to the gospel. In Luke 24:45 it speaks of a supernatural opening of the disciples’ minds which enabled them to understand the things spoken about Jesus throughout the Old Testament.
In light of this, how can one insist that the disciples were deceived in thinking that God was planning to restore the kingdom to the nation of Israel? Jesus Himself instructed them clearly, and He even enlightened their minds to understand the things He taught, so how could they be so radically misinformed about features of the kingdom as basic as its nature and recipients?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
More Wrath of God
There’s still much debate about the wrath of God and the first six seals of Revelation. And there’s still that mortal tug of war between those who use Dana and Mantey, and Robertson’s Greek grammar rules at Rev 6:17 to argue for a pre 6th seal wrath and those who use the same rules to argue for a post 6th seal wrath.
One of the most telling articles I’ve read was from a non–pretribber who, after making his grammatical defence, ended up stating that some wrongly believe that it is a past tense because it can be found in a past action. He further added that, though it is commonly in past action, it can also be an action in the present, future or even timeless. Ultimately, we are told that context determines when the action occurs. The context for a post 6th seal wrath was not given in that particular article.
My interest in eschatology means that I sometimes pick up on the new theories and arguments that occasionally arise. I’ve noticed that some non–pretibbers have been looking at the feasibility of some of the seals occurring towards the middle of the week. A reasonable question to ask is - if the argument that the wrath of God occurs after the 6th seal is so overwhelmingly compelling and bullet proof, why bother trying to place the seals closer to midweek at all?
Another growing trend is to argue that Rev 6:8 doesn’t actually mean that a quarter of the world’s population dies, but only that Death and Hades have authority and power over a fourth of the earth to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and wild beasts. That’s an interesting theory. If you are told that you are among twenty people that Death and Hades have power over as opposed to eighty others who aren’t affected – where would you rather be? Would you feel better if it was a hundred people; a thousand; a million? And if Death and Hades have been given power over that segment, and do not exert it fully, then what was the point of granting them that authority?
The debate can go back and forth but I’m more interested in the motivation for arguing all the above in the first place. There seems to be a need for some non-pretribulationists to shift the seals towards the middle of the week and to minimise the severity of the seal judgments. Why is this?
A further attempt to refute the claim that God’s wrath occurs pre 6th seal is to argue that believers (eg 5th seal martyrs) aren’t destined for God’s wrath therefore it cannot occur before the rapture which occurs later in the week. One problem with that view is that whatever rapture timing you hold to, there has to be some people who are saved after the rapture to populate the Millennium. Those who are saved after the rapture also become believers who will experience God’s wrath. So, the dynamics are exactly the same as with the pre-trib scenario.
Here are some articles from a pretribulational perspective:
RESCUED FROM THE WRATH OF GOD
What Do the First Four Seals Reveal About God’s Wrath?
How Will God Express His Wrath Upon the Earth?
Addendum:
I’ve previously pointed out the parallels between the four judgments of Sword, Famine, Wild Beasts and Plagues in Ezekiel 14:21 and Rev 6:8. But someone will protest that God has used plagues, men etc in the past and believers would have been subjected to these events - therefore God’s wrath needs to be expressed supernaturally in the 70th week to be viable for the Church’s exemption.
God has poured His wrath/orge out before and has used several means for doing so (Rom 13:4 etc). Historically, God’s wrath has most often been used to chastise Israel and surrounding Gentile nations. In all those cases it was regional and limited. However, in Daniel’s 70th week, it will be global and Ezekiel 14 matches Rev 6 because it is prophetic of that period. The 70th week is unique because it will incorporate all of the four judgments for the first time AND globally.
But to be honest, this argument really baffles me. Aren’t the events at the 6th seal supernatural? So, hasn’t God’s wrath arrived at least by then? What is the primary objection against this being so other than a predisposition for believing God’s wrath occurs later within one's concept of the day of the Lord? Are not the Two Witnesses supernaturally pouring God’s wrath on the whole world and does this not begin mid-week at the latest? (More likely the beginning of the week)
Whatever instrument God uses, it is still His wrath. He can, and will, use men against men as in the 2nd seal and use “Satan’s wrath” against the world. The claim that the Church isn’t exempt from the expression of God’s wrath unless it is specifically delivered supernaturally needs to be supported by Scripture. Second, I would argue that man’s wrath and Satan’s wrath, as extensions of God’s wrath, are delivered supernaturally because Christ enables the events by opening the seals.
One of the most telling articles I’ve read was from a non–pretribber who, after making his grammatical defence, ended up stating that some wrongly believe that it is a past tense because it can be found in a past action. He further added that, though it is commonly in past action, it can also be an action in the present, future or even timeless. Ultimately, we are told that context determines when the action occurs. The context for a post 6th seal wrath was not given in that particular article.
My interest in eschatology means that I sometimes pick up on the new theories and arguments that occasionally arise. I’ve noticed that some non–pretibbers have been looking at the feasibility of some of the seals occurring towards the middle of the week. A reasonable question to ask is - if the argument that the wrath of God occurs after the 6th seal is so overwhelmingly compelling and bullet proof, why bother trying to place the seals closer to midweek at all?
Another growing trend is to argue that Rev 6:8 doesn’t actually mean that a quarter of the world’s population dies, but only that Death and Hades have authority and power over a fourth of the earth to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and wild beasts. That’s an interesting theory. If you are told that you are among twenty people that Death and Hades have power over as opposed to eighty others who aren’t affected – where would you rather be? Would you feel better if it was a hundred people; a thousand; a million? And if Death and Hades have been given power over that segment, and do not exert it fully, then what was the point of granting them that authority?
The debate can go back and forth but I’m more interested in the motivation for arguing all the above in the first place. There seems to be a need for some non-pretribulationists to shift the seals towards the middle of the week and to minimise the severity of the seal judgments. Why is this?
A further attempt to refute the claim that God’s wrath occurs pre 6th seal is to argue that believers (eg 5th seal martyrs) aren’t destined for God’s wrath therefore it cannot occur before the rapture which occurs later in the week. One problem with that view is that whatever rapture timing you hold to, there has to be some people who are saved after the rapture to populate the Millennium. Those who are saved after the rapture also become believers who will experience God’s wrath. So, the dynamics are exactly the same as with the pre-trib scenario.
Here are some articles from a pretribulational perspective:
RESCUED FROM THE WRATH OF GOD
What Do the First Four Seals Reveal About God’s Wrath?
How Will God Express His Wrath Upon the Earth?
Addendum:
I’ve previously pointed out the parallels between the four judgments of Sword, Famine, Wild Beasts and Plagues in Ezekiel 14:21 and Rev 6:8. But someone will protest that God has used plagues, men etc in the past and believers would have been subjected to these events - therefore God’s wrath needs to be expressed supernaturally in the 70th week to be viable for the Church’s exemption.
God has poured His wrath/orge out before and has used several means for doing so (Rom 13:4 etc). Historically, God’s wrath has most often been used to chastise Israel and surrounding Gentile nations. In all those cases it was regional and limited. However, in Daniel’s 70th week, it will be global and Ezekiel 14 matches Rev 6 because it is prophetic of that period. The 70th week is unique because it will incorporate all of the four judgments for the first time AND globally.
But to be honest, this argument really baffles me. Aren’t the events at the 6th seal supernatural? So, hasn’t God’s wrath arrived at least by then? What is the primary objection against this being so other than a predisposition for believing God’s wrath occurs later within one's concept of the day of the Lord? Are not the Two Witnesses supernaturally pouring God’s wrath on the whole world and does this not begin mid-week at the latest? (More likely the beginning of the week)
Whatever instrument God uses, it is still His wrath. He can, and will, use men against men as in the 2nd seal and use “Satan’s wrath” against the world. The claim that the Church isn’t exempt from the expression of God’s wrath unless it is specifically delivered supernaturally needs to be supported by Scripture. Second, I would argue that man’s wrath and Satan’s wrath, as extensions of God’s wrath, are delivered supernaturally because Christ enables the events by opening the seals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)