God's Wrath in the 4th & 5th Seals

This is a re-post. I still see people asserting that God's wrath does not begin until after the 6th seal. They continue to assert that the 5th seal martyrs are one proof of this. But I don't see where they properly respond to arguments set forth by Showers and Fruchtenbaum. Some of the links may be broken.

In a terse response to Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum's citation of Ezek 14:21 to show that God's wrath is present in the 4th seal (Rev 6:8), Dr. Charles Cooper once declared:

Fruchtenbaum fails to notice that these words are spoken against Jerusalem and not one fourth of the world as indicated in the fourth seal of Revelation 6:7...The issue is whether Scripture indicates that God will use these judgments in the future against one fourth of the world. There is no prophecy in the Old Testament that God is going to use these judgments against the world during the "great tribulation." Not one!

Fruchtenbaum well understood that the opening of the 4th seal by Jesus Christ inaugurates events which are called God's judgments in Ezekiel 14:21, and also wrath and anger elsewhere. Cooper failed to adequately address Fruchtenbaum's numerous points (When The Trumpet Sounds pp 385-387).  Robert Van Kampen stated that one needed more information to determine whether God's wrath was present in the 4th seal, rather than a comparison with Ezek 14.

...we cannot automatically conclude that these refer to the day of the Lord's wrath until all the data concerning the seventieth week is analyzed. ~ The Sign (pp 479-480). 

Van Kampen had the evidence he needed but couldn't accept the conclusion due to his system's preconditions that God's wrath must occur after the 6th seal, and only during the prewrath timing of the Day of the Lord. So he needed to find a way around the problem. Likewise, Chris White's presentation asserts that the 4th & 5th seals are Antichrist's wrath. He notes that the word for by in Rev 6:8 is different to the withs and can also mean under. According to White, the term "wild beasts" is "therion" which can simply mean beast and context determines which translation is best:

It’s used 39 times in the book of Revelation, and 38 times the term refers to either the beast (as in the Antichrist), or the false prophet (the second beast), or the image of the beast, and it correctly is translated there as “beast”; However the translators, attempting to clarify the meaning in Revelation 6:8 incorrectly translated the text as “wild beast”– the only time it is not translated simply as “beast” in Revelation –the only time it is not translated simply as “beast” in Revelation; There is no grounds for the translation “wild beasts” in Revelation 6:8; Both famine and plague are here attributed to the methods in which these “beasts” kill, that is in addition to the sword.

Either way, the hierarchy of authority in the verse is obvious. Death and Hades are subordinate to the Lord who opens the seals. Following on from that, the four judgments are the instruments of Death. Psalm 90:7-11 firmly establishes the relationship between death and God's wrath (see Showers, Maranatha - Our Lord, Come pp117-118). White echoed Van Kampen's arguments from The Rapture Question Answered (TRQA p147). It is crucial for them to contend that famine, pestilence and sword all come under the authority and wrath of the Antichrist-beast, rather than God's wrath. On page 147 Van Kampen claims that Death and Hell are given permission "to test and kill, if necessary, those who claim the name of Christ". Notably, he claims this "fourth" doesn't involve the unbelieving world (TRQA p145). In this instance he seems to have departed from his "face-value" understanding.

Darrel Cline sums up why his arguments are convoluted:

Rather than seeing the rather obvious meaning of the fourth seal as death to a fourth of the inhabitants of the earth as a consequence of sword (warfare), hunger (famine), death (Death and Hell), and the beasts of the earth, Van Kampen limits the meaning to only the professing Church (plus Judaism) and makes this the "wrath of Satan against the elect of God". He does this for two reasons. First, he does it to make his "parallelism" between Matthew 24 and the seals more "apparent", and, second, he does it because his construct will not allow the world in general to be subject to divine wrath at this point in the scenario. 

Van Kampen also asserted that Rev 3:10 means preservation within the tribulation (pp175-178), although he is vague as to the nature of this preservation. How can Rev 3:10 be preservation within when there are 5th seal martyrs and posttrib saints to be resurrected? Note that some prominent prewrath rapturists have now taken tereo ek to mean "kept out of" and have consequently migrated to the view that Rev 3:10 indicates a posttribulational-prewrath removal of the church. Here, again, their strategy is to restrict God's wrath to the trumpets and bowls. See also Robert Thomas' The Comings of Christ in Revelation 2-3 

We should ask why God needs to use Satan to sift the church when there's a sorting-out judgment at the end of the tribulation (Matt 25:32). Why does God orchestrate this uniquely terrible period in history against the church and Israel, only to cut it short to preserve flesh (Matt 24:21-22)? Could God not continue to "preserve" the "elect" within the entire tribulation period, including His wrath? Still another problem is that the Antichrist is slain at Christ's appearing (2 Thess 2:8), which is immediately after the tribulation (Matt 24:29-30; Rev 19:11-21).

This view conflates Jacob's Trouble with the "testing of the church", but then it cuts that period short for the church. Jacob's Trouble and the Antichrist's period of authority are stated to be three-and-a-half years, and an unprecedented time of trouble (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1, 7; Matt 24:21; Rev 13:5, 7, 12:6, 14). This is the time God uses to refine Israel (Hos 5:15; Zech 13:8-9; Mal 3:2-3 etc), not the church. Proponents of this system claim that Christ's warnings to the disciples are directed to the future church. Yet they finally differentiate between the church and Israel by having the former removed after a shortened great tribulation, while the latter remains on earth (Rev 12:6, 14).

Getting back to the 4th seal - there are very good reasons why translators render therion as "wild beasts". Aside from Ezek 14:21, Ezekiel 5 also references each of the four judgments mentioned in the 4th seal. Throughout the chapter they're referred to as God's judgment, anger (aph) and fury (chemah) e.g., Ezek 5:15.

So I will send against you famine and wild beasts, and they will bereave you. Pestilence and blood shall pass through you, and I will bring the sword against you. I, the LORD, have spoken Ezek 5:17 

If that isn't enough, in Ezek 7:3-19 we again find references to God's anger (aph), fury (chemah) and wrath (ebrah) associated with famine, sword and pestilence (v 15) and this time in context to the Day of the Lord's wrath (v 19).

Chris White also draws attention to the 5th seal:

The most interesting part of the 5th seal is that the martyrs are asking God how long it will be until He judges those that are killing them; This would seem to indicate that all that has happened so far in the seals (wars, famines, etc.), are not part of God’s judgment...

Pretribulationists point out that the martyrs' request is for God to avenge their deaths. God promises that this portion of His wrath will occur once the number of those to be killed has been fulfilled. However, there are martyrs waiting to be resurrected after God's wrath (Rev 20:4). As a solution, Van Kampen proposed that these were the 5th seal martyrs who weren't resurrected during the rapture (The Sign p 406). More recently, others have resorted to the posttribulational argument that Rev 20:4 is a recapitulation of what has occurred earlier.

The 5th seal does not preclude God's wrath from being present as part of God's sovereign plan to redeem the earth. In Isaiah 10:4-5 God states that He raised and used Assyria as the rod of His anger and indignation. Assyria is later punished for its actions (vv12-15). In When the Trumpet Sounds (p 394) Fruchtenbaum also cites Habakkuk chaps 1 & 2 to show that God actively (Hab 1:6) - rather than permissively - used the Chaldeans to punish Israel. Babylon was less righteous than Israel (Hab 1:13) and once God's will was accomplished, He also punished the Chaldeans (Hab 2).

According to Eschatos Ministries:

All pretribulationists (rightly) claim that believers will not experience the wrath of God (cf. 1 Thess 5:9). Yet this [5th] seal explicitly reveals that it is directed against believers, who have ended up as martyrs! So pretribulationists, according to their logic, have believers being killed by what they assume is the wrath of God. May it never be!

That is an odd statement about "logic" and assumptions considering Van Kampen's assertion that the 4th seal is authorized by God specifically against the church (and Judaism) and which results in martyrdom. This view posits that the church is exempt from God's wrath; therefore it cannot be present there. Authorizing these same OT-wrath judgments to be inflicted on the church appears to be okay, as long as God's motive isn't wrath. That is circular reasoning.

Pretribulationists note that the 5th seal reveals what has already taken place (see Showers' Maranatha pp 109-110). Unlike the previous seals, there is no hierarchy of authority administering punishment through a rider and horse. The reason for the saints' martyrdom is because of their testimony (Rev 6:9), not because of the seal.

Moreover, the prewrath position must have post-rapture unbelievers coming to faith in order to enter the millennium in their physical bodies. According to that view the 144,000 are saved immediately after the rapture of the church. At Rev 14:6, an angel preaches the everlasting gospel to those dwelling on the earth. Hence, contrary to the above objection, that view also has saints on the earth experiencing the "trumpets and bowls wrath". One might then ask - should the existence of these intra-wrath saints preclude a prewrath rapture? If not, then how does the existence of newly-saved tribulation saints, experiencing earthly conditions under God's wrath, disqualify a pretribulational rapture?

Finally, the Two Witnesses' ministry spans 1,260 days of the 70th week. Of these, Robert Thomas notes that: "Their power to accomplish their mission is phenomenal" (Revelation 8-22 p 90). Fire proceeds from their mouths; they can stop rain; turn water into blood and strike the earth with plagues (Rev 11:5-6). The scope of their ministry is so broad and effective that "the peoples, tribes, tongues and nations who dwell on the earth" celebrate their deaths because of the torment inflicted upon them by these prophets (Rev 11:9-10). Fire, plague and water into blood hearken back to Old Testament examples of God's wrath. The Two Witnesses are instruments of God's wrath.

I doubt that any of the above will sway someone who is predisposed to their preferred position. But claims that pretribulationists don't use scriptural arguments are way off the mark.

Further reading:

Myron Houghton's review of The Rapture Question Answered

Darrel Cline's The Rapture is When?

The Chronological & Sequential Structure Of Revelation

Alan Cole's Reviews Part One & Part Two

Cole's critique of the Pre-Wrath DOL

The Chronological Relationship of the Three Septet Judgments of the Tribulation
To Daniel’s Seventy Weeks

A Comparison of the Synoptic Eschatological Discourses
and Revelation 6–20

2 Thess 2 - Pretrib Nightmare

Some criticisms I see against pretribulationism intrigue me. Note this comment by Rev. Larry Wolfe:

"Pre-Tribulation Theory has no clear Biblical basis of support, but in distinct contrast it does have problem passages which are ignored instead of explained, such as II Thess 2:1-8." 

A member of a forum I belong to recently asked for our thoughts on an eight minute YouTube video produced by Chris White. It claims 2 Thess 2 is a "nightmare" for pretribbers. Contra Wolfe, White says he's "heard many pretrib sermons and read many commentaries," and "almost none of them are the same."

So, do pretribbers ignore the texts or do they scramble for explanations? I wonder what White thinks of Dr. Charles Cooper's recent rebuke of his community. Speaking of which, the latter's defense of a core tenet had me somewhat confused. Did God really change His mind regarding the length of the Great Tribulation?

White devotes two minutes addressing what he acknowledges to be a minority pretrib view of the apostasy and even cites Feinberg's article which refutes it. Van Kampen and Rosenthal saw the apostasy as a Jewish rebellion at the beginning of Daniel's 70th week. The view also holds that the gathering of v 1 piggybacks with the Day of the Lord of v 2 as a synergistic unit, and that the Day of the Lord is the only period where God's wrath is expressed.

According to White, Paul is telling the Thessalonians that they can't have missed the rapture because two events need to occur first - the apostasy and the revelation of the Antichrist at the Abomination of Desolation. Contrary to White, Paul is specifically addressing the Day of the Lord in v 3, not the rapture. Though I disagree with Richard Mayhue, he has no difficulty holding to an end-of-week DotL view while defending pretribulationism (see also Mayhue's 1 & 2 Thessalonians).

Of the apostasy, F. F. Bruce wrote:

It is more probable from the context that a general abandonment of the basis of civil order is envisaged. This is not only a rebellion against the law of Moses: it is a large-scale revolt against public order, and since public order is maintained by the "governing authorities" who "have been instituted by God," any assault on it is an assault on a divine ordinance (Rom 13:1, 2). It is, in fact, the whole concept of divine authority over the world that is set at defiance in "the rebellion" par excellence. ~ Bruce (1 & 2 Thessalonians p 167, emphasis mine)

Bruce, Thomas, and Fee generally agree that the timing of the revelation of the Antichrist and The Apostasy (rebellion) are coincident. It is the cessation of the restraint of lawlessness which gives rise to the Man of Lawlessness. That the revelation of the Man of Sin occurs at the midpoint of the 70th week is not required of 2 Thess 2:4. It is an appositional phrase describing what he does. Even if the Restrainer were to be identified as Michael, it is doubtful that this restraint ceases at that point. It doesn't make much sense to say that "Michael will stand up (stop defending your people); the angel who defends your people" when the context of the verse is that they will be saved through that tribulation (Dan 12:1; Rev 12:7-8). Michael fights until Israel's redemption. See Eric Douma's discussion HERE

White draws on his assumption that Matt 24:31 is the rapture, connects it to 2 Thess 2:1 and then paraphrases Jesus and Paul. Interestingly, while proponents of his system assert that Paul is referencing Matt 24:31 in 2 Thess 2:1, they do not allow that his reference to birth pangs (1 Thess 5:3) is equal to Christ's (Matt 24:8). Either way, he asserts:

He [Paul] says that neither the falling away nor the Antichrist revealing himself in the temple had happened and so, therefore, the Rapture could not have happened yet either. Paul is essentially reminding them of the Bible study he gave them of the Olivet Discourse - or Matthew 24. He's about to remind them what events need to happen before the gathering together. This exact same phrase in English (gathering together) and Greek (episunago) are used by Jesus in Matthew 24 to refer to the rapture....

The word "episunago" is invoked to lend force to rapture language. However, it is also used of Israel's gathering. Paradoxically, Van Kampen (The Sign) and Cooper proposed a separate (unstated) visit by Christ to gather Israel in their multi-stage, single-Parousia model. Some proponents of the view are sufficiently aware of a distinction between Israel and the church, and the gathering passages found in the OT, to recognize a future gathering of Israel. But they need Matt 24:31 to be the rapture. Hence they devise a post-rapture gathering of Israel (and separate return of Christ):

"Christ will immediately come to earth and gather together all Israel for her salvation, (Rev. 10:7, 14:1; Rom. 11:25-27; Zech. 14:4); then Christ will split the Mount of Olives and send Israel to Azel for the duration of the bowl judgments, (Zech. 14:5); then Christ shall return to heaven while the bowl judgments fall upon the kingdom of Satan, (Rev. 14:14-16:21); then the final event called Armageddon will occur, (Rev. 19:11-21). The parousia of our great God and King will end with the beginning of the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth." (Emphases mine)

A problem for the view is 2 Thess 2:8, where the Man of sin is destroyed (Isaiah 11:4). It's clear from Revelation 19 when this occurs, so it is proposed that the Antichrist is only handcuffed at that point (v 8). This notion is challenged as he is still able to muster the world's armies for Armageddon. The persecution of the saints likely continues until then (Rev 13:5, 7). See also Dan 11:36. The view also has the bowl judgments occurring post 70th week, yet the Antichrist's kingdom still exists at the 5th bowl (Rev 16:10). This suggests that the Day of the Lord coincides with the 42 month reign of the Beast.

Robert L Thomas (Imminence in the NT) establishes that the Thessalonians thought the Day of the Lord was already present (2 Thess 2:2). This is key to Thomas' development of his argument. He writes:

The issue involved in his correction of the false information to which the readers had been exposed is not the future coming of the day of the Lord; it is rather the current presence or nonpresence of that day at the time he writes and they read his words.

Contra Cooper's rebuttal, F. F. Bruce writes that "is present" is the natural sense of ἐνέστηκεν and "cannot be seriously disputed" (1 & 2 Thessalonians p 165). Building on his argument, Thomas suggests that the grammatical construct of v 3 allows for two possibilities:

It can mean that the coming of the apostasy and the revelation of the man of lawlessness precede the day of the Lord, or it can mean that the coming of the apostasy precedes the revelation of the man of lawlessness, both being within the day of the Lord.

Obviously Thomas opts for the latter, and offers examples as support. He compares the apparent imminence of 1 Thess 5:2-3 to the contradiction that the Day of the Lord has precursors in 2 Thess 2, and concludes that the second option is likely correct. See also The Expositor's Bible Commentary Revised Edition (pages 363-485). In his view, Paul tells the Thessalonians that the DotL cannot be present because they don't see the apostasy or the Man of sin, which are components of that period.

Cooper accuses Thomas of missing the point and contradicting himself, rather than coming to Paul's rescue. Yet it is he who fails to properly address Paul's peace and safety remark in 1 Thess 5:2-3 (compare Matt 24:36-39). Moreover, his response contradicts his own system's view that unbelievers anticipate God's impending wrath at Rev 6:17. Cooper writes:

It is obvious that the coming of the day of the Lord will be thieflike for unbelievers. “Sudden destruction” is the prospect for the wicked in connection with that “day”. On the other hand, Paul states that believers who are alert and sober will not expect the day of the Lord to surprise them as would a thief’s sudden appearing. (Emphasis mine)

That would mean that unbelievers are taken by surprise - right? Even as a posttribulationist I was bothered by second coming passages depicting a return of Christ during a period of apparent normality. These contradict conditions one would expect post 2nd & 4th seal judgments & Matt 24:21-22. Insofar as interpreting Paul, I think Thomas is likely correct.

Dr. Cooper is right to appeal to Joel 2:31. However, there are issues in restricting the DotL to a narrow period. Paul's example was noted above. Another is Isaiah 2 where the context is a DotL (v 12) containing an event (vv 19 & 21) which parallels Rev 6:15. Yet his view has that event preceding the DotL. If there is a unique period called an unparalleled, worst time in history (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1; Joel 2:2; Matt 24:21) then what about the DotL? Some have protested that the unparalleled nature of Joel 2:2 refers to the armies only. But that would imply that the DotL (Joel 2:1) isn't unparalleled. The same Hebrew word (tsarah) is used for trouble in Zeph 1:14-15 and Dan 12:1, which suggests that God's wrath is coincident with tribulation (Rom 2:8-9). Ezekiel chap. 7 has a day of the Lord's wrath involving sword, famine and pestilence, evoking elements of the 4th seal.

Did Joel (in contrast to Paul) see the culmination of an extended Day of the Lord period which he labeled the great and terrible Day of the Lord? I wouldn't be dogmatic about it but perhaps Bullinger was right when he wrote of Joel 2:

...it is called "the great and terrible day of the Lord," as though it were the climax of the whole period known as "the day of the Lord". ~ Commentary on Revelation

Whatever the case may be, short YouTube presentations of this nature do not do justice to the Thessalonians materials. Douma writes:

These verses provide no answer to the question of when the rapture occurs, they merely prove to the Thessalonians that they were not living in “the day of the Lord,” and therefore could not have missed the rapture.

Perhaps the final word should go to F. F. Bruce who notes (albeit in context of radical spiritualization):

In fact all we can learn about the sense in which they [the Thessalonians] thought the Day of the Lord to have come must be inferred from the counterarguments of vv 3-8, and the interpretation of the counterargument is so uncertain that the wise interpreter will recognize the limits placed here on his knowledge. ~ 1 & 2 Thessalonians (p 166)

Further reading:

Dispensationalism and the Rapture

The Day of the Lord: Theme and Pattern in Biblical Theology
(Subscription needed)

Is Apostasia in 2 Thess 2:3 a Reference to the Rapture?

Alan Cole on Joel 2-3

McAvoy on DotL Precursors

McAvoy on Posttrib Issues

The Khazar Myth Debunked

I've mentioned Chris White in a couple of prior posts. Aside from my differences with his eschatology, I recognize that he has produced some really worthwhile videos. His debunking of the Khazar myth is particularly well done. I've talked to many anti-Israel and anti-Jewish Christians (an oxymoron?) who have used the Khazar myth to support their views on Israel. That view is erroneous and should be discarded.

The Khazar Myth Debunked - Thirteenth Tribe - Arthur Koestler

More Pretrib Problems

As I've noted before, there's that sense of urgency on the part of a certain group to get the word out that pretribulationism is a dangerous unbiblical doctrine which leaves one unprepared for the tribulation. I think I've just about heard most of the excuses offered up against the pretribulational view. Some of the polemics border on the absurd. One example of the latter is the following blurb for a book by John Finkbeiner:

Lifesaver was written to expose the hypocrisy, the abuse of trust and the fatal flaws in modern American Christianity’s most popular and trumpeted position on the end times— the Pre-tribulation rapture (PTR) view.

That offering was tame compared to some of the other lame remarks in Finkbeiner's book. A more genial Chris White has also chimed in on YouTube by churning out several "pretrib debunkers". His videos are engaging and he's done an excellent job in some areas - debunking pretribulationism, not so much. Take his Parousia video:

"The word “parousia” (coming) is only used 24 times in the New Testament; The definition includes and encompasses all the things that Christ will do, starting with the rapture–His visible return, the raising of the dead, the last judgment, and the setting up of the kingdom after Armageddon; The rapture will be the first thing to happen at His coming (“parousia”), but there are not multiple “parousias”;..." (Emphasis mine)

Finkbeiner agrees:

The most common accepted meaning of parousia is “presence” or “a coming to establish an abiding presence.” Is there anything in this definition that supports dual parousias or two comings? Can one “coming to establish an abiding presence” be followed by another “coming” seven years later? What professor, knowledgeable in N.T. Greek, would distort parousia so we have parousias plural?

What's really bizarre is that White and Finkbeiner's rapture system has multiple future comings of Christ. Robert Van Kampen and Charles Cooper detailed four. In fact the system needs at least two if one takes the Great Multitude (Rev 7:9) to be the post-rapture church. One advocate has defended this contradiction by stating that Jesus and the church hover somewhere in the earth's atmosphere until Rev 19. That position would require relocating God's throne, the angels, the elders and the four living creatures and taking a symbolic view of Rev19:11.

Before God's Wrath author H L Nigro proposed an elaborate solution including the following remarks:

First of all, Jesus may have the ability to be in more than one place at once. Second, God and heaven exist outside of time as we know it, so one moment of earthly time can be all the time Jesus needs in heaven to judge a billion or more saints, and have a wonderful wedding celebration. While I hold to the multi-phase view, the single-phase view is no problem either. (Emphasis mine)

There's some level of contradiction operating when someone admits to a multi-phase position, yet denounces the so-called pretrib "two-stage event" by asserting that: "When the return of Christ is mentioned in scripture it is always mentioned as a singular event."

Which "singular event" would that be - the one at Matt 24:30 or the one at Matt 25:31 & Rev 19:11? And what about those in between (which Scripture is silent about)?

Another issue arises from 2 Thess 2:8. Early strategy was to say the Antichrist was "handcuffed" at that point, rather than destroyed. Yet how can he be said to be handcuffed, or lose authority, and still able to muster armies to gather at Armageddon? Someone proposed the solution that he is destroyed at the end-phase of the single Parousia. But an honest assessment of that position would be to say that Antichrist's destruction occurs at Christ's final visit.

As Eric Douma aptly points out:

"There is a logical fallacy in attempting to maintain that Jesus can come bodily in the parousia, and
then somehow be continually present –without being present bodily."

I agree. If Christ comes for the church and returns to heaven, then one cannot legitimately lay claim to a single-phase Second Advent.