Showing posts with label day of the Lord. Show all posts
Showing posts with label day of the Lord. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 21, 2022
Saturday, May 19, 2018
What Does Paul Mean by "That Day" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3?
From Tony Garland of Spirit and Truth:
There is considerable [y] confusion among Christians concerning passages which refer to a future "day" associated with the arrival of Christ. This confusion is mainly caused by assuming that all references to a future "day" involving Christ must either refer to His return for the Church at the Rapture or His final return in judgment at the Second Coming. However, Scripture reveals a third situation in which Christ is said to “come” which, unfortunately, many erroneously conflate with the Rapture...keep reading
Saturday, April 26, 2014
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
"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
Monday, October 24, 2011
Richard Mayhue - Day of the Lord
Going back a few posts I mentioned that the timing of day of the Lord posed no problems for pretribulationism. Non-pretrib proponents will usually try to argue that this event is intrinsically linked to the rapture’s timing and that God’s wrath can only be present in this period.
They’ll then try to show that the day of the Lord is a technical term and that it can only appear after certain precursors have taken place. If all the preceding arguments are correct then pretribulationism is false.
I don’t agree with all of Dr Mayhue’s arguments but he presents a compelling case that the timing of the day of the Lord is not significant for pretribulationism to be true or false.
THE BIBLE’S WATCHWORD: DAY OF THE LORD
They’ll then try to show that the day of the Lord is a technical term and that it can only appear after certain precursors have taken place. If all the preceding arguments are correct then pretribulationism is false.
I don’t agree with all of Dr Mayhue’s arguments but he presents a compelling case that the timing of the day of the Lord is not significant for pretribulationism to be true or false.
THE BIBLE’S WATCHWORD: DAY OF THE LORD
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Matthew 24 & 6th seal Cosmic Signs
Most of us have read Matt 24:29 and Rev 6:12 and noted similarities. Upon close inspection there is a difference. In Matthew the moon doesn’t give its light whereas in Revelation the moon is blood red. If the moon doesn’t give its light then it cannot be red. Can these verses describe the same event?
That these events are one and the same is vital to both the pre-wrath and post-trib views.
One advice is that we shouldn’t apply a woodenly literal interpretation in this instance. For example, there are three gospel accounts of the calming of the wind and three slight variations of Jesus’ words where He rebuked the disciples for their lack of faith. However, in those accounts Jesus essentially expressed the same question about the disciples’ faith. It’s possible that He may have even uttered all the phrases for emphasis and the gospel writers each recorded one aspect.
But, whatever the case, Matt 24:29 is exactly corroborated by Mark 13:24. In both gospel accounts the moon doesn’t give its light. Why is there a difference in the 6th seal if the primary source of the three accounts is the same person? Had Jesus intended to convey darkness at Mark 13 and Matt 24, He would have expressed it precisely the way He did. Therefore, it’s natural to allow that He meant exactly what He said. It’s not a case of being too literal but recognizing what has been stated without presupposing an alternate meaning.
The suggestion that we not take the differences too literally is also inconsistent. When dealing with concepts like wrath, tribulation, parousia, the day of the Lord etc, people will typically invoke the exact Greek technical terms in Scripture to argue their points.
What about context?
If you’re post-trib you expect a correlation between the 6th seal and Matt 24:29, 31 to coincide with the end of the great tribulation, the rapture and the beginning of God’s wrath. You then argue for a parallel or concurrent execution of the seals etc that ties everything together.
If you’re pre-wrath you have very similar expectations. The main differences being that you take a chronological view of the events and you appeal to Matt 24:22 for an end to the GT and the rapture before the end of the week. You’re also likely to present the great multitude’s identity (Rev 7) being the raptured Church as contextual evidence that Matt 24:29-31 is tied in with the 6th seal. This identification of the great multitude needs to stand on its own merit, yet people often resort to Matt 24:22, 29, 31 as contextual confirmation that it is, and vice versa. In adopting this methodology, evidence for these points is restricted because they are co-dependant for context.
I believe it’s a mistake to insist in a division between the wrath of God and the Great Tribulation. As I’ve shown elsewhere, the arguments for God’s wrath being poured throughout the seals are more compelling than the objections. We read “After the tribulation…” and immediately conclude that the wrath of God must then follow because it's assumed that tribulation and God’s wrath cannot coexist. God’s wrath is evident throughout the week and tribulation is one result of God’s wrath (Rom 2:5-9).
The language in Matt 24:21-22 is too strong for a worse period to follow. If that period continues, no flesh would be saved. Logically, then, if a worse period follows then no flesh can be saved. So how can the day of the Lord come after the tribulation? It is the same period progressively worsening to such a point that God must intervene or no flesh will be saved.
The rapture cannot be what ends this period because the reasons given for the period’s termination do not match a Church context if it is to be raptured. Christ isn’t saying that the tribulation will be cut short in order that some people remain alive so they can be raptured. It only makes sense if the intent is to keep the “elect” alive for the Millennium to be populated.
2 Thess 2:8 indicates that the “lawless one” is slain at Christ’s appearing. Some people want the term to mean “hand cuffed” (it doesn’t) because they believe this occurs before the end of the week. But he cannot be handcuffed when he’s been given authority for 42 months (which is the length of the GT); is still able to behead saints (Rev 20:4) and muster the nations at the 6th bowl. Therefore 2 Thess 2:8 correlates to Rev 19.
There are different moon signs in Joel 2:10, 31. Joel 3:15 matches 2:10 in describing darkness and 2:31 has a red moon. Is this really just two ways of saying the same thing or is there something more complex here to consider?
Isaiah 2 suggests that some aspect of the day of the Lord is already present when people are scrambling to find shelter in caves. This matches the 6th seal. Darrel Cline draws upon Matt 24, Revelation, Joel and elements of Isaiah 34 to suggest that the 6th seal is an “inclusio”. Here’s what he says:
“…Matthew 24 is a presentation of the final event of the Day of the Lord when Jesus descends to summon the nation to her land according to the promise of Deuteronomy 30:4. In this day, the moon does not give her light. But, the "Day of the Lord" is an extended period of time, not just one day. So, in Revelation 6, the sixth seal, being like the rest of the seals in giving an overview of the period, gives both the prelude event to which Joel refers as "before the Day" at which time the moon appears as deep red, as well as the final event which includes the rolling up of the heavens as a scroll so that the inhabitants of the earth can visibly see the anger of the One on the throne in Heaven as well as that of the Lamb as He descends to the earth. The sixth seal is an inclusio that takes in the beginning as well as the ending. Its function as a seal is to characterize the scroll's contents as a revelation of the entire period of Daniel's seventieth week, just like the other seals do in their own way. The conclusion is that the seventieth week is the period of the warfare of the wrath of the Day of the Lord as well as the period of Satan's final conflict with God before the establishment of His kingdom on the earth (the first two seals) and the overall results of this massive conflict over this earth are famine and death to a fourth of the population of the earth (this does not include the deaths that are the result of specific judgments that are distinct from the general impact of war, famine, death, and wild beasts). These results are seals 3 and 4. Then seal 5 gives the justification from the earth side of the issue where the hatefulness is so severe against the truth that those who promote it are martyred over all of human history. Then seal 6 gives the justification from the heavenly side of the issue, which has its roots in the wrath of the Father and the Son. The seventh seal is opened to allow the remaining part of the front of the scroll to be read as well as the entire back side.”
Read the full account HERE. But note that he’s critiquing Robert Van Kampen’s “The Rapture Question Answered Plain and Simple” and he pulls no punches.
Alan D Cole provides further thoughts HERE.
I think Cline and Cole make some interesting and challenging arguments. I don’t have the answers. However, I’m convinced that we do a great injustice to the differences between Matt 24:29, Mark 13:24 and Rev 6:12 if we simply assume they’re the same event.
That these events are one and the same is vital to both the pre-wrath and post-trib views.
One advice is that we shouldn’t apply a woodenly literal interpretation in this instance. For example, there are three gospel accounts of the calming of the wind and three slight variations of Jesus’ words where He rebuked the disciples for their lack of faith. However, in those accounts Jesus essentially expressed the same question about the disciples’ faith. It’s possible that He may have even uttered all the phrases for emphasis and the gospel writers each recorded one aspect.
But, whatever the case, Matt 24:29 is exactly corroborated by Mark 13:24. In both gospel accounts the moon doesn’t give its light. Why is there a difference in the 6th seal if the primary source of the three accounts is the same person? Had Jesus intended to convey darkness at Mark 13 and Matt 24, He would have expressed it precisely the way He did. Therefore, it’s natural to allow that He meant exactly what He said. It’s not a case of being too literal but recognizing what has been stated without presupposing an alternate meaning.
The suggestion that we not take the differences too literally is also inconsistent. When dealing with concepts like wrath, tribulation, parousia, the day of the Lord etc, people will typically invoke the exact Greek technical terms in Scripture to argue their points.
What about context?
If you’re post-trib you expect a correlation between the 6th seal and Matt 24:29, 31 to coincide with the end of the great tribulation, the rapture and the beginning of God’s wrath. You then argue for a parallel or concurrent execution of the seals etc that ties everything together.
If you’re pre-wrath you have very similar expectations. The main differences being that you take a chronological view of the events and you appeal to Matt 24:22 for an end to the GT and the rapture before the end of the week. You’re also likely to present the great multitude’s identity (Rev 7) being the raptured Church as contextual evidence that Matt 24:29-31 is tied in with the 6th seal. This identification of the great multitude needs to stand on its own merit, yet people often resort to Matt 24:22, 29, 31 as contextual confirmation that it is, and vice versa. In adopting this methodology, evidence for these points is restricted because they are co-dependant for context.
I believe it’s a mistake to insist in a division between the wrath of God and the Great Tribulation. As I’ve shown elsewhere, the arguments for God’s wrath being poured throughout the seals are more compelling than the objections. We read “After the tribulation…” and immediately conclude that the wrath of God must then follow because it's assumed that tribulation and God’s wrath cannot coexist. God’s wrath is evident throughout the week and tribulation is one result of God’s wrath (Rom 2:5-9).
The language in Matt 24:21-22 is too strong for a worse period to follow. If that period continues, no flesh would be saved. Logically, then, if a worse period follows then no flesh can be saved. So how can the day of the Lord come after the tribulation? It is the same period progressively worsening to such a point that God must intervene or no flesh will be saved.
The rapture cannot be what ends this period because the reasons given for the period’s termination do not match a Church context if it is to be raptured. Christ isn’t saying that the tribulation will be cut short in order that some people remain alive so they can be raptured. It only makes sense if the intent is to keep the “elect” alive for the Millennium to be populated.
2 Thess 2:8 indicates that the “lawless one” is slain at Christ’s appearing. Some people want the term to mean “hand cuffed” (it doesn’t) because they believe this occurs before the end of the week. But he cannot be handcuffed when he’s been given authority for 42 months (which is the length of the GT); is still able to behead saints (Rev 20:4) and muster the nations at the 6th bowl. Therefore 2 Thess 2:8 correlates to Rev 19.
There are different moon signs in Joel 2:10, 31. Joel 3:15 matches 2:10 in describing darkness and 2:31 has a red moon. Is this really just two ways of saying the same thing or is there something more complex here to consider?
Isaiah 2 suggests that some aspect of the day of the Lord is already present when people are scrambling to find shelter in caves. This matches the 6th seal. Darrel Cline draws upon Matt 24, Revelation, Joel and elements of Isaiah 34 to suggest that the 6th seal is an “inclusio”. Here’s what he says:
“…Matthew 24 is a presentation of the final event of the Day of the Lord when Jesus descends to summon the nation to her land according to the promise of Deuteronomy 30:4. In this day, the moon does not give her light. But, the "Day of the Lord" is an extended period of time, not just one day. So, in Revelation 6, the sixth seal, being like the rest of the seals in giving an overview of the period, gives both the prelude event to which Joel refers as "before the Day" at which time the moon appears as deep red, as well as the final event which includes the rolling up of the heavens as a scroll so that the inhabitants of the earth can visibly see the anger of the One on the throne in Heaven as well as that of the Lamb as He descends to the earth. The sixth seal is an inclusio that takes in the beginning as well as the ending. Its function as a seal is to characterize the scroll's contents as a revelation of the entire period of Daniel's seventieth week, just like the other seals do in their own way. The conclusion is that the seventieth week is the period of the warfare of the wrath of the Day of the Lord as well as the period of Satan's final conflict with God before the establishment of His kingdom on the earth (the first two seals) and the overall results of this massive conflict over this earth are famine and death to a fourth of the population of the earth (this does not include the deaths that are the result of specific judgments that are distinct from the general impact of war, famine, death, and wild beasts). These results are seals 3 and 4. Then seal 5 gives the justification from the earth side of the issue where the hatefulness is so severe against the truth that those who promote it are martyred over all of human history. Then seal 6 gives the justification from the heavenly side of the issue, which has its roots in the wrath of the Father and the Son. The seventh seal is opened to allow the remaining part of the front of the scroll to be read as well as the entire back side.”
Read the full account HERE. But note that he’s critiquing Robert Van Kampen’s “The Rapture Question Answered Plain and Simple” and he pulls no punches.
Alan D Cole provides further thoughts HERE.
I think Cline and Cole make some interesting and challenging arguments. I don’t have the answers. However, I’m convinced that we do a great injustice to the differences between Matt 24:29, Mark 13:24 and Rev 6:12 if we simply assume they’re the same event.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Revelation 3:10
I often hear that a face value reading of Matt 24:31 is the rapture. The cosmic signs in Joel are then associated with Rev 6 and this constitutes the “plain and simple” framework of the argument. Of course the OT regathering promises usually don’t get considered within that “simplicity”. I mention this again because I think a simple reading of Rev 3:10 is highly suggestive of a pretribulational rapture. The rapture is implied because it is the most probable means of keeping people out of a period of time.
Here is how a few translators saw fit to render the verse:
Rev 3:10 Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. NASB
Rev 3:10 Because you have kept my admonition to endure steadfastly, I will also keep you from the hour of testing that is about to come on the whole world to test those who live on the earth. NET
Rev 3:10 Because you kept the Word of My patience, I also will keep you OUT of the hour of trial which is going to come on all the habitable world in order to try those dwelling on the earth. LITV (Literal Translation)
If you don’t maintain a pre-trib position, the plain and simple approach needs to be discarded in this case and you have to examine the verse for loopholes. A common approach is to look at the term tereo ek and argue that the promise in Rev 3:10 is to keep the church safe WTHIN the period of time, NOT to take it out of that time. John 17:15 - where the same tereo ek expression is used - is then appealed to.
John 17:15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them (tereo ek) from the evil one.
It’s then pointed out that the Lord isn’t praying for His disciples to be removed from the world but to be kept safe from the evil one within the world. Therefore, the same applies to Rev 3:10 and God isn’t promising a removal of the church from the period of testing. There are problems with this argument.
First, the fact that the Lord actually says that He isn’t asking His Father to remove His disciples from the world is significant – especially in light of John 14:2-3. The Lord’s request is redundant in the case of a post-trib yo-yo rapture. What’s the point of asking for something to not occur if it isn’t going to in the first place?
Second, in John 17:15b the ek reference is to the “evil (one)” and NOT the world. There is a distinction. God does not keep them safe within “evil” or the evil one (Satan) and He does not remove them from within (that has already been done) but keeps them out (tereo ek) of the evil.
Third, if protection is understood to be within, then how effective is it when considering the martyrdom of believers and the fact that they are conquered by the beast (Rev 13:7)? Are we then to conclude that the martyrs weren’t Philadelphians?
Recognizing the problem of martyrdom, some then claim that the promise of protection within relates to salvation and not physical safety. However, this doesn’t make sense considering that the same people hold that hupomonē (enduring, patience) is linked to enduring the Tribulation. It’s like saying; because you’ve remained faithful in the GT I’ll keep you faithful in the GT.
Finally, if John wanted to convey the idea of protection within a time, he would have used other words:
threw en = To keep in. This would be a promise of preservation in the Tribulation.
threw dia = to keep through. This would be a promise to keep us through the Tribulation.
airew ek = to take out, or swzw ek = to save out. This could mean that believers would go into the Tribulation and then be taken out of the Tribulation.
airew apo = to take from. This would mean that believers would go into the Tribulation and then be taken out of the Tribulation.
What is meant by hupomonē ? Is it necessary to conclude that Rev 3:10a is a stipulation to stand fast in The Tribulation to receive the promise of Rev 3:10b? We only need to do a word search to see how it is used in other NT passages. Renald Showers has done this in “Maranatha – Our Lord, come” p 209 and concludes that this means the patient expectation of Jesus Christ’s coming. See Rev 1:9 and F Hauck’s “Theological Dictionary of the New testament” Vol IV p 586, among others quoted by Dr Showers. In other words, as attested to by a word search, one doesn’t need to experience tribulation in Daniel’s 70th week to exhibit perseverance (hupomonē ). This should be the Christian status at all times. (Luke 21:19, Rom 5:3-4, James 1:4 etc)
But even allowing all of my conclusions, some will still argue against Rev 3:10 being pretribulational. The strategy would be to assert that the promise may well be to remove the Church from the time of testing, but the time of testing is the day of the Lord’s wrath which occurs AFTER the Abomination of Desolation.
Looking at Rev 3:10 again:
Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.
Note that the terms “day of the Lord” or God’s wrath/orge are absent from the verse. Where these concepts appear in Revelation is well defended by pretribulationists but this isn’t the point I want to make.
There are no hidden clauses in Rev 3:10. God doesn’t say, “I didn’t actually promise to exempt you from Satan’s or man’s wrath even though I’ve released it.” Only man’s presuppositions limit God’s promise. What we do see are the words peirasmos and peirazō for testing and test. That testing is located in the seal judgments. See Romans 13:3-5 and compare with Rev 6:8. A face value reading of the seal judgments shows that the world is being tested and in tribulation well before the 6th seal.
Also, consider the Two Witnesses of Rev 11:6. They tormented (basanizō) the whole world during their ministry. There is a strong relationship between the words testing, test and tormented:
pi-ras-mos From G3985; a putting to proof (by experiment [of good], experience [of evil], solicitation, discipline or provocation); by implication adversity: - temptation, X try.
pi-rad'-zo From G3984; to test (objectively), that is, endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline: - assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt (-er), try.
basanizō From G931; to torture: - pain, toil, torment, toss, vex.
So, considering all the above arguments, I believe a plain (minus presuppositions) reading of Rev 3:10 demonstrates that, because Christians have remained faithful (daily endurance), they will be removed from the period (the seven years) of testing which will come upon those who dwell on the earth.
Further reading:
The Grammar of Revelation 3:10
THE THEOLOGY OF REVELATION 3:10
RESCUED FROM THE WRATH OF GOD (page 8)
The Rapture in Revelation 3:10
THE EARTH DWELLERS OF REVELATION
Here is how a few translators saw fit to render the verse:
Rev 3:10 Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. NASB
Rev 3:10 Because you have kept my admonition to endure steadfastly, I will also keep you from the hour of testing that is about to come on the whole world to test those who live on the earth. NET
Rev 3:10 Because you kept the Word of My patience, I also will keep you OUT of the hour of trial which is going to come on all the habitable world in order to try those dwelling on the earth. LITV (Literal Translation)
If you don’t maintain a pre-trib position, the plain and simple approach needs to be discarded in this case and you have to examine the verse for loopholes. A common approach is to look at the term tereo ek and argue that the promise in Rev 3:10 is to keep the church safe WTHIN the period of time, NOT to take it out of that time. John 17:15 - where the same tereo ek expression is used - is then appealed to.
John 17:15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them (tereo ek) from the evil one.
It’s then pointed out that the Lord isn’t praying for His disciples to be removed from the world but to be kept safe from the evil one within the world. Therefore, the same applies to Rev 3:10 and God isn’t promising a removal of the church from the period of testing. There are problems with this argument.
First, the fact that the Lord actually says that He isn’t asking His Father to remove His disciples from the world is significant – especially in light of John 14:2-3. The Lord’s request is redundant in the case of a post-trib yo-yo rapture. What’s the point of asking for something to not occur if it isn’t going to in the first place?
Second, in John 17:15b the ek reference is to the “evil (one)” and NOT the world. There is a distinction. God does not keep them safe within “evil” or the evil one (Satan) and He does not remove them from within (that has already been done) but keeps them out (tereo ek) of the evil.
Third, if protection is understood to be within, then how effective is it when considering the martyrdom of believers and the fact that they are conquered by the beast (Rev 13:7)? Are we then to conclude that the martyrs weren’t Philadelphians?
Recognizing the problem of martyrdom, some then claim that the promise of protection within relates to salvation and not physical safety. However, this doesn’t make sense considering that the same people hold that hupomonē (enduring, patience) is linked to enduring the Tribulation. It’s like saying; because you’ve remained faithful in the GT I’ll keep you faithful in the GT.
Finally, if John wanted to convey the idea of protection within a time, he would have used other words:
threw en = To keep in. This would be a promise of preservation in the Tribulation.
threw dia = to keep through. This would be a promise to keep us through the Tribulation.
airew ek = to take out, or swzw ek = to save out. This could mean that believers would go into the Tribulation and then be taken out of the Tribulation.
airew apo = to take from. This would mean that believers would go into the Tribulation and then be taken out of the Tribulation.
What is meant by hupomonē ? Is it necessary to conclude that Rev 3:10a is a stipulation to stand fast in The Tribulation to receive the promise of Rev 3:10b? We only need to do a word search to see how it is used in other NT passages. Renald Showers has done this in “Maranatha – Our Lord, come” p 209 and concludes that this means the patient expectation of Jesus Christ’s coming. See Rev 1:9 and F Hauck’s “Theological Dictionary of the New testament” Vol IV p 586, among others quoted by Dr Showers. In other words, as attested to by a word search, one doesn’t need to experience tribulation in Daniel’s 70th week to exhibit perseverance (hupomonē ). This should be the Christian status at all times. (Luke 21:19, Rom 5:3-4, James 1:4 etc)
But even allowing all of my conclusions, some will still argue against Rev 3:10 being pretribulational. The strategy would be to assert that the promise may well be to remove the Church from the time of testing, but the time of testing is the day of the Lord’s wrath which occurs AFTER the Abomination of Desolation.
Looking at Rev 3:10 again:
Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.
Note that the terms “day of the Lord” or God’s wrath/orge are absent from the verse. Where these concepts appear in Revelation is well defended by pretribulationists but this isn’t the point I want to make.
There are no hidden clauses in Rev 3:10. God doesn’t say, “I didn’t actually promise to exempt you from Satan’s or man’s wrath even though I’ve released it.” Only man’s presuppositions limit God’s promise. What we do see are the words peirasmos and peirazō for testing and test. That testing is located in the seal judgments. See Romans 13:3-5 and compare with Rev 6:8. A face value reading of the seal judgments shows that the world is being tested and in tribulation well before the 6th seal.
Also, consider the Two Witnesses of Rev 11:6. They tormented (basanizō) the whole world during their ministry. There is a strong relationship between the words testing, test and tormented:
pi-ras-mos From G3985; a putting to proof (by experiment [of good], experience [of evil], solicitation, discipline or provocation); by implication adversity: - temptation, X try.
pi-rad'-zo From G3984; to test (objectively), that is, endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline: - assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt (-er), try.
basanizō From G931; to torture: - pain, toil, torment, toss, vex.
So, considering all the above arguments, I believe a plain (minus presuppositions) reading of Rev 3:10 demonstrates that, because Christians have remained faithful (daily endurance), they will be removed from the period (the seven years) of testing which will come upon those who dwell on the earth.
Further reading:
The Grammar of Revelation 3:10
THE THEOLOGY OF REVELATION 3:10
RESCUED FROM THE WRATH OF GOD (page 8)
The Rapture in Revelation 3:10
THE EARTH DWELLERS OF REVELATION
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Olivet Discourse - Part Three
Mat 24:36 "But of that DAY and HOUR no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
A pre-trib challenge…
“But of that day and hour no one knows..." Matt 24:36. What day and hour? Shouldn't "that day and hour" have an antecedent somewhere? I know, I know, you are saying that the "day and hour no one knows" is referring to the rapture. Right? Well, there's one small problem with that. Pretribbers deny that the rapture is ever mentioned in this passage... in fact, some go so far as to say that this was written for the Jews and not for the Church. (Besides, how many Jewish people do you know who study the New Testament?”
First we should note that the above statement is only partially accurate. Some pretribbers do believe the rapture is alluded to in the OD. Also, somewhere in cyberspace, there’s a short video aimed at pretribbers that asks a couple of questions and then presumes the same response. It springs a trap on the unsuspecting pretribber by stating:
That’s right, you just admitted that Matt 24 makes reference to the rapture – and thus, Matt 24 applies to the Church!
Let’s think about that for a moment. The above responses respectively imply that, because the concept of the rapture may presumably be found within the Olivet Discourse, it then somehow follows by default that the elect is the Church; the rapture and second coming are a single event and the gathering is the rapture. That's a lot of assumptions to make based on a two minute video.
In reality, every tenet must be examined on its own merits. Those who claim that the gathering is the rapture and the elect are the Church should engage the arguments for each point rather than indulging in assertions (see my previous OD post).
Before I go to v 36 I want to make the following points: the author of the quote above asked how many Jewish people would study the New Testament. This question infers that everything written in the NT must be for the Church. Apparently that includes Matt 24:20. I wonder how many Christians living in the vicinity at the time would worry about that one.
The OT contains prophecies that were ignored by Israel, yet they were put there for a purpose. As with the OT, Israel (and whoever is in the Tribulation) will be expected to read the NT - and many will. Is it really reasonable to assume data would be left out of the NT just because it related to Israel, and is everything in the NT exclusively related to the Church? How about the 144,000 of Revelation?
Speaking of which, another question goes something like this: “You say the Church isn’t in the Trib, yet Jesus said Revelation was for the Church.”
Here’s what the beginning of Revelation actually says:
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants (doulos), the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
Who else are called doulos in Revelation and are they part of the Church? (Rev 7:3) Note that, just as in chapter seven where the great multitude are never called the Church when their identity becomes an issue, isn’t it interesting how inclusive Rev 1:1 is also? One should never build doctrine on this fact but it intrigues me why Revelation is so silent regarding the Church during the judgments. The defense that some of the epistles don’t mention the Church either doesn’t really cut it because Revelation DOES so numerous times – just not in the right places for non-pretribbers.
Getting back on track, what is the antecedent to v 36? First of all let’s examine the alternative and let’s look at some other Scripture. Previous to v 36 the Lord discussed the birth pangs; the tribulation; the cosmic signs; the gathering of the elect etc. So non-pretribbers assume that the day He is speaking of has to be the day of the Lord and the rapture. Yet when we read on we find the following:
Mat 24:37 "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
Mat 24:38-39 "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.”
Mat 24:40-43 "Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left. Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.”
Mat 24:44 "For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.”
Now let’s compare some more Scripture:
1Th 5:2-3 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape.
Rev 6:3-4 When He broke the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, "Come." And another, a red horse, went out; and to him who sat on it, it was granted to take peace from the earth, and that men would slay one another; and a great sword was given to him.
Rev 6:7-8 When the Lamb broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, "Come." I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth.
Pre-trib critics see the antecedent to be the actual final, physical, visible, Second Coming of the Lord. Whether post-trib or pre-wrath, this is preceded by cosmic signs that are associated with Matt 24, Rev 6 and Joel. The Joel 3 cosmic signs demand that multitudes are gathering for war prior to the rapture/DotL In a previous post I mentioned that one proponent of another view believed the AC was involved in a war with the saints on such a massive scale that it was critical that God rapture the Church thus shortening the GT so that “flesh would be saved”.
The obvious question is how do we reconcile all these “business as usual and peace and safety” messages in light of the contradictions? How can armies be gathering prior to the DotL/rapture (and the seal judgments) yet comply with the full meaning of Matt 24:38 and 1Thess 5:2-3?
Here’s the best response I’ve come across so far – “They only think they have peace and safety”.
One attempt to circumvent this problem is to argue that at the time of the Abomination of Desolation there is a short period of peace, thus satisfying 1 Thess 5. However, this doesn’t get around Joel 3. If the AC is involved in a crucial war and if armies are gathering for battle, on what Scriptural basis can you justify that the participants believe they have peace? This view also presupposes that Rev 6:4 is temporary. Finally, a temporary gap of peace beginning at the AoD contradicts the mission of the Two Witnesses (Rev 11:3-11).
Some may contend that the unregenerate are so deluded, they can gather for war and still proclaim peace and safety. In my opinion this is a strained assertion that lacks Scriptural backing.
Believers are explicitly told in Matt 24:42 that they cannot know the day the Lord is coming. If the rapture is post-trib we can sure get pretty close. But can prewrathers claim their system is any different? Does a short, unknown period of time (less then three and a half years) really fit the Lord’s contextual meaning when he addresses believers? I guess if one wants to be technical a believer wouldn’t know the exact day even if they were “watching” for the AoD. The point is that we can still get pretty close. If one wants to be consistently technical then the “peace and safety” issue on its own refutes the argument that v 36 alludes to the second coming.
Was the Lord really talking about a literal 24 hour day or did He use an idiom? Allen Beechick weighs in:
What Does "Hour" Mean?
Beechick is an example of a pretribber that sees a rapture and double imminence reference in Matt 24. While there are areas where I disagree with his conclusions, he capably defends pre-trib and points out various problems with the other systems. His work can be read HERE and his views on the Olivet Discourse HERE.
By the way, Rev 16:15 does nothing to support the post-trib view. The verse is a break in the story admonishing the reader of the consequences of not “watching”. It is not there to imply some sort of imminence at that late point in Daniel’s 70th week. That wouldn’t make any sense.
In light of the arguments above, Matt 24:36 cannot refer to Christ’s second coming in Power and Glory despite the best intentions of that little video. So what is the solution? Here is what Dr Robert L Thomas says regarding Matt 24:31:
The signs given in Matt 24:4-28 are within Daniel’s seventieth week and indicate the nearness of Jesus’ return to earth as described in Matt 24:29-31 These signals of nearness differ from the parables of Luke 12:35-48, which contained no signs of nearness. If signs must occur before His coming, His coming is not imminent. Neither are there signs given in Luke 17:26-37, where Jesus with several similar comparisons predicts the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. But in Matt 24:36 Jesus turns the page to speak of the absence of any sign that might signal the beginning of Daniel’s seventieth week. His words were, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven nor the Son, but the Father only.” His use of “day and hour” encompass a broader span than just a 24-hour day or a 60-minute hour. As is true throughout Matthew (cf. Matt 7:22; 10:19; 24:42, 44, 50; 25:13; 26:45), the two time-designations cover a broad period of time. Jesus is saying that no one has the faintest idea about when—in the broadest sense of the term “when”—the Son of Man will return. Here He indicates the complete unexpectedness of what will overtake the world at the time of His second advent. He changes the subject from the signs that indicate the nearness of His coming to establish the kingdom in 24:32-35 to speak of events which will have no signals to indicate that the advent is “at the door.” In other words, 24:36 speaks of a different arrival from the arrival signalled by “all these things,” twice referred to in connection with the parable of the fig tree in 24:32-34 After 24:36 Jesus looks at the events of Daniel’s seventieth week as a whole and how the beginning of that week will catch everyone by surprise, with no indication that it is “at the door.” ...IMMINENCE IN THE NT, ESPECIALLY PAUL’S THESSALONIAN EPISTLES
Dr Fruchtenbaum makes another observation. Matt 24:36 begins with the word But, which in Greek is peri de (1 Cor 7:1; 8:1; 12:1 etc). This construction points to the introduction of a new subject. See "Footsteps" page 641. Up until that point the Lord has been talking about the second coming but peri de introduces something new. Dr Fruchtenbaum and a few others believe the rapture is alluded to after this. I believe the change of subject also supports the idea that the beginning of Daniel's 70th week (the BROAD day of the Lord) is in view as argued by Dr Thomas. Whether or not the rapture is to be found after v 36 is another matter and the subject of much debate.
To be continued…
Further reading:
INTERPRETIVE FLAWS IN THE OLIVET DISCOURSE
Dr Ron Bigalke Jr touches upon Grundy's post-trib view of imminence:
Gundry’s first premise was to redefine the doctrine of imminence. He wrote:
"We should first of all note a lack of identity between belief in imminence on the one hand and pretribulationism on the other. By common consent imminence means that so far as we know no predicted event will necessarily precede the coming of Christ. The concept incorporates three essential elements: suddenness, unexpectedness or incalculability, and a possibility of occurrence at any moment. But these elements would require only that Christ might come before the tribulation, not that He must. Imminence would only raise the possibility of pretribulationism on a sliding scale with mid- and posttribulationism."
The problem with Gundry’s definition of imminence is the two words “necessarily” and “possibility.” According to Gundry, imminence means that Christ will return “at any moment” after the tribulation. In Matthew 24:36, Jesus declared, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” Gundry had to reinterpret this verse to mean, “The element of certainty is there, but it is slight.” Believers will know the approximate time, not the exact time of Christ’s return. “The shortening of the tribulation thus enables us to resolve general predictability and specific unpredictability without rending the exhortations to watch from their posttribulational context and without minimizing the function of signaling events by resorting to the historical [preterist] view with its vagaries.” Gundry’s definition of imminence means only believers in the tribulation will be watchful until prophetic events begin. Even when such events occur, believers “shall not know exactly”; rather the attitude is to “know approximately.”Imminence is redefined to “expectancy.” Midnight Call Magazine See Page 19.
Note also that Dr Bigalke adresses other premises of Grundy's posttribulationism.
A pre-trib challenge…
“But of that day and hour no one knows..." Matt 24:36. What day and hour? Shouldn't "that day and hour" have an antecedent somewhere? I know, I know, you are saying that the "day and hour no one knows" is referring to the rapture. Right? Well, there's one small problem with that. Pretribbers deny that the rapture is ever mentioned in this passage... in fact, some go so far as to say that this was written for the Jews and not for the Church. (Besides, how many Jewish people do you know who study the New Testament?”
First we should note that the above statement is only partially accurate. Some pretribbers do believe the rapture is alluded to in the OD. Also, somewhere in cyberspace, there’s a short video aimed at pretribbers that asks a couple of questions and then presumes the same response. It springs a trap on the unsuspecting pretribber by stating:
That’s right, you just admitted that Matt 24 makes reference to the rapture – and thus, Matt 24 applies to the Church!
Let’s think about that for a moment. The above responses respectively imply that, because the concept of the rapture may presumably be found within the Olivet Discourse, it then somehow follows by default that the elect is the Church; the rapture and second coming are a single event and the gathering is the rapture. That's a lot of assumptions to make based on a two minute video.
In reality, every tenet must be examined on its own merits. Those who claim that the gathering is the rapture and the elect are the Church should engage the arguments for each point rather than indulging in assertions (see my previous OD post).
Before I go to v 36 I want to make the following points: the author of the quote above asked how many Jewish people would study the New Testament. This question infers that everything written in the NT must be for the Church. Apparently that includes Matt 24:20. I wonder how many Christians living in the vicinity at the time would worry about that one.
The OT contains prophecies that were ignored by Israel, yet they were put there for a purpose. As with the OT, Israel (and whoever is in the Tribulation) will be expected to read the NT - and many will. Is it really reasonable to assume data would be left out of the NT just because it related to Israel, and is everything in the NT exclusively related to the Church? How about the 144,000 of Revelation?
Speaking of which, another question goes something like this: “You say the Church isn’t in the Trib, yet Jesus said Revelation was for the Church.”
Here’s what the beginning of Revelation actually says:
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants (doulos), the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
Who else are called doulos in Revelation and are they part of the Church? (Rev 7:3) Note that, just as in chapter seven where the great multitude are never called the Church when their identity becomes an issue, isn’t it interesting how inclusive Rev 1:1 is also? One should never build doctrine on this fact but it intrigues me why Revelation is so silent regarding the Church during the judgments. The defense that some of the epistles don’t mention the Church either doesn’t really cut it because Revelation DOES so numerous times – just not in the right places for non-pretribbers.
Getting back on track, what is the antecedent to v 36? First of all let’s examine the alternative and let’s look at some other Scripture. Previous to v 36 the Lord discussed the birth pangs; the tribulation; the cosmic signs; the gathering of the elect etc. So non-pretribbers assume that the day He is speaking of has to be the day of the Lord and the rapture. Yet when we read on we find the following:
Mat 24:37 "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
Mat 24:38-39 "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.”
Mat 24:40-43 "Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left. Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.”
Mat 24:44 "For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.”
Now let’s compare some more Scripture:
1Th 5:2-3 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape.
Rev 6:3-4 When He broke the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, "Come." And another, a red horse, went out; and to him who sat on it, it was granted to take peace from the earth, and that men would slay one another; and a great sword was given to him.
Rev 6:7-8 When the Lamb broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, "Come." I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth.
Pre-trib critics see the antecedent to be the actual final, physical, visible, Second Coming of the Lord. Whether post-trib or pre-wrath, this is preceded by cosmic signs that are associated with Matt 24, Rev 6 and Joel. The Joel 3 cosmic signs demand that multitudes are gathering for war prior to the rapture/DotL In a previous post I mentioned that one proponent of another view believed the AC was involved in a war with the saints on such a massive scale that it was critical that God rapture the Church thus shortening the GT so that “flesh would be saved”.
The obvious question is how do we reconcile all these “business as usual and peace and safety” messages in light of the contradictions? How can armies be gathering prior to the DotL/rapture (and the seal judgments) yet comply with the full meaning of Matt 24:38 and 1Thess 5:2-3?
Here’s the best response I’ve come across so far – “They only think they have peace and safety”.
One attempt to circumvent this problem is to argue that at the time of the Abomination of Desolation there is a short period of peace, thus satisfying 1 Thess 5. However, this doesn’t get around Joel 3. If the AC is involved in a crucial war and if armies are gathering for battle, on what Scriptural basis can you justify that the participants believe they have peace? This view also presupposes that Rev 6:4 is temporary. Finally, a temporary gap of peace beginning at the AoD contradicts the mission of the Two Witnesses (Rev 11:3-11).
Some may contend that the unregenerate are so deluded, they can gather for war and still proclaim peace and safety. In my opinion this is a strained assertion that lacks Scriptural backing.
Believers are explicitly told in Matt 24:42 that they cannot know the day the Lord is coming. If the rapture is post-trib we can sure get pretty close. But can prewrathers claim their system is any different? Does a short, unknown period of time (less then three and a half years) really fit the Lord’s contextual meaning when he addresses believers? I guess if one wants to be technical a believer wouldn’t know the exact day even if they were “watching” for the AoD. The point is that we can still get pretty close. If one wants to be consistently technical then the “peace and safety” issue on its own refutes the argument that v 36 alludes to the second coming.
Was the Lord really talking about a literal 24 hour day or did He use an idiom? Allen Beechick weighs in:
What Does "Hour" Mean?
Beechick is an example of a pretribber that sees a rapture and double imminence reference in Matt 24. While there are areas where I disagree with his conclusions, he capably defends pre-trib and points out various problems with the other systems. His work can be read HERE and his views on the Olivet Discourse HERE.
By the way, Rev 16:15 does nothing to support the post-trib view. The verse is a break in the story admonishing the reader of the consequences of not “watching”. It is not there to imply some sort of imminence at that late point in Daniel’s 70th week. That wouldn’t make any sense.
In light of the arguments above, Matt 24:36 cannot refer to Christ’s second coming in Power and Glory despite the best intentions of that little video. So what is the solution? Here is what Dr Robert L Thomas says regarding Matt 24:31:
The signs given in Matt 24:4-28 are within Daniel’s seventieth week and indicate the nearness of Jesus’ return to earth as described in Matt 24:29-31 These signals of nearness differ from the parables of Luke 12:35-48, which contained no signs of nearness. If signs must occur before His coming, His coming is not imminent. Neither are there signs given in Luke 17:26-37, where Jesus with several similar comparisons predicts the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. But in Matt 24:36 Jesus turns the page to speak of the absence of any sign that might signal the beginning of Daniel’s seventieth week. His words were, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven nor the Son, but the Father only.” His use of “day and hour” encompass a broader span than just a 24-hour day or a 60-minute hour. As is true throughout Matthew (cf. Matt 7:22; 10:19; 24:42, 44, 50; 25:13; 26:45), the two time-designations cover a broad period of time. Jesus is saying that no one has the faintest idea about when—in the broadest sense of the term “when”—the Son of Man will return. Here He indicates the complete unexpectedness of what will overtake the world at the time of His second advent. He changes the subject from the signs that indicate the nearness of His coming to establish the kingdom in 24:32-35 to speak of events which will have no signals to indicate that the advent is “at the door.” In other words, 24:36 speaks of a different arrival from the arrival signalled by “all these things,” twice referred to in connection with the parable of the fig tree in 24:32-34 After 24:36 Jesus looks at the events of Daniel’s seventieth week as a whole and how the beginning of that week will catch everyone by surprise, with no indication that it is “at the door.” ...IMMINENCE IN THE NT, ESPECIALLY PAUL’S THESSALONIAN EPISTLES
Dr Fruchtenbaum makes another observation. Matt 24:36 begins with the word But, which in Greek is peri de (1 Cor 7:1; 8:1; 12:1 etc). This construction points to the introduction of a new subject. See "Footsteps" page 641. Up until that point the Lord has been talking about the second coming but peri de introduces something new. Dr Fruchtenbaum and a few others believe the rapture is alluded to after this. I believe the change of subject also supports the idea that the beginning of Daniel's 70th week (the BROAD day of the Lord) is in view as argued by Dr Thomas. Whether or not the rapture is to be found after v 36 is another matter and the subject of much debate.
To be continued…
Further reading:
INTERPRETIVE FLAWS IN THE OLIVET DISCOURSE
Dr Ron Bigalke Jr touches upon Grundy's post-trib view of imminence:
Gundry’s first premise was to redefine the doctrine of imminence. He wrote:
"We should first of all note a lack of identity between belief in imminence on the one hand and pretribulationism on the other. By common consent imminence means that so far as we know no predicted event will necessarily precede the coming of Christ. The concept incorporates three essential elements: suddenness, unexpectedness or incalculability, and a possibility of occurrence at any moment. But these elements would require only that Christ might come before the tribulation, not that He must. Imminence would only raise the possibility of pretribulationism on a sliding scale with mid- and posttribulationism."
The problem with Gundry’s definition of imminence is the two words “necessarily” and “possibility.” According to Gundry, imminence means that Christ will return “at any moment” after the tribulation. In Matthew 24:36, Jesus declared, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” Gundry had to reinterpret this verse to mean, “The element of certainty is there, but it is slight.” Believers will know the approximate time, not the exact time of Christ’s return. “The shortening of the tribulation thus enables us to resolve general predictability and specific unpredictability without rending the exhortations to watch from their posttribulational context and without minimizing the function of signaling events by resorting to the historical [preterist] view with its vagaries.” Gundry’s definition of imminence means only believers in the tribulation will be watchful until prophetic events begin. Even when such events occur, believers “shall not know exactly”; rather the attitude is to “know approximately.”Imminence is redefined to “expectancy.” Midnight Call Magazine See Page 19.
Note also that Dr Bigalke adresses other premises of Grundy's posttribulationism.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The Tribulation
I must confess that terms like the day of the Lord, the tribulation and the great tribulation confused me when I first became interested in rapture eschatology. Some would say I’m still confused and to a degree I think they might be correct. I am still trying to sort out some of these ideas.
Generally, pretribulationists call the 70th week of Daniel “The Tribulation”. While monitoring discussions between pretribbers and non-pretribbers I’ve seen claims (by non-pretribbers) that the last seven years are not ALL tribulation. One question I’ve often seen posed is this, “What makes you think there’s a Seven Year Tribulation?” The logic is that the term tribulation is only mentioned by the Lord in the Olivet Discourse describing the days that proceed after the Abomination of Desolation. So because the term wasn’t used for the first half of the week then it follows that those days are not tribulation. This idea assumes that if a word is missing from a group of Scriptures, the concept isn’t there.
Carrying on with that train of thought, because the Church is never promised to be spared from tribulation and the events following the AoD are tribulation, then the Church will be in the great tribulation. Further, some try to restrict the “great tribulation” to Satan’s wrath because of Rev 12:12. However, while this verse is telling us that Satan is coming down in wrath; this does not automatically mean that God’s wrath isn’t operational at that time.
The last half of Daniel's week (or part of it) is usually referred to as - the “Great Tribulation” - based on the Lord’s words in Mat 24:21. I should point out that the Lord did not just designate that period of time as THE “Great Tribulation” - what He actually did was describe the TYPE of tribulation of that time. He said it would be “GREAT” tribulation, “such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.” That distinction is important for two reasons:
1) I mentioned that some people argue that since Christ only called that period “great tribulation” then the first half of the week is not tribulation and, therefore, pretribulationists are wrong to label Daniel’s last week, the 7 year tribulation. I think this is erroneous on two levels:
a) Just because a word is absent from a set of Scriptures does not mean the idea is not there. Man’s wrath is not mentioned at all in the seals yet it is thought of as being there by some. The word Trinity isn’t mentioned in Scripture yet the doctrine is accepted.
b) The word for tribulation is thlipsis. Strong’s meaning is - pressure (literally or figuratively): - afflicted, (-tion), anguish, burdened, persecution, tribulation, trouble. The same word appears in Romans several times and Corinthians twice, set in a contemporary context. So given the meaning of the word; the fact that Christians have experienced thlipsis prior to the 70th week and the nature of the seal judgments, pretribbers are correct in calling the whole of the week, the tribulation, and this also assumes that the opening of the first seal initiates the 70th week.
2) Many hold that the “great tribulation” and the DotL are two DISTINCT periods. Yet if the “great tribulation” is a technical term that is distinct to the day of the Lord then we have problematical verses to resolve. Compare Matt 24:21, Jer 30:5-7, Dan 12:1 and Joel 2:1-2. These verses refer to Jacob’s Distress, the “great tribulation” and the day of the Lord as all being periods of unparalleled times of trouble. But if the GT is the greatest time of trouble then the DotL cannot be, and vice versa. Either Scripture is using hyperbole and it doesn’t really mean what it says or the DotL and the GT do, in fact, overlap in some way.
Mat 24:21 "For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.
“…nor ever will.” If this verse is talking about the Great Tribulation, and the great and terrible day of the Lord comes immediately after the GT as a separate and distinct period - then, according to the Lord’s own words, the DotL cannot be as terrible as the GT.
One very important issue is the teaching that the “great tribulation” - originally intended to be three and a half years – has been shortened for the sake of the elect based on Matt 24:22 and Mark 13:20. But I don’t think those verses teach a shortening of the GT in the way that is sometimes claimed. I suggest that the Lord’s meaning is that unless He intervenes and cuts short that period of time to three and a half years, no flesh will be saved. The elect is a composite of Israel and Tribulation believers (Christians/Church?). It is for their sake that the period is cut short otherwise they (the combined flesh) would not survive to populate the Millennium.
If we take the view that the GT is cut short because that period is so bad that no flesh would be saved then the day of the Lord must - by necessity - not be as terrible. The idea that the days are shortened ONLY for the sake of the elect has no logical significance if it is applied uniquely to the Church and the rapture. At the rapture, those who have died are resurrected anyway, so the “cutting short” is redundant for them. A comparison of all the Scriptures relating to that period - taken literally and in context - reveals that the GT/Jacob’s Distress is a full three and a half years.
Compare Dan 7:25, Dan 11:36, Dan 12:7, Rev 13:5, Rev 12:14 and finally Rev 20:4. God prophesied in Daniel and even caused a vow to be uttered to attest to it, that the period would be three and a half years.
Another reason given for the shortening of the GT is directly related to the Antichrist’s persecution of the elect – both Israel and believers. The argument is that if the beast’s persecution wasn’t somehow stemmed, there would be no saved people alive to enter the Millennium. Presumably, in this scheme, while the DotL is more terrible than the GT, somehow believers are protected through it. This would give time for some people to become saved after the rapture.
That the Antichrist’s persecution of the saints hasn’t been amputated is confirmed in Revelation which occurs after Matthew and Mark. We are told that the beast has authority to act for 42 months, confirming Daniel’s prophecy. Moreover, both Dan 7:25 and Rev 13:7 tell us that he conquers the saints. And finally in Rev 20:4 we see those who were martyred for not worshiping the beast are resurrected at the end of the week.
Given all this, we should ask ourselves why God – in His Omniscience – would need to change His mind. This would contradict His Immutability. If God knew and planned His sovereign purpose from Eternity Past, why would He prophesy that something would occur only to change it later? (Isa 46:9-11)
“…when someone changes his/her mind, it is often because new information has come to light that was not previously known, or the circumstances have changed that require a different kind of attitude or action. Because God is omniscient, He cannot learn something new that He did not already know.”
In summary I think that:
The term tribulation is applicable to all of Daniel’s last seven years.
Just because a particular word is absent from a set of Scriptures does not mean the concept isn’t there.
The last three and a half years are obviously worse than the first half and are generally referred to as the Great Tribulation (Jacob's Distress) – especially because Israel is the focus here.
There seems to be an overlap between the GT and the DotL based on some Scriptures.
The Great Tribulation is three and a half years. Matt 24:22 and Mark 13:20 should be compared in context with other Scriptures to understand what the Lord really meant.
Just because the Church is not promised to be spared from tribulation, it does not automatically follow that it will experience the events of the 70th week of Daniel. One needs to determine where the wrath of God occurs within the last week and I’ll try to address this soon.
Further reading:
GOD’S PURPOSE FOR ISRAEL DURING THE TRIBULATION
God’s Purpose For The Tribulation
WHY A PRETRIBULATIONAL RAPTURE?
Footnote:
The Bible associates a woman’s birth pangs with tribulation. See Jer 6:24, 50:43 and John 16:21. The same concept is used by Paul (1 Thes 5:3) and by the Lord referring to the period prior to the Abomination of Desolation (Mat 24:8).
Generally, pretribulationists call the 70th week of Daniel “The Tribulation”. While monitoring discussions between pretribbers and non-pretribbers I’ve seen claims (by non-pretribbers) that the last seven years are not ALL tribulation. One question I’ve often seen posed is this, “What makes you think there’s a Seven Year Tribulation?” The logic is that the term tribulation is only mentioned by the Lord in the Olivet Discourse describing the days that proceed after the Abomination of Desolation. So because the term wasn’t used for the first half of the week then it follows that those days are not tribulation. This idea assumes that if a word is missing from a group of Scriptures, the concept isn’t there.
Carrying on with that train of thought, because the Church is never promised to be spared from tribulation and the events following the AoD are tribulation, then the Church will be in the great tribulation. Further, some try to restrict the “great tribulation” to Satan’s wrath because of Rev 12:12. However, while this verse is telling us that Satan is coming down in wrath; this does not automatically mean that God’s wrath isn’t operational at that time.
The last half of Daniel's week (or part of it) is usually referred to as - the “Great Tribulation” - based on the Lord’s words in Mat 24:21. I should point out that the Lord did not just designate that period of time as THE “Great Tribulation” - what He actually did was describe the TYPE of tribulation of that time. He said it would be “GREAT” tribulation, “such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.” That distinction is important for two reasons:
1) I mentioned that some people argue that since Christ only called that period “great tribulation” then the first half of the week is not tribulation and, therefore, pretribulationists are wrong to label Daniel’s last week, the 7 year tribulation. I think this is erroneous on two levels:
a) Just because a word is absent from a set of Scriptures does not mean the idea is not there. Man’s wrath is not mentioned at all in the seals yet it is thought of as being there by some. The word Trinity isn’t mentioned in Scripture yet the doctrine is accepted.
b) The word for tribulation is thlipsis. Strong’s meaning is - pressure (literally or figuratively): - afflicted, (-tion), anguish, burdened, persecution, tribulation, trouble. The same word appears in Romans several times and Corinthians twice, set in a contemporary context. So given the meaning of the word; the fact that Christians have experienced thlipsis prior to the 70th week and the nature of the seal judgments, pretribbers are correct in calling the whole of the week, the tribulation, and this also assumes that the opening of the first seal initiates the 70th week.
2) Many hold that the “great tribulation” and the DotL are two DISTINCT periods. Yet if the “great tribulation” is a technical term that is distinct to the day of the Lord then we have problematical verses to resolve. Compare Matt 24:21, Jer 30:5-7, Dan 12:1 and Joel 2:1-2. These verses refer to Jacob’s Distress, the “great tribulation” and the day of the Lord as all being periods of unparalleled times of trouble. But if the GT is the greatest time of trouble then the DotL cannot be, and vice versa. Either Scripture is using hyperbole and it doesn’t really mean what it says or the DotL and the GT do, in fact, overlap in some way.
Mat 24:21 "For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.
“…nor ever will.” If this verse is talking about the Great Tribulation, and the great and terrible day of the Lord comes immediately after the GT as a separate and distinct period - then, according to the Lord’s own words, the DotL cannot be as terrible as the GT.
One very important issue is the teaching that the “great tribulation” - originally intended to be three and a half years – has been shortened for the sake of the elect based on Matt 24:22 and Mark 13:20. But I don’t think those verses teach a shortening of the GT in the way that is sometimes claimed. I suggest that the Lord’s meaning is that unless He intervenes and cuts short that period of time to three and a half years, no flesh will be saved. The elect is a composite of Israel and Tribulation believers (Christians/Church?). It is for their sake that the period is cut short otherwise they (the combined flesh) would not survive to populate the Millennium.
If we take the view that the GT is cut short because that period is so bad that no flesh would be saved then the day of the Lord must - by necessity - not be as terrible. The idea that the days are shortened ONLY for the sake of the elect has no logical significance if it is applied uniquely to the Church and the rapture. At the rapture, those who have died are resurrected anyway, so the “cutting short” is redundant for them. A comparison of all the Scriptures relating to that period - taken literally and in context - reveals that the GT/Jacob’s Distress is a full three and a half years.
Compare Dan 7:25, Dan 11:36, Dan 12:7, Rev 13:5, Rev 12:14 and finally Rev 20:4. God prophesied in Daniel and even caused a vow to be uttered to attest to it, that the period would be three and a half years.
Another reason given for the shortening of the GT is directly related to the Antichrist’s persecution of the elect – both Israel and believers. The argument is that if the beast’s persecution wasn’t somehow stemmed, there would be no saved people alive to enter the Millennium. Presumably, in this scheme, while the DotL is more terrible than the GT, somehow believers are protected through it. This would give time for some people to become saved after the rapture.
That the Antichrist’s persecution of the saints hasn’t been amputated is confirmed in Revelation which occurs after Matthew and Mark. We are told that the beast has authority to act for 42 months, confirming Daniel’s prophecy. Moreover, both Dan 7:25 and Rev 13:7 tell us that he conquers the saints. And finally in Rev 20:4 we see those who were martyred for not worshiping the beast are resurrected at the end of the week.
Given all this, we should ask ourselves why God – in His Omniscience – would need to change His mind. This would contradict His Immutability. If God knew and planned His sovereign purpose from Eternity Past, why would He prophesy that something would occur only to change it later? (Isa 46:9-11)
“…when someone changes his/her mind, it is often because new information has come to light that was not previously known, or the circumstances have changed that require a different kind of attitude or action. Because God is omniscient, He cannot learn something new that He did not already know.”
In summary I think that:
The term tribulation is applicable to all of Daniel’s last seven years.
Just because a particular word is absent from a set of Scriptures does not mean the concept isn’t there.
The last three and a half years are obviously worse than the first half and are generally referred to as the Great Tribulation (Jacob's Distress) – especially because Israel is the focus here.
There seems to be an overlap between the GT and the DotL based on some Scriptures.
The Great Tribulation is three and a half years. Matt 24:22 and Mark 13:20 should be compared in context with other Scriptures to understand what the Lord really meant.
Just because the Church is not promised to be spared from tribulation, it does not automatically follow that it will experience the events of the 70th week of Daniel. One needs to determine where the wrath of God occurs within the last week and I’ll try to address this soon.
Further reading:
GOD’S PURPOSE FOR ISRAEL DURING THE TRIBULATION
God’s Purpose For The Tribulation
WHY A PRETRIBULATIONAL RAPTURE?
Footnote:
The Bible associates a woman’s birth pangs with tribulation. See Jer 6:24, 50:43 and John 16:21. The same concept is used by Paul (1 Thes 5:3) and by the Lord referring to the period prior to the Abomination of Desolation (Mat 24:8).
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
II Thessalonians 2
Please note: The link to Larry Wolfe's website no longer works. I'll keep tabs on it in case the website comes back on line.
Any study of 2 Thes 2 can be said to be ambitious. This isn’t a study - my goal is to simply demonstrate that the pretrib position is well-defended in respect to these verses and is a response to statements that 2 Thes 2 debunks the pre-trib rapture. As an example, Rev Larry Wolfe goes as far as to assert (contrary to the evidence) that pretribbers ignore the issue:
"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."
Before I go any further, I should challenge readers to examine Paul Feinberg’s study (HERE) so that they can grasp some of the arguments behind the pre-trib and post-trib positions. The only drawback with his essay is that it is in-depth and one has to engage several issues. There are some observations that should be considered when reading 2 Thes 2. First of all, we should note that these verses are a response to a concern of the Thessalonians and that it relates to the gathering/rapture and the day of the Lord. Second, these verses should be understood in light of Paul’s previous letter, as Feinberg shows. Ironically, the latter portion of Feinberg’s excellent study is used in a pre-wrath PowerPoint presentation that utilizes Feinberg’s argument against the claim by some that the apostasia is the rapture. But, sadly, the full thrust of his article is ignored.
2Th 2:1-2 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
One reason people get off track is the assumption that the gathering spoken of by Paul and the day of the Lord are one and the same event. If you hold to that presupposition then you will probably take the view that the Thessalonians were concerned that the DotL/rapture event had begun (due to some rumor or perhaps persecution) and they had been left behind. Given this, wherever you believe the day of the Lord begins will determine your rapture timing. However, if Paul is speaking of two separate events – the rapture/gathering followed later by the DotL - then we see a slightly different perspective in the later verses. Are they the same event? There is no Scriptural or linguistic reason to support this. It is true, however, that some contend that -while they are distinct - both events happen simultaneously. This ARTICLE might help to illustrate the differences in opinion.
Mal Couch’s essay (HERE) amplifies and elaborates on the following observations:
2Th 2:1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him (The rapture)
2Th 2:2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. (The day of the Lord – NOT the rapture)
2Th 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it (the DotL) will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
1) Note here what Paul is not saying. He is not stating that the man of lawlessness is revealed at the Abomination of Desolation. The man of sin may be revealed when he confirms the covenant with many (Dan 9:27) or before then. On p 566 of “Footsteps of the Messiah” Arnold Fruchtenbaum says this, “There is to be a revelation of the identity of the Antichrist that precedes the Tribulation, and it is for believers living at that time. The rapture may or may not have occurred by then….Whoever the believers may be at the time, they will receive a revelation as to the identity of the Antichrist and it will happen some time before the Tribulation.”
2) Also, he is not saying that the rapture cannot come until then – he is talking about the day of the Lord. Pretribulationists are not unanimous regarding when the day of the Lord begins. Some believe it begins at the opening of the first seal, some at mid-week and some at the end of the week (posttribulational). Yet none of these differing views of the DotL disprove the pretrib rapture in light of 2 Thessalonians.
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
V4 is additional information about the Antichrist but, once again, Paul is not saying that this is the occasion of his revelation. The following pretrib viewpoints on 2 Thess 2 vary somewhat in some details and nuances and yet they are all viable arguments defending the pre-trib position.
McAvoy on 2Thes2
McAvoy makes the argument that certain events (the apostasia and the revealing of the man of sin etc) that are generally considered to precede the day of the Lord, may actually characterize and/or initiate it.
Carfrey on 2Thess2
Hockman on 2Thes2
Constable on 2Thes2
Guzik on 2Thes2
Correction Concerning the Day of the Lord—Part 1(2 Thes. 2:1-5)
Robert L Thomas
Some will no doubt object that a plain reading of Scripture (in this case 2 Thes) will support their own position. I disagree.
1) The apostle Peter:
2Pe 3:15-16 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2) A simple reading of the verses, minus presuppositions, also supports the pretrib view, as has been demonstrated.
3) If Scripture was always that simple we wouldn’t have arguments between Dispensationalists and Covenentalists or about the doctrine of OSAS etc.
4) 2 Thess has been strongly debated by many holding different perspectives ie pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, post-trib and no-rapture.
Ultimately, my point is that despite some ill-informed assertions, pretribulationism has no problems with the Thessalonian Epistles and - contrary to the allegation that it ignores the issue – in fact it engages debate effectively. It would also be fair to say that a case can be made for a variety of views within the context of 2 Thess 2.
Finally, given that Paul was addressing their fears, I find it odd that having corrected them, he not once warned the Thessalonians about actually going through the Great Tribulation. Assuming that the day of the Lord isn’t part of the GT, one would think that since Paul saw this sort of wavering in the face of impending Tribulation, he would have said something stronger. At the end of it all, what he ended up saying was this:
2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word.
Perhaps the answer is that Paul was simply telling them that they hadn’t missed the pre-trib rapture and they were not in the Tribulation (or the day of the Lord).
Further reading:
Differences between 1 Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 24
“Meeting the Dignitary” or “ Retrieving the Bride”?
An update
While I don’t think 2 Thes 2 poses any difficulty for pretribulationists, there are other verses that can be problematic as well – 2 Thes 1 is one example. But it should also be noted that ALL the rapture views have problematic Scriptures. Anyone who doesn’t think so just hasn’t been exposed to all the arguments and debates. This is one reason why I try not to be dogmatic.
2Th 1:6-10. These verses are used by posttribulationists and amillennialists to prove that their view is correct and that pre-trib is wrong. If God is giving relief to the “church” at the moment that He is revealed with His mighty angels in judgment then what about the secret rapture?
Dr Mike Stallard has a paper (HERE) setting out the issues and providing some pre-trib solutions to the debate. Scroll down and click on the “Post-Trib and Amillennial Uses of 2 Thessalonians 1” article and it will open up to a WORD document.
Perhaps the problem/solution is one of man’s expectation of timing as compared to God’s.
2Th 1:10 “…when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day”
Is that day, the day of the Lord? Will His revealing be a progressive event preceded by the rapture “relief” and inaugurated by the sovereign act of opening that first seal? What may appear to be a single event may actually transpire over a course of time.
Luk 4:17-21 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, "THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD." And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
These verses relate back to Isa 61:2 - To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn,
Notice that the Lord stopped in the middle of that sentence and closed the book. The rest of that prophecy was for a later time, yet I’d wager most scholars reading those verses would have argued strongly that the events were all within a single time frame. Perhaps the same principle applies to the above Thessalonian verses.
For an excellent premillennial and pretribulational exposition of Thessalonians, I highly recommend reading Dr Richard Mayhue's "1 & 2 Thessalonians".
Any study of 2 Thes 2 can be said to be ambitious. This isn’t a study - my goal is to simply demonstrate that the pretrib position is well-defended in respect to these verses and is a response to statements that 2 Thes 2 debunks the pre-trib rapture. As an example, Rev Larry Wolfe goes as far as to assert (contrary to the evidence) that pretribbers ignore the issue:
"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."
Before I go any further, I should challenge readers to examine Paul Feinberg’s study (HERE) so that they can grasp some of the arguments behind the pre-trib and post-trib positions. The only drawback with his essay is that it is in-depth and one has to engage several issues. There are some observations that should be considered when reading 2 Thes 2. First of all, we should note that these verses are a response to a concern of the Thessalonians and that it relates to the gathering/rapture and the day of the Lord. Second, these verses should be understood in light of Paul’s previous letter, as Feinberg shows. Ironically, the latter portion of Feinberg’s excellent study is used in a pre-wrath PowerPoint presentation that utilizes Feinberg’s argument against the claim by some that the apostasia is the rapture. But, sadly, the full thrust of his article is ignored.
2Th 2:1-2 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
One reason people get off track is the assumption that the gathering spoken of by Paul and the day of the Lord are one and the same event. If you hold to that presupposition then you will probably take the view that the Thessalonians were concerned that the DotL/rapture event had begun (due to some rumor or perhaps persecution) and they had been left behind. Given this, wherever you believe the day of the Lord begins will determine your rapture timing. However, if Paul is speaking of two separate events – the rapture/gathering followed later by the DotL - then we see a slightly different perspective in the later verses. Are they the same event? There is no Scriptural or linguistic reason to support this. It is true, however, that some contend that -while they are distinct - both events happen simultaneously. This ARTICLE might help to illustrate the differences in opinion.
Mal Couch’s essay (HERE) amplifies and elaborates on the following observations:
2Th 2:1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him (The rapture)
2Th 2:2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. (The day of the Lord – NOT the rapture)
2Th 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it (the DotL) will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
1) Note here what Paul is not saying. He is not stating that the man of lawlessness is revealed at the Abomination of Desolation. The man of sin may be revealed when he confirms the covenant with many (Dan 9:27) or before then. On p 566 of “Footsteps of the Messiah” Arnold Fruchtenbaum says this, “There is to be a revelation of the identity of the Antichrist that precedes the Tribulation, and it is for believers living at that time. The rapture may or may not have occurred by then….Whoever the believers may be at the time, they will receive a revelation as to the identity of the Antichrist and it will happen some time before the Tribulation.”
2) Also, he is not saying that the rapture cannot come until then – he is talking about the day of the Lord. Pretribulationists are not unanimous regarding when the day of the Lord begins. Some believe it begins at the opening of the first seal, some at mid-week and some at the end of the week (posttribulational). Yet none of these differing views of the DotL disprove the pretrib rapture in light of 2 Thessalonians.
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
V4 is additional information about the Antichrist but, once again, Paul is not saying that this is the occasion of his revelation. The following pretrib viewpoints on 2 Thess 2 vary somewhat in some details and nuances and yet they are all viable arguments defending the pre-trib position.
McAvoy on 2Thes2
McAvoy makes the argument that certain events (the apostasia and the revealing of the man of sin etc) that are generally considered to precede the day of the Lord, may actually characterize and/or initiate it.
Carfrey on 2Thess2
Hockman on 2Thes2
Constable on 2Thes2
Guzik on 2Thes2
Correction Concerning the Day of the Lord—Part 1(2 Thes. 2:1-5)
Robert L Thomas
Some will no doubt object that a plain reading of Scripture (in this case 2 Thes) will support their own position. I disagree.
1) The apostle Peter:
2Pe 3:15-16 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2) A simple reading of the verses, minus presuppositions, also supports the pretrib view, as has been demonstrated.
3) If Scripture was always that simple we wouldn’t have arguments between Dispensationalists and Covenentalists or about the doctrine of OSAS etc.
4) 2 Thess has been strongly debated by many holding different perspectives ie pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, post-trib and no-rapture.
Ultimately, my point is that despite some ill-informed assertions, pretribulationism has no problems with the Thessalonian Epistles and - contrary to the allegation that it ignores the issue – in fact it engages debate effectively. It would also be fair to say that a case can be made for a variety of views within the context of 2 Thess 2.
Finally, given that Paul was addressing their fears, I find it odd that having corrected them, he not once warned the Thessalonians about actually going through the Great Tribulation. Assuming that the day of the Lord isn’t part of the GT, one would think that since Paul saw this sort of wavering in the face of impending Tribulation, he would have said something stronger. At the end of it all, what he ended up saying was this:
2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word.
Perhaps the answer is that Paul was simply telling them that they hadn’t missed the pre-trib rapture and they were not in the Tribulation (or the day of the Lord).
Further reading:
Differences between 1 Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 24
“Meeting the Dignitary” or “ Retrieving the Bride”?
An update
While I don’t think 2 Thes 2 poses any difficulty for pretribulationists, there are other verses that can be problematic as well – 2 Thes 1 is one example. But it should also be noted that ALL the rapture views have problematic Scriptures. Anyone who doesn’t think so just hasn’t been exposed to all the arguments and debates. This is one reason why I try not to be dogmatic.
2Th 1:6-10. These verses are used by posttribulationists and amillennialists to prove that their view is correct and that pre-trib is wrong. If God is giving relief to the “church” at the moment that He is revealed with His mighty angels in judgment then what about the secret rapture?
Dr Mike Stallard has a paper (HERE) setting out the issues and providing some pre-trib solutions to the debate. Scroll down and click on the “Post-Trib and Amillennial Uses of 2 Thessalonians 1” article and it will open up to a WORD document.
Perhaps the problem/solution is one of man’s expectation of timing as compared to God’s.
2Th 1:10 “…when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day”
Is that day, the day of the Lord? Will His revealing be a progressive event preceded by the rapture “relief” and inaugurated by the sovereign act of opening that first seal? What may appear to be a single event may actually transpire over a course of time.
Luk 4:17-21 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, "THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD." And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
These verses relate back to Isa 61:2 - To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn,
Notice that the Lord stopped in the middle of that sentence and closed the book. The rest of that prophecy was for a later time, yet I’d wager most scholars reading those verses would have argued strongly that the events were all within a single time frame. Perhaps the same principle applies to the above Thessalonian verses.
For an excellent premillennial and pretribulational exposition of Thessalonians, I highly recommend reading Dr Richard Mayhue's "1 & 2 Thessalonians".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
