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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darrel Cline sums up why his arguments are convoluted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris White also draws attention to the 5th seal:

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

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

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

According to Eschatos Ministries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading:

Myron Houghton's review of The Rapture Question Answered

Darrel Cline's The Rapture is When?

The Chronological & Sequential Structure Of Revelation

Alan Cole's Reviews Part One & Part Two

Cole's critique of the Pre-Wrath DOL

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

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

Thomas Ice - 18th Annual Barndollar Lecture Series

For those interested:

The History of the Doctrine of the Rapture

A History of the Pre-Conflagration Rapture

John Nelson Darby and the Rapture

A Refutation of False Origin of the Rapture Theories

Thanks to Kathryn D for the tip.

Response to Steve Anderson's "After the Tribulation"

Steve Anderson has produced a documentary called After the Tribulation which has gone viral on YouTube and various blogs. You can get a sense of where he's coming from in the accompanying PDF which affirms:

"The following sermon covers the often misunderstood subject of the tribulation, and its relationship to the rapture. By visiting all 22 New Testament uses of the term 'tribulation', Pastor Anderson uses God’s clear word to completely lay to rest the false doctrine of the so called 'pre-tribulation rapture', in favour of the Biblically sound 'post-tribulation rapture'."

The first thing I want to note is that Anderson also claims to be prewrath. He's not a classic post-tribulationist.

Secondly, leading prewrath proponent Alan Kurschner of Eschatos Ministries warns that Anderson's prewrath version is "off base" with the official teachings of that system. I tried to find a quick print reference to Anderson's version - apart from the anti-pretrib rants on his videos - but couldn't locate any. I'd stick with Alan Kurschner if you want to find out more about the prewrath view.

I only watched about twenty minutes of the video in which Anderson and an associate attacked the pretribulational view of Mat 24:31 and the identity of the "elect" - which was all too familiar to me. We get to see a quick photo of John MacArthur as a typical pretrib teacher that pretribbers gullibly listen to without actually reading their Bibles - which is why they're pretrib and deluded. It was about all I could stomach.

People like Anderson are generally better at attacking pretribulationism by standing on accusations, but not so much at biblically defending why they believe what they believe.

Dr James Ach of DoRightChristians has put together a quick response to Anderson's "After the Tribulation". I note that the DRC website is pro KJVO (as is Steve Anderson). Notwithstanding, Dr Ach's response is still a worthy one in my opinion (despite the odd typos i.e., Robert - not Roger - Van Kampen).

*Note also that I have no idea why Ray Comfort is referred to as a "heretic". Caveat emptor?

You can read it HERE

Myron Houghton's critique of PreWrath

The Rapture is When?

For a book length refutation of the Prewrath theory see Renald Showers' The Pre-Wrath Rapture View

Dispensationalism isn't cool because....

I love this offering from Dan Phillips:

It's just not "cool" to be dispensationalist, anymore. The system had particular prominence in the seventies and beyond, which excited a lot of envy and resentment among the non's ("Hey, what about us?"). So they produced a lot of sourpuss, wanna-be literature, trying to take back every area that dispensational writers had held...

They haven't fully succeeded. This really irritates them, because many of them still think that dispensationalists are unsophisticated knuckle-draggers at best, or heretics at worst. It's like listening to evolutionists talk about the Great Unwashed, who they see as too stupid to agree with them, still boneheadedly clinging to inane creationistic notions. They alternate between sniffing in disdain, and wondering why their outreaches fail to penetrate their foes' Stygian darkness...keep reading

Pretrib Conference 2012

Speaking of pretrib conferences; one of the Omega Letter members touches on what was discussed at the latest one on his blog. You can read about it HERE

Judging by my friend's blog, the conference content wasn't just about the pretribulational rapture. Apparently "Contending for the Faith" was a central theme. How about that!

Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum was also one of the guest speakers. I sat at three of his lectures on the Messiah when I was living in Melbourne Australia, and was impressed with him. I'm not one for conferences of any kind but would have loved to have attended just to meet him again. Unfortunately, a persistent virus prevented me. Maybe next time.

Was Renald Showers Wrong?

It’s understandable that people get frustrated when their eschatological view is misrepresented. One leading prewrath proponent has complained that Renald Showers and Jimmy DeYoung misrepresented the prewrath position. He writes:

First, DeYoung kept confusing prewrath with midtrib, which just goes to show you that DeYoung is ignorant with “prophecy today.”...But DeYoung was not the only ignorant one, for Showers spoke of the prewrath as the position that believes that the rapture will occur about “3/4″ into the 7 year period, which is not true.

Ironically, a link was originally provided to a chart which depicted the prewrath rapture at about ¾ of the way through the 7 years. The chart was subsequently removed and the link now points to “Page Not Found!” Official laminated prewrath charts can presently be purchased HERE. Or you can just go online and check some out HERE or HERE. Scroll down to the section “The Timing of the Rapture” HERE for a clarification of the prewrath position.

Dr Showers has a reputation for being meticulous so I was keen to listen to the interview. Note that he wrote an in-depth critique of the system (The pre-Wrath Rapture View) and has interacted extensively with it. You hear him immediately responding to DeYoung’s question regarding “midtrib, prewrath”. What Dr Showers actually said was that the prewrath view is the rapture won’t occur until “maybe three fourths to two thirds through the 7 year tribulation period.” And I think that that is a fair summation of the view. He was merely distinguishing its approximate timing as distinct to the midtrib view, rather than going into detail.

A lengthier and more detailed summary can be found on page 7 of his prewrath book where he states that it occurs, “sometime between the middle and the end of the seventieth week.”

What exacerbates misunderstanding is that just about all prewrath charts (see above) have depicted the rapture point at about ¾ into the 70th week. Elbert Charpie is, perhaps, unique in that he thinks it might occur very early in the last half. However, one would think that a reasonable amount of time needs to elapse for Satan’s wrath (the Great Tribulation) to be administered. It’s also true that an article at the Pre-Trib Research Centre calls it The Three Quarters Rapture Theory which may aggravate those sensitive to that generic description. And to be fair to prewrath proponents, Dr Ice should have been a little more specific.

My limited experience has been that the system has sometimes been misrepresented but I doubt these instances have always been intentional. I remember having niggling questions after reading Marvin Rosenthal’s book. Several prewrath proponents I consulted seemed also somewhat confused over key issues such as the shortening of the Great Tribulation, the location of Christ in relationship to the church after the rapture and the resurrection of beheaded tribulation saints in Rev 20:4 etc. This may be one reason why PRI has offered special courses on the prewrath view for the benefit of its proponents.

As an aside, an exception was taken over Showers’ views of imminency and his comparison of the 4th seal of Revelation to the Ezekiel 14:21 “four severe judgments”. Dr Showers details compelling arguments in favor of imminency and God’s wrath (regardless of Hebrew or Greek expressions) at the 4th seal in “Maranatha, Our Lord Come!” and his abovementioned prewrath critique.

I can well appreciate the motivation for a non-pretribber to restrict the contents of the 4th seal to God’s disciplinary measures inaugurated to somehow “refine believers”. Yet, despite the elaborate attempt at expositing that position, one only has to read Ezekiel 5 to see that God’s anger and wrath (judgment) are associated with “plague, sword, famine and wild beasts.”

So it will be a reproach, a reviling, a warning and an object of horror to the nations who surround you, when I execute judgments against you in anger, wrath, and raging rebukes. I, the LORD, have spoken. When I send against them the deadly arrows of famine which were for the destruction of those whom I shall send to destroy you, then I shall also intensify the famine upon you, and break the staff of bread. Moreover, I will send on you famine and wild beasts, and they will bereave you of children; plague and bloodshed also will pass through you, and I will bring the sword on you. I, the LORD, have spoken. Eze 5:15-17

Why would it be any different at the 4th seal when Death and Hades are empowered to kill a fourth of the earth’s population using the same means? Renald Showers is right on the money. His two books speak for themselves.

Further reading:

Zechariah's Horses

Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty

Well it has been a long break since receiving my last “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty” spam but I got another one last night. They invariably begin by saying something like - “Interesting and informative blog” – and then suggest Googling the familiar diatribe. The Google searches lead to polemic sites run by preterists and/or posttribulationists who rely heavily on Dave MacPherson’s material. The better part of wisdom suggests ignoring it; however, wisdom isn’t one of my strong points.

Last year someone sent me a link to a 2009 article on Joe Ortiz’s blog. The headline read:

“Dave MacPherson Finds Note of Rapture Vision by Margaret MacDonald - Copy of Handwritten Note by Woman Who Introduced the Pretribulation Rapture in 1830 is Found!”

Directly below the blurb was a photocopy of that note which contained the following words:

nothing: So that two shall
be in one bed, the one taken
and the other left; because
now will the wicked be re-
vealed with all power, and
signs, and lying wonders,

The inference was that this was new and incriminating evidence that Margaret MacDonald was really a pretribulationist and that Darby really did get his idea from her, contrary to his claims to have discovered it through studying Scripture. However, the red-flag is obvious. There’s nothing about a pretrib rapture mentioned in the note above and it isn’t new evidence. Moreover, it is actually an edited portion of an existing document.

Here are the relevant details they left out:

“I felt that those who were filled with the Spirit could see spiritual things, and feel walking in the midst of them, while those who had not the Spirit could see nothing - so that two shall be in one bed, the one taken and the other left, because the one has the light of God within while the other cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven...I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation, surrounded by nets and entanglements, about to be tried, and many about to be deceived and fall. Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that it it were possible the very elect will be deceived - This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will he shaken to the very centre. The enemy will try to shake in every thing we have believed - but the trial of real faith will be found to honour and praise and glory. Nothing but what is of God will stand. The stony-ground hearers will be made manifest - the love of many will wax cold.”Margaret also stated that:

“The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept.”

You can read the full version of Margaret’s vision HERE and HERE

It is people like Ortiz and MacPherson who are being dishonest and spreading malicious gossip.

Further reading:

A review of The Rapture Plot

Given that there's a broken link to Dr Stallard's site, here is his review in full:

This work is a popular renewal of the claim begun two decades ago concerning the origin of the pre-tribulation rapture. MacPherson believes that the doctrine of the “secret rapture” (the two-phase Second Coming or what has come to be called the pre-trib rapture) originated with a deluded teenage girl named Margaret MacDonald. She was a member of the Irvingites, a cultish band of unorthodox Christians centered in London who practiced visions. In fact, the claim is that the pre-trib doctrine originated with one of the visions received by this girl. The main thesis of the book, the so-called “rapture plot,” is that dispensationalists have been covering up this origin because of the embarrassment it would cause their position. They have consistently maintained that the pre-trib doctrine originated with John Nelson Darby and have sought to downplay the fact that he borrowed it from the Irvingites. The implication is that, since this doctrine originated with a deluded teenage girl and since dispensationalists have sinfully covered this fact up, then indeed the pre-trib doctrine itself is suspect and cannot be held to be the truth.

The book begins with a chapter on preliminary considerations and discussions of the earliest teachings of the pre-trib rapture from MacPherson’s point of view. The second chapter focuses on Margaret MacDonald and attempts to show her involvement in not only creating the pre-trib doctrine, but also participating in occult practices. Although he does not say so directly, MacPherson uses this section to leave the impression that pretribulationalism is of Satanic origin. Chapter three discusses the Irvingites in general, including the influence of Margaret MacDonald upon them.

Chapters four through six turn to Darby himself. Chapter four tries to catalog chronologically the development of his thoughts. In chapter five, the later writings of Darby are explored with the conclusion that Darby was a historical revisionist of his own earlier experiences. Chapter six, entitled “Pre-PlotPracticing,” begins to call into question the integrity of William Kelley, an early Brethren editor of Darby’s writings.

Chapter seven carries the title of the book itself. Here MacPherson evaluates William Kelley (d. 1906) in detail as to his alleged revision of Darby. The next and final chapter attempts to show the continuing influence of Kelley’s rewriting of Brethren history. MacPherson spends most of his time dealing with the claims of the pretribulationist R. A. Huebner. It is this concluding chapter which may reveal MacPherson’s motivation for his vitriolic attack on the pre-trib position. He comments that “during the 18thand 19th centuries genuine revival during the First and Second Great Awakenings swept two continents before pre-trib dispensationalism emerged and extinguished the flames” (p. 234). MacPherson adds five appendices, including one attempting to refute the recent claims that a pre-trib rapture can be found in Morgan Edwards (ca. 1788) and in Pseudo-Ephraem (374–627 A.D.), an early Syriac church father.

One is hard-pressed to find good qualities in the argumentation of MacPherson’s work. However, the detailed bibliographical information concerning original sources will aid the historian wanting to study nineteenth century eschatological developments. MacPherson, as a former investigative reporter has done a good service to us in this area. Unfortunately, blinded by his rush to a preordained conclusion, his analysis of those sources is clouded by a hateful style which prevents much of what he says from being taken seriously. For example, beginning on page 91 he concocts a fictional conversation between himself and a dispensationalist to make points rather than interacting with detailed complaints with his own view. Although he does interact in other parts of his book to specific complaints, the disingenuous presentation here undermines his credibility. Another example is his labeling of Ephraem (the Syriac father in question concerning the writing of Pseudo-Ephraem) as a “Catholic” (p. 268), as he probably knew the connotation it would bring to his largely Protestant audience.

As to the details of his argumentation, several questions emerge from reading the book, many of which have to do with methodology. First, MacPherson has not dealt adequately with the debate over whether the Irvingites were pre-trib, partial-trib, or post-trib. His chapter on Edward Irving and his group totally ignores the fact that the group by means of visions and prophesying believed that they were living in the last three and one-half years before Christ’s return and dated that period from January 14, 1832, to July 14, 1835. The Irvingites were historicists in contrast to the developing futurism of the Darbyites. It is amazing that a historian would totally overlook the impact of this teaching while discussing documents during the time leading up to the alleged Second Coming. 

Second, MacPherson’s book shows the absence of any historical work involving followers of Irving and Darby on the Continent. There are emerging studies especially focusing on Geneva and the development of separatist movements in that region. Of special note would be the Darbyite Émile Guers who pastored in Geneva. His books La Future D’Israël (pub. 1856) and Irvingism and Mormonism (pub. 1853) aid understanding of the development of Darbyism prior to its supposed rewriting by Darby and Kelley. Furthermore, he shows the large wedge between Irvingism and Darbyism that existed as early as the 1830s. So for the conspiracy to be true, more players have to be added whose weight combines to increase the likelihood that the conspiracy did not take place! This conclusion is bolstered by the historian Barron H. de Goltz (Genve Religieuse au Dix-Neuvime Sicle [pub. 1862]), who attacked separatist movements like Darbyism and Irvingism. He also characterizes the great gulf between the visions of the Irvingites and the Scripture readings of the Darbyites.

Third, MacPherson’s book amounts to an ad hominem attack. He suggests that the pre-trib position is wrong through guilt by association. However, even if Margaret MacDonald had a vision of the pre-tribrapture, that does not invalidate the doctrine. It does not guarantee that she was the originator. At best, his view should be held in a preliminary fashion. Fifty years from now, after competent scholars have done the historical work for a little studied area, the one holding his view may find himself embarrassed. However, even the fact that Margaret MacDonald clearly gave a pre-trib vision is not at all a ready conclusion. 

Fourth, MacPherson does little detailed analysis of those sources which support his thesis. Men like Robert Baxter and Robert Norton are automatically accepted as credible. One must ask MacPherson, “Are sources only valid when they agree with his thesis?” This is seen in his handling of the Pseudo-Ephraem material. He appears to accept Paul Alexander as the expert on Pseudo-Ephraem although Alexander is a non-evangelical who would not be studied in the nuances of eschatological readings from the various evangelical viewpoints. To expect him to present a summary involving rapture timing nuances is too much to ask.

MacPherson’s thesis has been rejected by many competent scholars who are not pre-trib. Men like F. F. Bruce, John Bray, Timothy Weber, and others have found his conclusions untenable. MacPherson misleads his reader by mentioning F. F. Bruce as a good friend of his without letting the reader know that Bruce, a Brethren scholar who rejected pre-trib, totally discarded the rapture plot idea (p. 40). The fact of the matter is that the real test of whether the pre-trib rapture is correct doctrine is not its historical origin but its exegetical support from the Bible. MacPherson’s book provides no help in this area.

Reviewed by Mike Stallard, Associate Professor
Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania

1 Thessalonians 4:17-18 Commentary

Here's a fantastic resource that ties everything together from a pretribulational perspective.

1 Thessalonians 4:17-18 Commentary

Here's John Walvoord's review of "The Blessed Hope" by G E Ladd. Note Walvoord's response to Ladd's critique of the pretribulational view of imminence. Read it HERE

PRESENT TRIBULATION VS. FUTURE TRIBULATION

Great article by Dr Thomas Ice:

Over the years I have noticed an argument against pretribulationism which goes something like the following: “The New Testament teaches that we will suffer persecution and tribulation as followers of Christ, therefore, I believe the Church will go through the tribulation.” The New Testament does teach that Believers will suffer persecution and tribulation, but it does not follow that because of this the Church will go through the tribulation...keep reading

I like the conclusion:

I have often heard Dr. Ed Hindson make an excellent analogy concerning this issue. He says that having the Church, which is pictured in the New Testament as the Bride of Christ, go through the tribulation is like a man taking a girl to whom he is engaged and beating her to the point of near death and then saying, “Hey babe, let’s get married.” Such behavior would rightly be thought to be crazy. The New Testament clearly teaches that Christ marries the Bride in heaven (Rev. 19:110) before she accompanies Him to earth. She is already in heaven since she was raptured before the tribulation in order to experience the judgment seat of Christ during the tribulation. Therefore she is ready, married and victoriously returning to earth at the second coming with Christ (Rev. 19:1121). Only the pre-trib scenario makes sense of the details, thus demonstrating that the belief that the Church needs to go through the wrath of the tribulation a false conclusion. Maranatha!

The Second Coming of Christ

Clarence Larkin's classic book "The Second Coming of Christ" is now online and can be read HERE

"Dispensational Truth" is also available and can be read HERE

Satanic Deception?

One of the things I find annoying about the rapture debate is that people commonly accuse Darby of deriving his idea from Margaret MacDonald’s vision, yet never supply evidence. As a result they often call pretribulationism a “satanic deception”.

John Darby says he got the concept from studying Scripture. If he really got it from MacDonald’s vision then he’s a liar. However, if Darby is correct then his detractors are encouraging lies and bearing false witness. It’s as simple as that.

Quote: Tregelles, was a Greek scholar, also of the Plymouth Brethren, who adamantly opposed John Darby's new theology. Apparently, there was a local charismatic church where there was some sort of utterance concerning a secret rapture of the church. John Darby took it and popularized it, but not without stirring quite a controversy.

The above quote is a statement taken from someone who is arguing for a different rapture view. He evidently felt it necessary to indirectly promote the idea of a Darby/MacDonald connection to bolster his argument. I can guess where he got his information from but it’s a pity he didn’t bother doing his own research because Margaret’s vision clearly wasn’t about a pretribulational rapture.

According to Margaret:

Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that if it
were possible the very elect will be deceived - This is the fiery trial which is to try us.

The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept.

What many people don’t realize is that Tregelles had personal issues with Darby revolving around Tregelle’s cousin, Newton. Dr Paul Wilkinson goes into the details in his book.

Hand in hand with the Darby canard goes the charge of newness. To counter pretribulationism, several early Church fathers are usually cited to demonstrate that they were posttribulational. This is interesting because the person I quoted above believes in a system that was discovered and became popularized in the nineties and it, also, created a controversy. It adds new facets to that posttribulationism and shortens it.

So when he picks an 1830 date for pre-trib I can point to a late 20th century date for his system, and via a specific person and book. Before that time and that book, that view was virtually unknown. Defenses for that system have sometimes incorporated the excuse that it was still under refinement. Presumably the early Church fathers don’t help in that area.

The newness issue is specifically related to the idea that the Church will avoid the tribulation and/or the wrath of God. James Stitzinger shows that the early Church fathers had a less than sophisticated eschatology. In fact an examination of a number of beliefs regarding the relationship between the Church and Israel (Justin Martyr etc) and even subjects like baptism preparation reveals that the Church had already been departing from apostolic tenets.

Tied in with the erroneous idea of satanic deception is the claim that pretribbers believe out of fear and are woefully unprepared for the Tribulation. I agree that believing in pretribulationism out of fear is silly. It should be an academic issue. But I think it’s telling that preterists and non-Premillennialists aren’t targeted. Aren’t they also unprepared?

I’ve been through all this before in previous posts. How does one prepare for the Tribulation? If you think you can you’re probably kidding yourself. Our focus and faith should be in Christ’s ability to see us through, not our own power. In that respect, sincere pretribbers are at no disadvantage.

Years ago I participated in a group event where we did a static line jump from a light aircraft. One of the organizers was an A type fearless personality who breezed through her training. It was thoroughly drilled into us that once we were able to make visual contact with the grounds-man, we had to keep our eyes on him and follow his directions. Despite all that preparation and confidence she panicked at the last moment, failed to heed instructions and dropped too quickly. Fortunately she only sustained fractures in her foot.

How do you prepare for Tribulation?

WHY A PRETRIBULATIONAL RAPTURE?

A great article by Richard Mayhue:

This article raises four key questions: (1) What does “rapture” mean?; (2) Will there be an eschatological “rapture”?; (3) Will the “rapture” be partial or full?; and (4) Will the “rapture” be pre, mid, or post in a time relationship to Daniel’s seventieth week? In answering the fourth question concerning the time of the rapture, seven major lines of reasoning produce the conclusion that a pretribulational rapture best fits the biblical evidence and raises the fewest difficulties. By way of conclusion, the article answers thirteen of the toughest objections to pretribulationism...continue reading

First Thessalonians 4 and the Rapture PART 2

With regard to the coming of the Lord Jesus, there is much emphasis upon the Greek words parousia, apokalupsis, and epiphaneia. As demonstrated in the first part of this article, those words do not catalog one single event; rather, these words are used throughout the New Testament to characterize both the rapture and the second coming. Since it is the biblical context that determines which coming is referenced, we will how show the context of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 demonstrates that the comfort of this passage is the reunion of the deceased and living saints in Christ at the pretribulational rapture...Read more

The Rapture and the Timing of the Two Witnesses

I hardly ever visit the RaptureReady site but the other day I popped in to check out some of the articles. The one about the Two Witnesses caught my eye. Now I wouldn't get too excited about finding a proof for pre-trib there but I think Paul makes a few interesting points. Also keep in mind that some people postulate the Two Witnesses' ministry may begin half way through the first half of the 70th week. I very much doubt that theory, but I am convinced that they are agents of God's wrath on the world.

More proof that the Rapture is Pre-Trib is hidden in the timing of the Two Witnesses. The evidence for this becomes clear as we investigate the question of when the Two Witnesses’ ministry begins—during the first half of the Tribulation, or during the second...The Rapture and the Timing of the Two Witnesses

Note:

Bill Salus has commented on the above article HERE.

False Prophets

When I first embarked on a study of eschatology I learned that some people were preterists; some were amillennialists and some were premillennialists etc. At that time I also came across the term dispensationalism. I slowly learned that those who weren’t premillennial or dispensational considered those who were, to be false prophets.

In those days I considered myself mostly post-trib. What excited me was that I might be living in the last days and I strongly doubted that I would be whisked away prior to the proverbial manure hitting the fan. My focus was on premillennialism and I simply skipped over any chapters dealing with the rapture.

My interest in the rapture was first piqued when I visited a certain prophecy website that claimed prophecy was being fulfilled now. On the one hand I was excited that perhaps we really were on the verge of entering into the 70th week of Daniel and that the anti-Christ was about to be revealed - that meant the Lord would be on His way! On the other hand I was a little perturbed by the comments on that site towards pretribulationalists I had been reading. The website owner believed the Church would be here to experience the anti-Christ. I began looking into his rapture view.

As I researched, I discovered a depth of condescension towards pretribulationism and pretribulationists that surprised me. Hal Lindsey was and is one of the favorite whipping boys but Thomas Ice and Tim LaHaye hold honorary places of mention in the pantheon. One layman even wrote a small book that was really a letter to LaHaye. Other than the fact that LaHaye was involved in the Left Behind books, I’m not sure why he got the brunt of that book given there are so many other capable pretribulational/dispensational scholars out there that could have been engaged.

Hal apparently gets special mention as false prophet on the pretext that he allegedly predicted the rapture/second coming would occur in the eighties. While commenting on Lindsey, one person even mentioned that false prophets were stoned in the OT! But what Lindsey actually did was postulate the possibility of everything coming together within that timeframe based on, then, current events and his understanding of Israel and the fig tree. He was wrong - simple as that. On observation, however, I suspect he’s been branded a false prophet for his pre-trib view rather than his failed chronology.

When I started my first blog, I compared Hal with those who fervently believed and practically taught that the signing of the ENP began the seven year Tribulation in Jan 2007, along with identifying the person who could be the AC. We now have less than six months to mid-point and it becomes increasingly unlikely that sacrifices will be established for an anti-Christ to put a stop to, or a Temple built in time for him to defile. Will these people be branded false prophets? I doubt it, and furthermore they shouldn’t be.

Modres has more to say about this false prophet phenomenon HERE

Another thing that intrigues me is that I often read where someone claims the Holy Spirit showed them that the pre-trib rapture is wrong and the rapture view they’ve come to adopt is correct. Here’s the dilemma; I’ve heard that claim from pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath and post-trib believers. Can you see an issue there? Is the Holy Spirit fickle?

Here’s Modres again:

The Holy Spirit Taught Me…

The Imminent Pre-wrath Rapture of the Church

I found this online book some time ago and am slowly going through it. While I disagree with many of the author's conclusions and I'm always right ;-), he does make some good points in certain areas.

Read it HERE.

The author also has also written a book called "What the Bible Says About the Future" which can be read online HERE, and has a new book pending called "The Olivet Discourse".

This resource page is helpful. In some instances, I think Mr Smith should have been more thorough e.g. the day of the Lord v the wrath of God in light of OT passages etc. In fact there is strong evidence that the dotL includes the 6th seal and the grammar of Rev 6:17 is OFTEN in the past. There are very good reasons for believing God's wrath is contained within the seals and the 5th seal martyrs are not an obstacle to this view - as has been discussed before. Unfortunately, he only gives this a cursory treatment.

He implies that many (most?) pretribbers take the apostasy of 2 Thess 2 to be the rapture. Although Dr Ice is one of these, most pre-trib scholars do not believe this to be true. Even if it were so, the apostasy/rapture view is not helpful to pretribulationism.

But, while I have some issues, Mr Smith does provide a lot of good food for thought.

Pre-trib easy believism?

Recently, on a website, someone made a remark to the effect that he doesn’t believe a pretribulationist who affirms that we will be raptured out of here in “bed’s of ease” (sic) would be as prepared as a (------) who expects tribulation and therefore prepares his “body, mind and soul”. He also stated that believing otherwise minimized Jesus’ warnings to be ready.

Exactly what does it mean to be ready? I previously posted a link to an article by Fred DeRuvo as I think he adequately addresses that point, along with other misconceptions. You can find it HERE.

What really piqued my interest was the idea that someone could train their body in preparation for the tribulation as I’d never come across that deal before. Maybe I can incorporate some of this training in my own workouts. Unfortunately, the author didn’t elaborate on that point and I do think he’s kidding himself. Would this mean the elderly and infirm will be less prepared than the physically active? Ironically, this same website has argued that pretribulationists also exaggerate the gravity of the seal judgments. A potential problem?

Not too long ago I was fairly certain the Church would still be here when the Lord put His foot in Jerusalem again. Was I better prepared then, than I am now, because I now think that that may not be the case? I actually think I’m better prepared now simply because my faith in God has grown.

It’s nonsensical to believe in the pre-trib rapture just for a desire to escape or that most pretribbers do so for that reason. We are told to expect tribulation in this world. But it isn’t wrong to want to escape The Tribulation. Does anyone seriously look forward to it? A pretribber who expects any moment death or tribulation and also considers the chance of any moment rapture should be preparing for that possibility daily. In such a case the prewrather and posttribber has no advantage.

Websites such as the one I referred to earlier expend a large amount of resources in attacking pretribulationism and various pretribulationists on the premise that it leaves unsuspecting believers unprepared for the great tribulation. Yet these sites hardly ever confront Preterists, Postmillennialists, Amillennialists or the Emergent types. Sadly, this tells me that the problem really is a personal bias against pretribulationism.

The rapture issue should be purely an academic one. Those who judge and question, wholesale, the pretribulationists’ real motives for believing such, probably have character issues of their own that they need to deal with.

If the PreTrib Rapture Creates Spiritually Immature Christians, then What Does the Possibility of Your Last Day on Earth Do?

The PreTrib Rapture, and Being (Allegedly) Unprepared

I am Amazed at the Division Eschatology Creates!

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRIBULATION

From the Pre-Trib Research Centre:

And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he may
be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work;
only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the
way. —2 Thessalonians 2:6-7

One of the most compelling, yet often misunderstood, arguments for
pretribulationism relates to the Holy Spirit’s role to the church and the tribulation
period. Most holding to the pre-trib position believe that 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7 refers to
the restraining ministry of the Holy Spirit through the agency of the Church. Thus,
when the church is raptured before the tribulation, that ministry of the Holy Spirit will
be removed as well. If this interpretation is correct, then it is a strong argument for
pretribulationism...Read More

Note: This is the main reason why non-pretribulationists argue so vigorously for indentifying Michael as the Restrainer.

Is John 14:3 the Rapture?

John 14:1-4 "Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am going."

Posttribulationists need to strenuously argue that, in the above verses, Jesus is not telling His disciples that He will be coming back for them and taking them to Heaven. In their view, the rapture occurs after the three-and-a-half year Great Tribulation. The Lord comes only ONCE (single phase Second Advent) and stays on the earth with the Church. So, how can John 14 be reconciled from a post-trib viewpoint?

On his website, Tim Warner makes the following observations:

“…The second additional "contrast" cited by Ice has to do with John 14:1-3, where he interprets "my Father's house" as heaven, something not supported by Jesus' earlier usage of the term, "My Father's house" (cf. John 2:16:17), or with the common expression in the Old Testament, "the house of the Lord" (cf. Isa. 2:2-4, Joel 3:18, Zech. 14:21).”

The Father’s house isn’t in Heaven? (Matt 5:16; Matt 7:21) I love the way Allen Beechick responds:

When Jesus comes, where will He take us? John 14:2–3 says:

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

He will take us to heaven, pre-tribs answer. But post-tribs respond that the verse doesn't actually say so. It merely says we will be with Him, wherever that is, which happens to be on earth.

For the benefit of my post-trib friends, let me re-phrase the verse to make it more clear:

In my Father's house (in heaven) are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go (to heaven) to prepare a place for you (in heaven). And if I go (to heaven) and prepare a place for you (in heaven), I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that ye may be with me (on earth).

Makes sense?

More Wrath of God

There’s still much debate about the wrath of God and the first six seals of Revelation. And there’s still that mortal tug of war between those who use Dana and Mantey, and Robertson’s Greek grammar rules at Rev 6:17 to argue for a pre 6th seal wrath and those who use the same rules to argue for a post 6th seal wrath.

One of the most telling articles I’ve read was from a non–pretribber who, after making his grammatical defence, ended up stating that some wrongly believe that it is a past tense because it can be found in a past action. He further added that, though it is commonly in past action, it can also be an action in the present, future or even timeless. Ultimately, we are told that context determines when the action occurs. The context for a post 6th seal wrath was not given in that particular article.

My interest in eschatology means that I sometimes pick up on the new theories and arguments that occasionally arise. I’ve noticed that some non–pretibbers have been looking at the feasibility of some of the seals occurring towards the middle of the week. A reasonable question to ask is - if the argument that the wrath of God occurs after the 6th seal is so overwhelmingly compelling and bullet proof, why bother trying to place the seals closer to midweek at all?

Another growing trend is to argue that Rev 6:8 doesn’t actually mean that a quarter of the world’s population dies, but only that Death and Hades have authority and power over a fourth of the earth to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and wild beasts. That’s an interesting theory. If you are told that you are among twenty people that Death and Hades have power over as opposed to eighty others who aren’t affected – where would you rather be? Would you feel better if it was a hundred people; a thousand; a million? And if Death and Hades have been given power over that segment, and do not exert it fully, then what was the point of granting them that authority?

The debate can go back and forth but I’m more interested in the motivation for arguing all the above in the first place. There seems to be a need for some non-pretribulationists to shift the seals towards the middle of the week and to minimise the severity of the seal judgments. Why is this?

A further attempt to refute the claim that God’s wrath occurs pre 6th seal is to argue that believers (eg 5th seal martyrs) aren’t destined for God’s wrath therefore it cannot occur before the rapture which occurs later in the week. One problem with that view is that whatever rapture timing you hold to, there has to be some people who are saved after the rapture to populate the Millennium. Those who are saved after the rapture also become believers who will experience God’s wrath. So, the dynamics are exactly the same as with the pre-trib scenario.

Here are some articles from a pretribulational perspective:

RESCUED FROM THE WRATH OF GOD

What Do the First Four Seals Reveal About God’s Wrath?

How Will God Express His Wrath Upon the Earth?


Addendum:

I’ve previously pointed out the parallels between the four judgments of Sword, Famine, Wild Beasts and Plagues in Ezekiel 14:21 and Rev 6:8. But someone will protest that God has used plagues, men etc in the past and believers would have been subjected to these events - therefore God’s wrath needs to be expressed supernaturally in the 70th week to be viable for the Church’s exemption.

God has poured His wrath/orge out before and has used several means for doing so (Rom 13:4 etc). Historically, God’s wrath has most often been used to chastise Israel and surrounding Gentile nations. In all those cases it was regional and limited. However, in Daniel’s 70th week, it will be global and Ezekiel 14 matches Rev 6 because it is prophetic of that period. The 70th week is unique because it will incorporate all of the four judgments for the first time AND globally.

But to be honest, this argument really baffles me. Aren’t the events at the 6th seal supernatural? So, hasn’t God’s wrath arrived at least by then? What is the primary objection against this being so other than a predisposition for believing God’s wrath occurs later within one's concept of the day of the Lord? Are not the Two Witnesses supernaturally pouring God’s wrath on the whole world and does this not begin mid-week at the latest? (More likely the beginning of the week)

Whatever instrument God uses, it is still His wrath. He can, and will, use men against men as in the 2nd seal and use “Satan’s wrath” against the world. The claim that the Church isn’t exempt from the expression of God’s wrath unless it is specifically delivered supernaturally needs to be supported by Scripture. Second, I would argue that man’s wrath and Satan’s wrath, as extensions of God’s wrath, are delivered supernaturally because Christ enables the events by opening the seals.