This is from 2011. Some of the links have gone stale. But given the current times and criticisms of Israel and its Christian supporters, I thought I'd repost it.
As mentioned previously, I’ve listened to a 2009 lecture delivered by Gary Hoag to a Denver Seminary audience. It was based on Craig Blomberg’s manuscript (Dr Blomberg being ill at the time). The title of the talk was “Inappropriately Privileging Israel: Why Historic Premillennialism Trumps Dispensationalism".
You can listen to it HERE
Dr Blomberg co-edited “A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to "Left Behind" Eschatology”. The book received strong criticism by reviewer Erik Swanson for improperly engaging DP:
“Not only does this book misunderstand DP, but the authors misrepresent DP as well. They (mis)represent DP as simply a popular movement, fueled by popular culture and imagination, not backed by solid exegesis and theology.”
I bring this up again because I sympathize with Erik Swanson’s frustration. That same approach characterizes the lecture. If you’re going to legitimately challenge another system, you should accurately interact with its beliefs and strengths; otherwise you’re just knocking down straw men.
Firstly, as an ex-posttribber, I’m unimpressed by the “academic & exegesis” vs the “comfortable populist” inferences that Dr Blomberg draws when he compares posttribulationism with pretribulationism. It smacks of elitism. Also, note that apantesis isn’t a magic gotcha word. Kevin Zuber has a study on it HERE, or refer to his essay in “Dispensationalism – tomorrow & beyond” (p 343). And a comparison of tereo ek in Rev 3:10 and John 17:15 isn’t helpful to post-trib either - read Richard Mayhue’s essay HERE.
Lastly, Erik Swanson answered Dr Blomberg’s wrath of God points in the review above. In fact at one stage Dr Blomberg states the church must go through the Tribulation and endure persecution and martyrdom then later claims tereo ek in Rev 3:10 means protection within!
Contrary to Dr Blomberg, Jerry Falwell’s “brand of dispensationalism” is not representative. That “America doesn’t exist to support a distinctively Jewish state in Israel” may well be true. Mature dispie scholars would vouch for the wisdom of a “separation between church and state”. But why raise that issue?
Many “religious organizations” routinely lobby the US government for political and monetary aid for other countries. Palestinian aid is sought out by certain “Christian” groups (e.g. Sabeel). And people like Stephen Sizer and Gary Burge, and organizations such as the World Council of Churches and National Council of Churches have sought the boycotting of Israeli products. What do we make of church groups who vie to influence government decisions on pro-life, gay marriage etc? Wouldn’t these activities cross over the "separation between church & state" guidelines? Why is support for Israel singled out?
I’m not sure why he even mentions Two Covenant Theology. Even if one or two “popular” dispies may hold to it; it is not the correct dispensational view. There is only ONE way to be saved and that is by grace through faith. Note Tony Garland’s article HERE and this ESSAY
He uses the term “the shifting sands of dispensationalism”. Disp was formalized in the 19th century when theologians began to take a literal approach to the OT. Since then it has gone through further refinements and developments. Covenant Theology (which isn’t that much older) has also evolved and changed. The same is true of Reformed Theology. In fact if one carefully looks at a Who’s Who of HP from the Early Church Fathers to date, one will see changes in modern day HP.
Dr Blomberg chides outright replacement theology by pointing to sufficient OT evidence indicating that national Israel has some future in the Millennium. He even points out that RT has led to anti-Semitism. This is an important admission which I’ll explore in a later post. He affirms that George Ladd is a scholar who overshadows the rest and, like Dr Ladd, he fails to see a necessity for either a Temple, or national Israel in Palestine prior to the Millennium. He punctuates that point several times.
Note here that people like J C Ryle, Horatius Bonar, Renald Showers, Arnold Fruchtenbaum etc have shown “biblically” that Israel must, once again, be a nation prior to the Millennium. Dr Fruchtenbaum identifies several OT verses pointing to a gathering into the land in unbelief in “Footsteps of the Messiah”.
Contra-arguments to Gen 12:1-3 are typically raised by proponents of replacement theology and Dr Blomberg does the same. They argue that the church, as Abraham’s spiritual heir, is the ultimate recipient of these verses and not a prophetically irrelevant Israel in a state of unbelief. In a lengthy process of circular reasoning they insert the church and remove Israel. (Acts 3:13, 25-26; Rom 11:25-29)
His comments on Ezekiel’s Temple (ET) confuse me. I’m not aware of any dispies who teach that ET is premillennial. I don’t see how you can merge ET into the New Jerusalem or why you’d want to in the first place. If you’re able to recognize clear OT Scripture to confirm a future for Israel then surely you can use that same “exegesis” on a literal comparison of the differences between ET and the New Jerusalem.
Even when he acknowledges OT prophecies regarding Israel in their land during the Millennium he attempts to apply the NT to make the Gentile church share the same territorial benefits, which he then extends to all the earth (Matt 5:5). He appears to have a problem with a uniquely Holy Land with a Jewish flavor and any type of Temple. This isn’t just replacement theology; it is absorption theology or a sort of socialist theocracy where whatever national Israel owns, so must the Gentile church.
While he briefly addresses the excesses of those who are pro-Palestinian and those who are pro-Israel, it’s quite obvious that Christian Zionism and national Israel are his primary targets. His language implies that Israel oppresses Palestinian Muslims and Christians; hence he lectures against blindly supporting Israel.
Yet a fact-check will show that Palestinians and Christians living in Israel fare much better than in Israel’s Muslim-dominated neighboring countries! He seems unaware of the dynamics driving the Arab-Israeli conflict and the existential threat to Israel. Aside from theological considerations, there are legitimate reasons for supporting Israel even if it is secular and imperfect.
But that he promotes blatant replacement theologians like Gary Burge and Colin Chapman as the “best guides” to refer to theologically ultimately explains his position on Israel both biblically and from a secular viewpoint. Burge and Chapman re-interpret the OT via the NT. These men have also written glowing reviews for anti-Israel activist and revisionist Stephen Sizer’s book “Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?”
Dr Paul Wilkinson has written about Sizer and his supporters HERE. I also recommend his book “For Zion’s Sake”. A more balanced approach to Sizer’s book is Dr Michael Rydelnik’s “Understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict – What The Headlines Haven’t Told You”.
Keeping the terms “academic” & “exegesis” in mind, read Barry Horner’s (Future Israel) response to Gary Burge. Many points that Dr Horner raises about Dr Burge re NT authorship etc are a concern.
Based on Dr Blomberg’s lecture and his advocacy of Gary Burge’s theology, even if I were to revert to posttribulationism, I could never consider myself an HP. It’s not about rapture timing, though Dr Blomberg clings to that distinction. It’s about God’s faithfulness to His word. It’s about taking the clear OT references to Israel’s future literally. On this basis, Dr Blomberg’s lecture fails to live up to its objective.
I’ll explore Dr Burge’s stance on Israel in a later post.
Showing posts with label rapture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rapture. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 22, 2025
Wednesday, March 15, 2023
Revelation Chapter Six
E. W. Bullinger held that the opening of the sixth seal is a summary, not chronological. He said the seal carries through to the end. You can read his Commentary on Revelation HERE.
Darrel Cline seems to agree. In The Rapture is When? he writes,
The difference between Jesus' words in Matthew 24 and Jesus' revelation of the sixth seal is that the event described in Matthew 24 is a presentation of the coming of Jesus from heaven to earth to gather the nation of Israel to her promised land (Deuteronomy 30:4) from one end of heaven to the other, while the revelation of the sixth seal is a large overview of the entire scenario of Daniel's seventieth week by use of the concept of "inclusio". This concept is one in which a writer takes a "front-end issue" and links it to a "back-end issue" so that it represents the entire unit.
For a few years I've been leaning heavily that way too. In any case, I thought the Commentary on Revelation Chapter Six by Precept Austin was pretty neat, although it maintains the traditional view. Find it HERE
Monday, December 13, 2021
It's not cool to be a Dispensationalist
I've linked to this before and it never gets old for me. 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
See also When Eschatology becomes Annoying
Tuesday, November 30, 2021
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 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.
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:
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:
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.
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:
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:
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
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
Friday, November 16, 2018
Disproving Pretrib in 10 minutes
There's a YouTube video which claims to disprove pretrib in 10 minutes. The presenter is Nelson Walters who is a published author, presenter, and prominent exponent of the prewrath rapture position.
A little while ago I came across a surprising comment of his in a well-populated PW forum. I say surprising because I assume most PW proponents hold to a distinction between Israel and the church. Walters stated that believers are grafted into Israel; Israel doesn't join the Church, and Christians become part of Israel. At first I thought it was a monumental typo. But, at the time, no one there challenged him.
It wasn't a typo. Walters' blurring of the Israel-church distinction figures in his pretrib debunking video where the focus is on Matt 24:31. He asserts that dispensationalists are mistaken in taking OT verses relating to national Israel's gathering, and only applying them to Israel in Matt 24:31. This is because the church is also Israel.
As proof, Walters cites Gal 3:28 and gives us the only-one-people-of God argument. He follows up by saying that Christians are grafted into the root of the Olive Tree, which is Israel. These are familiar supersessionist statements, routinely debunked by Dispensationalists.
Although I disagree with his conclusions, Alan Kurschner (Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord) proposed four reasons why Matt 24:31 was the rapture of the church. None of these involved a blurring of the distinction between Israel and the church. While I have a number of PW books on my shelf - with good reason, Kurschner's book and Eschatos Ministries are the only mediums I currently recommend to anyone interested in learning about the system.
Some resources:
Discussion on the Olive Tree HERE
Paul Henebury: Replacement Theology: Is it Wrong to Use the Term?
Paul Henebury: Contra the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism
An Analysis of Neo-Replacement Theology
A little while ago I came across a surprising comment of his in a well-populated PW forum. I say surprising because I assume most PW proponents hold to a distinction between Israel and the church. Walters stated that believers are grafted into Israel; Israel doesn't join the Church, and Christians become part of Israel. At first I thought it was a monumental typo. But, at the time, no one there challenged him.
It wasn't a typo. Walters' blurring of the Israel-church distinction figures in his pretrib debunking video where the focus is on Matt 24:31. He asserts that dispensationalists are mistaken in taking OT verses relating to national Israel's gathering, and only applying them to Israel in Matt 24:31. This is because the church is also Israel.
As proof, Walters cites Gal 3:28 and gives us the only-one-people-of God argument. He follows up by saying that Christians are grafted into the root of the Olive Tree, which is Israel. These are familiar supersessionist statements, routinely debunked by Dispensationalists.
Although I disagree with his conclusions, Alan Kurschner (Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord) proposed four reasons why Matt 24:31 was the rapture of the church. None of these involved a blurring of the distinction between Israel and the church. While I have a number of PW books on my shelf - with good reason, Kurschner's book and Eschatos Ministries are the only mediums I currently recommend to anyone interested in learning about the system.
Some resources:
Discussion on the Olive Tree HERE
Paul Henebury: Replacement Theology: Is it Wrong to Use the Term?
Paul Henebury: Contra the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism
An Analysis of Neo-Replacement Theology
Sunday, May 21, 2017
The Rapture & The End Times
Two hours of discussion from Moody Radio, with Michael Rydelnik, John Hart and Kevin Zuber.
Click HERE
Click HERE
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Life, Death, Resurrection: The Minister’s Priorities
From Cripplegate:
“For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life.” 2 Corinthians 5:2–4
In these verses, we get a view of the faithful Christian minister’s perspective on life and death, as encapsulated by Paul’s experience. And the first thing you notice is that he prefers the next life over this one. He has a holy dissatisfaction with this life, and a holy longing and yearning for the next. He speaks twice of groaning—a present tense verb indicating continuous action. “We go on groaning, continuously being burdened with the longing to be rid of this body, and to be clothed with the resurrection body.” The faithful servant of Christ has not formed an adulterous attachment to the present life and the present world. He is not at home in this body, such that his life is marked by comfort and ease. She is a stranger, a sojourner in a foreign land, and so life in this present body is marked by groaning...keep reading
Monday, February 13, 2017
So You Want To Be Left Behind
Some ax grinding. I find it cathartic at times...
So you want to be Left Behind? You see no value in the escapist rapture? Warning: there may be the occasional sarcasm and ax grinding ahead.
The Left Behind books created by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins drew no small criticism from bloggers when they first came out. While there was criticism of Jenkins’ popular style of writing, the real offense was the pretribulational rapture.
LaHaye quickly became the whipping boy of non-pretrib premil bloggers. Previously it was Hal Lindsey. One popular blogger emailed LaHaye with a bunch of “gotcha” questions – and followed up with his own book. If I had a dollar for every protest email sent to a pretrib teacher I’d be a wealthy man....keep reading
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
The Non-Pretrib Club Cult
I just got an e-mail from a fellow who thanked me for subscribing to his website. In fact I didn't subscribe and I don't know how he got my email - though I have some ideas. Whatever the case, the guy is a busy man with a mission. Here's his blurb:
Ah yes, pretribulationists bullying posttribulationists. We must stamp it out!
Incidentally, Joe Schimmel's DVD is four-and-half-hours. He's another busy man. I've seen the trailer. Darby gets called a cultist and there's some old footage of Walter Martin linking Darby with MacDonald. Riveting stuff. Participants include Jacob Prasch and Joel Richardson. Prasch seems to have forged a reputation for verbally bashing pretribulationism and just about anyone else he disagrees with. It's hard to take them seriously and hard to totally ignore them. Some of these critics seem to be obsessed with eschatological polemics, as a perusal of their websites often shows.
But, seriously, when you start asking for money to finance an attack on the pretrib rapture because you think it's dangerous - you've lost the plot! This is fanaticism.
Remember the gospel? Spend your money on that. The cheque (Aussie version) is in the mail.
Note: Dr. Paul Wilkinson is working on a rebuttal to the Schimmel DVD.
Addendum:
I don't like harping on this because it is divisive. But I will. There's a follow up response to Paul Wilkinson's comments about the Left Behind Led Astray video. It appears on the site of the person who sent me the letter I mentioned above. The 1 hour and 45 minute talk involves Jacob Prasch and Joe Schimmel, with John Haller as mediator. It seems that these two gentlemen are out of sorts because of Wilkinson's comments.
Interestingly, one of the persons who left comments was Joe Ortiz who I've blogged about before.
Sadly, there are a string of individuals who have a reputation for consistently taking potshots at pretribulationism and pretribulationists, and being divisive. For some almost a full time occupation. In contrast, they circle the wagons and cry foul when someone reciprocates.
As mentioned in my response on our Zeteo 3:16 website, I didn't watch the lengthy video. Hence I cannot judge it on that basis. However, the trailer was a catastrophe of propaganda. Could the video have been better after such an abysmal introduction? It seems rather unrealistic of them to not expect some sort of blow back to this kind of material.
Thanks For Subscribing To NoPreTrib!
NoPreTrib is a ministry that I started because pre-tribulationism is one of the most dominant false teachings to be found amongst professing evangelical, Bible believing Christians. Jesus and the Apostles warned the early believers about what to expect in the last days before Christ returns. They warned of spiritual deception regarding His return, apostasy, Antichrist, tribulation and more. Pre-tribulationism conditions believers to think they will not have to face these things and sets them up to fall away.
NoPreTrib consists of a blog, Facebook page, and a Twitter feed. I'm currently co-authoring a book on the subject with Pastor Joe Schimmel of Good Fight Ministries, and helped to contribute to the recently released video: Left Behind or Led Astray.
You Can Help!
If you believe in pre-tribulationism, I'm just glad that you're reading this. It is my prayer that you would approach this subject with an open mind and heart, recognizing that it is important to consider, especially in light of the times in which we live.
If you are in agreement with me that the Church in America is being set up for a last days apostasy; then pray. Pray for those that have been lulled into a false sense of security. Pray that the false teachers would be exposed. Pray for your friends and family members that are caught up in this false unbiblical teaching. Pray that they would have their eyes opened and be prepared for what is coming. Pray for me, for strength and encouragement in the face of opposition.
Speak out. Don't allow yourself to be bullied, or shamed for standing up for the truth. In bringing this issue to light, I have been told numerous times that I should stop writing these articles. I've been told it is unimportant, divisive, peripheral, Satanic, you name it. Yet the same people that tell me to stop, do not cease to promote pre-tribulationism. God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but power and love and a sound mind. We should not be ashamed to speak the truth in love. Ezekiel 33:6
Lastly you can consider helping financially. Most if not all that has been done with the NoPreTrib Ministry has been done with my own limited resources, while I work a regular job supporting a family. If you believe God is calling you to support what I'm doing, please click on the link below. 100% of what you contribute will go to pay for the expenses related to maintaining the website and advertising to enable the ministry to reach a broader audience. Thank you!Quote: "Speak out. Don't allow yourself to be bullied, or shamed for standing up for the truth."
Ah yes, pretribulationists bullying posttribulationists. We must stamp it out!
Incidentally, Joe Schimmel's DVD is four-and-half-hours. He's another busy man. I've seen the trailer. Darby gets called a cultist and there's some old footage of Walter Martin linking Darby with MacDonald. Riveting stuff. Participants include Jacob Prasch and Joel Richardson. Prasch seems to have forged a reputation for verbally bashing pretribulationism and just about anyone else he disagrees with. It's hard to take them seriously and hard to totally ignore them. Some of these critics seem to be obsessed with eschatological polemics, as a perusal of their websites often shows.
But, seriously, when you start asking for money to finance an attack on the pretrib rapture because you think it's dangerous - you've lost the plot! This is fanaticism.
Remember the gospel? Spend your money on that. The cheque (Aussie version) is in the mail.
Note: Dr. Paul Wilkinson is working on a rebuttal to the Schimmel DVD.
Addendum:
I don't like harping on this because it is divisive. But I will. There's a follow up response to Paul Wilkinson's comments about the Left Behind Led Astray video. It appears on the site of the person who sent me the letter I mentioned above. The 1 hour and 45 minute talk involves Jacob Prasch and Joe Schimmel, with John Haller as mediator. It seems that these two gentlemen are out of sorts because of Wilkinson's comments.
Interestingly, one of the persons who left comments was Joe Ortiz who I've blogged about before.
Sadly, there are a string of individuals who have a reputation for consistently taking potshots at pretribulationism and pretribulationists, and being divisive. For some almost a full time occupation. In contrast, they circle the wagons and cry foul when someone reciprocates.
As mentioned in my response on our Zeteo 3:16 website, I didn't watch the lengthy video. Hence I cannot judge it on that basis. However, the trailer was a catastrophe of propaganda. Could the video have been better after such an abysmal introduction? It seems rather unrealistic of them to not expect some sort of blow back to this kind of material.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
The Rapture Trap?
The Rapture Trap? is an article I originally wrote for the Omega Letter. It has since appeared on Jan Markell's website and generated some interest. I finally posted it on Zeteo 3:16.
I don't really need to go into explanations. Rapture = controversy = pretrib is bad. You know the drill.
Excerpt:
Is the belief in a pretribulational rapture a trap? Is it really the rapture trap that some people claim? Every once in a while a magic lever gets pulled releasing a wave of criticism against the pretrib rapture belief and pretribbers. Lately, Facebook and YouTube have been full of anti-pretrib proclamations. One critic recently claimed it was the belief in an imminent rapture which is why Christians don’t care what happens to the world. He added that this belief is what keeps us from the being the salt and light we were intended to be...keep reading
I don't really need to go into explanations. Rapture = controversy = pretrib is bad. You know the drill.
Excerpt:
Is the belief in a pretribulational rapture a trap? Is it really the rapture trap that some people claim? Every once in a while a magic lever gets pulled releasing a wave of criticism against the pretrib rapture belief and pretribbers. Lately, Facebook and YouTube have been full of anti-pretrib proclamations. One critic recently claimed it was the belief in an imminent rapture which is why Christians don’t care what happens to the world. He added that this belief is what keeps us from the being the salt and light we were intended to be...keep reading
Sunday, February 15, 2015
On Exposing Pretribulationism
Every once in a while when the mood takes me I get to grind my axe. Here I go again.
There's an essay on pretribulationism that I've come across several times on Facebook. Its author provides a bunch of excuses for his anti-pretrib crusade. Similar pretexts commonly appear on blog and Facebook hit and runs by different individuals. I want to address a sampling here, in no particular order.
The motives are always altruistic, of course. They do it out of "love" and to correct "false doctrine." I'm reminded of my busy posttribulational friend who once told me he went after pretribbers because he feared their escapist mentality would endanger them once the tribulation arrived. Sound familiar?
That same individual also happened to like going after prewrathers even though they believe the church will experience the tribulation. Truth be known, he just loves to argue. What's love got to do with it? Pardon the Tina Turner pun but when you use terms such as "laughable" or when you call to question a pretribber's integrity (as opposed to yours) - what you are indulging in is arrogance and pride. Not love.
As a side note, if you're a Five Point Calvinist you might consider dropping the "dangerous escapism" routine. It won't wash. On the other hand if you believe one can lose their salvation, perhaps you'd better humbly look at yourself first. Do you know you'll survive the tribulation, faith intact? Where are you placing your confidence?
Here's a suggestion: if you people want to go on a Worthy Crusade, go after the Lost. They really need the gospel. And, if you're really "Brave and Courageous" or an "Overcomer" (in contrast to spineless pretribbers), I know a few volatile countries where you could preach the gospel and get some practice in for the Great Tribulation purification. Practice makes perfect - right?
Next, I don't care whether someone had an overbearing pretrib pastor who ridiculed non-pretribbers. That's plainly wrong. Get over it. Don't do the same thing.
Neither am I impressed that you too were once a "clueless" pretribulationist who was "indoctrinated" by that "recent tradition" - especially if you've now embraced the newest constantly evolving position. It doesn't automatically follow that you're a "Berean" because you changed your view. I was "indoctrinated" by Catholicism and a bunch of other doctrines. I now embrace dispensationalism and pretribulationism as better viewpoints, but that alone doesn't mean I'm suddenly right.
Strange as it may seem non-pretribbers sometimes do migrate to pretrib. It's not because the Holy Spirit "told them so" or because of some "special revelation" as people sometimes declare. It's a case of weighing arguments against Scripture. Yes, we occasionally think for ourselves. Life is full of ironies and surprises.
I'm not impressed with assertions that John Darby purloined Margaret MacDonald's vision and indoctrinated "Schofield." Provide a pretrib quote from MacDonald, not an excerpt from one of MacPherson's "plots." That the Scofield Study Bible then indoctrinated most of the American Church reminds me of the Israeli 9/11 conspiracy theory (sorry, Stephen Sizer).
I also don't want to hear about Scofield's or Lindsey's or LaHaye's sins, or any other pretribbers' or non-pretribbers' for that matter. Consider your own.
Speaking of indoctrination and Scofield's Study Bible (I don't own one); I see plenty of non-dispensational Study Bibles around. You can get Reformed, Puritan, Creationist, Catholic and Adventist versions, and likely many other varieties. In fact there's a project for a Pre-Wrath Study Bible. And good for them!
Pretribulationism is sometimes called a divisive doctrine. There's a whole essay's worth in that concept. Yet I'm now seeing non-pretrib individuals desperately looking for churches which teach their particular rapture view. I often see the comment, "I won't attend a pretrib church."
My wife and I are privileged to attend a non-dispensational church. We do have a pretribulational option. What we love about our church is the pastor's passion for the gospel in the tradition of people like Spurgeon and M'Cheyne. He's often invited to speak at pretrib churches because of that commitment to the gospel.
I don't care for gossip related to an encounter with a leading pretrib teacher who allegedly lost his cool because he wasn't familiar with the new-kid-on-the-block view. The teacher has gone to be with the Lord and cannot defend himself. We can all dish up anecdotes about our personal experiences.
I'm not a fan of prophecy conferences at the best of times. But don't lump all pretrib conferences into one bucket and compare them unfavorably to your own - especially when you originally wanted to participate in them. Some of us remember.
Yes, there are some sensational pretrib "prophecy" teachers out there in the market place. Don't jump the gun too quickly, though. Pretribulationists don't have a monopoly on weirdness. Trust me!
When anyone claims a well-known (usually solid) dispensational teacher said salvation in the Old Testament was attained by works, a citation and link ought to be provided. They may also want to demonstrate how salvation was achieved. Don't just tell me it was by faith. We all know that. What was the content of one's faith then?
Now, once again, repeat after me: "Dispies do not teach salvation by works in the OT."
Please don't gripe to me when your view has just been attacked....especially when a significant portion of your program involves criticism of another system. I've lost count as to how many times Adventists chided me for "attacking" Steve Wohlberg (not related to the actor) after I responded to his End time Delusions.
No, pretribulationism isn't the "monolithic" teaching in the mainstream church that it's frequently made out to be. It may have been once, and might still be the dominant view among older premil prophecy buffs. However, that's quickly changing within the younger generation. Many of us have seen an upsurge of attacks on pretribulationism and dispensationalism. Pretribulationism and premillennialism are losing whatever ground they held within evangelical churches for a number of reasons. Feel better now?
Mainstream churches are starting to abandon fundamental teachings in favor of diversity issues and liberation theology. Think about the Social Gospel, Same-sex Marriage, inerrancy, anti-Israelism, spiritualizing the Resurrection, denial of sin and the Trinity, Universalism, Ecumenism, Inter-Faith Dialogue etc. Get the picture?
I always feel better after a good gripe.
Switching my grinder off for now...(stay tuned).
There's an essay on pretribulationism that I've come across several times on Facebook. Its author provides a bunch of excuses for his anti-pretrib crusade. Similar pretexts commonly appear on blog and Facebook hit and runs by different individuals. I want to address a sampling here, in no particular order.
The motives are always altruistic, of course. They do it out of "love" and to correct "false doctrine." I'm reminded of my busy posttribulational friend who once told me he went after pretribbers because he feared their escapist mentality would endanger them once the tribulation arrived. Sound familiar?
That same individual also happened to like going after prewrathers even though they believe the church will experience the tribulation. Truth be known, he just loves to argue. What's love got to do with it? Pardon the Tina Turner pun but when you use terms such as "laughable" or when you call to question a pretribber's integrity (as opposed to yours) - what you are indulging in is arrogance and pride. Not love.
As a side note, if you're a Five Point Calvinist you might consider dropping the "dangerous escapism" routine. It won't wash. On the other hand if you believe one can lose their salvation, perhaps you'd better humbly look at yourself first. Do you know you'll survive the tribulation, faith intact? Where are you placing your confidence?
Here's a suggestion: if you people want to go on a Worthy Crusade, go after the Lost. They really need the gospel. And, if you're really "Brave and Courageous" or an "Overcomer" (in contrast to spineless pretribbers), I know a few volatile countries where you could preach the gospel and get some practice in for the Great Tribulation purification. Practice makes perfect - right?
Next, I don't care whether someone had an overbearing pretrib pastor who ridiculed non-pretribbers. That's plainly wrong. Get over it. Don't do the same thing.
Neither am I impressed that you too were once a "clueless" pretribulationist who was "indoctrinated" by that "recent tradition" - especially if you've now embraced the newest constantly evolving position. It doesn't automatically follow that you're a "Berean" because you changed your view. I was "indoctrinated" by Catholicism and a bunch of other doctrines. I now embrace dispensationalism and pretribulationism as better viewpoints, but that alone doesn't mean I'm suddenly right.
Strange as it may seem non-pretribbers sometimes do migrate to pretrib. It's not because the Holy Spirit "told them so" or because of some "special revelation" as people sometimes declare. It's a case of weighing arguments against Scripture. Yes, we occasionally think for ourselves. Life is full of ironies and surprises.
I'm not impressed with assertions that John Darby purloined Margaret MacDonald's vision and indoctrinated "Schofield." Provide a pretrib quote from MacDonald, not an excerpt from one of MacPherson's "plots." That the Scofield Study Bible then indoctrinated most of the American Church reminds me of the Israeli 9/11 conspiracy theory (sorry, Stephen Sizer).
I also don't want to hear about Scofield's or Lindsey's or LaHaye's sins, or any other pretribbers' or non-pretribbers' for that matter. Consider your own.
Speaking of indoctrination and Scofield's Study Bible (I don't own one); I see plenty of non-dispensational Study Bibles around. You can get Reformed, Puritan, Creationist, Catholic and Adventist versions, and likely many other varieties. In fact there's a project for a Pre-Wrath Study Bible. And good for them!
Pretribulationism is sometimes called a divisive doctrine. There's a whole essay's worth in that concept. Yet I'm now seeing non-pretrib individuals desperately looking for churches which teach their particular rapture view. I often see the comment, "I won't attend a pretrib church."
My wife and I are privileged to attend a non-dispensational church. We do have a pretribulational option. What we love about our church is the pastor's passion for the gospel in the tradition of people like Spurgeon and M'Cheyne. He's often invited to speak at pretrib churches because of that commitment to the gospel.
I don't care for gossip related to an encounter with a leading pretrib teacher who allegedly lost his cool because he wasn't familiar with the new-kid-on-the-block view. The teacher has gone to be with the Lord and cannot defend himself. We can all dish up anecdotes about our personal experiences.
I'm not a fan of prophecy conferences at the best of times. But don't lump all pretrib conferences into one bucket and compare them unfavorably to your own - especially when you originally wanted to participate in them. Some of us remember.
Yes, there are some sensational pretrib "prophecy" teachers out there in the market place. Don't jump the gun too quickly, though. Pretribulationists don't have a monopoly on weirdness. Trust me!
When anyone claims a well-known (usually solid) dispensational teacher said salvation in the Old Testament was attained by works, a citation and link ought to be provided. They may also want to demonstrate how salvation was achieved. Don't just tell me it was by faith. We all know that. What was the content of one's faith then?
Now, once again, repeat after me: "Dispies do not teach salvation by works in the OT."
Please don't gripe to me when your view has just been attacked....especially when a significant portion of your program involves criticism of another system. I've lost count as to how many times Adventists chided me for "attacking" Steve Wohlberg (not related to the actor) after I responded to his End time Delusions.
No, pretribulationism isn't the "monolithic" teaching in the mainstream church that it's frequently made out to be. It may have been once, and might still be the dominant view among older premil prophecy buffs. However, that's quickly changing within the younger generation. Many of us have seen an upsurge of attacks on pretribulationism and dispensationalism. Pretribulationism and premillennialism are losing whatever ground they held within evangelical churches for a number of reasons. Feel better now?
Mainstream churches are starting to abandon fundamental teachings in favor of diversity issues and liberation theology. Think about the Social Gospel, Same-sex Marriage, inerrancy, anti-Israelism, spiritualizing the Resurrection, denial of sin and the Trinity, Universalism, Ecumenism, Inter-Faith Dialogue etc. Get the picture?
I always feel better after a good gripe.
Switching my grinder off for now...(stay tuned).
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Series on the Rapture
Note that Dr. Reluctant is doing a series on the rapture. Everything he writes is full of meat and well thought out. Here is an excerpt from the first installment which I appreciated:
In a sense, I don’t blame them [critics]. Books about prophecy from a pretrib perspective commonly come with covers sporting an eclipse (lunar or solar, either will do); sometimes a dragon or two. Whole ministries exist to promulgate sometimes simplistic versions of Dispensational premillennialism, occasionally tainted with American exceptionalism. When John Hagee writes about the “Four Blood Moons” we are not really surprised. There is always a ready market for ‘signs of the times’ books and newspaper exegesis. I distance myself from such things. I distance myself a little even from those good men who can scarcely write an article about anything unless pretribulationism or pre-wrath or what-have-you has some space allotted to it.
2nd Installment HERE
Addendum:
On a personal note, I was raised Roman Catholic (amil-posttrib). As I got older I briefly attended a premil-posttrib church until I apostatized into the New Age. When God set me straight I defaulted to posttrib. Frankly, I was more interested in the premil-amil-preterist debates and the future of Israel than rapture timing. It was when a bunch of zealous "Fulfilled Prophecy" website buffs flocked over to the Omega Letter website to set the pretribbers right that I became hooked.
It's a little bit like Chess - I didn't like the game and was never interested until I actually started playing it. I did learn something from the process, though - pretribulationism is actually better than the criticism leveled against it. I discovered that its critics often struggle to answer hard questions aimed at their own systems. I also discovered that in many cases the underlying motivation for people like Barbara Rossing (The Rapture Exposed) isn't to expose the rapture. At the heart of much of the criticism aimed at dispensationalism and pretribulationism is the critics' animosity for Israel and "fundamentalism."
In a sense, I don’t blame them [critics]. Books about prophecy from a pretrib perspective commonly come with covers sporting an eclipse (lunar or solar, either will do); sometimes a dragon or two. Whole ministries exist to promulgate sometimes simplistic versions of Dispensational premillennialism, occasionally tainted with American exceptionalism. When John Hagee writes about the “Four Blood Moons” we are not really surprised. There is always a ready market for ‘signs of the times’ books and newspaper exegesis. I distance myself from such things. I distance myself a little even from those good men who can scarcely write an article about anything unless pretribulationism or pre-wrath or what-have-you has some space allotted to it.
2nd Installment HERE
Addendum:
On a personal note, I was raised Roman Catholic (amil-posttrib). As I got older I briefly attended a premil-posttrib church until I apostatized into the New Age. When God set me straight I defaulted to posttrib. Frankly, I was more interested in the premil-amil-preterist debates and the future of Israel than rapture timing. It was when a bunch of zealous "Fulfilled Prophecy" website buffs flocked over to the Omega Letter website to set the pretribbers right that I became hooked.
It's a little bit like Chess - I didn't like the game and was never interested until I actually started playing it. I did learn something from the process, though - pretribulationism is actually better than the criticism leveled against it. I discovered that its critics often struggle to answer hard questions aimed at their own systems. I also discovered that in many cases the underlying motivation for people like Barbara Rossing (The Rapture Exposed) isn't to expose the rapture. At the heart of much of the criticism aimed at dispensationalism and pretribulationism is the critics' animosity for Israel and "fundamentalism."
Sunday, November 23, 2014
SEBTS - Day of Prophecy
Monday, November 17, 2014
Just One Clear Verse
How often have I heard that! Just give me one verse to prove _____ (insert whatever you like). Most often prophecy buffs or opponents of dispensationalism will insert "the pretrib rapture."
As a friend pointed out to me, that's what Doug Hamp did recently. He visited a few Facebook groups, posed the question and reported his findings. He didn't say what the question was but there are no prizes for guessing, and his "astute" readers picked up on it. According to Hamp:
I...have asked people what they believe is the best verse/passage about a certain doctrine which is extremely popular in American churches. I was told point blank, “there is no verse,” and “it is a mystery” or “I just know.” Those kind of responses I would expect from Mormon missionaries, not Bible carrying born-again evangelicals. At one point several people asked me what I was getting at since there was no verse and they couldn’t give me a biblical reason why they believed it. I asked if there is no verse then how do we know that it is true.
However, there were two people who asserted that it is the “it is the most logical,” and proceeded to build a logical case why the doctrine had to be true but in the end could still not provide even one clear verse in support of the doctrine. The problem with a logical syllogism (a syllogism has two premises and a conclusion) is two premises, even if true, may lead to a faulty conclusion will necessarily be faulty. (Emphases mine)
Did you get all that?
I confess to having little patience with the Mormon remark. Van Kampen pulled that stunt in The Rapture Question Answered (p 193) by associating the arrival of the pretrib rapture theory with the the arrival of "new cults such as Mormonism, Christian Science, Unitarianism, and Jehovah's Witnesses." He suggested that these "cults" appeared because of the "disillusionment with Orthodox Christianity." He also touched on the possibility that Irving - "later accused as a heretic" - originated the doctrine. Irving was a historicist, not a pretribulationist. Van Kampen's book spawned a generation of zealous proselytizers telling people to "compare Scripture with Scripture"; to take a "face-value" approach, and that it is all ultimately "plain and simple." If the rapture question was really so "plain and simple" one wouldn't need to write two books to prove one's point.
Getting back to Hamp; he once held to the pretrib position. Note this:
I believe that the Bible in its totality teaches a pretribulation rapture followed by Jesus returning before the beginning of the millennium. The millennium is a literal 1000 year period in which Jesus will rule and reign from Jerusalem. We will be there assisting as judges in some capacity. (Emphasis mine)
And note his article HERE. But now he says:
...I was sad too! I liked the doctrine. You are right there are a lot of positions that we teach that are not taught in Scripture...and my point is that we ought to stop. If we do speculate, then we ought to be quick to mention that and not teach it as "doctrine."
One can't argue with that attitude. Non-pretribbers will kick up their heels in joy and celebrate. But here's what I think (not that it matters much):
Hamp instigated. One of his responders is also notorious for doing that. As an admin of more than one group I'm all too familiar with the phenomenon. You don't visit other groups after some personal epiphany, start trouble and then complain when you get evicted. There are plenty of non-pretrib groups which will oust you for similar behavior. You should have explained your reasons (logic) for changing your mind in your blog and then indicated where the errata lay in your previous thinking.
Hamp knows the rapture timing isn't explicit in Scripture. Walvoord said as much about pretribulationism and posttribulationism. That Hamp used the word totality in context to pretribulationism (see above) implies he understands the timing is inferred in a number of passages. Paul Henebury rightly assigns it a Category 3 teaching, which is "an inference to the best explanation." Richard Mayhue wrote:
Problems remain to be solved by pretribulationists. Yet at this state of the art, pretribulationism most consistently fits the Biblical data and is championed by this writer as the view which best explains the coming of our Lord for His own.
In fact when Mayhue first read Gundry's books he was impressed. It was only after he read them several times over that he began seeing flaws in Gundry's arguments. He goes so far as to encourage The Master's Seminary students to study and develop an opinion on the rapture, even if they disagree with him.
I've said this before; it's one thing to attack someone else's eschatology, and quite another to defend against criticism. Yet the sad reality is that some of us (me included) probably do better at defending our eschatological positions than we do some of the fundamentals of our faith. Try debating the Trinity and the divinity of Christ to a clued up Jehovah's Witness next time one knocks on your door. I've had the unfortunate experience and now have my paperwork prepared.
Ironically, Hamp holds to what I'd call a range of fringe prophecy beliefs. I'd suggest that he'd be hard pressed to biblically or "logically" prove some of them with just a few passages, let alone the one where demons are conspiring to alter human DNA. Perhaps he should listen to his own advice. You can find much of his stuff on his website and on YouTube.
As a friend pointed out to me, that's what Doug Hamp did recently. He visited a few Facebook groups, posed the question and reported his findings. He didn't say what the question was but there are no prizes for guessing, and his "astute" readers picked up on it. According to Hamp:
I...have asked people what they believe is the best verse/passage about a certain doctrine which is extremely popular in American churches. I was told point blank, “there is no verse,” and “it is a mystery” or “I just know.” Those kind of responses I would expect from Mormon missionaries, not Bible carrying born-again evangelicals. At one point several people asked me what I was getting at since there was no verse and they couldn’t give me a biblical reason why they believed it. I asked if there is no verse then how do we know that it is true.
However, there were two people who asserted that it is the “it is the most logical,” and proceeded to build a logical case why the doctrine had to be true but in the end could still not provide even one clear verse in support of the doctrine. The problem with a logical syllogism (a syllogism has two premises and a conclusion) is two premises, even if true, may lead to a faulty conclusion will necessarily be faulty. (Emphases mine)
Did you get all that?
I confess to having little patience with the Mormon remark. Van Kampen pulled that stunt in The Rapture Question Answered (p 193) by associating the arrival of the pretrib rapture theory with the the arrival of "new cults such as Mormonism, Christian Science, Unitarianism, and Jehovah's Witnesses." He suggested that these "cults" appeared because of the "disillusionment with Orthodox Christianity." He also touched on the possibility that Irving - "later accused as a heretic" - originated the doctrine. Irving was a historicist, not a pretribulationist. Van Kampen's book spawned a generation of zealous proselytizers telling people to "compare Scripture with Scripture"; to take a "face-value" approach, and that it is all ultimately "plain and simple." If the rapture question was really so "plain and simple" one wouldn't need to write two books to prove one's point.
Getting back to Hamp; he once held to the pretrib position. Note this:
I believe that the Bible in its totality teaches a pretribulation rapture followed by Jesus returning before the beginning of the millennium. The millennium is a literal 1000 year period in which Jesus will rule and reign from Jerusalem. We will be there assisting as judges in some capacity. (Emphasis mine)
And note his article HERE. But now he says:
...I was sad too! I liked the doctrine. You are right there are a lot of positions that we teach that are not taught in Scripture...and my point is that we ought to stop. If we do speculate, then we ought to be quick to mention that and not teach it as "doctrine."
One can't argue with that attitude. Non-pretribbers will kick up their heels in joy and celebrate. But here's what I think (not that it matters much):
Hamp instigated. One of his responders is also notorious for doing that. As an admin of more than one group I'm all too familiar with the phenomenon. You don't visit other groups after some personal epiphany, start trouble and then complain when you get evicted. There are plenty of non-pretrib groups which will oust you for similar behavior. You should have explained your reasons (logic) for changing your mind in your blog and then indicated where the errata lay in your previous thinking.
Hamp knows the rapture timing isn't explicit in Scripture. Walvoord said as much about pretribulationism and posttribulationism. That Hamp used the word totality in context to pretribulationism (see above) implies he understands the timing is inferred in a number of passages. Paul Henebury rightly assigns it a Category 3 teaching, which is "an inference to the best explanation." Richard Mayhue wrote:
Problems remain to be solved by pretribulationists. Yet at this state of the art, pretribulationism most consistently fits the Biblical data and is championed by this writer as the view which best explains the coming of our Lord for His own.
In fact when Mayhue first read Gundry's books he was impressed. It was only after he read them several times over that he began seeing flaws in Gundry's arguments. He goes so far as to encourage The Master's Seminary students to study and develop an opinion on the rapture, even if they disagree with him.
I've said this before; it's one thing to attack someone else's eschatology, and quite another to defend against criticism. Yet the sad reality is that some of us (me included) probably do better at defending our eschatological positions than we do some of the fundamentals of our faith. Try debating the Trinity and the divinity of Christ to a clued up Jehovah's Witness next time one knocks on your door. I've had the unfortunate experience and now have my paperwork prepared.
Ironically, Hamp holds to what I'd call a range of fringe prophecy beliefs. I'd suggest that he'd be hard pressed to biblically or "logically" prove some of them with just a few passages, let alone the one where demons are conspiring to alter human DNA. Perhaps he should listen to his own advice. You can find much of his stuff on his website and on YouTube.
Friday, September 5, 2014
On Populating the Millennium
Regardless of when the rapture occurs in relationship to the 70th week, people must be saved post-rapture and thus without the benefit of the church's "great commission." It also occurs in an environment under the wrath of God. The closer the rapture event to the beginning of the millennium, the more problematic and redundant the Sheep-Goats Judgment event becomes.
Gavin Finley (End-Time Pilgrim) claims a solution to the problem:
They (pretribulationists) do not discuss the Millennial entry issue in any detail at all. Curiously the subject is kept rather vague. They certainly do not discuss the entry of mortals into Millennium in terms of the Sheep-Goat Judgment. Post-Tribbers are beginning to look into this. And why are they interested? It is because they, (unlike the Pre-Tribbers), have a personal interest in the blood covenant issues inside the 70th Week of Daniel. Post-Tribbers know that they will be going up on stage to bring in the final witness during the final seven years of this age. (Emphases mine)
One popular posttrib response has been to simply refer to Zechariah 14 to show that people make it into the millennium. But Finley raises the issue because it has been a problem, not because there's some biblical "blood-covenant" that needs to be addressed. That's a whole other issue.
His solution involves coming up with a third category of people who aren't saved, yet merit a pass at the Sheep-Goats Judgment. We should note that Revelation speaks of only two kinds of people - the saints and the earth dwellers (Rev 13:7-8).
In Finley's scenario, the Sheep and Goats are unsaved. The Sheep avoid the Mark of the Beast and escape the "Wicked Tares Judgment." Conveniently, they resist the everlasting gospel (Rev 14:6-7) which is preached to all to those who dwell on the earth (every nation, tribe, tongue, and people). Hence they also evade the rapture in order to progress to the Sheep-Goats Judgment.
The Sheep merit a last-minute reprieve because of a works/heart based judgment (Matt 25:34-40). They are not judged "for entry into heaven or eternity." They are attributed this "blood-covenant" righteousness as a passport into the millennium. He claims that Matthew 25 clearly shows that "a human person to human person blood covenant loving-kindness is the central issue."
He writes:
As we [posttribulationists] see it, the Sheep-Goat Judgment appears to be based on matters of heart attitude and character. These heart issues may in turn evidence themselves in works to be sure. But the heart issue revolves around blood covenant commitment to someone in trouble who happens to belong to Messiah. This is the lovingkindness (sic) Messiah is looking for and finds in the sheep. The Sheep-Goat Judgment is not a judgment of works as we have been told. (Emphases mine)
Finley works hard to avoid a faith-by-works salvation, or a different dispensation application to the Sheep-Goats Judgment. He simply needs a vehicle for the unsaved to access the millennium.
The Goats (a fourth category) also escape the Tares Judgment because they haven't taken the Mark of the Beast. However, this category does not make it into the millennium because of its lack of "heart attitude and character" towards the persecuted (Matt 25:41-46). How they could posses the character to resist the Beast yet not possess the heart/attitude to be Sheep is not explained.
The scheme fails to explain the conditions outlined in Hosea 5:15; Matt 23:39 and Matt 24:22. How do any saved individuals (including Israel) enter the millennium in their physical bodies? It also ignores what Revelation consistently says of the Earth Dwellers. See Thomas Ice's article HERE and Tony Garland's article HERE.
Only the righteous inherit the kingdom. Finley has created a quasi-righteous millennial passport in order to solve his posttribulational dilemma. Pretribulationists might respond that if these Sheep were not "saved" then they rejected the gospel (2 Thess 2:8-12; Rev 13:7-8; Rev 14:6-7).
Interestingly, posttribulationist Robert Gundry avoids these convoluted explanations and simply relocates the Sheep-Goats Judgment to the end of the millennium. Ron Rhodes responds to him HERE
This Blood Covenant theory appears to owe some debt to Word of Faith pioneer E. W. Kenyon. Whatever the case, Finley holds the view that the church must do its part by participating in the events of the tribulation. Sadly, he ignores the purposes for the tribulation, and poisons the well by asking leading questions:
Is the Bride of Christ passive and out of the loop, as we see in the pre-tribulation rapture scenario?
But how about this pre-tribulation Rapture of an unsuspecting uninvolved 'bride' leaving early without Israel?
Is the Church to be unaware and passive in the Rapture, as our present day Bible prophecy teachings have suggested? Will God’s faithful witnesses be engaged in cheap, Hollywood style melodrama? Is the end time merely a boring, ho-hum story of survivalist Christians scurrying around like rats after being 'Left Behind' (sic).
Do we just work and play, watch the ballgame and the soaps on TV, talk with our stockbroker, attend church, and wait around for the rapture? Is the bride of Christ, passive in the covenant?
Gavin Finley has turned the rapture debate into an emotional one where the non-pretribulationalist adopts the higher moral ground. Given the website's popularity, it's no wonder many parrot this sort of bias.
Addendum:
I came across an attack on pretribulationism from a prewrath proponent who claimed pretribbers overstate the millennium population problem. He writes:
They are essentially two groups:
1. Those who have been “Jesus’ own” (i.e. were saved) prior to His second coming. This group includes all Old Testament saints as well. This is the group who will “reign” with Jesus during the Millennium.
2. Israel and the remnants of other nations who did not literally participate in the war against Jesus in the last days (and also did not receive the “mark of the beast”). This is the group who will be “reigned” over by Jesus and the saints.
It is a (sic) simple as that. This view is supported by the following passage from Zechariah...
Sound familiar?
But, no, for the reasons stated above it's not that simple at all. This individual also seems to limit the Antichrist's reign. It doesn't help him. In another attack on pretribulationists he ironically quotes Matt 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
However one might want to interpret the parable of the Ten Virgins, it is quite clear that only the righteous will inherit the kingdom (Matt 25:1-13). There is no sitting on the fence in the 70th week waiting for the last minute so that non-glorified people can populate the millennium. If they haven't become saved by the time of the prewrath rapture (whenever that might be) they are likely to have taken the Mark of the Beast.
It's that simple.
Eric Douma on the 70th week (Part One)
Gavin Finley (End-Time Pilgrim) claims a solution to the problem:
They (pretribulationists) do not discuss the Millennial entry issue in any detail at all. Curiously the subject is kept rather vague. They certainly do not discuss the entry of mortals into Millennium in terms of the Sheep-Goat Judgment. Post-Tribbers are beginning to look into this. And why are they interested? It is because they, (unlike the Pre-Tribbers), have a personal interest in the blood covenant issues inside the 70th Week of Daniel. Post-Tribbers know that they will be going up on stage to bring in the final witness during the final seven years of this age. (Emphases mine)
One popular posttrib response has been to simply refer to Zechariah 14 to show that people make it into the millennium. But Finley raises the issue because it has been a problem, not because there's some biblical "blood-covenant" that needs to be addressed. That's a whole other issue.
His solution involves coming up with a third category of people who aren't saved, yet merit a pass at the Sheep-Goats Judgment. We should note that Revelation speaks of only two kinds of people - the saints and the earth dwellers (Rev 13:7-8).
In Finley's scenario, the Sheep and Goats are unsaved. The Sheep avoid the Mark of the Beast and escape the "Wicked Tares Judgment." Conveniently, they resist the everlasting gospel (Rev 14:6-7) which is preached to all to those who dwell on the earth (every nation, tribe, tongue, and people). Hence they also evade the rapture in order to progress to the Sheep-Goats Judgment.
The Sheep merit a last-minute reprieve because of a works/heart based judgment (Matt 25:34-40). They are not judged "for entry into heaven or eternity." They are attributed this "blood-covenant" righteousness as a passport into the millennium. He claims that Matthew 25 clearly shows that "a human person to human person blood covenant loving-kindness is the central issue."
He writes:
As we [posttribulationists] see it, the Sheep-Goat Judgment appears to be based on matters of heart attitude and character. These heart issues may in turn evidence themselves in works to be sure. But the heart issue revolves around blood covenant commitment to someone in trouble who happens to belong to Messiah. This is the lovingkindness (sic) Messiah is looking for and finds in the sheep. The Sheep-Goat Judgment is not a judgment of works as we have been told. (Emphases mine)
Finley works hard to avoid a faith-by-works salvation, or a different dispensation application to the Sheep-Goats Judgment. He simply needs a vehicle for the unsaved to access the millennium.
The Goats (a fourth category) also escape the Tares Judgment because they haven't taken the Mark of the Beast. However, this category does not make it into the millennium because of its lack of "heart attitude and character" towards the persecuted (Matt 25:41-46). How they could posses the character to resist the Beast yet not possess the heart/attitude to be Sheep is not explained.
The scheme fails to explain the conditions outlined in Hosea 5:15; Matt 23:39 and Matt 24:22. How do any saved individuals (including Israel) enter the millennium in their physical bodies? It also ignores what Revelation consistently says of the Earth Dwellers. See Thomas Ice's article HERE and Tony Garland's article HERE.
Only the righteous inherit the kingdom. Finley has created a quasi-righteous millennial passport in order to solve his posttribulational dilemma. Pretribulationists might respond that if these Sheep were not "saved" then they rejected the gospel (2 Thess 2:8-12; Rev 13:7-8; Rev 14:6-7).
Interestingly, posttribulationist Robert Gundry avoids these convoluted explanations and simply relocates the Sheep-Goats Judgment to the end of the millennium. Ron Rhodes responds to him HERE
This Blood Covenant theory appears to owe some debt to Word of Faith pioneer E. W. Kenyon. Whatever the case, Finley holds the view that the church must do its part by participating in the events of the tribulation. Sadly, he ignores the purposes for the tribulation, and poisons the well by asking leading questions:
Is the Bride of Christ passive and out of the loop, as we see in the pre-tribulation rapture scenario?
But how about this pre-tribulation Rapture of an unsuspecting uninvolved 'bride' leaving early without Israel?
Is the Church to be unaware and passive in the Rapture, as our present day Bible prophecy teachings have suggested? Will God’s faithful witnesses be engaged in cheap, Hollywood style melodrama? Is the end time merely a boring, ho-hum story of survivalist Christians scurrying around like rats after being 'Left Behind' (sic).
Do we just work and play, watch the ballgame and the soaps on TV, talk with our stockbroker, attend church, and wait around for the rapture? Is the bride of Christ, passive in the covenant?
Gavin Finley has turned the rapture debate into an emotional one where the non-pretribulationalist adopts the higher moral ground. Given the website's popularity, it's no wonder many parrot this sort of bias.
Addendum:
I came across an attack on pretribulationism from a prewrath proponent who claimed pretribbers overstate the millennium population problem. He writes:
They are essentially two groups:
1. Those who have been “Jesus’ own” (i.e. were saved) prior to His second coming. This group includes all Old Testament saints as well. This is the group who will “reign” with Jesus during the Millennium.
2. Israel and the remnants of other nations who did not literally participate in the war against Jesus in the last days (and also did not receive the “mark of the beast”). This is the group who will be “reigned” over by Jesus and the saints.
It is a (sic) simple as that. This view is supported by the following passage from Zechariah...
Sound familiar?
But, no, for the reasons stated above it's not that simple at all. This individual also seems to limit the Antichrist's reign. It doesn't help him. In another attack on pretribulationists he ironically quotes Matt 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
However one might want to interpret the parable of the Ten Virgins, it is quite clear that only the righteous will inherit the kingdom (Matt 25:1-13). There is no sitting on the fence in the 70th week waiting for the last minute so that non-glorified people can populate the millennium. If they haven't become saved by the time of the prewrath rapture (whenever that might be) they are likely to have taken the Mark of the Beast.
It's that simple.
Eric Douma on the 70th week (Part One)
Friday, August 8, 2014
Unger Responds to Piper & Taylor on the Rapture
I guess after William Lane Craig's comments were aired, others thought they'd throw their hats into the rapture-bashing ring. Anyhow, hat tip to Dan Phillips for this one:
A few days ago, I had an article passed on to me called Nine Reasons We Can Be Confident Christians Won’t Be Raptured Before The Tribulation from Justin Taylor’s blog, in which he was summarizing the teaching of John Piper. A bunch of folks got worked up (on the internet? What?), but my superiors asked me to respond and so I agreed to write a response. Now I’m no stranger to disagreement and my various theological positions that have essentially made me the sweaty asthmatic nerd on the playground of Evangelicalism (nobody likes an outspoken cessationist who is Calvinistic and dispensational), so I’ve basically got nothing to lose!...keep reading
Addendum:
Unger has amended his article to present a softened stance. Perhaps some sensitive soul was offended. That was commendable of him, though I liked the first edition. I like some of the following observations:
Now I celebrate the life and ministry of both John Piper (who gave me my wife) and Justin Taylor (who’s done wonderful work at Crossway). I understand that they’re not on the same page as me when it comes to hermeneutics and, as a result, eschatology. I also know that many who have left pre-tribulational circles (as well as other circles that people love to hate) tend to have had painful encounters with two guys who seem to be elders at a whole lot of churches.
I get that. I know that there’s bad defenders of pre-tribulationalism out there, and I get that there’s obnoxious arguments and graceless “end times evangelists” who teach ideas about the end times that are laughable.
That being said, I also get the idea from a lot of ex-pre-trib fellows that a majority of their understanding of pre-tribulationalism comes from crabby elders and silly extra-biblical ideas that they rejected in their youth (I too was caused to suffer through Jack Van Impe videos). When I have conversations with ex-pre-tribs, I regularly learn that many of them haven’t done much serious reading of pre-tribulationalism in their recent adult years, and generally assume that the theological convictions they reached when they were young are mature and settled, although they wouldn’t ever say that about any other point in their theology.
Fact is that obnoxious arguments and lack of grace aren't limited to curmudgeonly old pretribbers whose Scofield Bibles may only be prised from their cold dead hands. Unger mentions Hal Lindsey (I don't know Impe) in a less than favorable light. I kinda get that too, sort of. But I thought that was a weak ending to his response. It was unnecessary.
I don't think Hal's a great representative of dispensationalism, but he doesn't deserve the cheap shots that get fired off at him by non-pretribulational critics. I find many of them are quick to cry foul at any hint of criticism of their own views. In that respect I've found that Hal has broader shoulders and more class than many of his detractors.
A few days ago, I had an article passed on to me called Nine Reasons We Can Be Confident Christians Won’t Be Raptured Before The Tribulation from Justin Taylor’s blog, in which he was summarizing the teaching of John Piper. A bunch of folks got worked up (on the internet? What?), but my superiors asked me to respond and so I agreed to write a response. Now I’m no stranger to disagreement and my various theological positions that have essentially made me the sweaty asthmatic nerd on the playground of Evangelicalism (nobody likes an outspoken cessationist who is Calvinistic and dispensational), so I’ve basically got nothing to lose!...keep reading
Addendum:
Unger has amended his article to present a softened stance. Perhaps some sensitive soul was offended. That was commendable of him, though I liked the first edition. I like some of the following observations:
Now I celebrate the life and ministry of both John Piper (who gave me my wife) and Justin Taylor (who’s done wonderful work at Crossway). I understand that they’re not on the same page as me when it comes to hermeneutics and, as a result, eschatology. I also know that many who have left pre-tribulational circles (as well as other circles that people love to hate) tend to have had painful encounters with two guys who seem to be elders at a whole lot of churches.
I get that. I know that there’s bad defenders of pre-tribulationalism out there, and I get that there’s obnoxious arguments and graceless “end times evangelists” who teach ideas about the end times that are laughable.
That being said, I also get the idea from a lot of ex-pre-trib fellows that a majority of their understanding of pre-tribulationalism comes from crabby elders and silly extra-biblical ideas that they rejected in their youth (I too was caused to suffer through Jack Van Impe videos). When I have conversations with ex-pre-tribs, I regularly learn that many of them haven’t done much serious reading of pre-tribulationalism in their recent adult years, and generally assume that the theological convictions they reached when they were young are mature and settled, although they wouldn’t ever say that about any other point in their theology.
Fact is that obnoxious arguments and lack of grace aren't limited to curmudgeonly old pretribbers whose Scofield Bibles may only be prised from their cold dead hands. Unger mentions Hal Lindsey (I don't know Impe) in a less than favorable light. I kinda get that too, sort of. But I thought that was a weak ending to his response. It was unnecessary.
I don't think Hal's a great representative of dispensationalism, but he doesn't deserve the cheap shots that get fired off at him by non-pretribulational critics. I find many of them are quick to cry foul at any hint of criticism of their own views. In that respect I've found that Hal has broader shoulders and more class than many of his detractors.
After the Tribulation - Is Steve Anderson right?
Steve Anderson's viral After the Tribulation video is still popular around the traps. It's hardly in-depth exegesis. In fact it's more of an extended rant. Still, some people love to see criticism of pretribulationism regardless of where it comes from. But how much sense does Anderson's view make?
Non-pretribbers like to point to the sequence of events in Matthew 24. Jesus comes after the tribulation and the gathering is mentioned there, hence that's when the rapture occurs. I saw a fairly typical remark the other day that went something like this:
"[As opposed to pretribulationists] we believe in a face-value of God's word and Jesus said that the rapture would happen immediately after the tribulation."
I can understand where they're coming from. After all, the disciples asked Jesus when all these things would be (the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple), the sign of His coming and the end of the world (age). Oh, and the rapture - don't forget the rapture. They recognized v 31 immediately as the rapture. It was foremost on their minds just before Jesus' ascension (Acts 1:6).
What happens after the tribulation?
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Mat 24:29-31
First note that this gathering occurs after the tribulation and after the signs. If the rapture is the gathering after the tribulation then it cannot cut the tribulation short. If the rapture occurs after the tribulation, after the cosmic signs and after the sign of the Son of Man; then it is also unlikely that the Great Multitude of Rev 7:14 has arrived via the rapture. It is more likely that this group of people is continuously arriving from out of the tribulation (See Robertson's notes).
How long is the great tribulation (Jacob's trouble)? See Dan 7:25, Dan 11:36, Dan 12:7, Rev 13:5 and Rev 12:14. It is 1, 260 days. Now that's a problem for Anderson's view right there.
Most importantly, why is the tribulation terminated? It is terminated otherwise no flesh would be saved (Matt 24:22). This flies in the face of the argument that Rev 3:10 means protection within (Gundry), rather than out of the time of trial. If God protects within, there is no reason for Him to terminate the great tribulation. That there are tribulation saints to be resurrected at Rev 20:4 also rejects that view.
What happens to the church at the rapture? According to 1Co 15:51-52 and 1Thess 4:16-17, the dead in Christ are resurrected and the living are glorified.
These verses suggest that the tribulation is brought to an end to preserve the "elect" in their physical bodies (flesh) in order to populate the millennium. To say that God intervenes otherwise no believers would remain alive to be raptured makes absolutely no sense within the context of Matt 24:22.
Matthew 23:39 & Hosea 5:15 state that Christ's physical return is contingent to Israel's repentance, and supports the former observation. The millennium must be populated with saved non-glorified Jews and Gentiles. If the rapture is the "gathering of the elect" then the remnant of Israel must also be raptured at the end of the 1,260 days.
Why then the need for a Sheep-Goats judgment? And who populates the millennium?
I mentioned Steve Anderson's popularity. Anderson has also produced anti-Israel videos which support Replacement Theology. These appear to be gaining popularity with some non-dispensational premillennialists. How sad!
One final thought:
I recently read a prewrath response to a scholar's denial of the rapture doctrine. The respondent offered up 1 Thess 4:17, John 14:2-3, Matt 24:31 and Rev 7:9-14 as proof texts. I can agree with the first two examples, although I'd like to point out that Marvin Rosenthal denied that John 14:2-3 were rapture passages. The reason was that he had Christ coming only once and then staying in the earth's atmosphere for the balance of the tribulation.
The last two examples are the result of circular reasoning for the reasons I gave above. There is no mention of a rapture or resurrection at Matt 24:31 or Rev 7 - these are assumed, as is the connection between these verses. In fact John Feinberg notes that many commentators "of various stripes" see the parallel between Zech 12:10 and Matt 24:29-30. It should be patently obvious that Israel is in view here (not the church). In context, the very next verse is its final gathering in the land as per OT promises.
Non-pretribbers like to point to the sequence of events in Matthew 24. Jesus comes after the tribulation and the gathering is mentioned there, hence that's when the rapture occurs. I saw a fairly typical remark the other day that went something like this:
"[As opposed to pretribulationists] we believe in a face-value of God's word and Jesus said that the rapture would happen immediately after the tribulation."
I can understand where they're coming from. After all, the disciples asked Jesus when all these things would be (the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple), the sign of His coming and the end of the world (age). Oh, and the rapture - don't forget the rapture. They recognized v 31 immediately as the rapture. It was foremost on their minds just before Jesus' ascension (Acts 1:6).
What happens after the tribulation?
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Mat 24:29-31
First note that this gathering occurs after the tribulation and after the signs. If the rapture is the gathering after the tribulation then it cannot cut the tribulation short. If the rapture occurs after the tribulation, after the cosmic signs and after the sign of the Son of Man; then it is also unlikely that the Great Multitude of Rev 7:14 has arrived via the rapture. It is more likely that this group of people is continuously arriving from out of the tribulation (See Robertson's notes).
How long is the great tribulation (Jacob's trouble)? See Dan 7:25, Dan 11:36, Dan 12:7, Rev 13:5 and Rev 12:14. It is 1, 260 days. Now that's a problem for Anderson's view right there.
Most importantly, why is the tribulation terminated? It is terminated otherwise no flesh would be saved (Matt 24:22). This flies in the face of the argument that Rev 3:10 means protection within (Gundry), rather than out of the time of trial. If God protects within, there is no reason for Him to terminate the great tribulation. That there are tribulation saints to be resurrected at Rev 20:4 also rejects that view.
What happens to the church at the rapture? According to 1Co 15:51-52 and 1Thess 4:16-17, the dead in Christ are resurrected and the living are glorified.
These verses suggest that the tribulation is brought to an end to preserve the "elect" in their physical bodies (flesh) in order to populate the millennium. To say that God intervenes otherwise no believers would remain alive to be raptured makes absolutely no sense within the context of Matt 24:22.
Matthew 23:39 & Hosea 5:15 state that Christ's physical return is contingent to Israel's repentance, and supports the former observation. The millennium must be populated with saved non-glorified Jews and Gentiles. If the rapture is the "gathering of the elect" then the remnant of Israel must also be raptured at the end of the 1,260 days.
Why then the need for a Sheep-Goats judgment? And who populates the millennium?
I mentioned Steve Anderson's popularity. Anderson has also produced anti-Israel videos which support Replacement Theology. These appear to be gaining popularity with some non-dispensational premillennialists. How sad!
One final thought:
I recently read a prewrath response to a scholar's denial of the rapture doctrine. The respondent offered up 1 Thess 4:17, John 14:2-3, Matt 24:31 and Rev 7:9-14 as proof texts. I can agree with the first two examples, although I'd like to point out that Marvin Rosenthal denied that John 14:2-3 were rapture passages. The reason was that he had Christ coming only once and then staying in the earth's atmosphere for the balance of the tribulation.
The last two examples are the result of circular reasoning for the reasons I gave above. There is no mention of a rapture or resurrection at Matt 24:31 or Rev 7 - these are assumed, as is the connection between these verses. In fact John Feinberg notes that many commentators "of various stripes" see the parallel between Zech 12:10 and Matt 24:29-30. It should be patently obvious that Israel is in view here (not the church). In context, the very next verse is its final gathering in the land as per OT promises.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Eric Douma's Eschatology Studies
Pastor Eric Douma once presented a formidable defense of the pretribulational rapture view as a response to a challenge. Sadly, these audio studies had been offline for quite some time.
Well, they are finally back up again and can be accessed HERE
Well, they are finally back up again and can be accessed HERE
Monday, June 2, 2014
Looking for Rapture or Tribulation?
I don't normally pay attention to Blog Talk Radio shows. However, this one is well-worth listening to even if it goes for 160 minutes. The real material begins after the three-and-a-half minute mark and you'll have to bear with the early ads.
Friend Kathryn Duerst was recently interviewed by Bible Smack Radio. The extent of her knowledge and the issues regarding dispensationalism, pretribulationism and opposing views is evident by her articulate observations and responses. Kathryn isn't someone who has blithely retained a viewpoint without diligently searching out how other people understand issues.
Well done, Kathryn.
Listen to it HERE
Friend Kathryn Duerst was recently interviewed by Bible Smack Radio. The extent of her knowledge and the issues regarding dispensationalism, pretribulationism and opposing views is evident by her articulate observations and responses. Kathryn isn't someone who has blithely retained a viewpoint without diligently searching out how other people understand issues.
Well done, Kathryn.
Listen to it HERE
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
