Revelation 3:10

I often hear that a face value reading of Matt 24:31 is the rapture. The cosmic signs in Joel are then associated with Rev 6 and this constitutes the “plain and simple” framework of the argument. Of course the OT regathering promises usually don’t get considered within that “simplicity”. I mention this again because I think a simple reading of Rev 3:10 is highly suggestive of a pretribulational rapture. The rapture is implied because it is the most probable means of keeping people out of a period of time.

Here is how a few translators saw fit to render the verse:

Rev 3:10 Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. NASB

Rev 3:10 Because you have kept my admonition to endure steadfastly, I will also keep you from the hour of testing that is about to come on the whole world to test those who live on the earth. NET

Rev 3:10 Because you kept the Word of My patience, I also will keep you OUT of the hour of trial which is going to come on all the habitable world in order to try those dwelling on the earth. LITV (Literal Translation)

If you don’t maintain a pre-trib position, the plain and simple approach needs to be discarded in this case and you have to examine the verse for loopholes. A common approach is to look at the term tereo ek and argue that the promise in Rev 3:10 is to keep the church safe WTHIN the period of time, NOT to take it out of that time. John 17:15 - where the same tereo ek expression is used - is then appealed to.

John 17:15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them (tereo ek) from the evil one.

It’s then pointed out that the Lord isn’t praying for His disciples to be removed from the world but to be kept safe from the evil one within the world. Therefore, the same applies to Rev 3:10 and God isn’t promising a removal of the church from the period of testing. There are problems with this argument.

First, the fact that the Lord actually says that He isn’t asking His Father to remove His disciples from the world is significant – especially in light of John 14:2-3. The Lord’s request is redundant in the case of a post-trib yo-yo rapture. What’s the point of asking for something to not occur if it isn’t going to in the first place?

Second, in John 17:15b the ek reference is to the “evil (one)” and NOT the world. There is a distinction. God does not keep them safe within “evil” or the evil one (Satan) and He does not remove them from within (that has already been done) but keeps them out (tereo ek) of the evil.

Third, if protection is understood to be within, then how effective is it when considering the martyrdom of believers and the fact that they are conquered by the beast (Rev 13:7)? Are we then to conclude that the martyrs weren’t Philadelphians?

Recognizing the problem of martyrdom, some then claim that the promise of protection within relates to salvation and not physical safety. However, this doesn’t make sense considering that the same people hold that hupomonē (enduring, patience) is linked to enduring the Tribulation. It’s like saying; because you’ve remained faithful in the GT I’ll keep you faithful in the GT.

Finally, if John wanted to convey the idea of protection within a time, he would have used other words:

threw en = To keep in. This would be a promise of preservation in the Tribulation.

threw dia = to keep through. This would be a promise to keep us through the Tribulation.

airew ek = to take out, or swzw ek = to save out. This could mean that believers would go into the Tribulation and then be taken out of the Tribulation.

airew apo = to take from. This would mean that believers would go into the Tribulation and then be taken out of the Tribulation.

What is meant by hupomonē ? Is it necessary to conclude that Rev 3:10a is a stipulation to stand fast in The Tribulation to receive the promise of Rev 3:10b? We only need to do a word search to see how it is used in other NT passages. Renald Showers has done this in “Maranatha – Our Lord, come” p 209 and concludes that this means the patient expectation of Jesus Christ’s coming. See Rev 1:9 and F Hauck’s “Theological Dictionary of the New testament” Vol IV p 586, among others quoted by Dr Showers. In other words, as attested to by a word search, one doesn’t need to experience tribulation in Daniel’s 70th week to exhibit perseverance (hupomonē ). This should be the Christian status at all times. (Luke 21:19, Rom 5:3-4, James 1:4 etc)

But even allowing all of my conclusions, some will still argue against Rev 3:10 being pretribulational. The strategy would be to assert that the promise may well be to remove the Church from the time of testing, but the time of testing is the day of the Lord’s wrath which occurs AFTER the Abomination of Desolation.

Looking at Rev 3:10 again:

Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

Note that the terms “day of the Lord” or God’s wrath/orge are absent from the verse. Where these concepts appear in Revelation is well defended by pretribulationists but this isn’t the point I want to make.

There are no hidden clauses in Rev 3:10. God doesn’t say, “I didn’t actually promise to exempt you from Satan’s or man’s wrath even though I’ve released it.” Only man’s presuppositions limit God’s promise. What we do see are the words peirasmos and peirazō for testing and test. That testing is located in the seal judgments. See Romans 13:3-5 and compare with Rev 6:8. A face value reading of the seal judgments shows that the world is being tested and in tribulation well before the 6th seal.

Also, consider the Two Witnesses of Rev 11:6. They tormented (basanizō) the whole world during their ministry. There is a strong relationship between the words testing, test and tormented:

pi-ras-mos From G3985; a putting to proof (by experiment [of good], experience [of evil], solicitation, discipline or provocation); by implication adversity: - temptation, X try.

pi-rad'-zo From G3984; to test (objectively), that is, endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline: - assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt (-er), try.

basanizō From G931; to torture: - pain, toil, torment, toss, vex.

So, considering all the above arguments, I believe a plain (minus presuppositions) reading of Rev 3:10 demonstrates that, because Christians have remained faithful (daily endurance), they will be removed from the period (the seven years) of testing which will come upon those who dwell on the earth.


Further reading:

The Grammar of Revelation 3:10

THE THEOLOGY OF REVELATION 3:10

RESCUED FROM THE WRATH OF GOD (page 8)

The Rapture in Revelation 3:10

THE EARTH DWELLERS OF REVELATION

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRIBULATION

From the Pre-Trib Research Centre:

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

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

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

Always Ready and Watching?

Great post by Fred DeRuvo...at least in my opinion!

In the parable of the servants found in Luke 12:35-48, we see a scenario in which some of the head servants got lazy, began to beat the other servants, and essentially stopped watching for the Master’s return. The fact that they stopped watching, which in effect means they stopped expecting the Lord of the household to return at any moment, gave way to laziness and ill treatment of the others.

A great deal has been read into this parable, including the fact that the Master of the house is said to have gone to a wedding celebration. The truth of the parable can be found within the pattern of the slaves. Note that some of the slaves stopped to think about the situation, then said, ”My master is delayed in returning.” It was because of this thinking that these slaves began ”to beat the other slaves, both men and women, and to eat, drink, and get drunk.“ What is the point here? The point is that it was the slaves who actually began to doubt the return of the master of the house, which caused problems. We see this today with Preterists, and others, who teach that the Lord returned spiritually in A.D. 70, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. If you pick up reading material written by some of these individuals, you are met with some of the most antagonistic, sarcastic ridicule of those who believe in a literal return of Christ, that ever exists in written form. Some of these individuals know no bounds of good taste, and certainly do not understand how to approach a subject charitably...Continue Reading


Further into his post, Fred makes these observations:

Please note that the parable also indicates that nothing is to occur prior to the master’s return. He will simply appear. One moment he won’t be there and the next, he is there. There is nothing in the parable which would give notification of his impending return. He simply returns and when he does, he sees that some of his servants have been and are mistreating the others. He quickly puts a stop to that and metes out punishment...

We do not know when the Rapture will occur. Therefore, every day should be lived as if it is happening today. We should be about the Father’s business with the understanding that before this day closes, we could be ushered into His presence. Does that scenario bother you? You feel as if you are not being true to the integrity of Scripture? Okay, that’s fine. Then instead of the Rapture, substitute the phrase “your/my death.” Do you have any logical arguments at all that would prohibit you from believing that before this day ends, your life could end? .....

Understanding that our death is always imminent should create within us a respect for the time that we do have, so that we make the most of that time, appreciating life, and letting go of the things that do not matter. We should also understand that the time we have been given is extremely valuable, and we will be held accountable for it. Did you witness to anyone today? Did you spend time in prayer today? Did you get to know the Lord through His Word a bit more today? Did you see more of Christ developed in you today?

I should also point out that Fred's post has a bit of an edge to it. I like it.

Is John 14:3 the Rapture?

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

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

On his website, Tim Warner makes the following observations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Makes sense?

More Wrath of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some articles from a pretribulational perspective:

RESCUED FROM THE WRATH OF GOD

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

How Will God Express His Wrath Upon the Earth?


Addendum:

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

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

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

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

Does Pretribulationism Lead to Idleness?

I first read this article about four years ago without fully understanding the nuances behind the question. In those days I was more interested in the pre-mil vs preterist debates:

Does Pretribulationism Lead to Idleness?

A Consideration of 2 Thessalonians 3:6-12

Steve Lewis

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12, NASB)

Read the article HERE

A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to "Left Behind" Eschatology’

I’ve just read a review of a book that I haven’t read yet because I currently have too many on the go. The review caught my eye because I’d heard some favorable comments about ‘A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to "Left Behind" Eschatology’ by Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung Eds. No surprise that these comments haven't come from the pre-trib camp.

The reviewer, Erik Swanson, begins by making the following observations:

Current eschatology recognizes three views on the millennium: premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. Premillennialism itself comes in two flavors: dispensational premillennialism (hereafter DP) and its less popular cousin, historic premillennialism (hereafter HP). HP has never dominated popular belief or academic strongholds, but the contributors to A Case for Historic Premillennialism seek to change that. This collection of articles, edited by Craig Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung, was written mostly by the faculty of Denver Theological Seminary, with two outside contributors. Since every branch of eschatology has “received sustained attention and developed new permutations,” these authors felt it was “past time for a new look at classic premillennialism” (xvi). Amillennialism has continued to develop. DP has continued to develop. But since the death of George Ladd in 1982, HP has not. Hence the occasion for this book—to progress the system of HP and steal some attention away from DP for itself.

How does this work fare in its goals? How do these contributors progress HP? What kind of case do they present for HP and how strong is it? How well do they critique the other millennial views, especially DP? These questions will be answered in the following critique. I will begin by surveying the more subtle purpose behind this book, followed by examining the contributors’ critique of DP. Then I will explore their case for HP followed by an overall evaluation of how well they achieved their intended purposes…

Here are some take out comments:

A Case for Historic Premillennialism’s real agenda is to attack “left behind” eschatology. These authors are clearly venting their frustration with the popularity of “left behind” eschatology, which is presumably DP. They relate how they go to speak to Presbyterian or Reformed churches only to find that their members know nothing of their historic eschatology beliefs. The people only know of Lindsey, LaHaye, and Jenkins: “Today, at least at a grassroots level, one can find…many believers whose eschatology is largely or entirely determined by Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins, and other writers of similar bent” (xiv). They claim that DP is the popular, majority belief of evangelicals who are biblically illiterate. (ouch) DP is represented as the view of the masses and popular culture which infiltrated society after 9/11 when Americans were willing to hear what the Bible said about end times….

The review is worth reading just on the basis of how well (or not) the writers defend posttribulationism and deal with pretribulationism, which seems to be the underlying agenda. Do they actually make a case for HP? Swanson concludes with this:

The goal of this book was to present a case for HP. Rather, the title should be changed to “A Case of Posttribulationalism.” The sub-title should then read, “An Alternative to ‘Left Behind’ Eschatology…Though Nothing to Do with Dispensational Premillennialism.” Chapter after chapter, I found myself waiting for the case for HP. It never came. Rather the authors’ biases, presuppositions, and frustrations were the only clear part of this book. I wish it weren’t the case, but this book entirely fails at its objective and is of little value to the church in understanding eschatology today.

For what it's worth, read it HERE.