March 2, 2010

Daniel 2 and Daniel 7: Equal or Not Equal - Part 3

Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 - Equal or not Equal - Part 3.pdf

February 23, 2010

Daniel 2 and Daniel 7: Equal or Not Equal (Part 2)

Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 - Equal or not Equal Part 2.pdf

February 16, 2010

Daniel 2 and Daniel 7: Equal or Not Equal (Part 1)

Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 - Equal or not Equal Part 1.pdf

February 14, 2010

How Not To Do Church History:
Taking John Calvin Out of Context

Pretribulational John Walvoord writes:

John Calvin, the great reformer, likewise looked for the imminent return of Christ. In commenting on 1 John 2:18, Calvin writes, "But the Apostle not only fortifies the faithful, lest they should falter, but turns the whole to a contrary purpose; for he reminds them that the last time had already come, . . . In the same way it behoves us to comfort ourselves at this day, and to see by faith the near advent of Christ, . . . nothing more now remained but that Christ should appear for the redemption of the world." Even though Calvin did not follow premillennial truth, he nevertheless did believe in the imminency of the Lord's return" ("Christ's Olivet Discourse on the Time of the End: How Near is the Lord's Return?," p. 81, Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1972, John F. Walvoord).

What Walvoord fails to tell the reader is that Calvin believed in the imminent return of Christ, not because he thought the Church was raptured before Antichrist, rather Calvin believed the Antichrist was the papacy---hence, the reason Calvin believed that Christ could come back at any moment.

Here is the context of what Calvin continued to say in his commentary of 1 John 2:18, which was left out by Walvoord:

As ye have heard that antichrist will come. He speaks as of a thing well known. We may hence conclude that the faithful had been taught and warned from the beginning respecting the future disorder of the Church, in order that they might, carefully keep themselves in the faith they professed, and also instruct posterity in the duty of watchfulness. For it was God's will that his Church should be thus tried, lest any one knowingly and willingly should be deceived, and that there might be no excuse for ignorance. But we see that almost the whole world has been miserably deceived, as though not a word had been said about Antichrist.

Moreover, under the Papacy there is nothing more notorious and common than the future coming of Antichrist [i.e., they did not recognize that he was already present]; and yet they are so stupid, that they perceive not that his tyranny is exercised over them. Indeed, the same thing happens altogether to them as to the Jews; for though they hold the promises respecting the Messiah, they are yet further away from Christ than if they had never heard his name; for the imaginary Messiah, whom they have invented for themselves, turns them wholly aside from the Son of God; and were any one to shew Christ to them from the Law and the Prophets, he would only spend his labor in vain. The Popes have imagined an Antichrist, who for three years and a half is to harass the Church. All the marks by which the Spirit of God has pointed out Antichrist, clearly appear in the Pope; but the triennial Antichrist lays fast hold on the foolish Papists, so that seeing they do not see. Let us then remember, that Antichrist has not only been announced by the Spirit of God, but that also the marks by which he may be distinguished have been mentioned.

This is consistent with the Prewrath position. When Antichrist appears and persecutes the Church, then Christ's Return will be imminent! (but prewrath does not believe the pope is the Antichrist).

February 5, 2010

The Day of the Lord is Not a Literal 24 Hour Day

There are some who maintain that the Day of the Lord will be a literal twenty-four hour day, mostly those holding to a variant of posttribulationism, as well as amillennialism.

They require that all the events associated with God's eschatological wrath must occur within a single day when Christ comes back. This forced "accordion" interpretation is not necessary since prewrath teaches that the Great Tribulation is "cut short." The seven-year period will not be cut short; rather, only the persecution of the Great Tribulation will be cut short, allowing natural sufficient time for God's wrath to be poured out after the Great Tribulation for the remaining part of the seven-year period and shortly beyond.

The Hebrew term for "day" in this expression is yôm. This term in our context takes on a richer and larger scope of meaning rather than a mere literal 24-hour day. Yôm contains about a dozen different meanings in the Old Testament, so context plays an important role. It does refer to a literal 24-hour day when it is associated with a number (e.g. "three days") or other qualifiers such as "full day," "each day," "every day," "a full day," "the Sabbath day," and so on. In contrast, the prophets often used "day" to denote the epochal time when God would break into history in glory and judgment, bringing the ungodly to account. They describe this eschatological period as decisive, yet complex, unfolding over time. Indeed, the book of Revelation reveals that even the fifth trumpet judgment by itself is said to last five months (Rev. 9:5, 9). In short, the Day of the Lord will be God's judgment and vindication that will be decisive--Yahweh will sovereignly possess that day.

The following points are more considerations that militate against a literal twenty-four hour day interpretation:

(1) The origin of "day" in "Day of the Lord" likely emerged from the ancient notion that a sovereign could be victorious in a single day. Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 352. It eventually morphed into the connotation of an epoch as we see in the Old Testament prophets.

(2) There are instances that the expression "Day of the Lord" and its variants do not refer to the eschatological judgment; instead, they refer to a near judgment, such as the judgment on Jerusalem from the Babylonians. For example, Ezekiel 13:5 contains the expression "Day of the Lord"; yet, this is in the context of the captivity of Judah. And we know that the Babylonian invasion on Judah and Jerusalem lasted much longer than a mere twenty-four hour day. Another example is a variant of the "Day of the Lord" that is found in Lamentations 2:21-22: "the day of your anger" and "the day of the LORD's anger." Again, this is in the context of the Babylonian invasion and captivity of Jerusalem; yet, the singular "day" was clearly understood by the prophet to figuratively refer to an epoch--not a mere literal twenty-four hour day.

(3) The eschatological expression "that day" can frequently refer to the aspect of the Day of the Lord that contains millennial blessings. In those contexts, it is clearly a figurative expression denoting an epoch of blessings, not a twenty-four hour day.

(4) The single verse that is often cited for support for the twenty-four hour day interpretation is: "But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light" (Zech. 14:7 KJV). However, the term "one day" should be better properly translated "unique day" or "never-ending day." This is the rendering of most modern versions. For example: "And there shall be a unique day, which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but at evening time there shall be light" (Zech 14:7 ESV, emphasis mine). See also the NIV and NASB for the same rendering. In other words, translators recognize that the context suggests this new era will be unique in redemptive history. It will be the new established conditions that will be ongoing. Thus, rendering and interpreting it as "one day" misses the oracle's point entirely.

In addition, the most authoritative Hebrew lexicon, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, lists yôm ("day") containing ten different meanings depending on its context. It is noteworthy that the lexicon does not include the instance of Zechariah 14:7 under the category of "day of twenty-four hours"; instead, it places it under the semantic rubric "day of Yahweh," thereby suggesting a special sense of the word rather than a mere twenty-four hour day. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and M.E.J. Richardson, eds., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Accordance electronic edition, version 3.0. (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 2:400. Moreover, the Hebrew term for "one/unique" is ʾehad, which, in this particular verse according to the lexicon, means "never-ending day." Koehler, Baumgartner, and Richardson, HALOT, 1:30.

There is a last appeal to make this a twenty-four hour day by noting that the verse ends with, "in the evening there will be light." The mention of "evening" is supposed to indicate the day is literal. The problem with this is the verse is located in a central section (vv. 6-9) figuratively describing the new and ongoing (not limited to a single day) conditions when the Lord will rule as king: "On that day there shall be no light, cold, or frost. And there shall be a unique day, which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but at evening time there shall be light. On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter. And the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day the LORD will be one and his name one" (Zech. 14:6-9 ESV). The italics are mine, noting the figurative language describing the continuous nature of God's kingdom. To argue here that the Day of the Lord is limited to a single day is untenable. Another verse that is sometimes appealed to is Isaiah 10:17: "The light of Israel will become a fire, their Holy One will become a flame; it will burn and consume the Assyrian king's briers and his thorns in one day." This verse is weak support, since it is not speaking of the universal Day of the Lord's wrath; instead, it is specifically a judgment upon "the Assyrian king." See Isaiah 10:5-19, especially v. 12, for this Assyrian context.

(5) In Isaiah 34:8, "day" is paralleled with "year," connoting a figurative effect, indicating a period of time is in view: "For the LORD has a day of vengeance, a year of recompense for the cause of Zion" (Isa. 34:8 ESV; cf. Isa. 61:2). "Day" and "year" are not to be taken literally--they are poetic.

(6) The apostle Paul did not conceive the Day of the Lord as a literal twenty-four hour day. Soon after writing the first epistle to the Thessalonians, he received word back that many of them were being deceived by some who taught that they were experiencing the Day of the Lord. If it were a literal twenty-four hours, it would be unintelligible for Paul to write back a few months later in his second epistle, arguing that they were not presently experiencing the Day of the Lord.

January 27, 2010

Εὐθέως (Immediately) in Matthew 24:29 Undermines Historicism

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken." (Matt 24:29).

Historicism is the eschatological position that says the thrust of prophecy in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are fulfilled in the span of the church age. So for example, they would say that the Great Tribulation was not fulfilled in the first century, nor is it to be fulfilled in the future. Instead, it spans the entire church age.

You may by surprised to learn that most Evangelical scholars are not preterists or futurists---they are historicists. But many are a mixture of preterist-historicist. Or, more inconsistently, some are preterist-historicist-futurist.

There are good reasons why historicism is not a valid interpretation. I want to point out one salient reason here. In Matthew's account of the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24:29 he uses the Greek term έὐθέως, which means "immediately." The event that follows the "tribulation (i.e. great tribulation) of those days" is the coming of Christ. Matthew says that the coming of Christ will occur immediately after the tribulation of those days. What is the nature of this tribulation? We are told specifically that this tribulation is caused by the abomination of desolation (Cf. Matt. 24:15, 21).

So historicism cannot be correct for two reasons:

i. The tribulation will come about by the abomination of desolation. So this tribulation cannot be described as occurring over the span of the church age. That is, believers are not going through tribulation today because the Roman general Titus destroyed the Jewish temple in A.D. 70.

ii. Since historicism believes that the abomination of desolation in Matthew 24 was fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the destruction of the temple followed by tribulation, έὐθέως (immediately) must refer specifically to that tribulation, since the term has a temporal meaning requiring that the coming of Christ to occur in the first century. In other words, it is nonsense for them to claim as they do that "immediately" will happen thousands of years later after the abomination of desolation. Therefore historicism has a strained interpretation.

Prewrath has the natural reading. We understand that the abomination of desolation for Matthew refers to a futurist event of Antichrist in the temple. That will cause a great tribulation and immediately after those days are cut short the coming of Christ will happen.

January 21, 2010

A Reply to Michael Stallard and His Misuse of Noah and the Flood in Genesis 7:10

Dr. Michael Stallard writes:

"The floodwaters did not begin until Noah and his family were in the ark for a full week according to Genesis 7:10."

He is responding to the prewrath tenet that the same day that the rapture happens will be the same day that the Day of the Lord begins. We point out that Jesus cited the flood as an example to show this back-to-back nature of God's deliverance of his people and his pouring out of his wrath:

"Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage--right up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26-27).

Jesus is explicit that it was the very day Noah entered the ark, "right up to the day." What does "right up to the day" mean for Stallard? We are not told. He then appeals to a proof text of Genesis 7:10:

"And after seven days the floodwaters engulfed the earth." (Gen 7:10).

That is all we are given by Stallard. There was no attempt to show how this verse supports his assertion. He is assuming that the seven days began after Noah and his family entered the ark. But that is not what the verse, nor the context, says.

The context is clear that the seven days refers to God's command to Noah to get animals into the ark before seven days come to pass. Here is the context:

"The LORD said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, for I consider you godly among this generation. (2) You must take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, the male and its mate, two of every kind of unclean animal, the male and its mate, (3) and also seven of every kind of bird in the sky, male and female, to preserve their offspring on the face of the earth. (4) For in seven days I will cause it to rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the ground every living thing that I have made." (5) And Noah did all that the LORD commanded him. (6) Noah was 600 years old when the floodwaters engulfed the earth. (7) Noah entered the ark along with his sons, his wife, and his sons' wives because of the floodwaters. (8) Pairs of clean animals, of unclean animals, of birds, and of everything that creeps along the ground, (9) male and female, came into the ark to Noah, just as God had commanded him. (10) And after seven days the floodwaters engulfed the earth." (Gen 7:1-10).

But that is not all! If one continues to read, they will see even a more explicit statement that it happened on the same day:

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month--on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. (12) And the rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. (13) On that very day Noah entered the ark, accompanied by his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, along with his wife and his sons' three wives. (14) They entered, along with every living creature after its kind, every animal after its kind, every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, everything with wings. (15) Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life came into the ark to Noah. (16) Those that entered were male and female, just as God commanded him. Then the LORD shut him in. (17) The flood engulfed the earth for forty days. As the waters increased, they lifted the ark and raised it above the earth. (18) The waters completely overwhelmed the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the waters." (Gen 7:11-18).

So Jesus' use of the flood story is accurate and fitting: two events of deliverance and judgment, back-to-back, on the very same day.

January 20, 2010

The Blood Red Moon:
Hyper Literalism vs. the Natural Reading

Many Pretribulationists do not identify the sixth seal cosmic disturbances with the cosmic disturbances associated with the Lord's Return in Matthew 24.

The most common reason I have heard is that Revelation states that the moon becomes a "blood red" color but in Matthew 24 it states that the moon does "not give its light." Therefore, according to them, these are two completely separate events.

"the sun became as black as sackcloth made of hair, and the full moon became blood red" (Rev 6:12).

"the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light" (Matt 24:29).

This is a classic case of hyper literalism interpretation. Can you imagine if we applied such wooden principles to the gospels? For example, the story of Jesus calming the storm has Matthew's account with Jesus saying, O men of little faith; Mark has Have you no faith?; Luke has Where is your faith? According to their logic, Jesus must have calmed the storm three different times. Many more examples could be adduced from the gospel writers having the inspired freedom to use their own expressions and paraphrases.

Writers had the literary freedom to express vivid images about monumental significance. It is naive to pit the parallelism between John and Jesus simply because John adds the element about the diminish light from a red moon and Jesus simply states the fact of a diminished light.

The same can be said about the description of the sun:

Jesus: "the sun will be darkened"
John: "the sun became as black as sackcloth made of hair"

Are we suppose to believe that by necessity Jesus and John are talking about two different events because John augments his imagery? Of course not.

And what about that little important thing called . . . context. Never mind the fact that this celestial sign takes place when Jesus says that the elect are gathered at the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21-22, 29-31), and consistently John says the same thing (Rev 7:14). Is that a coincidence? The burden of proof is on them to show that. As for me, I am going with the natural reading.

January 20, 2010

INBOX: An Alternative to a Prewrath Study Bible

Alan - I would like to know if there are any study Bibles with pre-wrath notes? All the study Bibles I have contain pre-trib notes. Thanks, Judy

No there isn't. However, there is an alternative. Photocopy the Scripture Indexes from prewrath books of Rosenthal, VanKampen, Cooper, et al., then place those pages in the back of your Bible, or near your Bible, for reference.

January 19, 2010

The Great Tribulation is Against Believers, Not Unbelievers

A definitional tenet of the prewrath position is seeing a proper distinction between the Antichrist Great Tribulation against God's people, and the Day of the Lord's wrath against the ungodly. Pretribulationists conflate (or confuse) the two making God's wrath mediated through the Antichrist against unbelievers and believers! All one needs to do is read Revelation 13 and learn that the Antichrist will be persecuting God's people, not unbelievers.

One attempt to make the Great Tribulation a time for persecution for unbelievers is by Dr. Mike Stallard in his article, "An Analysis of the Use of Cosmic-Sign Passages by Proponents of the Pre-Wrath Rapture Theory." He writes:

[T]he passage [Matthew 24:22] in question says that "no life" would be saved unless God shortened this time. Yet, it is clear that life continues on after the rapture in a pre-wrath scheme until the Second Coming itself. The verse does not limit itself to "Christian life" in the first part of that verse. Such an assumption is arbitrary. It is much more natural to interpret the statement of Jesus to mean that, if the tribulation lasts longer than seven years, everyone on earth would die."

The life that Jesus is speaking of is clearly of Christian life, not "everyone on earth."

Stallard arbitrary disconnects "life" from the qualification of what kind of life found in the second half of this verse: "Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short." (Matt 24:22 NASB).

Stallard believes that the wrath of God is both against the ungodly and godly in this passage. This is untenable. The context of the Great Tribulation in that passage is the Antichrist's (not God's) wrath in the suffering of believer's lives because they are perishing. Unbelievers are nowhere in view in that passage; hence the reason Stallard failed to provide any examples.

Pretribs are hard-pressed to find any passage in the Bible that teaches that the Great Tribulation will be against unbelievers.