July 26, 2008

An Encapsulated Dynamic from Three Millennial Perspectives

The Millennial Maze, pp. 139-41 (To be sure, the author of this "comparison" book is Amill and his bias comes out in various places; nevertheless, Grenz does have a keen, nuanced eye when describing the dynamic between millennial positions.)

Historic premillennialists have attempted to carve out a distinctive position between dispensationalism on the one side, and amillennialism on the other. Over against the distinction between Israel and the church posited by the dispensationalism from which many of them came, these thinkers agree with the amillennial emphasis on the church as the spiritual Israel. They employ a "spiritualizing" hermeneutic that transfers to the experience of the church the prophetic expectations of a future glorious age for Israel.

At the same time, historic premillennialists are unwilling to employ universally the spiritualizing hermeneutic. They do not resign Israel to oblivion, but agree with their dispensationalist cousins that there remains yet some future role for Israel in the divine economy, albeit only as the nation turns to Christ and thereby becomes a vehicles of blessing to the world. And they stubbornly cling to the literalist hermeneutic when the meaning of the thousand years of Revelation 20 is in question. Not all prophecy can be spiritualized, they argue, and not every dimension of the future hope for the people of Gd may be relegated to the eternal state beyond the culmination of history.

Because they are caught in the middle, as it were, contemporary adherents of historic premillennialism find themselves fighting on two fronts. When engaging in discussions with dispensationalists, especially adherents of its classical expression, they direct their polemic against the literalist hermeneutic and the emphasis on Israel that arises out of it. But they defend a literal approach to the Bible and the physical, earthly dimensions of God's future purposes when confronting amillennialists.

As a result of the double direction characteristic of their apologetic, critics from both the dispensationalist and the amillennialist persuasions charge historical premillennialists with inconsistency. Both assert, for example, that the historic premillennialist hermeneutic is inconsistent, Dispensationalists complain that they are not consistently literal in approaching Scripture. Amillennialists, in contrast, see them as too literalistic. They wonder why historic premillennialists demand a fulfillment within history of the glorious blessings promised to God's people.

Critics from both persuasions claim that historic premillennialists are likewise inconsistent in their understanding of Israel. Many amillennialists challenge them to consistency in seeing the church as the spiritual Israel. Historical premillennialists readily apply to the church various Old Testament promises originally given to Israel. Such promises find their fulfillment in the blessings the church will enjoy in the millennial era. But amillennialist critics wonder why these "spiritualized" promises require a future age for their "literal" fulfillment. Dispensationalists, in contrast, wonder why historic premillennialists cannot see that their acknowledgment of some distinction between Israel and the church naturally leads to a greater emphasis on the future fulfillment of God's promises to the nation.

In short, dispensationalists complain that historic premillennialists have set out on the road to amillennialism. Amillennialists, in turn, encourage them to make the complete break with premillennialism demanded by their rejection of dispensationalism.

July 25, 2008

What Did Calvary and the Tomb Look Like? An Interview with Leen Ritmeyer

Excellent Biblical study nuggets:

What Did Calvary Look Like? An Interview with Leen Ritmeyer (Part 1)

What Did Jesus' Tomb Look Like? An Interview with Leen Ritmeyer (Part 2)

July 22, 2008

The 1611 King James Bible Agrees with the Prewrath Position

If you are a Pretribulationist King James Version Only Advocate this post may be disturbing news. Today when I was examining a facsimile of the original King James Version -- the actual 1611 edition -- I was looking at instances of textual variant notes found in the King James Version; there are 2,193 instances. (Yes, the 17th century Anglican King James translators made textual critical choices when they translated it.)

During my research of textual variant notes, I came across something else that is very interesting. As you know, pretribulationists assert that Matthew 24 does not describe the event of the rapture/resurrection. They claim that Matthew 24:31 describing the "gathering of the elect" is referring to some group of believing Jews and not the rapture/resurrection of the Church. This is to avoid the implication of the rapture/resurrection following after the Antichrist's Great Tribulation; and in the pretrib system they cannot have the Church being persecuted during this time -- it would, as well, undermine their doctrine of imminency since it would have the rapture following after prophesied events.

Observe the asterisk at the beginning of verse 31 and the two verses it cross-references to in the margin: 1 Cor 15:52 and 1 Thess. 4:16. The former verse is the twinkling of an eye rapture/resurrection passage, and the latter is the classic rapture/resurrection passage! Here the KJV translators understand that Matthew 24:31 is describing the same event of the rapture/resurrection, contra pretribulationism.

So for those pretribbers who invest ultimate authority into the textual critical decisions of 17th century Anglican churchmen, I thought I would highlight that these translators' understanding of Matthew 24:31 agrees with Prewrath -- and negates the notion of Pretribulationism.

For a larger image, click here.

July 21, 2008

Some of our Popular Articles from the Past

I thought I would list some of our popular articles from the past. As a reminder, the archive can be searched from the search box, topic categories, authors, and by the month. Our free audio is always popular but the following is a list of popular articles (just copy and paste the address into your browser):

The most popular of course is Coop's article on his explanation of Prewrath
http://www.prewrathrapture.com/2005/11/the_prewrath_rapture_1.php

Both the Rapture and the Onset of the Day of the Lord's Wrath Occur on the Same Day.
http://www.prewrathrapture.com/2008/03/both_the_rapture_and_the_onset_of_the_da.php

The First Six Seals Are Not God's Wrath
http://www.prewrathrapture.com/2007/10/the_first_six_seals_are_not_gods_wrath.php

Learn about Amillennialism's origins in Church history. (Ignore the question marks in the article since I need to convert them to quotation marks. When we changed to a new publishing platform it affected some articles which I need to fix soon).
http://www.prewrathrapture.com/2007/07/amillennialism_examining_its_origens.php

Consistency Between Jesus and Paul: The Singular Future Parousia of Christ
http://www.prewrathrapture.com/2006/09/consistency_between_jesus_and_paul.php

The word "church" being absent from Revelation 4-19
http://www.prewrathrapture.com/2006/01/a_reply_to_the_pretrib_argument_the_word.php

A Case for the Prewrath Rapture: the "Cosmic Disturbances"
http://www.prewrathrapture.com/2006/0/a_case_for_the_prewrath_rapture_the_cosm.php

Premillennial Nuggets - A Challenge to Amillennialists to Read "Revelation 20" in Context
http://www.prewrathrapture.com/2008/07/a_challenge_to_amillennialists_to_read_r.php

July 19, 2008

A Short Definition of the Chronology of Postmillennialism

"As the gospel spreads throughout the earth and brings its divinely intended and Spirit-energized results, evil [...] is eventually routed and the millennium arrives. During this era the nations live in peace, for Satan is "bound" and thereby evil is temporarily restrained. After the thousand years have ended Satan is loosed to lead a short-lived rebellion, the final conflict of evil with righteousness, whether this be understood as a spiritual battle of truth against error or in terms of political persecution. Satan's rebellion is ended by the triumphal return of Jesus. The Second coming is followed by the general resurrection, the judgment and and the eternal state -- heaven and hell" (The Millennial Maze, p. 72).

July 18, 2008

Why Study End Times? - Revelation 22:20

by Michael Weis

Revelation 22:20 - He who testifies of these things says, "Surely I am coming quickly." Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!

The Apostle John was placed on the prison colony on the island of Patmos for preaching the truth of Jesus, Revelation 1:9. While there, he was given the vision of the end, 7 letters to 7 churches and the end of the age into eternity. It is not my purpose to discuss the various views on End Times but my purpose is to address a question that some ask - Why study End Times? It's a legitimate question with an answer.

First, most don't realize there are more prophesies about Jesus' 2nd Coming than His first. There are over 300 prophesies in the Old Testament concerning the 1st Coming of Christ, perfectly fulfilled in one way or another. We should want to study His return and what will occur during this time. My question is, why would you not want to study the return of Jesus who promised to return for His Bride, the Church?

Second, 2 Peter 3:11-18 tells us that understanding the truth of End Times, in context the Day of the Lord, will lead us to live a holy and righteous life in the peace and power of Christ during tough times in the future, but by application, today as well. Some don't want to study End Times because they think it is merely theoretical information. On the flip side, some want to study this because they think it is merely theoretical and it won't affect them. Neither is true. This is not merely theory, but will happen with the Church seeing much of it and because of this; it will impact our lives today.

Third, Revelation 1:1-3 states there is a special blessing for those who study the book of Revelation and by implication the doctrine of End Times or Eschatology. There are over 300 quotes or inferences to the Old Testament in the book of Revelation. Next to Hebrews, Revelation is the most "Jewish" book in the New Testament with quotes from the Old Testament.

Fourth, 1 John 2:18 and Hebrews 1:2, both written in the first century AD specifically state we are living in the "last days." We have been living in them for many years now. How far along are we? I don't know. No one does. This is not about sensationalism or newspaper theology, but preparation. Studying this doctrine prepares us for what will happen and what Christians WILL face before the return of Christ and the signs to look for. Are you ready? Christians won't escape persecution!

Fifth and lastly, the main purpose for studying End Times, is to challenge us to study the Bible, learn the truth, and in the process grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ and develop our relationship with God. What better doctrine to see the sovereign control God has over all history than to study fulfilled prophecy and prophecy yet to be fulfilled! What better doctrine to give hope for the future and the present during the tough times we face.

This is not about learning or gaining knowledge for knowledge sake, as discussed, but learning the truth which will change our life today in preparation for the return of our Lord. Do we long for His return? Do we dismiss this doctrine or take it seriously as the Bible does and study End Times for God's glory?

July 17, 2008

Beware of Self-Proclaimed Internet "Prewrath Advocates"

The term "Prewrath" is a popular term today and many are eager to latch on that term by appropriating it even when their view of end-times has no resemblance with the tenets of the Prewrath position. I have seen more than a few individuals on the Internet who claim to be "prewrath." For example some of these folks would assert that the Church is raptured before the 70th week of Daniel. Sound familiar? Or the Church is raptured at the midpoint. Again, sound familiar? Some insist that they are prewrath and can hold to imminence!

What makes matters worse is that there are bloggers who have written articles outlining the different end-time views and when they get to the prewrath position I am left just shaking my head -- and of course you will find no documentation for their definition of prewrath (this is on a weekly basis).

In an Internet age in which many people struggle to read something more than the length of a haiku, it may be expected that we find this lack of accuracy and willingness.

It is not that the Prewrath position is inflexible on all its interpretations. But it is a different matter when individuals deny definitional tenets of prewrath but continue to claim to be prewrath. This engenders confusion with God's people looking for answers. It is dishonest, in short -- and the abode of cyberspace is not immune from God's eyes.

I thought I would provide one example of this to illustrate. There is no particular reason to single out this person, it could have been someone else. I asked Darrin to respond to one individual, Ken Schweizer.

There are some people out there using the term PreWrath, but in such a way that the PreWrath position is not represented. Zelma Pack, who maintains a Pre-Trib Rapture position, has a blog entitled The Rose of Sharon is Jesus. Zelma posted an article on her blog by Ken Schweizer entitled "Pre-Tribulation Rapture". You can read the entire article at this link here.

http://sharonsrose.blogspot.com/2008/06/pre-tribulation-rapture.html

The interesting thing about this article is that Ken opens up saying that he believes in a PreWrath rapture. Here is his quote. "I must state, up front, that I believe in a pre-wrath rapture. That (in my opinion) places the rapture either before the revealing of the antichrist or before the sixth seal of Rev 6:12, but I am leaning toward the first or a pre-tribulation rapture."

By using the term PreWrath, Ken causes confusion with the PreWrath position. One of the basic tenets of PreWrath is to distinguish between tribulation and wrath. Most PreTribbers just assert that these terms are the synonymous when they are not, and Ken does this very thing departing from the PreWrath view. Here is what he states: "The word says that the Tribulation is the wrath of the Lamb. Re 6:16-17 & Re 14:10. The word says that we are not appointed unto wrath. - 1Thes 5:9, John 3:36."

So Ken's appropriation of the term PreWrath is not in accordance with the established position. The PreWrath position maintains that the church will enter the Great Tribulation, but Ken rejects this idea. Later in his article, Ken actually concedes the difference between persecution and wrath. He writes, "There is no similarity between persecution and the wrath of God and any attempt to do so is ridiculous. There have always been tribulations for believers and the Church, but none brought on by The Lord Jesus Christ like when He opens the seven sealed book. That is reserved for non-believers." So Ken actually has the blueprint for PreWrath in this nugget of truth. Now if we can just get him to see that this truth applies to the Great Tribulation contained in the seven sealed scroll as well as any tribulation for the Word.

The main point of departure from PreWrath can be easily seen in Ken's opening line. PreWrathers know that the rapture will occur just after the sixth seal which ends the Great Tribulation and begins the wrath of God. It is something that is an essential part of the term PreWrath. Unless you state upfront that you believe at least at minimum:

#1- the church will enter the Great Tribulation which begins at the midpoint of Daniel's seventieth week,
#2- the church will be raptured just after the sixth seal and at coming of Christ which ends the Great Tribulation, and
#3- the wrath of God begins after the rapture of the church has occurred,

then you cannot begin to think of yourself as PreWrath in accordance with the established position.

The point here is that we must examine when someone uses the term PreWrath to see if they agree with the basic tenets of the position. Just because they say they are PreWrath does not mean they hold to what is definitional of the PreWrath outworking. Thanks to Ken for allowing his article to be referenced so that others may study for themselves. I would encourage prophecy students to follow the link and read his article as it does contain many good things. Also, scroll down and read my personal correspondence to Ken which Zelma graciously posted for readers to see under the comments section.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

July 16, 2008

How Important is Eschatology for the Believer's Faith?

Stanley J. Grenz in his Millennial Maze writes,

The contemporary discussion of eschatology among evangelicals, fueled as it is by questions surrounding the significance of the vision of Revelation 20, ought not to be dismissed as being of no consequence to the Christian faith. On the contrary, by considering the question of millennialism, evangelicals are engaged in a debate concerning the climax of human history, understood in terms of God's intention for creation. In so doing , the parties to the discussion are probing a theme crucial to the biblical message, the euangelion (gospel), the proclamation of which evangelicals have always seen as central to the Christan mandate in the world.

The anticipation of a climax to human history -- a corporate eschatology -- and the resultant question concerning the millennium as a specific stage in that climax cannot be relegated to the fringes of the biblical proclamation. On the contrary, it belongs to the heart of what the Bible intends to teach (p. 27).

July 15, 2008

Jacob's Trouble - Jeremiah 30:7

The following is from the Parousia Newsletter, Spring of 2001,

Jeremiah 30:7 also speaks of a "troubler of Israel." This passage is perhaps the most often quoted text by pretribulationists to defend their supposition that Daniel's Seventieth Week pertains to Israel and not the church. Jeremiah writes, "Alas!" For that day is great, there is none like it; and it is the time of Jacob's trouble, but he will be saved from it." Does this prophecy automatically exclude the church from the "tribulation?" Who is he that is the eschatological troubler of Israel? Whose wrath will Jacob be saved from? These and other questions require a careful look at Jeremiah 30:7 and its context.

Pretribulationists are quick to offer their opinions concerning the meaning and significance of Jeremiah 30:7. However, few offer exegetical details to support their claims. What is offered is a litany of less than cogent arguments without explicit scriptural basis. The fundamental flaw in the thinking of pretribulationists is their insistence that Daniel's Seventieth Week is (1) Jewish in focus and (2) seven years of tribulation (God's wrath in varying degrees). Both points are supported with arguments of scriptural silence instead of explicit scriptural statements....

To read this entire seminal article by Charles Cooper, click here for download.

July 14, 2008

Premillennial Nuggets - Revelation 20:3 and Its Purpose Clause

"and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while." - Rev 20:3

I came across some helpful points on Revelation 20:3 by someone named Matthew Waymeyer, who is premill but not prewrath; nevertheless, he had some good responses to an amillennial interpretation of this verse that asserts that it "limits the binding of Satan during the New Covenant reign of Christ (i.e. Church era) to his inability to effectually deceive the nations." Here are some selections of Waymeyer's response here:

I do indeed take the purpose clause in verse 3 seriously. I wholeheartedly believe that Satan will be unable to deceive the nations during the thousand-year period when he is locked in the abyss, and I wholeheartedly believe that preventing this deception is the primary purpose of Satan's incarceration. Neither of these presents any problem whatsoever for my premillennial eschatology.

In contrast, the purpose clause in verse 3 presents a significant difficulty for amillennialism. Because the amillennialist believes the thousand-year period of Revelation 20 is taking place now in the present age, he is forced to say that Satan is currently unable to deceive unbelievers (Rev 20:3) even though the NT says that he is currently active in doing just that [2 Cor 4:4, "In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."]

Some amillennialists try to escape this dilemma by saying that the incarceration of Satan in Revelation 20 makes Satan less effective at deceiving the nations in the present age than he was prior to the first coming of Christ....

This same approach is taken by William Hendriksen who says that the binding of Satan is simply a matter of degree: "If during the present N.T. era the devil 'blinds the minds of unbelievers,' II Cor. 4:4, that was true even more emphatically during the old dispensation." The difficulty with this explanation is that Revelation 20:2-3 teaches not that Satan's ability to deceive was limited, but rather that it was eliminated. In other words, the text does not say that Satan will deceive the nations less effectively than he did in the past--it says that he will deceive the nations "no longer."

The second clarification concerns my hermeneutical approach to Revelation 20.... [P]art of the grammatical historical method involves determining the meaning of key words in the passage you are studying. This is often referred to as lexical analysis. One of the most important words in this passage is the word "abyss," because this is the location where Satan is incarcerated during the thousand-year period. If I'm going to understand what it means that Satan is imprisoned in the abyss, I need to know what the abyss is and what it means to be imprisoned there.

Part of lexical analysis involves consulting how the word in question is used elsewhere in Scripture. The "many other passages other than Revelation 20" which I referred to were those verses which also use the word "abyss," and I consulted these verses not as a way to "deviate from the clear and normal meaning of the text" (as you said), but as a way to help me understand the clear and normal meaning of a key word in the text--the word "abyss." In consulting these other passages, I discovered that the word translated "abyss" has two possible nuances of meaning. It can refer either to the realm of the dead (as it does in Romans 10:7) or a spirit prison (as it does in Luke 8:31; Rev 9:1-2, 11, 11:7; and 17:8). The context of Revelation 20:1-3--along with the reference to "his prison" in Revelation 20:7--confirms that the word "abyss" has this second meaning in Revelation 20.

In continuing my lexical analysis, I then look more closely at those passages where it refers to a prison for evil spirits, and I come to a significant conclusion: Confinement in the abyss in these other passages (especially see Luke 8:31 and Rev 9) means to be totally cut off from any activity or influence upon the earth. Therefore, when Satan is bound and incarcerated in the abyss during the thousand years according to Revelation 20:1-3, this means he will be totally cut off from any activity or influence upon the earth. In other words, his activity and influence will be eliminated, not merely limited as the amillennialist says. Since the clear and consistent testimony of the NT indicates that Satan is extremely active during the present age (Matt 13:19; Luke 8:12; 22:3, 31; John 8:44; 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; 1 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 4:4; 11:3, 14; 12:7; Eph 2:2; 6:11-12; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Tim 2:26; 1 Pet 5:8; 1 John 3:8-10; 5:19), this means the thousand years in Revelation 20 must be future.

According to some amillennialists, because Revelation 20 says that Satan is bound in one respect and one respect only--"so that he should not deceive the nations any longer" (v. 3)--he must therefore be free to partake in other activities here on earth. For this reason, according to the amillennialist, the list of Scripture references detailing Satan's activity in the present age is largely irrelevant....

The use of a purpose clause, however, does not preclude the possibility of other purposes or results of the action of the verb. To illustrate, 'if a warden says that he is putting a prisoner in solitary confinement in order that he will no longer kill any more prisoners, this does not mean the prisoner is free to steal and do other such activities' (Powell 2001: 3). In the case of the binding of Satan in Revelation 20, then, the degree of Satan's restriction is determined not by the purpose clause but by the language of the text itself, which--as demonstrated above--indicates absolute confinement.

As you can see from the greater context of what I wrote, the words "as demonstrated above" refer to my lexical analysis of the word "abyss" and the implications it has for a right understanding of Revelation 20:1-3, not to some kind of Scripture-interprets-Scripture hermeneutic which I abused to import my theology into Revelation 20:1-3. The language of the text itself ("he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him") indicates that Satan's activity on earth will be completely eliminated during this time, and the purpose clause ("so that he should not deceive the nations any longer") indicates the primary purpose of this incarceration. But as I wrote above, this does not preclude the possibility of other purposes or results of the action of the verb. You can fight this on theological grounds (i.e., this doesn't fit with your amillennialism), but not on grammatical grounds.

July 9, 2008

Prewrath Story From Tennessee...

Prewrath Resource Institute,

I recently read Marvin Rosenthal's book, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church. The book was well written and I consider myself thoroughly convinced of his position. I greatly appreciate the labor and sacrifice represented by the book.

I am one of those who was previously convinced of the pre-tribulation rapture. I was convinced because every pastor and every spiritual mentor I've ever looked up to has been adamant about that position. It served as a litmus test between orthodoxy and heresy. This prevailing attitude was addressed in the book, so I know you understand. This attitude was deeply ingrained in me as well. If it were not for the high esteem I already held for the author, I wouldn't have "wasted my time" reading the book.

I was impressed by the way Rosenthal laid out scripture after scripture in a way that gave corrected definitions to terms like, Day of the Lord, wrath, tribulation, Coming (parousia), seals, bowls, and trumpets. As prophetic passages were laid out alongside each other, the scheduling of events was made evident. As I read these passages now, it seems so clear that scripture teaches only one second coming of the Lord.

Thank you for your ministry.

Sincerely,
Douglas Fox
Maryville, TN

July 7, 2008

Some Things Just Speak For Themselves...

Amillennialist Jason Robertson of the FIDE-O blog (who I otherwise enjoy reading on other subjects) was asked on his blog if he ever studied Prewrath. His response was this:

[Yes] I studied the Prewrath view and found it seriously lacking biblical continuity. It denies the New Covenant, it denies the kingdom of God, it denies the glory of the exalted enthroned Christ, it denies the Book of Hebrews, it denies the Gospel of John, it denies the Book of Romans, it denies the sermons of Peter in Acts, and it completely interprets Revelation wrongly for it doesn't even understand that the "wrath" described in Revelation is a covenantal wrath against the covenant breakers of old Israel and was poured out upon it in the first century just as Jesus promised.

For a second there I thought he was going to say that prewrath even denies God's existence!

July 7, 2008

Premillennial Nuggets - A Challenge to Amillennialists to Read "Revelation 20" in Context

Inevitably, when the discussion of Premill versus Amill is broached, the text "Revelation 20" is invoked. This is unfortunate because that is not where the passage begins, so the amill proponent (and sadly the premill can do this as well) dives right in the middle of the passage ignoring what precedes it. The immediate passage begins back in Revelation 19:19. In other words the passage under consideration should not begin at "Revelation 20:1" but rather "Revelation 19:19-20:10." Chapter breaks are not inspired. And in this case, the "Chapter 20" break is bifurcating the whole passage giving the impression that the subject begins at Chapter 20:1. This is one of the causes of confusion regarding the millennial debate.

The passage is about the destiny of the "three enemies of God" -- the Beast, False prophet, and then the Dragon, Satan. It is essential to note that the event that precedes this destiny of the enemies of God is the victory of Christ and the armies of heaven over the nations (vv. 11-18) Then the result of this victory of what follows after is the doom and destiny of the three enemies of God.

So here is the outworking of this text: Christ and the armies of heaven have victory over the nations; the result of this is that both the beast and false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire; then, rather than Satan being thrown in the lake of fire along with the beast and false prophet, his doom is delayed one thousand years for the purpose of not deceiving the nations. So, for the Amill to place the starting point of the one thousand years at Christ First Coming is simply unintelligible and unwarranted to the text.

Speaking of the nations, it should be observed carefully that v. 15 states that the "nations" where struck down, and to assure that the nations do not rise up again, it is said that the purpose of Satan being bound for a thousand years is "to keep him from deceiving the nations." Do you see the reasoning there? The Amill has it backwards, they claim that Satan is bound before Christ and the armies of heaven strike down the nations. That is an absurd and tortured reading of the text! The nations are struck down by Christ and the armies, and to assure that they do not rise up again during the one thousand years, Satan is bound.

This is clearly all in the context of the result of God's judgment at his Second Coming. To read or infer that Satan's binding happens at Christ's First coming is demonstrably indicative of Tradition and is not handling the context rightly. Further, in this entire passage, the Greek has a set of consecutive "kais" (ands). In other words, there is no indication of an interruption in this text. The destiny of the three enemies of God are to be viewed as a unit, not to be disconnected with lifting the binding of Satan from the text and placed at Christ's First Coming.

So the next time you are in a discussion with an Amill and they begin to invoke "Revelation 20," don't let them get away with it, but rather insist that they back up to chapter 19:19 and the two previous enemies of God, and even further back to the victory over the nations so the context can be laid out properly.

Context, Context, Context.

July 3, 2008

Remember our Persecuted Brothers and Sisters

ISTANBUL, July 3 (Compass Direct News) - After four weeks in police custody, Iranian Christian Mohsen Namvar was released "temporarily" last week to return to his home in Tehran. A doctor summoned to Namvar's home after his release last Thursday (June 26) administered medicines and serum to treat the badly beaten prisoner. Arrested on May 31 from his home in Tehran, the convert from Islam was kept incommunicado until his release. "They put a great deal of pressure on his body and his mind," an Iranian Christian told Compass. "No one knows exactly what they did to him during those four weeks." Noting that government authorities know a great deal about Namvar's Christian activities and want to punish him, the source said, "We praise the Lord that they have not killed him." Last week local secret police authorities demanded that Namvar's family put up just over US$43,000 in bail to secure his release. When relatives requested a receipt for the cash they handed over, police refused. "Don't say anything," a police official reportedly ordered them. "Give thanks to God that we are not keeping him under arrest."

(H.T. J.W.)

July 2, 2008

Responding to Islam's Objections to the Deity of Jesus