December 30, 2009

Happy New Year Prewrathers!

We here at the Prewrath Resource Institute would like to wish all our readers a Happy New Year. We thank you for your prayers and support this past year. Please keep us in your prayers this next year as we work hard to produce more prewrath material and organize more conferences, among other ministry activities.

May we have this coming year even more zeal in,"waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," (Titus 2:13).

I thought it would be fun to give all you old-time prewrathers out there a nostalgic look back at Robert Van Kampen's The Sign Ministries website. Below is the homepage from July 1998. Interestingly, by today's aesthetic standards of web design, it looks pretty sharp, unlike so many cheesy prophesy sites back then.

The ministry web address was www.signministries.org. I don't remember the exact year, either 1994 or 1995, but as far as I can recall, this was the very first website on the Internet that I laid eyes on. I'm a sentimental guy!

December 28, 2009

Part 14 - A Response to "The Uncertainty of the Timing of the Rapture"

This is my last response to Pastor Bob DeWaay.

DeWaay asserts that Antichrist's rule will be 7 years. He does not attempt to provide any Biblical evidence for his assertion.

It is not 7 years, instead, his rule is formally for 3 1/2 years:

"The beast [Antichrist] was given a mouth speaking proud words and blasphemies, and he was permitted to exercise ruling authority for forty-two months [3 1/2 years]. So the beast opened his mouth to blaspheme against God--to blaspheme both his name and his dwelling place, that is, those who dwell in heaven." (Rev 13:5-6).

"He will confirm a covenant with many for one week. But in the middle of that week he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt. On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys, until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys."" (Dan 9:27).

Also related to the midpoint:

""So when you see the abomination of desolation-spoken about by Daniel the prophet--standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)," (Matt 24:15).

"He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, and as a result he takes his seat in God's temple, displaying himself as God." (2 Thess 2:4).

He also thinks that the Great Tribulation is seven years in duration. He makes no distinction between the terms "Great Tribulation" and "Tribulation," which is fatal to his conclusions on eschatology (the Great Tribulation starts at the midpoint, the abomination of desolation, see Matt 24:15ff.)

December 27, 2009

Part 13 - A Response to "The Uncertainty of the Timing of the Rapture"

I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay.

DeWaay unfoundedly asserts that the prewrath position teaches that:

"only the sixth seal is wrath, and nothing else is really the wrath of God."

By this he means that prewrath teaches that God has not expressed his wrath in other forms throughout Church history. This, of course, is an absurd strawman. I would like to challenge DeWaay to produce documentation for this assertion.

He cites Romans 1:18

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."

Every prewrath interpreter that I know understands that Romans 1:18 is an expression of God's wrath in Paul's present time and ongoing. So how is this relevant to affirming that God's eschatological wrath (associated with his Second Coming) begins at the seventh seal (not the sixth seal, by the way)? We are not told.

He also cites the judgment of God on Israel in AD 70, suggesting that prewrathers do not believe that this was God's judgment. Again, I am just left shaking my head, and ask where is he is getting this stuff.

There are many expressions of God's wrath throughout history. Just to name a few during the Church Age and beyond:

1. Judgment on the Cross upon his Son (which, by the way, I have written a section in my forthcoming book showing how there was a Day of the Lord judgment on the cross).

Judgment on the Unbelieving:

2. The Judgment on Israel in A.D. 70 (and the ongoing judgment on Israel through the "partial hardening")

3. Homosexuality and other Forms of Unrighteousness (Romans 1:18ff.)

4. Reprobation (Romans 9:22)

Judgment on the Believing:

5. Chastening (1 Cor. 11:31-32; Heb 12:5-11)

6. Judgment Seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:10)

Eschatological Judgments:

7. Judgment on the Nation of Israel (Ezek. 20:37-38; Zech 13:8-9)

8. Judgment on the Nations (Matt. 25:31-46; Isa. 34:1-2; Joel 3:11-16)

9. Judgment on Fallen Angels (Jude 6)

10. Judgment of the Great White Throne (Rev 20:11-15)

11. Eternal Perdition (Matt 10:28)

December 20, 2009

Part 12 - A Response to "The Uncertainty of the Timing of the Rapture"

I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay.

He asserts that Prewrathers use a "Psychological Argument" for their position. He says that we believe that "if we do not think we are going to be martyred, we will not be prepared." That is true, since how can someone prepare for persecution, if they think they will be exempt from it?

And he asserts: "No Christian is prepared for martyrdom on the grounds he or she thinks it will happen."

He misses the point since he discusses this on the psychological level, not the spiritual level. Somewhere (not in any primary prewrath literature) he was told that prewrathers believe that if you just propositionally understand that believers will encounter the Antichrist, then you are somehow prepared for it. That is a blatant strawman, a gross misrepresentation. Prewrath does not believe that it is a psychological state that prepares a believer's heart---but a spiritual state.

I would like to point DeWaay to some primary material such as this book by Charles Cooper: Fight, Flight, or Faith: How to Survive the Great Tribulation.

Notice the book is not titled: Fight, Flight, or Assent to a Proposition: How to Survive the Great Tribulation.

How does he explain Jesus and Paul's warning of persecution to stay faithful during the Antichrist's persecution? Is Jesus and Paul making psychological arguments?

There is a real connection between the warning to be prepared and one's faith. This is called God's means to prepare the believer. What other possible purpose was there of Jesus' warnings if not to prepare them for what lies ahead? We are not told by DeWaay.

I do not believe that a pretribulational believer who affirms that we will be raptured out of here in bed's of ease will be "just as prepared" for the Antichrist's Great Tribulation as a prewrather who prepares his body, mind, and soul, and has studied and taken heed to Jesus' teaching in the Olivet Discourse.

After John describes the threat that Christians will undergo by Antichrist in Revelation 13, he warns:

"This requires the steadfast endurance of the saints---those who obey God's commandments and hold to their faith in Jesus." (Rev 14:12).

How does DeWaay negate that this warning is real? Someone can ignore this warning and be "equally prepared"? I don't accept that.

To blunt these specific warnings, DeWaay says: "People have been martyred throughout church history." So how is that relevant to the specific warnings given by Jesus, Paul, and John? We are not told. He also says that "everybody [in Church history] who has ever been martyred was given grace by God." That is not the point. How many in Church history denied the Lord? How many of them did not take Peter's warnings of persecution seriously? (1 Peter 4:12-19)

Next, he asserts:

"If Christians find themselves alive during the great tribulation, God will give them grace despite what view of the rapture they had."

Never mind the fact that the grace of God was revealed in Biblical truth to believers in Scripture, warning them that this day would come. Theology does matter. He says that it does not really matter what rapture view one has. So if I am a pretribber who rejects the Olivet Discourse, which includes the parables of the Ten Virgins and all the other "Be Ready" parables," God is going to bless that? There will be this peanut butter grace spread evenly among all Christians at this time? So why the vigilance? Can one really read 2 Thessalonians and come to the conclusion that "it really does not matter what you believe about this"?

In conclusion, the prewrath position prepares the believer for the persecution of Antichrist. Not because we assent to the proposition "prewrath is correct" as DeWaay would have you think. Instead, the prewrath position teaches with exhortation. The pretrib position cannot teach with exhortation because they believe they will be raptured out of here before Antichrist. The Prewrath position takes the warnings of Christ, Paul, and John as real and applicable to the Church.

Incidentally, if someone says that either position is "possible," it still blunts the warnings in the Bible---for what believer is really going to discern Biblical authority in a faint-hearted maybe.

December 15, 2009

Part 11 - A Response to "The Uncertainty of the Timing of the Rapture"

I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay.

DeWaay acknowledges that there are certain passages that teach signs to Christ's Return. Then he lists some contrary passages that he believes show that it will be unexpected. Rather than interact with the context of these latter verses in any meaningful fashion, he sort of just leaves it and concludes that Christ's Return will be unexpected.

For example he says the following verse contradicts the prewrath position:

"You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect."" (Luke 12:40).

For DeWaay, this verse is suppose to teach that there will not be any signs to Christ's Coming for believers. DeWaay stresses the "you" toward the disciples in verse 40, but Jesus qualifies this in the very next few verses. Note the context:

"(41) Peter said, "Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?" (42) And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? (43) Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. (44) Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. (45) But if that servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed in coming,' and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, (46) the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. (47) And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. (48) But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more." (Luke 12:41-48).

The point Jesus is making in the parable is quite simple: those who do not live faithful, godly, watchful lives, the Lord will come unexpectedly for them: "will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know." But those who do live faithful, godly, vigilant lives, Christ will not come back unexpectedly.

Vigilant believers will not be caught off guard. They will be watchful and know the season: "So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near," (Matt 24:33). Further, this is consistent with Paul's teaching: "But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief." (1 Thess 5:4).

Moreover, this parable is found later in Matthew 24. So by necessity you have these warnings after the incident of the Antichrist's Great Tribulation with Christ's Coming following afterwards.

Incidentally, the term in v. 40 for "expect" is δοκέω. A better rendering is "suppose, seem, or think."

DeWaay also cites Matt. 24:42-44, 50; 25:13 (cf. Mark 13:32, 33) as evidence that the timing of the rapture is uncertain. But again, as in our last passage the context clearly indicates that this applies to those who are not prepared and watchful. See the context of Matthew 24:32-41.

December 15, 2009

Part 10 - A Response to "The Uncertainty of the Timing of the Rapture"

I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay.

He says that the prewrath rapture teaches the identification of the timing of the rapture "quite precisely." Actually, of all four major rapture positions, it is the prewrath rapture position that is the least precise. Pretribulationism (as DeWaay affirms) identifies the rapture as occurring as the same day when the 7 year period begins. Midtribulationism identifies it exactly at the mid-point. Post-tribulationism identifies the rapture on the last day of the 7 year period. So all those three rapture positions identify the rapture on a specific exact day in relation to the 7 year period.

In contrast, the prewrath rapture position says the rapture will occur sometime during the second half of the 7 year period when the Great Tribulation is cut short. It is the prewrath position that can only make sense out of Jesus' words that no one can know the day or hour (see this video commentary for a point against the pretrib interpretation of this verse).

December 9, 2009

Part 9 - A Response to "The Uncertainty of the Timing of the Rapture"

I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay.

He devotes a brief time in talking about what the Early Church writers believed on eschatology. He rightly states that the Early Church was premillennial. But what was conspicuously absent from his discussion was any acknowledgment of the fact that Early Church writers believed that the the Church will encounter the Antichrist, and that the resurrection would follow after the Great Tribulation. This is exactly the core of what Prewrath affirms.

It is not that every Early Church writer wrote on this subject; but everyone that actually did affirmed that the Church would go through the Great Tribulation.

Not only can someone search in vain for a pretribulational statement in the Early Church, but you will not find any pretribulational statements until the early 19th century.

As Evangelicals our ultimate authority is not in what the Early Church writers believed---it is in the inspired Scriptures. It is, however, very telling that the first generations of the Church believed what Prewrath affirms: The Church will encounter Antichrist.

Click here for primary evidence.

Click here for an audio discussion.

December 5, 2009

Part 8 - A Response to "The Uncertainty of the Timing of the Rapture"

I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay. This next part of his presentation is quite interesting. First, he notes this text:

And I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev. 7:14)

He says that this body of believers who have come out of the Great Tribulation is "a church." Notice the indefinite article. I will come back to that in a moment. At this point in his lecture, he says that he disagrees with his pretrib friends who say that there is not a church during the Tribulation. Indeed, DeWaay does affirm that there is a rapture of the Church before the tribulation, but he also identifies a church in Rev 7:14 who has just come out of a great tribulation. Here is the reason why he thinks "a church" is identified in Revelation 7:14. He asserts:

"[W]hat is the definition of the [word] 'church'? 'the called-out ones.'"

This is demonstrably false. The Greek word for "church" is ekklesia, ἐκκλησία, which means "assembly, congregation, gathering, church." One will not find a credible Greek lexicon listing the meaning of this word as "called-out ones." One authoritative Greek lexicon even has this to say:

Though some persons have tried to see in the term ἐκκλησία a more or less literal meaning of 'called-out ones,' this type of etymologizing is not warranted either by the meaning of ἐκκλησία in NT times or even by its earlier usage. (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2d, Accordance electronic ed., version 3.8. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989.)

Moreover, both D.A. Carson and Moises Silva actually use this very term as a paragon for a lexical fallacy. See respectively, Exegetical Fallacies; and Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics.

So these lexical facts undermine DeWaay's theology of having "a" church in Revelation 7:14, as if there is another church raptured before the Great Tribulation. The Church is seen in Revelation 7:14, not because the word "church" means "called-out ones," but because the rapture/resurrection occurs between the sixth seal and the seventh seal, consistent with Matthew 24.

He may disagree with pretribulationists with how to label these saints in Revelation 7:14: "tribulation saints" or "a church." Don't let that mislead you because DeWaay agrees substantially with pretribulationists that there is a rapture of the Church before the Tribulation. So consequently, DeWaay's position blunts the warnings of Christ because he still affirms that there will be a rapture before the Antichrist's Great Tribulation. And this is in direct contradiction to our Lord's teaching in Matthew 24.

We do know for certain who these warnings apply to in the Bible: the last generation of the present Church---not, as DeWaay would like us to think, a second created church that comes along after the rapture.

His position cannot explain the real warnings that Paul and Jesus make for the Church. And to place them in a "possible other church" context is exegetically unsupported and diminishes the force of Jesus and Paul's Biblical teaching.

December 5, 2009

Part 7 - A Response to "The Uncertainty of the Timing of the Rapture"

I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay. He believes that prophecy (related to Christ's Second Coming) is not given in chronological order in the Bible for this reason:

"[W]e can see prophecies in the Old Testament about Christ's Coming that contains both first and second advent material not necessarily in order."

There you go. That is his reason. Never mind that this is an illogical inference. And never mind bothering to look to see if God's progressive revelation in the New Testament may have something to say about this. For DeWaay, since God did not reveal in the Old Testament a chronological relationship between the first and second coming, the New Testament therefore does not give a chronology of his Second Coming. He is adducing a logical deductive reason, not an inductive reason from the New Testament.

He does not explain how his premise (God did not reveal specific information in the OT) necessarily infers his conclusion (God did not reveal specific information in the NT).

Not only is this a logically unsound and invalid argument, but I have shown in Parts 3-5 in this series that the New Testament provides a clear chronological framework of Christ's Second Coming.

December 5, 2009

Part 6 - A Response to "The Uncertainty of the Timing of the Rapture"

I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay. He asserts:

"Prophecy is not given in chronological order in the Bible. You need to know that."

We have made a case that the Bible does indeed emphatically contain prophetic chronological material in Matthew 24, Thessalonians, and Revelation.

There are other prophetic passages in the Bible that contain chronological information, but I want to mention two final texts in Daniel that are incredibly insightful. I direct the reader to this article on page 3 of the section entitled "An Overview of Daniel 7." One will observe a consistency with Revelation's teaching.

The second text is Daniel 12:1-3. Again, note the consistency with the Olivet Discourse: Great Tribulation followed by the resurrection.

I find it ironic the DeWaay talks about a "composite" for eschatological events. Yet, he is not able to see the most conspicuous, consistent composite in Scripture of a basic eschatological framework: (1) Antichrist's Revelation (midpoint) (2) Antichrist's Great Tribulation against God's People (3) The Resurrection-Rapture (4) The Day of the Lord's Wrath (5) The Reclamation of God's Kingdom on Earth.

And one will search in vain for a pretrib rapture that occurs before # 1.

December 5, 2009

Part 5 - A Response to "The Uncertainty of the Timing of the Rapture"

I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay. He asserts:

"Prophecy is not given in chronological order in the Bible. You need to know that."

I would like to ask DeWaay if the thinks the seals, trumpets, and bowls can unfold in any order. And if so, how do we know that? For example, could it be the case that the bowls occur before the seals? Or can the 7th seal, for example, occur before the first seal? I don't know of a single interpreter that would argue for that. Everyone that I am familiar with argues that the second seal occurs chronologically after the first seal (i.e., first, second, third, and so on). And for good reason: they are ordinal numbers. And since they occur in the context of Revelation as enumerating historical (in time) events they are chronological.

Further, there are good reasons to believe that the three septets of seal, trumpets, and bowls unfold consecutively, not concurrently (My appendix in my forthcoming book is devoted to this question).

Will the Battle of Armageddon occur before the seals, trumpets, and bowls. Of course not, since Revelation places it as a climax of God's wrath on earth. So there is a basic chronological order to the book of Revelation.

In addition to the larger chronological framework, you have the particular prewrath interpretation of the special chronological elements, which have been expounded on this blog for many years. I see no evidence that DeWaay is remotely familiar with the Prewrath argumentation for the chronology in Revelation. Rather than repeating it all here, I direct the reader to the following exegetical articles here, and here. Also, this site is helpful.

Finally, the interpreter of Revelation who fails to take into consideration the Olivet Discourse as a framework will fail to be informed by Jesus' general chronology: Beginning of Birth Pangs, Antichrist's Great Tribulation, Parousia/Day of the Lord. This also helps to discern parenthetical sections in the book of Revelation. One would expect this consistency between Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation, since they are both teachings from our Lord and found in an eschatological context.

December 2, 2009

Part 4 - A Response to "The Uncertainty of the Timing of the Rapture"

I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay. He asserts:

"Prophecy is not given in chronological order in the Bible. You need to know that."

The Apostle Paul would take issue to DeWaay's assertion, since Paul wrote two Thessalonian epistles with the thrust being a chronological order. There was confusion in the Thessalonian church about the connection between the Coming (parousia) of Christ for the believers who would be alive and the resurrection of the dead in Christ. Paul assures and comforts them by informing them that the resurrection is not disconnected from the Coming. How does Paul specifically clarify their confusion? By couching it in explicit chronological language. Observe:

"For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. (16) For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. (17) Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord." (1 Thess 4:15-17).

After the clarity of his teaching, a few months later Paul receives word back that the Thessalonians are confused because there are some who are trying to teach them that the resurrection and Day of the Lord has already happened. Accordingly, Paul writes back in no uncertain terms that not only has the resurrection and Day of the Lord not occurred yet, but as proof of this he tells them that two pivotal events must occur first: the revelation of Antichrist, and a definitive rebellion (apostasy). In other words, since these two events have not occurred yet, the Thessalonians can know that the resurrection and Day of the Lord has not happened. Paul again couches his prophecy in explicit chronological language:

"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, (2) not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. (3) Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, (4) who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. (5) Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? (6) And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. (7) For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. (8) And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. (9) The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, (10) and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." (2 Thess 2:1-10).

To deny this chronological language is simply an indication of a Tradition getting in the way of this teaching.

December 2, 2009

Part 3 - A Response to "The Uncertainty of the Timing of the Rapture"

I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay. He states emphatically:

"Prophecy is not given in chronological order in the Bible. You need to know that. [He cites Matthew 24 as a passage that does not give chronology.]"

This is an incredible assertion. The following is a list of Jesus' chronological language from Matthew 24.

"when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"" (Matt 24:3).

"See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet." (Matt 24:6).

"All these are but the beginning of the birth pains. (9) "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation..." (Matt 24:8-9a).

"And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another." (Matt 24:10).

"And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (Matt 24:14).

"So when you see the abomination of desolation" (Matt 24:15a).

"then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." (Matt 24:16).

"For then there will be great tribulation," (Matt 24:21a).

"Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it" (Matt 24:23).

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened" (Matt 24:29a).

"Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man" (Matt 24:30a).

"and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn," (Matt 24:30b).

"From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near." (Matt 24:32).

"So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates." (Matt 24:33).

How could DeWaay or anyone else believe that Jesus intends that his Coming could occur, for example, before the beginning of birth pangs, or before the Great Tribulation. Clearly, Jesus intends for his audience to understand that chronologically his Coming (parousia) occurs when the Great Tribulation is cut short. In the next installments, we will see the explicit chronological language of Paul and Revelation. In addition I will respond to his reasoning why he thinks we cannot discern a chronological element of prophecy in the New Testament.

December 1, 2009

Part 2 - A Response to "The Uncertainty of the Timing of the Rapture"

I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay.

The next subject he discusses is the book of Revelation. His basic conclusion is that he does not have the Book of Revelation figured out. I am not sure exactly what he means by this, but the impression that I am given is that if he has studied the book of Revelation and has not figured it out, then no one else should claim that they have figured it out. This is unfortunate since it will inevitably discourage believers from studying this important Divine Revelation.

He also says, "I am never going to be certain" what Revelation teaches. I notice that he sets up this false dichotomy: You can either be certain or uncertain. What about basically certain? Or almost certain? It all depends on what point you are studying. I am certain that the Bible teaches that the Church will encounter Antichrist's Great Tribulation. I am almost certain that Michael is the Restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2. I am fifty percent certain that Elijah will be one of the Two Witnesses. I am not certain what to do with Ezekiel 38 (and some may be certain about Ezekel 38 and more power to them; but they are not wrong to be certain if I am not certain.)

DeWaay does not seem to differentiate these degrees of certainty. Apparently, it is all or nothing. Indeed, he states that he is certain that Christ will return one day, as well as other foregone conclusions, but that is not saying much. He should have focused on a couple of substantive issues in his presentation; instead, he takes a shotgun approach and creates more questions and confusion than answers and clarity.

There have been times when I have had to study a Biblical passage multiple times before I understood it. He does not distinguish between the thrust of what Revelation teaches and its details. And he thinks that one of the details in Revelation is whether or not the Church will encounter the Antichrist. This is not a mere detail in the Book of Revelation, nor is it a mere detail in Jesus and Paul's teaching as he suggests elsewhere.

He repeated this notion that there is a "built in uncertainty" about when the Lord will Return in relationship to the 70th week of Daniel (even though he strongly leans pretribulational). This is not exclusive to DeWaay. I actually classify this position as a rapture position in itself, along with pretrib, prewrath, and posttrib. It is popular and it sounds pious, but I believe that it contradicts our Lord's teaching, since Jesus and Paul do not intend for his Church to wonder if they will be raptured before the Antichrist or not.

He says that he has not figured out what is not literal and what is literal in the book of Revelation. Revelation is not some "coded book" requiring to be decoded, as is often popularly thought. I would simply ask pastor DeWaay if he really thinks that the lamb of God in Revelation could possibly be a real, literal lamb? Of course not, everyone knows that it symbolizes Christ being the passover lamb. I could cite numerous examples in Revelation that are clearly symbolic. And any student of Revelation and apocalyptic literature knows that there are principles to helps us discern what the symbolic represents. For example, one principle is that Scripture interprets Scripture. In Revelation 20:2, the figurative dragon is identified as the literal Satan: "And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,"

Take another example that identifies the stars and lampstands as angels and churches respectively:

"As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches (Rev 1:20).

And one can go outside of Revelation such as the Old Testament to discern what is literal and not literal and discover its referents.

Further, a basic chronology can be discerned in the three septets of the seals, trumpets, and bowls, along with other chronological indicators to provide us a framework. When people repeat the mantra, "There is no chronology in the book of Revelation," they start believing it. I am from the school of thought that every believer has the responsibility to investigate theological claims for themselves.

I get the impression from DeWaay's teaching that if someone cannot identify every symbolic entity in Revelation, we just can't figure out the Book of Revelation. I don't accept this skeptical hermeneutic, especially, since believers are promised that they will be blessed by taking heed to its instruction:

"Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near" (Rev 1:3).

Another interpretive error he makes is not using Matthew 24 as a guiding framework to the book of Revelation. I think one can understand the thrust of Revelation on its own, but the Olivet Discourse aids in giving a big picture framework. This should not be surprising since the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are both teachings from our Lord---and on the very same subject. Since DeWaay does not recognize this, he later mistakes, for example, the Great Tribulation for God's wrath (I will address this in a later post).

Revelation's teaching is too important to take an agnostic approach. Many people want to disconnect the "spiritual application" teaching from the events themselves (they do the same with the Olivet Discourse). But this is not consistent with the intended purpose of Revelation. To lift the spiritual and theological application from its context, dilutes the message of Revelation.

In summary, I am disappointed that he spent about 2-3 minutes(!) talking (only making assertions) about the book of Revelation, and basically leaving the impression, "I have studied it and I cannot make heads or tails of it, so don't you think that you can." Sadly, this is the approach of so many in our Evangelical churches. And it reveals an inconsistent hermeneutic when it comes to this doctrine. This is unacceptable, and it blunts the urgency for believers to be vigilant for difficult times that are coming on the Church.