Tag Archives: eschatology

Why Logic Sometimes Conflicts with Scripture: Deity of Christ as a Test Case

20 Thursday Dec 2012

Posted by in Apologetics, Biblical Theology, Christology, Discipleship, Election, Eschatology, Evangelism, Gospel, Shepherding, Systematic Theology

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Logic is the beautiful and artistic arrangement of propositions, statements, or examples to construct an argument. The more I study principles of logic, organization of logic, and flaws of logical fallacies, everyone everywhere constantly forms logical arguments. It is interesting, and I think an argument can be made, that some aspects of Scripture don’t follow logical rules. One such example will embody this post. However, instead of assuming the Bible contains logical fallacies that can be easily defeated, I’ve coined a term within my own communities to attempt to solve this illogical tension within some principles in Scripture. I call it “biblical logic”; that is, though it does not follow the set rules of logic per se, it presents its own argument while affirming the inability to be inconsistent. Therefore, a presupposition of scriptural coherence prohibits me from seeing competing discrepancies and therefore presents a different set of logical hurdles to formulate.

Take for example the deity of Christ. I’ve encountered this within my evangelistic encounters where the recipient refuses to believe in the complete deity of Christ because they see some deficiency in Christ. They, typically without any philosophical or logical training (and therefore, I believe, proves my idea that people formulate logic unknowingly) try to disprove the gospel using logical means of a syllogism. A syllogism is composed of three elements: Major Premise, Minor Premise, and Concluding Thought. They use Matthew 24:36 in order to diminish the deity of Christ, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the son, but only the Father.” They draw out Christ’s inability to know all things and consequently reveals a bit of presuppositions on their end. Their syllogism typically follows:

Continue reading »

Rapture Conclusion

12 Thursday Apr 2012

Posted by in Eschatology

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

In the beginning, four posts were intended. For our pure entertainment, we went to six thinking there was more to be said and yet we could easily do 100 on eschatology issues. We intended to evaluate good arguments supporting the pretribulation rapture while at the same time challenging others to avoid bad arguments. Our goal is to seek accurate, exegetical conclusions coming under the authority of God’s Word. The pretribulation (as with any timing issue related to the rapture) is built on inference from Scripture. Great care is needed when evaluating the text and eschatological events.

Why is eschatology important?

A few questions used to haunt me over and over as I studied eschatology, “Why does this matter?” “Am I interested in eschatology because of curiosity?” “Do we study eschatology to win arguments among Christians and cult members?” I think you could summarize those questions as intellectual pursuit questions. Does eschatology actually provide any help for those suffering or in trials? Is there something in eschatology for pastoral shepherding?

I loved studying eschatology, but then found myself asking, what does this matter? Why do we need to know it and be well versed. Obviously, it’s a part of God’s Word and beckons our attention. Being a part of God’s Word means eschatology is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness so that (result) the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17) Eschatology is therefore good for my soul!

Paul’s answer

In part IV I evaluated 1 Thessalonians and what it teaches about the rapture from 4:13-5:10. However, in the middle and end of this paragraph Paul gives two commands. 1) “Therefore encourage one another with these words.” 2) Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing.” (1 Thess 4:18; 1 Thess 5:11). Paul exhorts those in Thessolonica to be comforted by eschatology (and yes, contextually that includes the rapture).

So, we study and teach eschatology to encourage you. The more I thought about why it’s encouraging, the more I came to realize that it is indeed comforting to know the end of the story. It provides safety, hope, and encouragement.

When I watch a “scary” or “intense” movie where the main character’s life is in jeopardy I always think, “Hollywood never kills the main character.” Knowing the character is going to get through it provides comfort because I know he will win! I may not make it through the trial, but I know, in the end, I live with the reality that God fulfills His promises. I look around at the world, all the social injustice (abortion, inflation of money, light being called dark and dark being called light) and this world is depressing because it is in a tail-spin I cannot control. Understanding God wins in the end and the future Millennial Kingdom is coming followed by the New Heavens and Earth encourages me. Christ will reign and this world will see righteousness! It provides the big picture of my life!

Hope is in Christ, the creator and sustainer of the world! He is actively a part of this world, moving the eras from past to present to future (Heb 1:3). He is coming again and I will be with Him! I have a future resurrected body, waiting for me at death or his return. I have hope that is a present reality with future actuality. What exists in the future is my inheritance, waiting for my death or His return! Yet, I don’t know tomorrow while at the same time knowing tomorrow.

Knowing the rapture happens before the wrath provides comfort. I know I will not experience God’s judgment because I have been saved from it. I know I will be with my Savior. I can now look at my trials in life (whether they be at the office, at home, with myself, others, whatever the trial) and rest assured this is a momentary light affliction compared to the eternal weight of glory!

Part VI: Evaluating the Rapture

10 Tuesday Apr 2012

Posted by in Eschatology, Theology

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, ,

Either you have seen them in person, seen them in videos, or at least heard of them, but women, in less domesticated areas, are seen holding multiple things on their heads, shoulders, and hands while walking. What amazes me is how they do this with great balance. As seen within this series, eschatological conclusions pose great difficulty to the Bible interpreter. The problem isn’t necessarily the difficulty of Eschatology but the difficulty is holding “all the elements” in perfect balance. Moreover, other theological elements, within Scripture, are easier to comprehend because the majority of their doctrine can be located in one Testament. Eschatology, however, is found within both Testaments.

Hermeneutical presuppositions are then vital for the Eschatological positions one holds to. I tend to cling less to an Analogy of Scripture principle and tend to observe more of a true description of the Progress of Revelation. Therefore, my theological method produces results through a diachronic lens, rather than a synchronic lens. Scripture then develops its theological interpretation through time rather than appealing to the Author (God) disseminating its theology in one sitting. Moreover, this further reveals how I view the two testaments. The reader depends upon the theology of the OT to interpret the NT, not vice-versa. My understanding of the Day of the Lord will reveal how these hermeneutical presuppositions are accomplished.

Post 4 dealt with the promise to be kept from the “wrath” of God. Contextually, 1 Thess 5 defines the wrath within the idea of the Day of the Lord. That is, to not be destined for wrath is to mean exemption from the Day of the Lord. Furthermore, when you begin reading Revelation, the seals are given early on in the book. Though disputed, I would observe Rev 6 as day one of the seven-year tribulation. The first 6 seals are drastic. Those (v.16–17) on the earth will call for the rocks and mountains to fall on them in order not to see the face of the Lamb. They conclude,

for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?

That is, a summary statement of wrath has come upon day one of the tribulation.

Primary thesis concerning the Day of the Lord: The Day of the Lord is an extended period of time, predominantly defined in the Old Testament, to describe a time for wrathful retribution to be placed upon the earth, a time for the salvation of Israel from foreign nations, salvation of Gentiles, the physical return of the Lord, and a time for Messianic peace, extending from day one of the tribulation to the completion of the 1000 year messianic reign.

Wrath and Retribution upon People and Creation

The wrath of God is qualitative of the Day of the Lord. The exalted Lord of Isaiah 2:6–22 has a “Day” to place Himself against everything demonstrating pride. These prideful images extended to the haughtiness of man (v.17), creations of man (v.15–16) and even to elements of creation (v.12–14). During this “Day,” people will enter into caves in attempt to hide from the terror of YHWH and splendor of His majesty. This is nearly a direct image of Rev 6.16–17 in the 6th seal.

The prophecy of Zephaniah 1:7–18 may be the most descriptive of the “Day.” Zephaniah begins by explaining the nearness of the “Day” and it is a “Day” of sacrifice and consecration of guests. It is further described in v. 15–16 as:

A day of wrath is that day, a day of distress and anguish, a day of ruin and devastation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness, a day of trumpet blast and battle cry against the fortified cities and against the lofty battlements.

According to Amos 5.18–27, it is not a desirable “Day.”

Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord! Why would you have the day of the Lord.

(V.18). Though this “Day,” is mostly a destructive time of God’s wrath upon people, God destroys elements of His creation to inflict the people (Ezek 7; Amos 8:9–14).

(Passages for further study: Is 2:6–22; 7:18–25; 34:8; Jer 46:10; Ezek 7; Joel 2; Amos 5:18–27, 8:9–14; Zeph 1:7–18)

Salvation of Israel and other nations

A smaller element within the “Day” is the salvation of Israel’s remnant and other foreign nations. The remnant of Israel is brought to salvation in Rev 7 (possibly near the beginning of the tribulation?). During that “Day”, there are 3 parts of people 1/3 is Assyria, 1/3 is Babylon, and 1/3 Israel. Within the historical setting of Isaiah, this would not have been pleasant for the people to hear because Babylon and Assyria have and are overtaking the nation of Israel and in the near future, Judah. However, what that “Day” will behold is the salvation of Israel and Gentiles under the title of “My people, work of My hands, and My inheritance.” Isaiah 19:24–25 states:

In that day Israel, will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance.’

Salvation will annul ethnic distinction and fellowship will ensue all under the hand of God.

(Passages for further study: Is 19:16–25; 27; Jer 30:1–9)

The physical Return of the Lord

As displayed in the Olivet discourse, cosmic signs will occur simultaneously with the return of the Lord. Matt 24:29–30

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. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man…

All those, upon the earth, at His return will see these cosmic signs. The “Day of the Lord” will include the coming of Christ. Joel 2:10–11 assigns the same cosmic signs to the Day of the Lord.

The earth quakes before them; the heavens tremble. The sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining. The Lord utters his voice before his army, from his camp is exceedingly great; he who executes his word is powerful. For the day of the Lord is great and very awesome; who can endure it?

The prophecy of Zechariah contains the lengthiest descriptions of the Day of the Lord and attributes it to the coming return of Christ (chs. 12–14). Clearly portraying the Messiah as the coming King is 14:4, 9.

On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward.

And the Lord will king over all the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and his name one.

The “Day” will include the coming return of Christ as the designated Messiah.

(Passages for further study: Is. 24:21–23; 25:6–12; Joel 2:10; Zech 12–14)

Messianic Peace

The final element consisting of the “Day of the Lord” is a period of Messianic peace and blessing. Joel 3:17–21 portrays God dwelling in Zion with strangers not passing through it again. The mountains will drip with sweet wine and hills will flow with milk. Earthly provisions will flourish with abundance.

Moreover, as Amos 9:11–15 describes this “Day”, God will again raise up the “Booth of David.” Again, there is a great description of an abundance of riches being inherited by all. Wine will flow from the mountains, cities will be rebuilt, vineyards will be planted for the drinking of wine, and gardens will be planted for the consumption of fruit. And according to Acts 15, this will all happen after the Gentiles participate in the rebuilding of the Booth of David by their current salvation.

According to Isaiah 4:2–6, this “Day” will finally be the time for the righteous “Branch” to reign in full glory. The Lord will cause a canopy of glory to cover all so that there will be a cloud by day and smoke by night to give shade from the glory of God.

(Passages for further study: Is 2:1–5; 4:2–6; 11:10–11; Amos 9:11–15; Joel 3:17–21; Micah 4:1–5)

*     *     *     *     *

The OT description of the Day of the Lord contains many elements. It is no wonder when Paul mentions the Day of the Lord, he does not define it, but assumes the reader understands its OT roots. Even unbelievers recognize the tribulational wrath to be considered the “Day” (Rev 6:16–17) and with the first opening of the Seal, the “Day” begins. As Jason demonstrated in Part 4, when the “Day” finally comes, the church is not destined for wrath and will be taken prior to its appearing.

Part V: Evaluating the Rapture

07 Saturday Apr 2012

Posted by in Eschatology, Theology

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

, , ,

In part iv of this series, Jason pointed out that the various rapture views are built from drawing inferences from the biblical data. There is nothing wrong with this, unless, of course, the inferences drawn do not correspond to reality, but that’s only a problem for mid- and post-tribulation, and pre-wrath rapture views ;-) . In the same post, Jason demonstrated how drawing a few (I think solid) inferences from 1 Thessalonians leads one to a pre-trib view of the rapture. In today’s post, we look at another passage that does not teach a pre-trib rapture per se: 1 Corinthians 15. It is worth pointing out that 1 Corinthians 15 is also urged by some to completely rule out premillennialism. This contention will be touched upon below.

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is writing to correct some misconceptions about, and false teachings concerning, the bodily resurrection that had crept into the Corinthian church (15:12-19, 29-34). The issue is that some in that church were denying the resurrection. Paul responds that if Christ was not raised from the dead then the Christian faith is worthless, and we may as well just go party while we still can. However, Jesus was raised from the dead; and, after relating that just as all those united to Adam will die, so all those united to Christ will be made alive. Paul then explains that will be a sequence of resurrections.

The sequence of resurrections began with Jesus himself (15:23a). The next resurrection in the sequence is those who are raised at Jesus’ return (15:23b). What happens next is,

Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule and all authority and power (15:24).

This is where things get interesting. Gentry (a partial preterist postmillennialist) maintains, “At his second coming history is over in that the resurrection occurs at ‘the end’; there will be no millennial age on the present earth to follow.”[1] In verse 24, cited above, it is clear that the end comes when Jesus hands the kingdom over to the Father. It is equally clear that Jesus hands over the kingdom to the Father when he has brought an end to all other rule, power, and authority. Gentry views this as happening virtually simultaneously with Jesus’ return. The difficulty for Gentry’s view (and also all other a- and post-millennial views) is the next verse:

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet (15:25).

In other words, Jesus reigns for a time (here unspecified) until he has put all enemies under his feet (i.e., brings an end to all rule, power, and authority). So, for all but premillennial positions, Christ must be presently reigning and putting all his enemies under his feet. Once Jesus has accomplished this, he will return, those that belong to him will be resurrected, and he will turn the kingdom over to the Father. Again, the last three events happen virtually simultaneously. However, if this is a correct understanding of this passage, then Jesus will never actually physically rule over the nations! As soon as he returns, he delivers the kingdom to the Father. There is another approach.

I would argue that it is simply to read one’s theology into the text to make the reigning of Jesus in verse 25 precede his coming in verse 23. A more natural way of reading these three verses would be that, in the sequence of events that Paul is describing, Christ will return and those who belong to him will be resurrected, he will then reign until he has placed all his enemies under his feet, and once this is accomplished he will turn over the kingdom to the Father. What is more, since Paul is actually describing a sequence of resurrections, it would be natural to understand that in the event of Jesus handing the kingdom over to the Father another bodily resurrection is implied.

Interestingly enough, this would appear to be the same sequence of events we find described by John in Revelation 20. Except that in Revelation 20 John reveals the length of Jesus’ reign between his second coming and turning the kingdom over to the Father. John also explicitly states that there is a resurrection after the reign of Christ, whereas it is only implied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.

Well, ok, premillennialism is great, but what about the rapture? The rapture part comes later in the chapter. If what has been advocated so far is correct, and a pre-trib rapture position is correct, then none of what Paul has discussed so far concerning resurrections directly applies to the Corinthians. They won’t be resurrected at the second coming. They will be returning with Christ to reign with him. They certainly won’t be resurrected at the end, when Christ delivers up the kingdom to the Father (i.e., the end of the millennium). John reveals that it is unbelievers who are resurrected at this time. Incidentally, this may be one reason Paul does not explicitly mention this resurrection when he is discussing the sequence of resurrections in 1 Corinthians 15. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is discussing the resurrection of those who are united to Christ, not resurrection in general (which would include all believers and unbelievers alike).

Paul’s discussion of the rapture begins in verse 50. After arguing that the Father is excepted from Jesus subduing all other power and authority, and demonstrating the absurdity of certain rituals if the dead are in fact not raised, and exposing the foolishness of incredulity concerning what kind of body people will have in the resurrection; Paul tells the Corinthians that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. Some have urged this fact against certain premillennial positions because said positions allow that some non-glorified (i.e., flesh and blood) people who survive the tribulation would enter into the millennial kingdom. In response it may be noted that Paul has already discussed the kingdom up through Jesus turning it over to the Father. This would be the eternal state phase of the kingdom then that Paul is speaking of, not the millennial phase of the kingdom, when he says that flesh and blood cannot inherit it. There will be no non-glorified people in the eternal state.

This is exactly the difficulty though. What Paul has said so far concerning resurrections does not cover when the Corinthians, and everyone else who is a believer in this age, will be resurrected. In 1 Corinthians 15:51-58 Paul teaches about a resurrection of the dead believers of this age and a glorification of the surviving Christians at the time. Paul calls it a “mystery” and what he describes is an event that happens at once and out of the blue. The only thing that precedes it is a trumpet blast, but that hardly qualifies as the various elaborate signs that Jesus says would signal his return to establish the kingdom of God on earth (cf., Matt 24). The resurrection/glorification that the Corinthians will participate in had not been revealed in previous revelation. It was only after the resurrection of Christ that this mystery began to be revealed by the NT writers.

The timing element of the rapture here spoken of by Paul is not mentioned. It is in comparing the data found in this passage with others that it appears the rapture discussed by Paul here is a pre-tribulational one. I hold that conclusion lightly, as it is an inference that I make rather than a deduction made from what is explicitly taught in Scripture (e.g., the Trinity). At the same time I want to embrace all that may be understood from this passage because the totality of what the passage contains is motivation for following Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians:

So then, dear brothers and sisters, be firm. Do not be moved! Always be outstanding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord (1 Cor 15:58).

[1] Gentry, Kenneth L., “Postmillennialism,” in The Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. by Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 48.

Part IV: Evaluating the Rapture

04 Wednesday Apr 2012

Posted by in Eschatology

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

We come back to the discussion regarding the pretribulation rapture. Personally this study has been helpful to me because it exposes my own theological foundations and is helping me define why I believe in a pretribulation rapture.

Second, it has softened the degree to which I pound the pulpit against other views. As I study the rapture, I am continuously exposed to issues relating to timing and / or a lack of solid evidence (each view is built on inference). My convictions regarding the timing of the rapture have softened in regard to being dismissive of other views and yet continue to remind me the big deal in eschatology is the future hope for Israel (that includes ALL the nations!), the Millennial Kingdom, and the New Heavens and Earth! Those are important and can be taught with conviction.Christ is returning. Until this stated time, we preach the Gospel because men and women need the good news.

Finally, this study provides hope to me because convictions about the end times make me realize one truth: Christ wins—justice and righteousness will reign supreme on the earth again some day and I long to live under a “government” lead by a righteous man who loves people.

Parts 1-3 deal with bad arguments regarding the pretribulation rapture. The idea behind exposing bad arguments is not to denigrate those who hold the position, but to challenge us to think through and propose good arguments for our positions. The first part exposes a common argument from silence in regards to what Revelation does not say regarding the rapture. The second part, Ken analyzes John 14 and teaches the real meaning behind the text. In the third part, Shawn evaluates Revelation exposing misinterpretations of the pre-trib position and prohibiting a Post-trib position.

Part 4 seeks to analyze 1 Thessalonians and what Paul communicates regarding the rapture. First, the doctrine of the rapture is without dispute. The fuzziness of the issue is in the timing of events.

The reality of the rapture is clearly articulated. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 teaches,

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then (ἔπειτα) [1] we who are alive and remain will be caught up (ἁρπαγησόμεθα) [2] together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

The text teaches a rapture but does not contain explicit time indicators. Yet we can be sure of an event where Jesus will meet his people in the air so that they are always with the Lord.

So where in 1 Thessalonians does one find the argument for the pretriublation rapture? 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10 seems to provide a clue to the timing. In the context, Paul is speaking about “the times” and “epochs.” He is speaking about the great eschatological events in God’s history. He reminds them “The day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night” (1 Thess 5:2). He reminds them what the time will be like and who will be in it (5:3-6). He reminds the believers to stay sober and be alert.

Here is the key assertion from the pretribulation view – the church will not be present during the Day of the Lord. The Day of the Lord can refer to three events: the week of tribulation, the judgment from God, and judgment in general. The common meaning among all three uses is judgment. The Tribulation period is a seven-year time of judgment also mentioned as a time of wrath.

Paul tells the church,

For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. (1 Thess. 5:9-10).

Paul seems to be talking about the seven-year tribulation (aka the wrath) in this context.

One could argue harmonizing the trumpets would be the best way to indicate what “epoch” or part of the tribulation is in discussion. But the trumpets are not as concrete an event as the tribulation period. It is possible (and plausible) for multiple trumpets throughout the Tribulation period to signify different events—the trumpet for the pretribulation rapture, trumpets during the seventh seal, and trumpet for Christ’s return (Matt 25:31). Trumpets seem to announce a change in event more than be a historical marker. Because the time of wrath seems to be the “epoch” in discussion, it seems most plausible Paul is encouraging the church by telling them “God has not destined us for wrath” (1 Thess. 5:9). Therefore, the pretribulation position is the most likely considering the evidence presented.

[1] indicating “next in order of time”

[2] meaning “be snatched up”

Part III : Evaluating the Rapture

26 Monday Mar 2012

Posted by in Eschatology

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

,

It’s finally my turn to join the discussion. As one who has attempted to slow down their wavering “to and fro” over the placement of the rapture, I find the Pre-tribulational rapture a position wrought with theological and exegetical problems. However, I see it having fewer problems than any of the other tribulational positions. Nonetheless, all positions are not a “slam-dunk” position.

The book of Revelation tends to be an enigma for Bible interpreters, of which it does not need to be. The tendency for allegory increases when descriptions of extreme visions are laid before the reader. However, assuming the book to be within the “Prophetic” genre (Rev 1:3; 22:18–19), hermeneutical principles for an “apocalyptic” genre are no longer needed.

Despite other problems within Revelation, this post focuses on the book of Revelation and the Rapture. It will first demonstrate how the book of Revelation does not give specific passages for a Pre-tribulational rapture. However, what Revelation does accomplish in its description of the tribulation and second coming of Christ will prohibit a Post-tribulational rapture. But concluding thoughts will be that Revelation really can’t be a clear argument for rapture-like arguments.

Revelation and the Pre-Tribulational Rapture

The first problem with Revelation and the Pre-tribulational position is the description of the Church. The argument typically goes as follows: Chapters 1–3 contain much information and commands regarding the seven churches, even the word ekklesia is used numerous times within this section. However, ekklesia (church) does not appear again in the book until Rev 22.16. What this implies is the absence of the church during the 7-year tribulation. Jason already provided a great analysis of the logical fallacy in part 1 of this series. It falls underneath the fallacy of argument by silence. Just because there is an absence of the word “church” does not mean provide an argument for or against the presence of the Church in the tribulation.

The second problem is appealing to Rev 3:10 and attributing “kept from the hour” is the rapture. There are numerous problems in the ensuing arguments for appealing to Rev 3:10. (For the purpose of breveity, I’m assuming the reader will need to be somewhat aware of Rev 3:7–13).

The phrase “I will keep you from” has the idea of removal. The natural appeal is to John 17.15 where there is a similar construction in the Greek to signify “preservation after removal from a period” (Thomas, 285). This reads too much into the preposition. It doesn’t necessarily mean a removal from the sphere of affliction, rather it is a protection from the trial. Moreover, a Post-trib rendering of ek (from) as “I will keep you through the hour of trial” is completely untenable. It is a reading of theology into a single preposition that never carries the function of “through.”

The “hour of Trial” may well be the tribulation (it is defined to “try those who dwell on the earth”), but nearly all sides of the debate have made a hermeneutical fallacy. The relationship between verse 9 and 10 is a hoti, that gives reason or cause to what preceded. In this case it could look forward to the reason. But the logic of the verse goes like this: Because the Philadelphian church kept the word, they will be kept from the hour of trial. That is, the Philadelphian church is rewarded for their obedience. The obvious conclusion is of course they have escaped the hour of trial; the Philadelphian church is no longer in existence and the hour of trial has yet to come. Moreover, the initial audience of the promise has already passed away. The hermeneutical fallacy is this: “The promise made here pertains to Philadelphian Christians only and cannot be generalized to include Christians in the other churches of Asia, much less all Christians in all places and times” (Aune, 1:240). It is a fallacy to conclude that all Christians of all times will experience blessing for what was promised to a single church for their obedience. Though the entire description of Rev 3:8–13 is eschatological, the promise of “keeping” is to the Philadelphians for their obedience and not a reference of the Church’s rapture.

Revelation and the Post-Tribulational Rapture

The placement of the Post-tribulational rapture is rather easy within Revelation. It has to fall somewhere after Rev 19 but before Rev 20. However, the sequence of events in the final chapters of Revelation completely prohibits the Post-tribulational position. I don’t want to commit the same fallacy of arguing through silence and say the “great multitudes” in 19:1, 19:6 is a reference to all believers of all times, but a tracing of the sequence of events are as follows:

1. The multitudes in heaven rejoicing before God (19:1–5)

2. The Marriage Supper (19:6–10)

3. The Return of Christ on the White Horse (19:11–21)

4. The Millennium (20:1–6)

5. Battle of Gog and Magog after the Millenium (20:7–10)

6. The Great White Throne Judgment (20:11–15)

7. The New Heavens and the New Earth (21–22)

The arguments of a Post-tribulational view are the rapture of the Saints happens when Christ returns. In the sequence of events above, the marriage supper of the Lamb happens prior the return of the Christ. Therefore, in a Post-tribulational view, parts of the bride are not in attendance to this feast. Rev 19:7 states that the “Bride has made herself ready” and is therefore part of the “great multitudes.” Consequently, I would be hard-pressed to say that the entire Bride won’t be in attendance to this great feast!

However, what this analysis presupposes, of which I have yet to prove, is a sequential order of events from Revelation 19–22. I am not arguing for a sequential reading of the entire book of Revelation. Therefore, if I can prove chs. 19–22 are sequential but someone proves Revelation, as a whole, is not sequential, it fails to rebuttal my argument. Rev 19:1 begins with meta tauta “after this, I heard.” Therefore, there is a separation of events from 18–19 and John is beginning to tell what ensued after ch 18. However, from chs. 19–22, there is a literary repetition that I observe argues for sequence. What this does not mean is that the events must strictly follow suit, but what it does mean is that there may be overlap. Regardless, there is a logical order of events that are difficult to rearrange in order and I make the case that the literary elements argue against attempts to rearrange the order. From chs. 19–22 there are multiple kai’s “and” followed by a verb: kai ekousa “And I heard”(19:6); kai legei “and he said” (19:9); kai eidon “And I saw” (19:11; 19:17; 19:19; 20:1; 20:4; 20:11; 21:1; 21:22). Therefore, with a sequential order of chs. 19–22 the Bride of Christ enjoys the marriage supper of the Lamb prior to the return of Christ, thereby prohibiting a Post-tribulational rapture.

* * * * *

The book of Revelation does not have to be an enigma within biblical studies. The difficulty of the book is still not too high for the average reader to understand. Rev 1:3 promises blessing to those who reads aloud the book, keeps the commands within the book, and keeps what is written in it. Therefore, it is understandable. However, what is absent in Revelation, for nearly all sides of the argument, is the placement of the rapture.

part 1, part 2, part 4

Part II: Evaluating the Rapture

22 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by in Eschatology

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

,

The worst enemy of the pre-trib rapture position is hands-down, bad arguments sometimes employed by dispensationalists. Being a dispensationalist myself, of the progressive sort, I feel a certain freedom to speak badly about arguments made by other dispensationalists not as enlightened as me (i.e., classic and revised), so here goes (the arrogance is not real, but feigned for the sake of humor).

It is occasionally argued by dispensationalists that in John 14:1-3, Jesus teaches his disciples about the rapture (pre-trib of course). Whether πιστεύετε “believe” in verse one is indicative or imperative in one or both clauses need not detain us here. It is in verse two where the real action begins. In verse two Jesus comforts his disciples with the fact that he is going away to prepare a place for them in his Father’s household; in which, there are many dwelling places. In verse three Jesus relates that he will return and receive the disciples to himself, so that where he is, they may be also.

We are told by many interpreters that Jesus’ “going to prepare a place” is a reference to his ascension into heaven forty days or so after the resurrection. The actual “preparing” of the places is not always elaborated on, but it is safe to assume that the “dwelling places” are actual and the preparation real. The location of these dwelling places would seem to be heaven since that is where Jesus is going to in order to prepare them. If what has been said is a proper understanding thus far, then in verse three Jesus’ “coming again” to receive the disciples must be a return from heaven. At this point pre-tribbers differ from those of other eschatological persuasions.

Those who do not hold to a pre-trib rapture, but understand verses one and two in the same manner as described above, argue that verse three is describing the Second Coming that either begins the millennium, or the eternal state. The difficulty with these views is that if it is understood in verse one and two that Jesus is ascending to heaven in order to prepare dwelling places for the disciples then it would seem that his returning for the disciples implies that he will then take them to dwell in these dwelling places that he has prepared for them. However, if this is the Second Coming, then Jesus is not going to take anyone anywhere. He is going to stay on earth and either establish his millennial kingdom, or rule on a new earth for the rest of eternity. So, if Jesus’ “going to prepare a place” for the disciples in verse two is a reference to the ascension, then it is doubtful that his “coming” to receive the disciples in verse three is a reference to the Second Coming.

Those who hold to a pre-trib rapture sometimes argue that, rather than a reference to the Second Coming, verse three is a reference to the rapture. Before the tribulation, Jesus will return and take the disciples to heaven where he has prepared a place for them. From that point on they will be where Jesus is, and presumably accompany him on his return (Second Coming) at the end of the tribulation. If verse two does indeed refer to the ascension then the rapture understanding of verse three would seem to make more sense than a reference to the Second Coming.

However, both the Second Coming and rapture views of verse three share a common problem. It is doubtful that verse two refers to the ascension. The first indication that Jesus is not talking about the ascension in verse two is the dialogue in verse four and following. In verse four Jesus tells the disciples that they know the way to the place he is going. It may be useful to point out here that if Jesus is speaking of his ascension into heaven when he told the disciples that he was going away to prepare a place for them in the Father’s household, then the way to where he is going is up through the clouds into heaven.

The disciples, via Thomas, disclaim such knowledge. In fact, they don’t even know where he is going, so how in the world would they know the way he is taking to get there. Jesus then responds that he is the way…. For our purposes here, we will focus on that little bit of Jesus’ response. Jesus says in verse six that he is the way to where he is going to prepare a place for the disciples. Jesus is not the way that Jesus took when he ascended into heaven some forty days after the resurrection. There is a better explanation of these verses.

Jesus had just told the disciples that, as he had told the Jewish leaders, he was going away and where he was going they could not come (13:33). I take it for granted that given the context most will recognize that Jesus is talking about his death under the euphemism of going somewhere. It is in this context that Jesus communicates to his disciples that he is going away to prepare a place for them in the Father’s household. I would propose that what Jesus is saying in John 14:1­–6 is that by going away (i.e., dying on the cross) he will prepare a way for the disciples to dwell in the Father’s household. Jesus is not talking about going to clean up the New Jerusalem to get it ready for all the pre-tribulationally raptured folks. He is making a soteriological statement about how he is about to lay down his life so that his disciples might dwell with him and the Father forever.

Part I: Evaluating the Rapture

19 Monday Mar 2012

Posted by in Eschatology

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, ,

We teach a pretribulation rapture of the church. Alan Hultberg defines it as, “The rapture is a theological term that refers to the ‘catching up’ of the church to meet the Lord in the air in association with his return and with the resurrection of believers.” [1] Debate exists among dispensationalists pertaining to the timing of the event. Pretribulation rapture proponents assert those in the church will be taken off the earth before the seven years of tribulation as described in Revelation (or Daniel’s seventieth week). We believe there are good arguments for this view (mainly 1 Thess 4:16-17 and 1 Cor 15:50ff).

However, we also believe there are some bad arguments from dispensationalists who defend the pretribulation rapture. Two leading arguments from pretribs are built on an argument from silence and a misinterpretation of John 14. Our challenge to dispensationalists is to argue from the text theological positions and represent our views with solid arguments not based on logical fallacies and bad interpretations.

Rapture Series Overview

There are four or five parts in this blog series. The first post will evaluate the argument from silence pertaining to Revelation 6-19. The second post will analyze John 14. Part three will evaluate 1 Thessalonians. Part four evaluates 1 Corinthians 15. A fifth part may come to fruition evaluating Revelation 3:10 (although Shawn hasn’t confirmed it yet–hint hint Shawn :)

Argument from silence

This argument states John never mentions the church when describing Daniel’s seventieth week in Revelation 6-19. Because the church is not mentioned and the focus is on Israel, the church is therefore absent from the scene and the Pretribulation Rapture accounts for this evidence. One author notes,

It is remarkable and totally unexpected that John would shift from detailed instructions for the church to absolute silence about the church for the fourteen chapters describing Daniel’s seventieth week (Rev. 6-19) if, in fact, the church continued into the tribulation. [2]

In order for this statement to support the pretrib view, the author needs to know the mind of John, the author of Revelation. He continues,

If the church will experience the tribulation of Daniel’s seventieth week, then surely the most detailed study of the tribulation events would include an account of the church’s role. But it doesn’t![3]

The problem here is this is an argument from silence. Chapter 6-19 says nothing about the rapture. The mid or post-trib proponent could argue the text says nothing about the rapture because John does not care to deal with it. The post-trib proponent could insist nothing is mentioned because the rapture doesn’t occur until the end of the tribulation. Both mid and post-tribers could assert, John writes Revelation to prepare the church for the coming destruction. Of course someone could argue there is no rapture because John does not mention it!

Criag Blaising says,

The problem we have in answering the question is that, as in the Olivet Discourse, there is no EXPLICIT mention of the rapture in the book of Revelation. This silence per se favors none of the tribulational positions presented in this book. All one can conclude is that an explicit discussion of the topic of the rapture was not in keeping with the purposes of the book or the purpose of the Lord in revealing these visions “[4]

Too often we argue from narrative what the narrative does not intend to teach. It is a bad argument to claim something exists because the narrative does not mention it. This assumes we know the mind of the author and why he chose to mention and not mention details. In reality all we can assert about the text is what the author told us. We know the author intended to communicate what he wrote down and his words need to be the focal point of our discussion. When we come across arguments from silence, it reveals the proponents presuppositions more than what the text actually says.

The argument from silence really means the presupposition needs to be evaluated. In order to assert a pre, mid, or post-tribulation view, advocates need to assert a positive argument for his or her position. Therefore the pre-trib view is best asserted by examining texts that deal with the rapture.

Jason

[1] Alan Hultberg, “Introduction,” Three Views on The Rapture, pg 11.

[2] Richard Mayhue, “Why a Pretribulation Rapture?,” Christ Prophetic Plans, 89.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Craig Blaising, “A Case for the Pretribulation Rapture,” Three Views on the Rapture, 61-2.