They come as a set of four charts:

1. Prewrath Overview of Final Seven Years
2. Prewrath Timeline on the book of Revelation
3. Parallels Between Matthew 24 and Revelation 6–7
4. Parallels Between Matthew 24 and 1&2 Thessalonians

Douma claims that the term “birth pangs” in the Bible is a technical term for the day of the Lord. That is, every time it is found in the Bible it must refer to the day of the Lord. This is categorically false and unproven. It is an assumption he makes to maintain the unbiblical doctrine of imminence. What do I mean by this?

Since Douma claims the rapture must occur before the great tribulation (so the church can avoid encountering the Antichrist), he interprets Jesus’ expression in Matthew 24:8, “the beginning of birth pangs,” to refer to the day of the Lord. He argues that since Paul uses the birthing metaphor in 1 Thessalonians 5 drawing from Isaiah 13 to refer to the day of the Lord, then Jesus must be using it in the same way. Therefore, he concludes that Matthew 24:4–35 describes the day of the Lord.

However, his premise is deeply flawed, for Jesus’ purpose of using the metaphor of birth pangs is just the opposite of Paul’s purpose.

Let’s begin.

Paul says,  “Now when they are saying, ‘There is peace and security,’ then sudden destruction comes on them, like labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will surely not escape” (1 Thess 5:3). Paul’s analogy of “labor pains” is drawn from a day of the Lord passage in Isaiah 13:

(6) Wail, for the LORD’s day of judgment is near; it comes with all the destructive power of the sovereign judge. (7) For this reason all hands hang limp, every human heart loses its courage. (8) They panic—cramps and pain seize hold of them like those of a woman who is straining to give birth. They look at one another in astonishment; their faces are flushed red. (9) Look, the LORD’s day of judgment is coming; it is a day of cruelty and savage, raging anger, destroying the earth and annihilating its sinners. (10) Indeed the stars in the sky and their constellations no longer give out their light; the sun is darkened as soon as it rises, and the moon does not shine. (Isa 13:6–10; see also Isa 26:17–21)

We should not confuse Paul’s use of the birth pangs analogy with Jesus’ use of it in the Olivet Discourse, for it serves a completely different purpose than Matthew 24:8 (“All these things are the beginning of birth pains”). There are six differences that demonstrate that Jesus does not use the birth pangs metaphor to refer to the day of the Lord:

1. Jesus’ usage in Matthew 24 occurs before the great tribulation; Paul’s usage is found at the inception of the day of the Lord. In other words, Jesus uses the birthing metaphor to warn that the end has not arrived (“Make sure that you are not alarmed, for this must happen, but the end is still to come. . . All these things are the beginning of birth pains”). Paul uses it to announce that the end has arrived (“then sudden destruction comes on them, like labor pains,” cf. Isa 13:7–8).

2. Accordingly, Jesus emphasizes the tolerable stage of “the beginning of birth pains” (Matt 24:8); hence, the reason he reassures, “Make sure that you are not alarmed, for this must happen, but the end is still to come” (Matt 24:6). In contrast, Paul is drawing from Isaiah’s labor imagery focused on the intolerable stage of actual giving birth, “cramps and pain seize hold of them like those of a woman who is straining to give birth” (Isa 13:8).

3. Jesus teaches that the “beginning of birth pangs” is what Christians are destined to experience (Matt 24:4–8); Paul teaches just the opposite that Christians are promised exemption from the hard labor pains, the time of God’s wrath (1 Thess 5:9).

4. The labor pains in Matthew 24 refer to natural events such as false christs, wars, famines, and earthquakes (Matt 24:5–8). Paul’s reference is to the supernatural event of the day of the Lord (2 Thess 1:5–8).

5. Jesus’ usage of the beginning of birth pangs occurs before the celestial disturbance happens (Matt 24:8–29). But in the Isaiah passage that Paul is drawing from associates the birth pangs of the onset of the day of the Lord with the celestial disturbance (Isaiah 13: 8–10).

6. Jesus uses the birthing metaphor to apply to both unbelievers and believers (Matt 24:5–8). While Paul uses it exclusively applied to unbelievers (1 Thess 5:3–4).

So we have seen that Douma is mistaken to think that Jesus is speaking of the day of the Lord. A red flag should go up whenever someone claims that this or that is a “technical term,” for the danger is not taking contexts into consideration and thus flattening out an author’s intention. In this case, Douma has abused Jesus’ intention of the birthing metaphor to serve his own theology of imminence.

Prophets, Prophesy, and Prophecy

Wow – this is great! New support has come today. I am truly excited to begin work on the PreWrath Prophetic Study Bible. Having spent the last 5 years re-examining every tenet of dispensational premillennialism, I feel that I have a much better understanding concerning why pretribulationists err in their interpretation of prophetic Scripture.

The many conclusions that may seem to support the pretrib rapture simply have no exegetical basis in Scripture. In fact, there is not one explicit passage of Scripture to support their view. Every passage once claimed to be a proof text for the pretrib position has been abandoned as a result of careful exegesis in the last 10 to 20 years. This is really astonishing.

In the PreWrath Prophetic Study Bible, I hope to demonstrate a clear understanding of every passage in the Bible that relates to unfulfilled prophecy. Not only will the book deal with explicit passages, but it will also attempt to show “pattern fulfillment,” for example,  the Abomination of Desolation. A pattern fulfillment occurs when certain aspects of a particular prophecy in the Old Testament find fulfillment more than once in human history. In connection with Antiochus Epiphanes, the destruction of the second temple, and ultimately just prior to the consummation of the age — history will witness a pattern fulfillment connected with the Abomination of Desolation.

We will also look for new patterns which may not have been explicitly revealed in the OT, but which will clearly manifest themselves in the fulfillment of the book of Revelation and the millennial kingdom. For example, God promised to restore man to his garden paradise. Clearly, this event happens in stages. We will trace the progress of this fulfillment through the books of the Bible.

We hope to finish this project in four years. The electronic version will be completed first. As each book is finished, students will have immediate access via our BLOG at www.prewrathrapture.com . Once the complete Bible is finished, students will be able to buy printed copies of the PreWrath Prophetic Study Bible.

To finish this project as soon as possible, we need your help! Please consider supporting this project financially. The more help we receive, the sooner the project will be finished. We have already raised 30% of the funding. Would you consider supporting PRI with a monthly gift? Any amount will be appreciated. We believe this will be a profound contribution to the body of Christ.

Please consider asking your friends to help as well. Knowing which prophecies are yet future is critical for the body of Christ to walk by faith and to avoid deception. Will you consider sacrificing in order to make this project a reality.  You may make your monthly donation on this website. Simply click on the “Support PRI” button at the top of this page.

Charles Cooper

PRI

In this part, I will respond to Douma’s repeated error of equating the “thief” imagery with “imminence.” In part one I responded to this misunderstanding as it relates namely to Peter’s usage. Even though most of what I need to say is in part one, I want to briefly respond to Douma’s claim as it relates to Paul’s use of the thief imagery. The text reads:

“For you know quite well that the day of the Lord will come in the same way as a thief in the night.” (1 Thess 5:2 NET)

Douma equates this statement with an “imminent rapture” because he says since we do not know when a thief comes, it follows that there are no prophetical events that must occur before the day of the Lord.

Douma is making a category error by not reading Paul accurately.

The thief imagery is intended to teach spiritual watchfulness, not physical watchfulness as some newsflash on CNN. This is shown in the remaining passage where Paul’s thrust is exhorting believers to stay spiritually awake and not be spiritually caught off guard when Christ comes back.

Hence, the reason Paul says that Christ is not coming back as a thief to those spiritually prepared!

“But you, brothers and sisters, are not in the darkness for the day to overtake you like a thief would” (1 Thess 5:4).

Why Douma wants to teach his people that Christ is coming back as a thief to them is beyond me. As Christians, God wants us to be spiritually prepared so that he will not come back as a thief for us because we are “not in the darkness for the day to overtake you like a thief would.”

The Structure of the Book of Revelation – Part I

Charles Cooper

As an advocate for the PreWrath rapture view I find it unfortunate, yet necessary, that a good portion of my time is spent disproving claims. For example, the confusion about the structure of the book of Revelation naturally leads to erroneous views regarding the timing of the rapture. Any similarity, detail, parallel or whisper of a heavenly descent or ascent may present the opportunity for someone to argue for his own rapture position preference based on that particular passage. Perhaps the greatest obstacle is uncertainty about the structure of the book. Until there is a consensus about the structure of the book, little will be accomplished regarding a consensus about the timing of the rapture in the book of Revelation.

A Short List of Proposed Rapture Passages in the Revelation

Since Revelation 14:14-16 is seen by pretrib, posttrib, and prewrath adherents as a possible or even likely depiction of the rapture, I shall ultimately turn my attention to this passage. Dr. Alan Hultberg in the new book, Three Views on the Rapture, argues for a prewrath understanding of Revelation 14:14-16 as indicating the timing of the rapture. I fundamentally disagree with this conclusion and see Revelation 14:14-20 as a preview of the judgments of God that follow in chapters 16-19. Both angels and the Son of Man pronounce and execute judgment during the “the hour of his judgment.” (14:7). These are the conclusions I shall seek to defend in this series of articles.

Revelation 14:14-16 states,

Then I looked, and a white cloud appeared, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man! He had a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. (v. 15) Then another angel came out of the temple, shouting in a loud voice to the one seated on the cloud, “Use your sickle and start to reap, because the time to reap has come, since the earth’s harvest is ripe!” (v. 16) So the one seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was reaped. (NET Bible)

The arguments set forth in support of Revelation 14:14-16 as a rapture passage are these:

1. The Lord Jesus predicted that He would come “on the clouds of heaven” as the Son of Man (Matt 26:64). Revelation 14:14 is seen as a fulfillment of that prophecy since it emphasizes “one like a son of man” seated on a cloud.
2. The apostle Paul informs us that the saints will be caught up in the air to meet the Lord

(1 Thessalonians 4:17). Revelation 14:14-16 foretells that earth’s harvest will be “reaped”. While the text does not specifically indicate what happens to those reaped, the assumption is that the reaper takes them up to the clouds.

3. Before the earth is reaped, an angel calls out in a loud voice for the Son of Man to “reap” the earth. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 indicates that the trumpet of God will sound before the saints are taken up into the air, which could potentially fulfill Paul’s “trumpet call”.
4. The sequence of the book of Revelation places the reaping of the earth in close proximity to the sounding of the 7^th trumpet (the last of seven trumpets). I Corinthians 15:52 places the gathering of God’s elect at the last trumpet.
5. Revelation 14 adds the detail that there will be angelic involvement in the reaping of the earth, which may explain how the elect are gathered into the air.
6. Two harvests are detailed in Revelation 14:14-20. Some see this as a harvest of the righteous (the grain) and a harvest of the wicked (the grapes), especially since the New Testament speaks of a harvest in a similar sense (Matt 13:30).

The standard arguments against seeing the rapture in Revelation 14:14-16 are these:

1. Joel 3:11-16 utilizes harvest and vintage images to signal judgment, which reinforces Revelation 14:14-20. This confirms that the nature of Revelation 14 is one of judgment and not deliverance.
2. The harvest motif of Mark 4:20 and Matthew 13:30, 39 is more naturally the outcome of Revelation 14, but the point cannot be dogmatically proven.

I am personally unconvinced that Revelation 14:14-16 deals with the rapture. There are three reasons for my conclusion:

1. The structure of the book of Revelation
2. The nature and structure of  Revelation 14
3. The nature of the harvest described in Revelation 14:14-16

The Structure of the Book of Revelation

It is not an overstatement to say that for every interpreter of the book of Revelation, one will find a different way of ordering the content of the book.[1] Therefore, no rapture position is going to gain a consensus on the basis of a prediction regarding the structuralization of the book of Revelation. Yet, within the past 40 years much has been written on this subject. A comparison of the many offered opinions about the structure of the book reveals only a few aspects that are gaining consensus among the book’s interpreters.

In 1982, in an unpublished doctoral dissertation, W.R. Kempson reported the results of his survey of proposals for the structure of the book of Revelation. He concluded that the majority of views derive from either external or internal influences.[2] Perhaps the most prominent exponent who thinks external factors influenced how the author of the book of Revelation structured his work would be E. Schussler Fiorenza’s work, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment.[3] Internal clues such as Revelation 1:19, clauses such as “And I saw,” “in the Spirit,” and “come and see” are among the list of possible internal clues to the structure of the book.

Kempson is correct that all interpreters can be categorized regarding how they arrive at their notion of the structure of the John’s apocalypse. Christopher R. Smith summarizes the study of Domingo Muňoz León who correctly concludes that regardless of how interpreters think the structure of the Revelation is to be obtained, there are three main schemes. Thus, whether an interpreter believes the structure of the Revelation follows a previous genre or that the author includes in the work itself textual marks that indicate his structural intent, there are three possible themes. Smith concludes,

Léon effectively classifies Revelation’s structural interpreters in three main groups, according to whether they favor a septenary, chiastic, or bipartate scheme.[4]

The majority of interpreters who are most often quoted regarding the structure of the book of Revelation fit within at least one of these categories.

Adela Yarbro Collins[5] – Septenary Structure

1. Prologue 1:1-8

2. The seven messages 1:9-3:22

3. The seven seals 4:1-8:5

4. The seven trumpets 8:2-11:19

5. Seven unnumbered visions 12:1-15:4

6. The seven bowls 15:1-16:21

Babylon appendix 17:1-19:10

7. Seven unnumbered visions 19:11-21:8

Jerusalem appendix 21:9-22:5

8. Epilogue 22:6-21

Felise Tavo[6] – Septenary Structure

Prologue 1:1-3

1. Seven Messages 1:4-3:22

Transition 4: 1-5:14

2. Seven Seals 6:1-7:17

Transition 8: 1-5

3. Seven Trumpets 8:6-11:14

Transition 11:15-19

4. Series of Visions I 12:1-14:20

Transition 15:1-8

5. Seven Bowls 16:1-16

Transition 16:17-19:10

6. Series of Visions II 19:11-20:15

Transition 21:1-8

7. New Jerusalem 21:9-22:5

Epilogue 22:6-21

E. Schussler Fiorenza[7] – Chiastic Structure

A Prologue 1:1-8

B         Inaugural vision and letter septet 1:9-3:22

C                     Seven-sealed scroll vision 4:1-9:21; 11:15-19

D                                 Small prophetic scroll 10:1-15:4

C’                     Seven-sealed scroll vision, continued 15:1, 5-19:10

B’         Visions of judgment and salvation 19:11-22:9

A’ Epilogue 22:10-22:21

Kenneth A. Strand[8] – Chiastic Structure

A  Prologue 1:1-10a

B         Church Militant on Earth 1:10b-3:22

C                     God’s On-going Work of Salvation 4:1-8:1

D                                 Trumpet Warnings 8:2-11:18

E                                              Evil Powers Opposing God and His Saints 11:19-14:20

E¹                                            Bowl Plagues 15:1-16-17

D¹                                Evil Powers Judged by God 16-18-18:24

C¹                    God’s Judgment Finale 19:1-21:4

B¹        Church Triumphant 21:5-22:5

A¹  Epilogue 22:6-21

W.R. Kempson[9] – Four Visions (Based on “In the Spirit” Phraseology)

PROLOGUE 1:1-8

VISION I 1:9-3:22

VISION II 4:1-16:21

A. Introduction: Revealing Heaven’s Purpose 4:2-5:14

B. The Scroll Unsealed (7 Seals) 6:1-8:1

C. The Scroll Heralded and Summarized (7 Trumpets) 8:2-11:19

D. The Scroll Opened and Executed (3 Signs)

1. & 2. The Woman and the Dragon 12:1-14:20

3. The Seven Bowls of God’s Wrath 15:1-16:21

VISION III 17:1-21:8

A. The Harlot and the Beast 17:3-18

B. The Dirge Over Babylon 18:1-19:10

C. The Final Victory 19:11-21:8

VISION IV 21:9-22:5

EPILOGUE 22:6-21

Domingo Muñoz León¹⁰ – Two Sections: Seven-Part Structure

1. Prologue (1:1-1:20)

2.         Exhortation (2:1-3:22)

3.                     Apocalypse of the Day of Yahweh (4:1-9:21)

4.                                 Transition (10:1-11:19)

5.                     Apocalypse of the Beasts (12:1-16:21)

6.         Concluding section: interweaving of two apocalypses (17:1-22:5)

7. Epilogue (22:6-22:21)

Charles R. Smith[10] – Four Visions (Based on the Phraseology: In the Spirit)

(Prologue 1:1-1:8)

“In the Spirit” on Patmos

Letters 1:9-3:22

“In the Spirit” in Heaven

Heavenly journey 4:1-9:21 + 11:14-19

Transition 10:1-10:11

Historical Vision 11:1-13 + 12:1-16:21 + 19:11-21:8

“In the Spirit” in the Wilderness

Babylon Vision 17:1-19:10

“In the Spirit” on a Mountaintop

Jerusalem Vision 21:9-22:9

(Epilogue 22:10-22:21)

Ralph J. Korner[11] – Six Visions (Based on “And I Saw” Phraseology)

I. Prologue: 1:1-8

II. Vision Block #1 (1:9-3:22): the Seven Letters

[1 individual vision]: 1:9-3:22

III. Vision Block #2 (4:1-6:17): the Six Seals

[11 individual visions]: 4:1-11; 5:1; 5:2-5; 5:6-10; 5:11-14; 6:la; 6:lb-4; 6:5-6; 6:7-8; 6:9-11;

6:12-17

IV. Vision Block #3 (7:1-8): the 144,000 Sealed

[2 individual visions] 7:1; 7:2-8

V. Vision Block #4 (7:9-15:4) the Seventh Seal/the Six Trumpets/the Seventh Trumpet/the

Seven Bowls

[12 individual visions]: 7:9-8:1; 8:2-12; 8:13; 9:1-21; 10:1-12:18; 13:1-10; 13:11-18;

14:1-5; 14:6-13; 14:14-20; 15:1; 15:2-4

VI. Vision Block #5 (15:5-17:18): the Seven Bowls and Babylon Described

[4 individual visions]: 15:5-16:12; 16:13-21; 17:1-5; 17:6-17:18

VII. Vision Block #6 (18:1-22:21): Babylon Falls and the New Jerusalem Descends

[10 individual visions]:1 8:1-19:10; 19:11-16; 19:17-18; 19:19-21; 20:1-3; 20:4-10;

20:11; 20:12-15; 21:1; 21:2-22:21

David E. Aune[12] – Two Major Sections

Prologue 1:1-8

John’s Vision and Commission 1:9-3:22

The Disclosure of God’s Eschatological Plan 4:1-22:9

Epilogue 22:6-21

This sampling of the structuralization of this book demonstrates the lack of consensus about this very matter. It also suggests that no one is going to win an argument about the timing of the rapture in the book of Revelation on the basis of his view of the structure of the book. Yet, in an article entitled, “The Structure of the Book of Revelation and Its Implication for the Pre-Wrath Rapture (Part One),” published in the Michigan Theological Journal of 1991, John A. Mclean attempts to disprove the prewrath rapture in this way. He offers his own position regarding the structure of Revelation. He states,

[T]he author will suggest an alternative proposal contending that the Apocalypse is shaped primarily by three basic principles: 1) the broad framework recorded in Revelation 1:19; 2) the continuation and sequential understanding of the septet judgments; 3) the impact of the seventieth week of Daniel 9:27 on the judgments section of Revelation (chapters 4–19).^[13]

Following these principles, Mclean offers the following outline for the book of Revelation:

1A Prologue: “Things Which You Have Seen,” 1:1–20

2A Letters to the Seven Churches: “Things Which Are,” 2:1–3:22

3A God’s Wrath and Great Tribulation: “Things Which Shall Take Place After These Things,” 4:1–19:21

1B Introduction to the Seven Seal Judgments 4:1–5:14

2B The Six Seal Judgments 6:1–7:17

3B The Seventh Seal Judgment 8:1–18:24

4B The Advent of Jesus Christ 19:1–21

4A Millennial Kingdom of God: “Things Which Shall Take Place After These Things,” 20:1–15

5A The New Jerusalem 21:1–22:5

6A Epilogue 22:6–21^[14]

I have intentionally collapsed Mclean’s outline for space, emphasis, and clarity. Following Mclean’s view, there are three major divisions in the book of Revelation. This comports with his view that Revelation 1:19 offers a three-part chronological structural intent.

However, it is with relative ease that we can dispense with Mclean’s outline for the book of Revelation. First, there is no exegetical basis for the claim that the author of the book of Revelation intended a threefold division of his work by Revelation 1:19.  This is a convention adopted by many pretribulationists to support their position. That this is true can be discerned from Mclean’s own admission that:

This threefold division does not control the major content of the book as evidenced by the disproportional character of the three sections (1:1–20; 2:1–3:22; 4:1–22:5).^[15]

John is instructed in Revelation 1:19 to “write the things that you have seen, those that are, and those that are to take place after this.” If in fact John was being instructed to write of past, present, and future events, then we would expect the text to reflect it in the command itself. If John has already seen the content of “the things that you have seen,” then he stands ready to see the content of “the things that are.” One would expect the text to say, “the things you are about to see,” since those things have not begun to be visible. Yet, there are no indicators of a shift in time between chapter one and chapters two and three. The reader has no clue that John has moved from the past to the present. The book of Revelation is punctuated with “and I saw,” “then I saw,” “after this I saw,” and “when I saw” phrases that clearly indicate sequence. Yet no such marker is anywhere near the beginning of chapter two. This seems highly problematic for McLean’s position given that chapters two and three are supposed to be a major section of the book. Equally questionable is the fact that Revelation 2-3 contains material that will be fulfilled in the eschatological future, while material in Revelation 4-19 clearly refers to events that occurred before John began to write.

Revelation 1:19 was not the first time John was instructed to write. Revelation 1:11 states “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches….” An interesting question is this: why do most pretribulationists salute Revelation 1:19, but completely ignore Revelation 1:11 with regard to the structure of the book of Revelation? The answer is obvious.

That the phrase, “those things that are to take place after these things,” cannot be a temporal marker for the content of Revelation 4-21 is self-evident when compared to the rest of the occurrences of the phrase μετὰ ταῦτα (after these things). This phrase occurs nine times throughout the book of Revelation (1:19, 4:1(2x), 7:9, 9:12, 15:5, 18:1, 19:1, and 20:3). If by it John intended to indicate divisions of the book, particularly at 4:1, then why use it eight additional times throughout the book when division is not intended? It is clear that John only intends chronology by that phrase, i.e., one vision follows another. However, whether one vision must occur before a following vision appears is not indicated by this term. Therefore, Revelation 1:19 at best indicates a sequence of the visions as John saw them, but not as divisions of the book.

That Revelation 4:1 contains the phrase μετὰ ταῦτα requires that all that comes after verse one of chapter four and the rest of the book of Revelation must follow all that occurs before chapter four. We concede that the use of the verb δεῖ, which indicates those things ordained of God, must occur as God has willed it. In this case, the events detailed after 4:1 must follow the events detailed before 4:1. Still, the nature of these events cannot be purely temporal in every detail. Revelation 2:26-27 promises the overcomer “authority over the nations” to “rule them with a rod of iron.” Revelation 3:21 also promises the overcomer the right “to sit with,” the Lord Jesus on his throne. These promises cannot find fulfillment until the events that must follow 4:1 have occurred. Therefore, the relationship between what happens before Revelation 4:1 and what happens after it are not hard and fast events. These are matters which seriously undermine McLean’s view that Revelation 1:19 determines the divisions of the book.

If Revelation 1:19 does not determine the structure of the book of Revelation and there is no consensus on a possible structure for the book, then McLean cannot prove the PreWrath position wrong by merely arguing on the basis of his structure. His structure is no more compelling than anyone else’s and it certainly does not prove that the PreWrath view is incorrect.

A Critical Verse for the Structure Question: Revelation 10:11

As is always my method, I begin with what is explicitly stated in the text. Revelation 10:11 states,

Revelation 10:11 Chart

Revelation 1:3 explicitly identifies the book of Revelation to be a prophecy, which is confirmed again in Revelation 22:18-19. Therefore, that John is told in Revelation 10:11 to “prophesy again” is crucial, and particularly so if we can show that chapter ten introduces the second half of the book. Revelation 1:1 reports that God the Father gave Jesus Christ a revelation which an angel was to deliver to God’s bondservants. That we are told of John’s participation in the prophetic office is critical. John is no mere recorder of visions, his work is prophetic in nature. Thus, that which precedes Revelation 11:1 is prophetic, and what follows it is also.

In recent years, several scholars have recognized the importance of Revelation 10. Frederick Mazzaferri[16]  goes so far as to say that chapter, “10 is one of John’s most important periscopes. It certainly takes considerable priority over his initial vision in terms of his call.” We made reference earlier to the conclusions of Christopher R. Smith and Domingo M. León regarding the structure of the book of Revelation. Both men analyzed the previous works of several scholars concerning the structure of the book, and even though their works are separated by almost ten years, they conclude that Revelation 10:1 through either 10:11 or 11:19 serves as a transition from the first major section of the book to the other.¹⁷ The implication of Smith’s work with respect to chapter ten is that Revelation 9:21 ends a major section and Revelation 10:1 bridges to a new section.

Just how critical is this? Mark Seaborn Hall’s article written in 2002 entitled, “The Hook Interlocking Structure of Revelation: The Most Important Verses in the Book and How They May Unify Its Structure,” argues that

The meaning and impact of verses 10:11-11:1 of the book of Revelation have been either ignored or glossed over in commentaries, monographs, and critical articles on the structure of Revelation. Yet, these verses are the key to the outline of the book, pointing to a division of two primary cycles held together by an interlocking center.[17]

Thus, in Hall’s view, Revelation 10:11 divides the book of Revelation into two major sections, and it provides a key to discern the structure of the book. Hall is convinced that Revelation 11:1 begins a second cycle, which consists of

A prophetic measurement of three elements that fit “back” into a part of the first cycle…These three elements are the temple (11:19-15:4), the altar (15:5-16:21), and the worshipers (17:1-22:7).[18]

It is Hall’s contention that

The nature of the section from 10:1-11:18 goes further than just a mere bridge section (or, a typical, dovetail interlock), to the extent that it should be called a hook interlock. The initiative of the first cycle of prophecy passes over, or hooks—interlocks with—the initiative of the second cycle of prophecy. Interlocking in Rev. 10:1-11:18 is not just a bridge or transition linked by common elements to parts before and after, but is this—the overlapping of hooking of initiative of action that locks two parts together. As such, it involves an initiator of action. It is in this way that it acts as a transition, a conclusion to the first cycle and an introduction to the second cycle.[19]

Hall defends this conclusion that a completely new cycle is begun at Revelation 11:1 by making the following observations:

There are three primary arguments for a two cycle division being indicated here. They relate to λέγουσίν, πάλιν, and the dative ἐν αὐτῷ.[20]

Hall writes,

First, it is the strong angel speaking all the words from 11:1-14. The significance of this is that the initiation of action changes and this points to the beginning of a completely new cycle of prophecy.[21]

Hall’s second proof for his position is the basic meaning of the term πάλιν (again). He contends that the meaning should be “It is necessary that you prophesy a second time.” In the context, John is re-commissioned to prophesy a second time because the subject matter changes. “Where before he was involved in the writing of a book and the opening of a book, now he is commanded to measure.”[22] Hall’s final argument in support of his conclusion concerns the dative ἐν αὐτῷ (in it). It is Hall’s opinion that this Greek phrase “implies that the command to measure is three distinct elements that encompass the remainder of the book.”[23]

Antonius King Wai Siew takes exception with some of Hall’s conclusions. Wai Siew speaks favorably regarding Hall’s argument that Revelation 11:1 marks a major division within the book of Revelation.[24] But he is not convinced that the book divides into two neat sections. Neither is he sure that that Hall’s division of the second half of the book of Revelation has textual support. In this regard, he concludes that Hall’s findings are “arbitrary.”[25] It is my conviction that Hall correctly grasps the importance of Revelation 10:11 in his discussion about the structure of the book of Revelation. However, he fails to grasp the central message, purpose, and structure of the second half of the book.

In his book, Antonius King Wai Siew argues that Revelation 11:1 -15:4 is a major section of the book of Revelation that is built on a chiastic framework. However, he offers no detailed understanding regarding how Revelation 11:1-15:4 fits into the structure of the book as a whole. Regarding Revelation 10:11, Wai Siew posits that it is a “frame passage,” which he defines as

a spring-board from which to launch into a chiasmus, or a section which acts as a tail piece to a chiasmus without being part of the chiastic pattern.[26]

Regarding Revelation 10:11, it is my view that both Hall and Wai Siew correctly understood that this verse indicates the beginning of a new section in the book of Revelation. Hall fails to appreciate the second half of verse 11 of chapter 10 that specifically speaks of “many peoples and nations and languages and kings.” Thus, the focus of the second cycle is defined in verse 11 and not Revelation 11:1. Wai Siew fails to tie his conclusions about Revelation 11:1-15:5 with the whole book. For John to have applied such a detailed construction of Revelation 11:1-15:5, but failed to do so with the rest of the book, does not make sense. One cannot be certain of his exegesis of Revelation 11:1-15:5 until he has thoroughly understood the first ten chapters of the book and the role they play in what follows in the remaining chapters. Wai Siew’s observations are of no help regarding the matter of the structure of the book of Revelation as a whole.

It is my view that the events connected with the 10^th chapter have occurred and will not be repeated during the eschatological fulfillment. Several factors seem to make this conclusion necessary. First, the prophetic content of John’s vision has already been given and recognized as Scripture. Second, John is dead. Third, John ate the little book. These facts make it impossible for the scene that fills Revelation 10 to be repeated in the future. In other words, the strong angel will not come down from heaven, place one foot on the sea and the other on the land, and then declare that the end of the mystery of God will occur just days before the seventh and final trumpet sounds. The events connected with the sixth trumpet will give way to the events connected with the seventh trumpet without this angelic being coming down from heaven and making a speech. We know what he said. We await the fulfillment.

In this part, I will respond to Douma as he posits a distinction between, what he calls, the “Broad Day of the Lord” and the “Narrow Day of the Lord.” Consequently, it results in two future days of the Lord.

But does Scripture actually divide the day of the Lord into a “broad and narrow” schema?

He asserts that the Broad day of the Lord starts at the beginning of the 7 year period, and the Narrow day of the Lord at the end of the seven year period. He also claims that there are precursors before the narrow day, but not before the broad day, thereby, maintaining that the broad day is imminent. Sound familiar? It should because the same phenomenon is when pretribulationists assert a coming/parousia of Christ at the beginning of the 7-year period and a coming/parousia of Christ at the end of the 7-year period. Or, as is sometimes stated, first phase and second phase. Any passages which describe events occurring before the coming of Christ they relegate to the second phase, thereby maintaining their presupposition of an “any-moment” rapture.

Douma claims that the pre-exilic prophets understood the day of the Lord to refer to an epoch (broad day), and the post-exilic prophets understood the day of the Lord as a “twenty-four” hour day (narrow day). There is absolutely no basis for this. And he provides no argumentation for his claim. Not to mention, he does not explain what pre- and post-exilic era have anything to do with it. In contrast, I have provided exegetical reasons why the day of the Lord is not conceived as a mere 24-hour day, here.

Incidentally, in the audio, Douma admits that he received strange looks from the audience after his claim. I don’t blame them because this interpretation is not derived from Scripture, but contrived to fit a preconceived idea.  He then tried to explain his odd division by—not using Scriptural evidence—but using an example from his “grandpa’s day.”

I would have liked to interact with his argumentation for his claim, but he provides none. One would think that such bold assertions would have explicit biblical support. At least one argument from a passage should be given to support this conclusion. Where are the arguments that support these conclusions? No where to be found!

What Douma fails to understand is that frequently the prophets, Jesus, and other NT writers when they spoke of Christ’s coming/day of the Lord they often emphasized the glorious inception to the epochal event; that is, the first day when he comes in the clouds and delivers his people and begins to pour out his wrath. But Douma takes that emphasis on the first day and assumes it must only be a single day. Instead, the coming/day of the Lord is an epochal event, not limited by a mere 24 hour day in some “narrow” schema.

In conclusion, Douma has failed to:

(1) Demonstrate that there is a second “[narrow] day of the Lord” at the end of the 7 year period. The biblical evidence, instead, shows that there is a single future day of the Lord’s judgment that begins with the trumpet judgments and increasingly intensifies in the bowls and culminates in Armageddon. It will be a coherent-whole event.

(2) Demonstrate that the post-exilic prophets Joel and Malachi thought of the day of the Lord as a 24-hour day.

The  motivation for Douma to create a bifurcation of the day of the Lord is to preserve his preconceived theological system of imminence. Joel and Malachi are two prophets in the Old Testament who explicitly place an event before the day of the Lord: Cosmic Disturbances (Joel 2:29-31); Elijah must return (Malachi 4:5). So Douma’s erroneous presupposition of imminence has forced him to posit a whole new day of the Lord so as to avoid the necessary implication that key events will occur before the rapture.

Similarly, someone told me that pretribulationism is like those who followed Ptolemy’s earth-centered cosmos. When the theory did not portray the observed motions of the planets, epicycles were introduced, and when the epicycles failed to correspond to reality, epicycles within epicycles were the “answer.”

As an aside, as I have listened to Douma speak on this subject, I have noticed that he speaks fast and makes many huge assumptions on the way, without slowing down and giving any basis for his assertions. In my opinion, this manner is not beneficial for God’s people, for the goal is to help people understand a biblical line of reasoning, instead of asserting a string of assumptions.

In the next part, I will respond to his assumption about the birth pangs that is used by Paul and Jesus.

This course is taught from the Prewrath perspective, but believers holding other viewpoints are welcome, since the course will interact at certain points with Pretribulationism, Posttribulationism, and Preterism. An emphasis will be on the Day of the Lord, which is one of the most important but often neglected topics to Christ’s Return. Pertinent Old Testament passages, for example Isaiah and Daniel, will be examined. And New Testament teachings will cover Jesus’ Olivet Discourse, Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles, and the book of Revelation. The millennial issue will not be covered in this course; instead the focus will be on the immediate events surrounding the Lord’s return