Andrea B. de Sarkissian is translating into Spanish all five articles of “The Prophetic Pillars of the Prewrath Position” from the back issues of the Parousia newsletter. Click here to download the first prewrath pillar!
“Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). One of the points in this verse that should be highlighted is that before we can take seriously the biblical principles to resist the devil, we need to be aware that he is a force to be reckoned with—otherwise, why would James give us this warning to resist the devil? This command to resist the devil necessarily implies that the devil is loose. It makes no sense to resist the devil if he is restrained.
Yet, this is in some sense what amillennialists teach. To get around the literal sense of Revelation 20:1-3, amillennialists are forced to conclude that Satan is not bound today if that “means that he cannot move a muscle against God” (William Cox, Amillennialism Today, p. 59). Perhaps one of the best known supporters of amillennialism is Dr. Anthony Hoekema who in agreement with Cox defines the sense in which Satan is bound. Hoekema writes,
This [binding of Satan] does not imply that Satan can do no harm whatever while he is bound. It means only what John says here: while Satan is bound he cannot deceive the nations in such a way as to keep them from learning about the truth of God (Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (1982) p. 228).”
In other words, Satan is bound in the sense that he is only able to keep people from understanding the gospel. Yet, the New Testament at every point contradicts both Cox and Hoekema’s conclusion. Peter explicitly talks about the activity of the devil: “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him” (1 Pet 5:8-9)
John says: “We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19).
And Paul says: “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places….In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one;” (Eph 6:11-12, 16)
So the diverse testimony of Scripture shows that the devil is on the loose and bent on our destruction. This is in stark contrast to the situation when Christ comes back:
“Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. (2) And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, (3) and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer,” (Rev 20:1-3).
If language has any meaning at all, Satan is not bound at this moment in the sense that amillennial theology teaches. Satan was not bound and chained up in a pit at the first coming of Christ in any sense whatsoever. Certainly, the victory of Christ was won on the cross, which provides the believer the basis to resist the devil. But only when Christ comes back will the prowling devil be fettered in a sealed pit.
This poignant statement from Luther on tribulation in our lives can be applied to the Church when she enters into the Great Tribulation. May we cultivate this spiritual self-control if God calls this generation to suffer at the hands of Satan and his Antichrist:
We have the promise and hope of heaven, and the recompense and reward of our present misery will be so great that we shall rebuke ourselves severely for ever having dropped one tear or sigh on account of this contempt and ingratitude of the world. Why, we shall say, did we not suffer even worse things? I never would have believed that there could be such surpassing glory in eternal life; else I should not have so dreaded to suffer even much worse things (St. L. II:1237; Erl, Exeg. Opp. Lat. 9, 235.)
Pretribulational John Walvoord writes:
John Calvin, the great reformer, likewise looked for the imminent return of Christ. In commenting on 1 John 2:18, Calvin writes, “But the Apostle not only fortifies the faithful, lest they should falter, but turns the whole to a contrary purpose; for he reminds them that the last time had already come, . . . In the same way it behoves us to comfort ourselves at this day, and to see by faith the near advent of Christ, . . . nothing more now remained but that Christ should appear for the redemption of the world.” Even though Calvin did not follow premillennial truth, he nevertheless did believe in the imminency of the Lord’s return” (“Christ’s Olivet Discourse on the Time of the End: How Near is the Lord’s Return?,” p. 81, Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1972, John F. Walvoord).
What Walvoord fails to tell the reader is that Calvin believed in the imminent return of Christ, not because he thought the Church was raptured before Antichrist, rather Calvin believed the Antichrist was the papacy—hence, the reason Calvin believed that Christ could come back at any moment.
Here is the context of what Calvin continued to say in his commentary of 1 John 2:18, which was left out by Walvoord:
As ye have heard that antichrist will come. He speaks as of a thing well known. We may hence conclude that the faithful had been taught and warned from the beginning respecting the future disorder of the Church, in order that they might, carefully keep themselves in the faith they professed, and also instruct posterity in the duty of watchfulness. For it was God’s will that his Church should be thus tried, lest any one knowingly and willingly should be deceived, and that there might be no excuse for ignorance. But we see that almost the whole world has been miserably deceived, as though not a word had been said about Antichrist.
Moreover, under the Papacy there is nothing more notorious and common than the future coming of Antichrist [i.e., they did not recognize that he was already present]; and yet they are so stupid, that they perceive not that his tyranny is exercised over them. Indeed, the same thing happens altogether to them as to the Jews; for though they hold the promises respecting the Messiah, they are yet further away from Christ than if they had never heard his name; for the imaginary Messiah, whom they have invented for themselves, turns them wholly aside from the Son of God; and were any one to shew Christ to them from the Law and the Prophets, he would only spend his labor in vain. The Popes have imagined an Antichrist, who for three years and a half is to harass the Church. All the marks by which the Spirit of God has pointed out Antichrist, clearly appear in the Pope; but the triennial Antichrist lays fast hold on the foolish Papists, so that seeing they do not see. Let us then remember, that Antichrist has not only been announced by the Spirit of God, but that also the marks by which he may be distinguished have been mentioned.
This is consistent with the Prewrath position. When Antichrist appears and persecutes the Church, then Christ’s Return will be imminent! (but prewrath does not believe the pope is the Antichrist).
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” (Matt 24:29).
Historicism is the eschatological position that says the thrust of prophecy in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are fulfilled in the span of the church age. So for example, they would say that the Great Tribulation was not fulfilled in the first century, nor is it to be fulfilled in the future. Instead, it spans the entire church age.
You may by surprised to learn that most Evangelical scholars are not preterists or futurists—they are historicists. But many are a mixture of preterist-historicist. Or, more inconsistently, some are preterist-historicist-futurist.
There are good reasons why historicism is not a valid interpretation. I want to point out one salient reason here. In Matthew’s account of the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24:29 he uses the Greek term έὐθέως, which means “immediately.” The event that follows the “tribulation (i.e. great tribulation) of those days” is the coming of Christ. Matthew says that the coming of Christ will occur immediately after the tribulation of those days. What is the nature of this tribulation? We are told specifically that this tribulation is caused by the abomination of desolation (Cf. Matt. 24:15, 21).
So historicism cannot be correct for two reasons:
i. The tribulation will come about by the abomination of desolation. So this tribulation cannot be described as occurring over the span of the church age. That is, believers are not going through tribulation today because the Roman general Titus destroyed the Jewish temple in A.D. 70.
ii. Since historicism believes that the abomination of desolation in Matthew 24 was fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the destruction of the temple followed by tribulation, έὐθέως (immediately) must refer specifically to that tribulation, since the term has a temporal meaning requiring that the coming of Christ to occur in the first century. In other words, it is nonsense for them to claim as they do that “immediately” will happen thousands of years later after the abomination of desolation. Therefore historicism has a strained interpretation.
Prewrath has the natural reading. We understand that the abomination of desolation for Matthew refers to a futurist event of Antichrist in the temple. That will cause a great tribulation and immediately after those days are cut short the coming of Christ will happen.