Category:

Day of the Lord

Is the Rapture Depicted in Revelation 14:14-16?

by Charles Cooper November 16, 2011

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.

November 16, 2011 0 comment

Day of the Lord Pretribulationism

A Biblical Response to Eric Douma – Part 2

by Alan Kurschner November 8, 2011

written by Alan Kurschner

I am responding to Eric Douma’s sermon on April 3rd 2011, “The Day of The LORD: A Look at the Imminent Day of Salvation and Judgment.” We continue.

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.

November 8, 2011 0 comment

Amillennialism Church History Day of the Lord Hermeneutics Olivet Discourse Premillennialism Preterism Pretribulationism Prewrath Thessalonians 1&2

The Didache (c.50–c.120)

by Alan Kurschner September 26, 2011

written by Alan Kurschner

The early church consistently and vigorously taught when Christ would return he would establish his kingly millennium and rule over the nations from Jerusalem. This teaching began to be abandoned during the fourth century through the influence of the reign of Emperor Constantine, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Augustine’s writings, and the third century theologian Origen whose allegorical system of interpretation explained away the natural reading of Old Testament prophecies of a millennium and a future for Israel. These four men laid the foundation for what would be known as amillennialism, until premillennialist theologians could emerge again without the threat of persecution by the state and church.

Another point of eschatological doctrine that the early church affirmed was that the church would encounter the Antichrist. Every early church writer in the first couple of centuries who wrote on this relationship agreed in a singular voice that the church would encounter the Antichrist (the prewrath position). One will search in vain for any writer who thought that the church would be resurrected or raptured before the Antichrist’s persecution (the pretribulational position).

The prewrath position is a refinement and development of the day of the Lord and rapture question. The essence of prewrath teaching reaches back to the early church period. In the next eight posts, I will cite eight early church writers who taught that the church would encounter the Antichrist.

We begin with what many believe to be the very first Christian document outside of the New Testament called the Didache (“The Teaching”), pronounced DID-ah-kay. It teaches that the church will encounter the persecution of the Antichrist, which will then be followed by the coming of Christ to rescue his people and resurrect his people.

The Didache is an extremely important early Christian document because it is a window allowing us to see the faith and practice of a segment of the primitive church. The date of the Didache has been estimated AD 50–120. It is agreed that it is a compositional document made up of several sources, of which the earliest of the sources were likely written before AD 70. The most probable place of origin is Syria, perhaps in the city of Antioch, which was the main Christian center at that time. The Didache contains three parts. The first is a code of Christian morals, the “Two Ways,” expounding on the way of life and the way of death. The second is a church order manual, a rules of conduct, prescribing correct practice of baptism, church polity, the Lord’s supper, etc. The final part concludes with an eschatological section of an outline commentary to the Olivet Discourse; hence, since this is the first interpretation in church history on Jesus’ teaching about his second coming, we will benefit from what it says.

The early church viewed this document as containing orthodox teaching, including its interpretation of eschatology. So important was this document that some early church fathers (albeit wrongly) accepted it as Scripture. But in the main it was used for instruction for church leaders, believers, and baptismal candidates. The eschatological section of the Didache is found in chapter 16. It states:

(1) “Watch” over your life: “let your lamps” be not quenched “and your loins” be not ungirded, but be “ready,” for ye know not “the hour in which our Lord cometh.” (2) But be frequently gathered together seeking the things which are profitable for your souls, for the whole time of your faith shall not profit you except ye be found perfect at the last time; (3) for in the last days the false prophets and the corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall change to hate; (4) for as lawlessness increaseth they shall hate one another and persecute and betray, and then shall appear the deceiver of the world as a Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders and the earth shall be given over into his hands and he shall commit iniquities which have never been since the world began. (5) Then shall the creation of mankind come to the fiery trial and “many shall be offended” and be lost, but “they who endure” in their faith “shall be saved” by the curse itself. (6) And “then shall appear the signs” of the truth. First the sign spread out in Heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet, and thirdly the resurrection of the dead: (7) but not of all the dead, but as it was said, “The Lord shall come and all his saints with him.” (8) Then shall the world “see the Lord coming on the clouds of Heaven.”

The main gospel source that the Didache 16 uses is Matthew, particularly chapters 24–25, alluding frequently from it. The first verse contains exhortations to be ready spiritually (e.g., “Watch” over your life”). In verse 2 there is given a cause and effect warning that a lack of consistent gathering with other believers will hinder faith-readiness. Next, verses 3–8 provide us with the chronology of key events:

vv. 3–4a—false prophets, corrupters, love shall change to hate, lawlessness increaseth.

vv. 4b–5—then shall appear the deceiver of the world [Antichrist] as a Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders and the earth shall be given over into his hands and he shall commit iniquities which have never been since the world began [great tribulation]. Then shall the creation of mankind come to the fiery trial and “many shall be offended” and be lost but “they who endure” in their faith [during the great tribulation] “shall be saved” [delivered from the day of the Lord] by the curse itself.

v. 6—And “then shall appear the signs” of the truth. First the sign spread out in Heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet, and thirdly the resurrection of the dead [i.e., resurrection of the righteous].

v. 8—Then shall the world “see the Lord coming on the clouds of Heaven” [shekinah glory].

As is clearly indicated in the sequence above, the Didache understands that Antichrist will appear first before the coming of Christ to resurrect the righteous and deliver his faithful people who are alive.

Incidentally, it should be noted that in two earlier chapters of the Didache, it interprets the elect who are gathered in Matthew 24:31 as the “Church”: “so let thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth” Didache 9:4; and, “Remember, Lord, thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in thy love, and gather it together in its holiness from the four winds to thy kingdom which thou hast prepared for it” Didache 10:5.

It is fundamental to the prewrath position that the resurrection of the dead-righteous and the deliverance of the alive-righteous follow the Antichrist’s great tribulation. And this can be seen above in this Christian document. Our final authority is the Word of God and that is where we must find our inspired teaching for faith and practice. Even though it is not authoritatively binding, it is however wise to learn what others who have gone before us have said about the Bible. Church history can teach us a lot. Since this is the case, how much more weight carries for writings during the apostolic age such as the Didache!

September 26, 2011 0 comment

Day of the Lord Olivet Discourse Preterism Pretribulationism Prewrath Uncategorized

Those Who are Left are the Wicked for Judgment, Matthew 24:37—41

by Alan Kurschner June 20, 2011

written by Alan Kurschner

(37) For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (38) For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, (39) and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (40) Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. (41) Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. (Matt 24:37–41 ESV)

Pretribulationism and preterism assert that those in verses 40-41 who are taken are the wicked for judgment, and those who are left are the righteous. This interpretation is unlikely for the following six reasons. I will argue just the opposite, that those who are taken refer back to God’s elect in verse 31, and those who are left are the wicked for judgment.

First, if the wicked are the ones taken, it breaks the parallelism of the illustrations. Noah’s family being delivered is described first (“the day when Noah entered the ark,” v 38) then the judgment on the ungodly is described second (“the flood came and swept them all away,” v 39). To preserve the parallel, a man in the field and a woman grinding at the mill is first described as taken (delivered), then the other man in the field and other woman grinding at the mill are left to be swept away (judgment).

Second, some translations render the action of the flood illustration in verse 39 as, “the flood came and took them [the wicked] all away.” The rendering “took” is unfortunate because unsuspecting readers may assume that it is the same term used in verses 40–41 that have “taken.” This is not the case because there are two different Greek terms with very different meanings. The English Standard Version recognizes this and accordingly replaces “took” with “swept away”: “and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Matt 24:39 ESV). The Greek term here is airō, which in this particular context of the judgment-flood illustration means to “take away, remove.” Therefore, this meaning is roughly opposite of the intimate receiving sense of paralambanō in verses 40–41.

Not surprisingly, just a few days later, Jesus uses this same term of intimate receiving when he taught reassurance to these same disciples about his return: “And if I go and make ready a place for you, I will come again and take (paralambanō) you to be with me, so that where I am you may be too” (John 14:3). Notice: same context, same audience, same terminology.

Third, it is important to remember that the agricultural illustrations in verses 40–41 (men in field and women grinding) are not intended to illustrate the illustration of Noah and the flood in verses 37–39, but instead illustrates the climax of the Olivet Discourse, which is the gathering of God’s people at the parousia (Matt 24:30–31). At the separation when the parousia begins in verse 31, who is being taken? It is God’s elect. That is the point of invoking the agricultural illustration in the first place. And the Noahic illustration relates back to the parousia, twice! (“so will be the coming of the Son of Man”).

Fourth, Luke 17 records the same illustration that Jesus gives to describe his coming: “(34) I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. (35) There will be two women grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” (37) Then the disciples said to him, “Where, Lord?” He replied to them, “Where the dead body is, there the vultures will gather” (Luke 17:34–37). This last verse containing the disciples’ question of “where” is insightful because Jesus responds that where the dead body is it will attract vultures—this judgment imagery evokes vultures hovering over dead people, who represent those deemed judged, the ungodly, not the righteous. This comports much better with those who are “left” and not with those who are taken.

Another objection to this interpretation claims that paralambanō does not always carry the sense of receiving in a positive sense. This is true, but misleading. Of the 49 times this term is used in the New Testament they will cite 3 times it is used negatively (Matt 27:27, John 19:16, Acts 23:18). But this is not a warranted reason because it is a rare meaning of the word found in a narrow specific context of a prisoner being handed over to the jurisdiction of soldiers, a context that is not related to our parousia illustration. It is a strained lexical argument to apply this unlikely meaning to our target passage (On avoiding this type of error, see D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies, “Word-Study Fallacies,” 37–41).

Fifth, Jesus gives us another illustration for being prepared for his parousia (Matt 25:1–13). The parable of the ten virgins is consistent with verses 37—41, and thus comports with our interpretation. Conceptually, the five wise virgins who were prepared were taken to be with the bridegroom; the five foolish who were not prepared were left out.

Sixth, there is no scriptural basis for the claim that there is going to be a dramatic and sudden removal of the wicked en mass from the earth. From the beginning of the trumpet judgments until the sheep and goat judgment just prior to the beginning of the temporal (millennial) kingdom–the judgment of the wicked is a progressively worsening situation. Thus, there is only one event that could possibly catch the wicked by total surprise in which one group is suddenly taken away and another group is left for judgment–the rapture.

These reasons provide us a sound foundation for our interpretation that those who are taken are the righteous, and those left behind are the wicked for judgment.

June 20, 2011 0 comment

Day of the Lord Thessalonians 1&2

One Biblical Reason Why Judgment Day is Not on May 21, 2011

by Alan Kurschner May 20, 2011

written by Alan Kurschner

The Bible gives at least five specific events that must occur before Judgment Day. In no particular order, they are:

1. Cosmic Disturbances (Joel 2:29-31)
2. Elijah must return (Malachi 4:5)
3. A great apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2:3)
4. Antichrist’s Revelation (2 Thessalonians 2:3)
5. The ungodly rejoicing that there is “peace and security” (1 Thessalonians 5:3)

None of these events have happened at this point.

May 20, 2011 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts