I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay.
The next subject he discusses is the book of Revelation. His basic conclusion is that he does not have the Book of Revelation figured out. I am not sure exactly what he means by this, but the impression that I am given is that if he has studied the book of Revelation and has not figured it out, then no one else should claim that they have figured it out. This is unfortunate since it will inevitably discourage believers from studying this important Divine Revelation.
He also says, “I am never going to be certain” what Revelation teaches. I notice that he sets up this false dichotomy: You can either be certain or uncertain. What about basically certain? Or almost certain? It all depends on what point you are studying. I am certain that the Bible teaches that the Church will encounter Antichrist’s Great Tribulation. I am almost certain that Michael is the Restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2. I am fifty percent certain that Elijah will be one of the Two Witnesses. I am not certain what to do with Ezekiel 38 (and some may be certain about Ezekel 38 and more power to them; but they are not wrong to be certain if I am not certain.)
DeWaay does not seem to differentiate these degrees of certainty. Apparently, it is all or nothing. Indeed, he states that he is certain that Christ will return one day, as well as other foregone conclusions, but that is not saying much. He should have focused on a couple of substantive issues in his presentation; instead, he takes a shotgun approach and creates more questions and confusion than answers and clarity.
There have been times when I have had to study a Biblical passage multiple times before I understood it. He does not distinguish between the thrust of what Revelation teaches and its details. And he thinks that one of the details in Revelation is whether or not the Church will encounter the Antichrist. This is not a mere detail in the Book of Revelation, nor is it a mere detail in Jesus and Paul’s teaching as he suggests elsewhere.
He repeated this notion that there is a “built in uncertainty” about when the Lord will Return in relationship to the 70th week of Daniel (even though he strongly leans pretribulational). This is not exclusive to DeWaay. I actually classify this position as a rapture position in itself, along with pretrib, prewrath, and posttrib. It is popular and it sounds pious, but I believe that it contradicts our Lord’s teaching, since Jesus and Paul do not intend for his Church to wonder if they will be raptured before the Antichrist or not.
He says that he has not figured out what is not literal and what is literal in the book of Revelation. Revelation is not some “coded book” requiring to be decoded, as is often popularly thought. I would simply ask pastor DeWaay if he really thinks that the lamb of God in Revelation could possibly be a real, literal lamb? Of course not, everyone knows that it symbolizes Christ being the passover lamb. I could cite numerous examples in Revelation that are clearly symbolic. And any student of Revelation and apocalyptic literature knows that there are principles to helps us discern what the symbolic represents. For example, one principle is that Scripture interprets Scripture. In Revelation 20:2, the figurative dragon is identified as the literal Satan: “And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,”
Take another example that identifies the stars and lampstands as angels and churches respectively:
“As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches (Rev 1:20).
And one can go outside of Revelation such as the Old Testament to discern what is literal and not literal and discover its referents.
Further, a basic chronology can be discerned in the three septets of the seals, trumpets, and bowls, along with other chronological indicators to provide us a framework. When people repeat the mantra, “There is no chronology in the book of Revelation,” they start believing it. I am from the school of thought that every believer has the responsibility to investigate theological claims for themselves.
I get the impression from DeWaay’s teaching that if someone cannot identify every symbolic entity in Revelation, we just can’t figure out the Book of Revelation. I don’t accept this skeptical hermeneutic, especially, since believers are promised that they will be blessed by taking heed to its instruction:
“Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near” (Rev 1:3).
Another interpretive error he makes is not using Matthew 24 as a guiding framework to the book of Revelation. I think one can understand the thrust of Revelation on its own, but the Olivet Discourse aids in giving a big picture framework. This should not be surprising since the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are both teachings from our Lord—and on the very same subject. Since DeWaay does not recognize this, he later mistakes, for example, the Great Tribulation for God’s wrath (I will address this in a later post).
Revelation’s teaching is too important to take an agnostic approach. Many people want to disconnect the “spiritual application” teaching from the events themselves (they do the same with the Olivet Discourse). But this is not consistent with the intended purpose of Revelation. To lift the spiritual and theological application from its context, dilutes the message of Revelation.
In summary, I am disappointed that he spent about 2-3 minutes(!) talking (only making assertions) about the book of Revelation, and basically leaving the impression, “I have studied it and I cannot make heads or tails of it, so don’t you think that you can.” Sadly, this is the approach of so many in our Evangelical churches. And it reveals an inconsistent hermeneutic when it comes to this doctrine. This is unacceptable, and it blunts the urgency for believers to be vigilant for difficult times that are coming on the Church.
Category:
Prewrath
Part 1 – A Response to Bob DeWaay and “The Uncertainty of the Timing of the Rapture”
written by Alan Kurschner
Pastor Bob DeWaay critiqued the prewrath position in a Sunday School hour, while explaining his own position (November 29, 2009). It is only about 60 minutes in length, so I was hoping that he would focus on one or two elements, not take the shotgun approach and claim more than he could support. But he was all over the map, and thus I found it incoherent. He made numerous assertions without meaningful argumentation. Nevertheless, I still want to respond to what he said, since it will be instructive for the readers here.
At the outset, I want to say that I do appreciate pastor DeWaay’s tone (I’ll let the “arrogant” remark go; I have been called worse 🙂 Besides, when pressed, I am sure he would not see it as arrogant to be certain, but a noble conviction; at least I would hope so. Further, I appreciate his willingness to try to be faithful to the text.
That said, I really think he has some blind spots on this issue. He makes a number of salient exegetical, contextual, and historical errors—even a couple of strawmen that require responding to. And he invokes a few hackneyed pretrib statements along the lines of: “I am looking for Christ, not the Antichrist.” These may sound nice and pious and play on the emotions, but they do not hold up to Biblical scrutiny. Hence my series.
At one point, he faults prewrath for making a “psychological argument”; that is, prewrath affirms that a proper understanding of eschatology will prepare us better than, for example, a pretribulational teaching. We are told that we should not be teaching that those who are expecting persecution are more prepared than those who do not expect persecution.
I will commit an entire post to this, but I want to say a couple of words. I admit, I was taken back when I read that because it is not some prewrath “psychological argument”; instead, it is the belief that God uses Biblical teaching and exhortation on this subject as a means to prepare believers if God calls them to be that generation. Not to mention, it spiritually prepares them in the present trials.
In other words, I do not believe that a pretribulational believer who affirms that we will be raptured out of here in bed’s of ease will be “just as prepared” for the Antichrist’s Great Tribulation as a prewrather who prepares his body, mind, and soul, and has studied and taken heed to Jesus’ teaching in the Olivet Discourse. That is not Biblical reality; and it minimizes Jesus’ warnings to be ready.
Can someone honestly read Matthew 24 and tell me that Jesus thinks that any old interpretation will do? Jesus is not using psychological tactics when he uses parables in Matthew 24-25 to prepare believers. Pretribulational theology teaches that those parables do not apply to them, which has spiritual ramifications.
Theology does matter—and don’t let anyone tell you differently.
He has more to say about this psychological argumentation, and I will as well in a later post.
In the beginning of his lecture he starts off with this error:
We know that there will be Daniel’s 70th week, and which I believe is the Great Tribulation.
The Great Tribulation is not identified with Daniel’s 70th week. The Great Tribulation begins at the midpoint (Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15). Even pretribulational theologians and authors recognize that the Great Tribulation begins at the midpoint. This is not even a debatable issue and I was surprised that he would make this error.
Starting his eschatology on this error will tremendously distort one’s understanding of the relationship between Antichrist, Rapture, and the Day of the Lord. Perhaps, this is largely the reason why he thinks we cannot be so certain. Consequently, later he asserts that Antichrist’s rule lasts seven years. No where in Scripture does it teach this; yet he is certain about this, even though he does not provide us any Biblical evidence.
Eschatology: Certain or Uncertain?
written by Alan Kurschner
Recently, a pastor critiquing the prewrath position wrote:
We must all admit that there is a degree of uncertainty and that it would be wrong and arrogant to claim to know for certain what is in fact uncertain.
A few comments:
i. Do you see the self-refuting assertion in that statement? This person is certain that we cannot be certain. To be consistent, he would have to admit that he is being “wrong and arrogant.”
Prewrathers, do not be afraid when people are uncharitable and call you arrogant for believing confidently in the clarity of God’s revelation on this truth. Do not let this blunt your assurance. Just because believers disagree on this issue it does not necessarily follow that we cannot be certain; frequently, there are other variables that prevent agreement. It is not God’s fault when he communicated this to us, but Man’s. When people use this “arrogant” tactic, don’t start name calling back. Focus and stick with the text and encourage them to have meaningful, consistent, Biblical interaction.
ii. Paul wrote a second epistle to the Thessalonians clarifying and unpacking his eschatological teaching of the Lord’s Coming. Paul did not write back and say, “It’s OK to be uncertain about these matters, so continue in your confusion.” Paul intends for believers to grasp these truths.
iii. In Matthew 24:15-31, Jesus stresses the chronological language and emphatically teaches that believers will encounter the Antichrist and his Great Tribulation. Jesus does not intend to be ambiguous on this point. If someone is uncertain to his teaching, it is their fault — not Jesus’.
From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates (Matt 24:32-33).
Jesus is making an explicit chronological statement in that passage. And notice Jesus does not say, “you should be uncertain as to when summer is near.”
I plan soon to interact with this pastor’s critiques against the prewrath position in a series. He makes assertions that he is certain about.
Once again, recently, I had an ex-pretribber write me and share his encouraging epiphany of how the Truth was under his nose all this time in 2 Thessalonians 2. Paul makes it explicitly clear that the Church will see the revelation of Antichrist. This text is the most commonly cited when I read prewrath “testimonies.”
How someone reads the following passage and concludes that the rapture occurs before the revelation of Antichrist is a lesson in how Tradition prevents many believers from seeing the Truth.
“(1) Now regarding the arrival of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to be with him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, (2) not to be easily shaken from your composure or disturbed by any kind of spirit or message or letter allegedly from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. (3) Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. (4) He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, and as a result he takes his seat in God’s temple, displaying himself as God. (5) Surely you recall that I used to tell you these things while I was still with you.” (2 Thess 2:1-5).
Church HistoryDanielDay of the LordMid-TribulationismOlivet DiscoursePost-TribulationismPreterismPretribulationismPrewrathRevelationSlide PresentationsThessalonians 1&2
The Rapture in Matthew 24:31
written by Alan Kurschner
Here are my slide presentation notes in pdf format on the rapture in Matthew 24:31. I very much enjoyed the fellowship at the conference.
Pretribulationists believe that “gather his elect” is a reference to the regathering of Israel at the end of the 70th week of Daniel. Preterists, on the other hand, interpret it as the Christian mission beginning in AD 70 to gather in God’s people to the Kingdom through evangelization. I showed, instead, that the Prewrath position is the most natural and consistent reading, demonstrating that this is indeed the rapture.