PreWrathRapture.Com – Page 13 – The rapture question answered plain and simple!

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

Olivet Discourse Preterism

A Brief Note on Matthew 24:15

by Alan Kurschner September 13, 2011

written by Alan Kurschner

“So when you see the abomination of desolation–spoken about by Daniel the prophet—standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),” (Matt 24:15 NET)

The vast majority of biblical scholars take Matthew 24:15 to refer to the fulfillment of the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Prewrath does not share this assumption, but instead reads Matthew’s account as Jesus intending a futurist abomination of desolation associated with a future Antichrist in proximity to the second coming. Ironically, the most scholarly English commentary on Matthew argues that it is likely that this abomination refers to a future abomination. In the paragraph below, notice his three reasons for this conclusion:

But it is no less likely that our evangelist had in mind some future, eschatological defilement and destruction, and perhaps even activities of an anti-Christ; for (i) 2 Thess 2:3-4 (which may depend upon the Jesus tradition) shows the early existence of such a tradition within Christianity, [canonical] (ii) Marks’ personifying hestekota (standing) suggests such [synoptic], and (iii) Didache 16 (which has so many close ties to Matthew) speaks of ‘the world-deceiver’ who makes himself out to be the son of God [historical] (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel of According to Saint Matthew by Davies and Allison, Volume III, page 346).

In other words, there is explicit biblical support in 2 Thess 2:3-4. There is confirmation for a real person reflected in Mark’s account of the Olivet Discourse. Finally, in the writings of the early fathers, there is solid evidence for the idea of a yet future literal fulfillment of the prophetic prediction in Matthew 24:15. Only those who spiritualize or allegorically interpret the text come to a different conclusion.

September 13, 2011 0 comment

Imminence Olivet Discourse Pretribulationism Uncategorized

Popping the Balloon of Pretribulation Imminence

by Alan Kurschner July 5, 2011

written by Alan Kurschner

The following is one of the most devastating critiques of the pretribulation doctrine of imminence in our opinion. As you know, pretribulationism teaches that Matthew 24 does not apply to the church. They also teach that the warnings in the Bible about “watching” for Christ’s return requires that no prophesied event must occur before Christ’s return—i.e. imminence. However, George Eldon Ladd, in his seminal book, The Blessed Hope, reveals, to use his word, a “fatal” inconsistency in pretribulation theology.

He writes:

[Pretribulation teachers] have applied the commands of our Lord to watch in Matthew 24 to the Jewish remnant in the Tribulation. A. C. Gaebelein, interpreting the meaning of verse 43 and 44 says, “with these words of warning and exhortation to watch, our Lord closes the predictions relating to the end of the Jewish age. This warning will be understood and heeded by the Jewish remnant to which it is addressed. They are to watch for the Son of man; the church is to wait for the Lord” (The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. II, P. 217).

One of the most recent statements of a pretribulation rapture applies these verses in the same way. After quoting Matthew 24:37–42, English says, “The same circumstances that attended the time just prior to the judgment of the flood will pertain before the return of Christ in judgment upon the world. Business will be going on as usual. People will be occupied with the normal duties of life. . . . Then suddenly the Lord will come. . . . The allusion is most certainly to the time of the coming of the Son of man in power and glory. That coming is unquestionably after the tribulation. . . . This passage cannot be used as a proof text that the church will pass through the tribulation. It has to do with those who are on earth when Christ returns to earth—those taken will be those who have rejected God and his Christ; those left will be tribulation saints, Israel primarily, who will enter the earthly kingdom” (Rethinking the Rapture, pp. 49, 50).

Such admissions as these are fatal to the theory of an any-moment rapture and a secret coming of Christ which is based on the argument that the exhortations to watch require an any-moment return of Christ. If pretribulationists can apply these words without difficulty to the Jewish remnant in the Tribulation and yet admit that they are exhorted to watch for an event which will take place at the end of the seventieth week, although they “do no know the day or the hour,” then two results inevitably follow. First, if the exhortations do belong to the Jewish remnant, they do not apply to the Church. Jesus then did not exhort the Church to watch for an unexpected event. In this case, there does not appear either in the Gospels or in the Epistles or in the Revelation a teaching that the Church is to watch for a sudden, any-moment coming of Christ.

Secondly, if pretribulationists can apply the command to watch to anyone in the midst of the Tribulation whose end can be approximately known, then they cannot object to the application of these same exhortations to the Church on the ground that it is impossible for believers to watch for an event whose time can be approximately known. If the Jews can be told to “watch” for an event which will take place three and a half years after Antichrist breaks covenant with them, then Christians can be told to watch for an event which will not take places until the end of the Great Tribulation. In either case, it is impossible to build the teaching of a secret, any-moment coming of Christ to rapture the Church on these exhortations. The Blessed Hope, pp. 113–14.

July 5, 2011 0 comment

Amillennialism Church History Historicism Imminence Olivet Discourse Post-Tribulationism Preterism Pretribulationism Prewrath Thessalonians 1&2

The Didache: The Very First Commentary on the Olivet Discourse in Church History

by Alan Kurschner June 28, 2011

written by Alan Kurschner

The following is a brief note on the very first commentary in church history on the Olivet Discourse, which corroborates the biblical veracity of the prewrath position.

Prewrath eschatology affirms that the Bible teaches expectancy, not imminency of our Lord’s return. We believe that Christ could come back in any generation of the church, not at any moment. Pretribulational imminency, however, is a relatively new British/American teaching in church history that originated in the early 19th century by the Plymouth Brethren theologian John Nelson Darby. And if it is found in other parts of the world, it is only because it has been exported by American or British pretribulational missionaries since then. In contrast, the fundamental belief of the prewrath view reaches back to the very first century of the church.

The earliest attested Christian document outside of the New Testament writings is called, The Didache, written sometime between A.D. 50–120. There are two parts to it: (1) an instruction on the “Two Ways” and (2) a manual on church practice. The document concludes with a brief but salient commentary on Jesus’ Olivet Discourse. What is highly significant about the earliest commentary on Jesus’ teaching is that it explicitly places the coming of Christ to resurrect the dead after the Antichrist’s great tribulation, not before. Thus, it recognizes that the apostle Paul’s teaching on the resurrection in 1 Thessalonians 4 is the same teaching that Jesus taught in Matthew 24. The Didache states:

“(4) For as lawlessness increases, they will hate and persecute and betray one another. And then the deceiver of the world [Antichrist] will appear as a son of God and “will perform signs and wonders,” and the earth will be delivered into his hands, and he will commit abominations the likes of which have never happened before [great tribulation]. (5) Then all humankind will come to the fiery test, and “many will fall away” and perish; but “those who endure” in their faith “will be saved” [delivered from the day of the Lord] by the accursed one himself. (6) And “then there will appear the signs” of the truth: first the sign of an opening in heaven, then the sign of the sound of a trumpet, and third, the resurrection of the dead [resurrection]—(7) but not of all; rather, as it has been said, “The Lord will come, and all his saints with him.” (8) Then the world “will see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven” [shekinah glory] (The Apostolic Fathers, Second Edition, Ed. Michael W. Holmes, 16:4–8). Here is an online text of the document.

As is clearly shown the resurrection of the righteous follows after the Antichrist’s great tribulation.

The label “prewrath” is new, but its fundamental beliefs are ancient. Pretribulationism must wait 1,800 years to produce a document that teaches their theology!

June 28, 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

Newer Posts

Older Posts