Part 2 – A Response to “The Uncertainty of the Timing of the Rapture”

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.