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.