The Rapture « Bible Prophecy Articles

Archive for the category “The Rapture”

10 Apr 2012

THE OLIVET DISCOURSE AND THE BOOK OF REVELATION

A COMPARISON OF THE OLIVET DISCOURSE
AND THE BOOK OF REVELATION
Dr. Ron J. Bigalke Jr.
Author, Lecturer, Pastor
The purpose of this presentation is to demonstrate parallel events between the Olivet
Discourse and the Book of Revelation in a sequential format. Correlation of each event of
the Olivet Discourse with its timing in the Book of Revelation informs our understanding
of the current age (in regards to signs of the end times or stage setting), and interpretation
of the return of Christ, and the judgment at that time.
Sequential and Successive, not Merely Recapitulation
There is an expanding development of the judgments in the Book of Revelation. In other
words, there is a sequential relationship between the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments.
The series of judgments are not parallel and simultaneous in the sense of recapitulation.
Each series of judgments is best interpreted as generally chronological to its antecedent.
This means the seventh seal judgment leads specifically into the series of the seven
trumpet judgments, and the seventh trumpet judgment leads specifically into the series of
the seven bowl judgments.
The Beginning of the Tribulation (Olivet Discourse and Revelation)
There are two differing views among premillennialists as to the timing of prophetic
fulfillment of the birth pangs prophesied in the Olivet Discourse. In his commentary on
the Gospel of Matthew, Dr. Walvoord referred to premillennial interpreters who
understand 24:4-14 “as a unit, describing the general characteristics of the age leading up
to the end, while at the same time recognizing that the prediction of the difficulties,
which will characterize the entire period between the first and second coming of Christ,
are fulfilled in an intensified form as the age moves on to its conclusion.” In other words,
24:4-14 are “general signs” whereas 24:15-26 are “specific signs.” Generally, this would
mean “these [general] signs have been at least partially fulfilled in the present age and
have characterized the period between the first and second coming of Christ.”1 However,
even within this view, there are some who interpret 24:4-8 as general signs of the period
between the first and second coming of Christ; therefore, 24:9-14 would be events
concerning the first half of the tribulation.2
It is not easy to argue that the birth pangs (false messiahs, wars, famines, and
earthquakes) have been lacking in the present age. However, the relation of the disciple’s
questions in the Olivet Discourse to parallels in Revelation 6 indicate that these signs
1 John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago: Mood Press, 1974; reprint, Grand
Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 183.
2 Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Footsteps of the Messiah (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries Press,
1983), 440.
2
cannot refer to the current church age. Furthermore, these signs are unique to a period of
which the world has never known. Since these signs are events which fit contextually
with the tribulation period, they should not be cited as fulfilled (in any sense) in the
current age.
For example, famines and plagues are offered as proof of fulfillment, but the truth
is they have been occurring throughout the course of human history for thousands of
years. The worst famines in history occurred in North China (1876-79) and India (1876-
1878). In North China alone, “deaths by hunger, violence, and subsequent disease are
estimated at between 9 million and 13 million.”3 The worst case of pestilence was the
Plague of Justinian (AD 500-650). The effects of the plague left three of every five
inhabitants dead. The decline of the city of Constantinople, and the Byzantine Empire,
dates from the Plague of Justinian. Not until the ninth century did the Empire begin to
recover. “Recurring epidemics of bubonic plague,” the Black Death, “killed as many as
100 million people.” From 1347-51 “the disease affected every level of society, killing an
estimated 75 million people, depopulating more than 200,000 villages, and reducing the
European population by perhaps as much as one-quarter” in Western Europe.4 None can
deny the devastation of these select examples, but they will pale in comparison to those
of the tribulation. No current frame of reference exists for the judgments and signs of the
tribulation. If the events of 24:4-14 (or 24:4-8) are general signs of disasters as ancient as
the human race—representing familiarly distressing scenes of conquest, war, famine, and
death—then what is different with the breaking of the first four seal judgments?
Obviously, nothing would be different.5
Another premillennial interpretation of 24:4-14 would understand these prophesied
events as occurring solely in the first half of the tribulation. Gaebelein wrote, “The point
which we wish to make is the following: If this is the correct interpretation, if Matthew
xxiv :4-14 refers to the beginning of that coming end of the age and if Revelation vi
refers to the same beginning of the end and that which follows the sixth chapter leads us
on into the great tribulation, then there must be a perfect harmony between that part of
the Olivet discourse contained in Matthew xxiv and the part of Revelation beginning with
the sixth chapter. And such is indeed the case.”6
The First Half of the Tribulation (Matthew 24:4–20)
In Matthew 24:4-5, 11; Mark 13:5-6, and Luke 21:8, false messiahs and prophets are
mentioned; and, in Revelation 6:2, we read of the rider on the white horse. Revelation 6:2
indicates four significant factors of the horseman of the first seal: (1) the color of the
3 James C. Cornell Jr., The Great International Disaster Book (New York: Pocket Books, 1979),
155.
4 Ibid., 138-84.
5 Sigve K. Tonstad, Saving God’s Reputation: The Theological Function of Pistis Iesou in the
Cosmic Narratives of Revelation (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006), 132.
6 Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of Matthew: An Exposition, 2 vols. (New York City: Our Hope,
1910), 2:182.
3
horse is white; (2) the rider holds a bow; (3) the rider wears a stevfano”; and, (4) the
rider’s conquering according to the verb nikavw.
As opposed to the horseman of the first seal being identified as Antichrist, it
would seem best to understand the first seal referring to false messiahs and prophets.
The second white horse rider consistently has a sword throughout the Book of
Revelation (1:16; 2:12, 16; 19:15, 21); therefore, such divergence with the first white
horse rider results in an obvious distinction.
After giving a warning of many false messiahs, Jesus used a future tense (mellw)
to indicate that at the time of the false messiahs you will be hearing of wars and rumors
of wars (Matt 24:4–6). This appears to be an obvious parallel to Matthew 24:6-7a; Mark
13:7-8a; Luke 21:9-10 where we read about “wars and rumors of wars,” and nation rising
against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.” A false peace and security, along with
religious apostasy (the false messiahs inspire their devotees to insurrection and wars),
characterize the beginning of the tribulation that will develop into multiple wars near and
away from the land of Israel. All this is yet future and parallels John’s description of the
second seal horseman in Revelation 6:3-4.
The third seal horseman, or black horse rider, brings famine (a foreboding
indication of the pale horse rider). The third seal will likely occur shortly after the second
seal judgment since famine often follows open warfare.
The fourth seal horseman, the pale horse rider, brings death. This judgment
parallels the synoptic Olivet discourses that prophesy famine, pestilences, and death as
part of the beginning of birth pangs. Luke simply mentioned famines, whereas John’s
usage of thanatos would include pestilences and death in general.
“For thus says the Lord God, ‘How much more when I send My four sever judgments
against Jerusalem: sword, famine, wild beasts, and plague to cut off man and beast from
it!” (Ezek 14:21). These same four figures are prophesied as God’s wrath in several other
passages (cf. Lev 26:21-28; Numb 11:33; 16:46; 25:8-11; Deut 11:17; 28:20-26; 32:22-
25; Jer 15:1-9; 16:4-11; 19:7-9; Ezek 5:11-17; 6:11-12; 7:3-15). The tribulation
commences with the outpouring of God’s wrath in the seal judgments, followed by the
trumpet judgments, and concluding with the bowl judgments. The judgments are
sequential and progressive, which means there is no break in the outpouring of God’s
wrath, and intensify as they are cast upon the earth.
The Birth Pangs
This is in keeping with the analogy of birth pangs, since such pains do not occur at the
beginning of pregnancy, but at the end. In the same manner, the signs of Matthew 24:4-
14 do not occur during the current church dispensation, but only during the tribulation
immediately before Christ’s return. The Olivet Discourse will instruct Israel and Gentile
saints, during the tribulation, that the events of verses 5–6 are not yet the end. It is just the
beginning of birth pangs before being able to straighten up and lift up [their] heads,
because [their] redemption is drawing near (24:8; Luke 21:28).
The Greek word, wjdivn, may be a technical term, as BAG define it as “of the
‘Messianic woes’, the terrors and torments traditionally viewed as prelude to the coming
of the Messianic Age . . . associated with the appearance of the Son of Man at the end of
4
history, as the beginning of the (end-time) woes ajrch wjdivnon Mt 24: 8; Mk 13: 8.”7 The
birth pangs of the first half of the tribulation are the beginning of the greater birth pangs
in the second half of the tribulation. The entire seven-year tribulation is the period of
birth pangs, as Jeremiah 30:6-7 indicates, “‘Ask now, and see if a male can give birth.
Why do I see every man, with his hands on his loins, as a woman in childbirth? And why
have all faces turned pale? ‘Alas! for that day is great, there is none like it; and it is the
time of Jacob’s distress, but he will be saved from it.”
The seven-year tribulation is clearly divided chronologically in the Books of
Daniel and Revelation, and characteristically in the eschatological discourses of the
synoptics, that is the beginning (less intense experiences) and the more frequent and
intense experiences of the tribulation period. Drawing from extra-biblical sources,
Raphael Patai devoted an entire chapter to “The Pangs of Time” and concluded,
The pangs of the Messianic times are imagined as heavenly as well as earthly
sources and expressions. From Above, awesome cosmic cataclysms will be
visited upon the earth. . . . All this will lead to internal decay, demoralization, and
even apostasy. Things will come to such a head that people will despair of
Redemption. This will last seven years. And then, unexpectedly, the Messiah will
come.
Because of this gloomy picture of the beginning of the Messianic era,
which by Talmudic times was firmly believed in, some sages expressed the wish
not to see the Messiah. . . . In any case, both the people and its religious leaders
continued to hope for the coming of the Messiah.8
The Jewish understanding of the birth pangs of the Messianic times is certainly
consistent with the sequence of the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation. The
birth pangs are additional evidence that supports the concept of Matthew 24:4-14 (and the
parallels in Markan and Lukan discourses) as indicating events of the first half of the
tribulation, which is also parallel to the four horseman of Revelation 6:1-8.
The eschatological discourses of the synoptics warn of persecution and
martyrdom during the tribulation (Matt 24:9-10, 12; Mark 13:9, 11-13; Luke 21:11a-19).
Mark and Luke stated the comfort given to the faithful during the tribulation is that the
Holy Spirit will give them the words to speak. As martyrdom (24:9) is also the fifth seal,
John recorded the prayer of those seeking justice from God.
Earthquakes are frequent throughout the Book of Revelation as judgment is about
to intensify (Rev 6:12; 8:5; 11:13, 19; 16:18). The sixth seal should be correlated around
the time of the abomination of desolation at the midpoint of the tribulation.9 It seems that
7 William F. Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich [BAGD], A Greek-English Lexicon
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick
W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 895.
8 Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979), 95-96.
9 The reader should note the corollary passages in Daniel 9:26–27; Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14–
19; Luke 21:23; 23:29-30; cf. Isa 2:12-22; Hos 10:1-8 (Luke speaks in positive terms what Matthew speaks
in negative terms; one speaks in terms of woe and the other speaks in terms of blessing). Revelation 6:12–
16, as well, correlates the above verses and supports the view that the abomination of desolation occurs
around the breaking of the sixth seal. This interpretation would also regard the judgments as sequential
(e.g., the seventh seal is the seven trumpets and the seventh trumpet is the seven bowls).
5
the sixth seal is used to introduce the great tribulation (24:21), or the second half of the
tribulation which begins with the abomination of desolation.
The Seal Judgments
Both Rosenthal and Van Kampen gave attention to the similarities between the events of
Matthew 24:5-9 and the first five seals of the Apocalypse (Rev 6:1-8). However, their
argument is that the first five seals (6:1-11) are not the wrath of God, but that of man
through the Antichrist (similar to midtribulationists).10
Both Rosenthal11 and Van Kampen12 argued that God’s wrath does not begin
until after the sixth seal. After the cosmic signs of Revelation 6:12-14, verses 15-17
provide the reaction of the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and
the rich and the strong and every slave and free man. They will cry to the mountains and
to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne,
and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come; and who is
able to stand?” A plain reading of Scripture here should cause one to conclude that the
great day of God’s wrath has already come and is present during the sixth seal.
Since pre-wrath rapturists do not believe God’s wrath begins until the seventh
seal, they must argue, “the aorist tense is, generally speaking, timeless.”13 Rosenthal
wrote, “ . . . the phrase, ‘the great day of his wrath is come’ refers, not to a past event, but
to an event about to occur, and that in concert with the opening of the seventh seal.”14
Following the sixth seal, God’s wrath “is an event that is on the threshold of happening—
a future event soon to occur.”15 The aorist, h\lqen, in 6:17 is in the indicative mood which
would confirm the reality of the action (God’s wrath) from the standpoint of the world
leaders.
The aorist is not timeless as the pre-wrath view requires; rather, the time of action
is past. Non-indicative moods may indicate the kind of action as opposed to the time of
action. Dana and Mantey stated, “It has no essential temporal significance, its time
relations being found only in the indicative, where it is used as past and hence
augmented. . . . The aorist signifies nothing as to completeness, but simply presents the
action as attained. It states the fact of the action or event without regard to its duration.”16
Robertson concurred, “It is true that in the expression of past time in the indicative and
with all the other moods, the aorist is the tense used as a matter of course. . . .”17 Wallace
acquiesced, “In the indicative, the aorist usually indicates past time with reference to the
time of speaking (thus, ‘absolute time’). . . . Outside the indicative and participle, time is
not a feature of the aorist.”18
10 Marvin J. Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990),
147-51; Robert D. Van Kampen, The Rapture Question Answered (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1997), 139-52.
11 Rosenthal, Pre-Wrath Rapture, 167.
12 Van Kampen, Rapture Question, 164.
13 Ibid., 153.
14 Rosenthal, Pre-Wrath Rapture, 167.
15 Van Kampen, Rapture Question, 154.
16 H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York:
Macmillan, 1927), 193.
17 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research
(Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 831.
18 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 555.
6
“This Generation” and Time Texts
Matthew 24:34, 36 (cf. Rev)
Preterists claim to place primary emphasis upon the demonstrative pronouns in verses 34
and 36 of Matthew 24, but only a futurist interpretation seeks to understand those
pronouns within the context. Demonstrative pronouns help locate and identify nouns or
other pronouns. Pronouns substitute nouns when the nouns they replace can be
understood from the context. They also indicate whether they are replacing a singular or
plural tense and identify in what location (near/far) the speaker places himself in relation
to the object.
English Demonstrative Pronouns
Pronoun Tense Location
this singular near
that singular far
these plural near
those plural far
In Greek, there are two demonstrative pronouns. Frequently, these demonstratives will be
used independent of a noun and carry the intensity of a substantive. The most common
use of the demonstrative pronoun is with a noun and carrying the strength of an adjective.
In other words, the noun will contain the article and the demonstrative pronoun can be
found in the predicate position but never in the attributive position (e.g., oJ uiJoς ou|toς
or ou|toς oJ uiJoς).
Greek Demonstrative Pronouns
Pronoun Tense Location
ou|toς singular near
ou|toi plural near
ejkei’noς singular far
ejkei’nai plural far
The purpose of demonstrative pronouns in both English and Greek grammar is to
help identify where the speaker places himself in relation to the object. Central to
preterist eschatology is a first century fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse. The preterist
interpretation of the Olivet Discourse requires Jesus to place Himself in a relatively near
relation to the events of Matthew 24—25. If this is the scenario, as the preterists contend,
then Jesus would use ou|toς and ou|toi in order to indicate relatively near events.
In four verses, Jesus used the relatively distant demonstrative pronouns: ejkeivnaiς
tai’ς hJmeraiς (24:19); aiJ hJmevrai ejkei’nai (24:22); tw’n hJmerw’n ejkeivnwn (24:29); and,
th’ς hJmevraς ejkeivnhς (24:36).19 When speaking of His coming, Jesus used the relatively
19 Perhaps a fifth reference could be added in 24:38 (tai’ς hJmevraiς [ejkeivnaiς]) due to the
likelihood that the pronoun was omitted accidentally. Both the UBS and Nestle-Aland include ejkeivnaiς in
7
distant demonstrative pronouns. When Jesus spoke of the events that will occur prior to
His coming, He usef the relatively near demonstrative pronouns since this would fit His
perspective at the time of His coming: tau’ta (24:8) and ou{twς (24:33). In other words,
Jesus was speaking of His future coming, and then used the near demonstratives to
describe the eschatological events that will precede His future coming.
When Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, this [au{th] generation will not pass away
until all these [tau'ta] things take place” (24:34), He was referring to the same
generation that belong in the distance (eschatologically). By identifying the
demonstrative pronouns, it becomes clear that Jesus was referring to the generation that
witnesses the events of the Olivet Discourse with His coming in a future time. If Jesus
intended to speak of a first century fulfillment then He would have used the relatively
future demonstrative, ejkei’nai, for the events that would occur among the generation that
would witness His coming. In other words, Jesus was not using relatively far
demonstratives to describe what He prophecied of Himself in relatively near
demonstratives, as He stepped into the future from His present earthly location. Only the
generation witnessing all the events prophesied in the Olivet Discourse will be the
generation to witness His return. Commenting on the parallel passage to Matthew 24 in
Luke 21, Lukan scholar Darrell Bock assented:
What Jesus is saying is that the generation that sees the beginning of the end, also
sees its end. When the signs come, they will proceed quickly; they will not drag
on for many generations.
Nonetheless, in the discourse’s prophetic context, the remark comes after
making comments about the nearness of the end to certain signs. As such it is the
issue of the signs that controls the passage’s force, making this view likely. If this
view is correct, Jesus says that when the signs of the beginning of the end come,
then the end will come relatively quickly, within a generation.20
Preterists insist that they are defending the Bible against attacks from liberals such
as Bertrand Russell21 by claiming a first century fulfillment of Matthew 24. Because, in
their view, the Olivet Discourse and Revelation refer to the same time period, preterists
use the words shortly and near in Revelation 1:1, 3 to date the events of Matthew 24 and
Revelation prior to A.D. 70.
Preterists simply are not exegeting the texts as they claim to be doing. BAGD
defines the adverb tacos as follows: “speed, quickness, swiftness, haste.”22 The Apostle
John uses the adverb tacus with ercomai (“to come”) in Revelation 2:16; 3:11;
11:14; 22:7, 12, 20 meaning “quick, swift, speedy.”23 All six uses of tacus in
Revelation mean “without delay, quickly, at once.”24 Blass-Debrunner concurred by
brackets. Metzger rated its inclusion with a “C” grade. See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on
the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1994), 52.
20 Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51—24:53 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1691-92.
21 R. C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 13, 56.
22 BAGD, 807.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
8
classifying tacus as “an adverb of manner,” not “an adverb of time.”25 Therefore, the
text in Matthew 24:34 (and Revelation 1:1, 3) describes the manner in which tribulational
events will occur, and not their timing.
Although Matthew 24:34 is the preterist mantra, the reference here to this
generation is a difficult passage to correlate with the preterist system. Preterists seek to
demonstrate that whenever this generation is used in the Gospels, it refers to the first
century generation. Additionally, Christ was speaking to the disciples prior to His
crucifixion. In Matthew 23:36, this generation refers to those who would witness the
destruction of the Temple in AD 70. Dispensationalists should agree with the last
statements, but disagree with the first statement.
Dispensationalists generally interpret this generation to speak of those who will
not only witness all these things of Matthew 24 (Luke 21:32 reads, all things), which
includes the literal and physical return of Jesus Christ. It seems the best way to
understand gevnhtai is as an ingressive aorist, which means an event has occurred but the
emphasis is on initiation. The destruction of the Temple should be understood from its
initiation, which would bear the meaning “begin to take place.” The prophetic chronology
for all these things of Matthew 24:34 would begin with the first century generation, but
not find final fulfillment until the second coming.
The Judgment of Gentiles (Matthew 24:36–25:46)
The One Taken and The Other Left (24:36-41)
In Matthew 24:36, Jesus said, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the
angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. In 24:36-41, Jesus will provide
answers as to what the conditions will be like when He does return. “For the coming of
the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah (24:37). In the same way, unbelievers
did not believe judgment would be coming upon them in the days of Noah, so will the
response of the unbelievers be during the tribulation even though they will experience the
wrath of God. One will be taken, and one will be left (24:39b). The unbelievers do not
truly believe judgment is coming.
In keeping with the context of tribulational events, the one taken and the other left
in Matthew 24:37–41 is a reference to the separation that will take place when Christ
returns to earth. Israel is not included here since her judgment is the tribulation. The one
taken is in judgment in death at the second coming and the other left enters into the
millennial kingdom. The response of Jesus to the disciples’ questioning (Luke 17:37; cf.
Rev 19:17–18) accurately fits this interpretation alone. In other words, the disciples
question when the restoration of Israel will take place and God will judge all her enemies.
Jesus has already answered questions in regards to Israel and is now dealing with the
judgment of Gentiles.
The Olivet Discourse deals with Christ returning to the earth in judgment before
establishing the messianic kingdom. The emphasis does not have to do with the
25 Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961),
55–57.
9
unexpectedness of the time of the Rapture; rather the focus is on unexpected judgment
just like the days of Noah (Matt 24:37).26
The wide-ranging progression of events (times and seasons), leading to the day of
the Lord, will come like a thief for the unbeliever (cf. 2 Pet 3:3-10). In contrast, the day of
the Lord does not overtake the church. For God has not destined us [the Christian] for
wrath [the day of the Lord], but for obtaining salvation [deliverance] through our Lord
Jesus Christ, who died for us, that whether we are awake [the watchful Christian] or
asleep [the unwatchful Christian], we may live together with Him (1 Thess 5:2, 9; cf.
1:10).
The coming of the Son of man in Matthew 24:3, 27, 30, 37, 39, 42, and 44 refers
to Christ’s return to execute judgment and establish His kingdom on earth. The messianic
title Son of Man never refers to the church; it is a title for the Davidic King who will
reign on earth from Jerusalem (Dan 7:13–14). Emphasis then lies upon the signs of
approximation preceding the coming of the Son of Man and the parable from the fig tree
is given (24:30, 32). When a future generation witnesses all the signs of Matthew 24, then
the coming of the Son of Man is approaching, right at the door (24:33).
If there is still any doubt that this coming is for judgment, Luke 17:34–37 must be
read for it answers as to what place one will be taken and the other will be left. Jesus
responds, Where the body is, there also will the vultures be gathered. In other words, God
takes them in death and feeds their carcasses to the vultures. Matthew 24:28 indicates the
timing of this event will be after the coming of the Son of Man (cf. Rev 19:17–19). At the
second coming, some unbelievers are taken in judgment and put to death, thereby
beginning the process that Matthew 25 reveals will be the destiny of all goats before the
establishment of the millennial kingdom.
The Parable of the Householder (24:42-51)
The parable of the householder (cf. Luke 12:41-48) contrasts the eternal destinies of the
faithful and sensible slave and the evil slave when Christ returns to earth at the end of the
tribulation. One position is that “the Greek text makes it plain that only one servant, not
two, is in view.”27 In other words, an individual begins as a faithful and sensible slave,
but then becomes an unfaithful, evil slave. According to such a view, the remote Greek
demonstrative, ejkei’no”, in verse 48 proves the same slave is in view. The slave started
well, but did not finish well. Nevertheless, the slave was saved and is still saved even
though he is unfaithful and will lose rewards.
The problem with this position (whether the slave is understood as only one
servant that wavers in faith, or two slaves—one faithful and one unfaithful—that are
saved) is that all of the parables in the Olivet Discourse contrast at least two individuals
with the same social background. The use of slaves (24:46, 48, 50; 25:21, 23, 26, 30) is
an effective means of illustrating the sovereignty of God over all humanity. Some will
believe and some will not believe in Messiah, and the parables reveal the destiny of both.
26 Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, 786, writes, “To the world this would indeed become the
occasion for utter carelessness and practical disbelief of the coming judgment (vv. 37–40). As in the days
of noah the long delay of threatened judgment had led to absorption in the ordinary engagements of life, to
the entire disbelief of what Noah had preached, so would it be in the future. But that day would come
certainly and unexpectedly, to the sudden separation of those who were engaged in the same daily business
of life. . . .”
27 Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle, 1992), 387.
10
The parable does not concern a slave who was faithful and later became
unfaithful. The phrase, if that evil slave, does not refer to a hypothetical situation either.
The point of the parable is the faithful and sensible slave will be rewarded when Messiah
returns, in contrast to that evil slave whose Master shall cut him in pieces and assign him
a place with the hypocrites (24:51). The evil character of the unbelieving slave is evident
in his character which causes him to deceive himself into thinking the Messiah is not
returning or that he will have time before Messiah returns to become ready.
The language cut him in pieces and weeping . . . and the gnashing of teeth has
been interpreted as “Oriental symbolism for profound regret” and “the former is a
metaphor for judgment.”28 BAGD defined bruvcw as “a sign of violent rage”29 which
could indicate suffering and remorse. However, the noun brugmov” always indicates the
eternity state of the wicked. Thayer defines bruvcw as “to grind, gnash, with the teeth”
but defines brugmov” tw’n ojdovntwn in 24:51 as “a phrase denoting the extreme anguish
and utter despair of men consigned to eternal condemnation.”30
The parable of the householder also deals with the subject of the judgment of
Gentiles. Since God saves all Israel before the second coming, and these judgments occur
at the second coming, they cannot be a reference to Israel. Indeed, Jesus will not return
until the nation of Israel repents and acknowledges Him as Messiah (Lev 26:40–42; Jer
3:16–17; Hos 5:15–6:3; Zech 12–14; Matt 23:39). It is only when Israel cries out for the
Messiah that He will return. They will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will
mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him
(Zech 12:10). The judgments of Matthew 24:36–25:46 at the second coming would not
pertain to Israel. Since the church has been raptured before this period, and the Olivet
Discourse is dealing with tribulational events, then the judgments must be referring to the
response of Gentiles in the tribulation to the Messiah before His return.
The Parable of the Ten Virgins (25:1-13)
Matthew 25 begins with the parable of the ten virgins. The background of the
parable of the virgins is the Middle Eastern marriage custom. The marriage contract
would come into being while the couple was quite young and unable to make adult
decisions. Nevertheless, at this time, the couple was considered legally married. After an
unspecified period passed and the couple had matured, the bridegroom would journey to
the house of the bride, and take her to his home. The bride and groom would then
proceed to the marriage supper, along with all the guests (cf. 22:1–14), at the house of the
bridegroom. The wise virgins are those who were longing for the wedding feast at the
house of the bridegroom. The marriage supper of the Lamb will take place on earth in the
millennial kingdom (Rev 19:7–10).31
The marriage supper imagery is a familiar reference to a Jewish person
concerning the Messianic kingdom and the bride, Israel. The context negates any
28 Ibid.
29 BAGD, 148.
30 Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1885; rev. ed., Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.), 106.
31 George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884; reprint,
Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952), 3:301. The wedding at Cana in Galilee (John 2:1–12) depicts the Jewish
custom of marriage.
11
connection with the bhvma or the mystery . . . speaking with reference to Christ and the
church. The Olivet Discourse does not even address the church or the issue of the rapture,
the parable here is treating judgment at the second coming. The five foolish virgins were
invited but not worthy (Matt 22:8) and will be sent into the outer darkness (22:13). One
interpretation is to regard the man not dressed in wedding clothes is a saved man and “he
was apparently not only in the kingdom but actually at the wedding banquet himself.”32
He is merely “outside the relative light of the banquet hall.”33
Such a view is based upon interpreting ejxwvtero” (8:12; 22:13; 25:30) as “the
darkness outside.”34 Since the basic meaning of ejxwvtero” is “outside” it can be
translated “the darkness outside.” However, the question is whether “outside” refers to
exclusion from the millennial marriage feast or complete exclusion (due to lack of
justification) from the millennial kingdom.
The superlative ejxwvtero” (“outer,” “exterior,” or “external”) is closely related to
the adverb e[xw which is often translated “without” or “out of doors.” The adverb e[xw is
used more than a few times (1 Cor 5:12-13; Col 4:5; 1 Thess 4:12; Rev 22:15) to describe
the eternal destiny of the lost (“those who are without”).35 It is never used to describe the
eternal destiny of the saved. Indeed, Jesus uses it, promising, “All that the Father gives
Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not ejkbavlw e[xw
(John 6:37).
Some contend that the man in Matthew 22:13 is saved and therefore allowed into
the wedding hall, but excluded from the marriage feast. If this interpretation is accepted,
then consistency must be maintained in 25:10 and the foolish virgins are saved.36
Matthew, however, said the door was shut hence they were not allowed into the wedding
hall. Furthermore, Jesus answered and said, “Truly I say to you, I do not know you”
(25:12; cf. 7:21-23). Once the door was shut it was too late to enter, therefore, “Be on the
alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour (25:13). Those who are outside do
not just miss an extravagant meal; they are completely outside the kingdom permanently.
Since the parable begins with the phrase, oJmoiwqhvsetai hJ basileiva tw’n
oujranw’n (25:1), it is not addressing “eternal reward” but “eternal salvation.” Matthew
used the phrase thirty-two times (3:2; 4:17; 5:3, 10, 19, 20; 7:21; 8:11; 10:9; 11:11, 12;
13:11, 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52; 16:19; 18:1, 3, 4, 23; 19:12, 14, 23; 20:1; 22:2; 23:13;
25:1, 14) and when he used it in other parables outside the Olivet Discourse, they are
always treating the issue of eternal salvation.
32 Dillow, Servant Kings, 347.
33 Ibid., 348.
34 Ibid.
35 William D. Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1993), 197.
36 Dillow recognizes this difficulty in Servant Kings, 396

The Olivet Discourse (wordsofgrace.wordpress.com)
Passion Week (D) Tuesday – Jesus and The Olivet Discourse (rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com)
Biblical Prophecy “Start of World War 3 Begins With Egypt” (disclose.tv)
The Dating of Revelation by Khristian Trotter (apologus.wordpress.com)
On the spiritual view of prophecy (creationconcept.wordpress.com)
Postmillennialism (7): Conclusion (bcaskins.wordpress.com)
The Christian Rapture when does it occur (propheticseasons.wordpress.com)
Interpreting Revelation – Historicism (readingacts.wordpress.com)

Posted in The Rapture and tagged Bible, Bible Articles, Bible Prophecy, Bible Study, Blogs, Book of Revelation, Christ, Christianity, Church, Church Age, End time, Faith, God, Gospel of Matthew, Holy Spirit, Israel, Jesus, Last Days, Life, Matthew, News, Olivet Discourse, Prophecy, Religion, Revelation, Second Coming of Christ, World, Writing

08 Mar 2012

Chapter 3 THE TWO ADVENTS

Written By C I Scofield

When it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow I Peter 1: 11Whoever carefully considers Old Testament prophecies must be struck by two contrasting and seemingly contradictory lines of prediction concerning the coming Messiah. One body of prediction speaks of Him as coming in weakness and humiliation, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, as a root out of dry ground, having no form nor comeliness, nor beauty that He should be desired. His visage is to be marred, His hands and feet pierced, He is to be forsaken of man and of God, and to make His grave with the wicked. (See Ps. 22:1-18; Isa. 7:14; Isa. 53; Dan. 9:26; Zech. 13:6-7; Mark 14:27.)strength: Psa_32:3-4; Pro_17:22
tongue: Psa_69:3, Psa_69:21; Job_29:10; Lam_4:4; Joh_19:28
into the: Psa_30:9, Psa_104:29; Gen_3:19, Gen_18:27; Job_7:21, Job_10:9, Job_34:15; Isa_53:12; Dan_12:2; Mat_27:50; 1Co_15:3

The other line of prophecy foretells a splendid and resistless Sovereign, purging the earth with awful judgments, regathering dispersed Israel, restoring the throne of David in more than Solomon’s splendor, and introducing a reign of profound peace and perfect righteousness. (See Deut. 30:1-7; Isa. 11:1-2, 10-12; Isa. 9:6-7; Isa. 24:21-23; Isa. 40:9-11; Jer. 23:5-8; Dan. 7:13-14; Mic. 5:2; Matt. 1: 1; Matt. 2:2; Luke 1:31-33.)

In due time the fulfillment of messianic prophecy began with the birth of the virgin’s Son according to Isaiah, in Bethlehem according to Micah, and proceeded with perfect literalness unto the full accomplishment of every prediction of Messiah’s humiliation; for sin must first be put away, before the kingdom could be established. But the Jews would not receive their King in the form in which He was presented, “meek and sitting upon an ass and a colt the foal of an ass,” and they crucified Him. (See Zech. 9:9 with Matt. 21:1-5; John 19:15-16.)

But we must not conclude that the wickedness of man has baffled the deliberate purpose of God, for His counsels include a second advent of His Son, when the predictions concerning Messiah’s earthly glory will receive the same precise and literal fulfillment as did those which concerned His earthly sufferings. (See Hos. 3:4-5; Matt. 24:27-30; Luke 1:31-33; Acts 1:6-7; Acts 15:14-17.)

The Jews were slow of heart to believe all that the prophets had spoken concerning the sufferings of their Messiah; we are slow of heart to believe all that they have spoken concerning His glory. Surely the greater reproach is ours, for it ought to be easier to believe that the Son of God would come “in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory” than that He would come as the babe of Bethlehem and the carpenter of Nazareth. Indeed, we believe the latter because it has happened, not because the prophets foretold it, and it is time we ceased to reproach the Jews for their unbelief. If it be asked how they could possibly be blinded to the evident meaning of so many and such unequivocal predictions, the answer is that they were blinded in exactly the same way that many Christians are blinded to the equally evident meaning of a far greater number of predictions of His earthly glory, namely, by the process of “spiritualizing” Scripture. In other words, the ancient scribes told the people that the prophecies of Messiah’s sufferings were not to be interpreted literally, just as some modern scribes are telling the people that the prophecies of Messiah’s earthly glory are not to be literally interpreted.

The second advent is a promise to the church as well as to the Jew. Among the last words of comfort and exhortation addressed by our Lord to His perplexed and sorrowing disciples before He accomplished the sacrifice of the cross were these: “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:1-3).

Here the Lord speaks of His coming again in precisely the same terms as of His departure. The latter was, we know, personal and bodily. If we say that the former is impersonal and “spiritual,” surely to such a forced interpretation of simple language we ought to be constrained only by the most imperative and unqualified Scripture elsewhere. But no such passages exist. But we are not left to doubt upon this vital point, nor to draw conclusions of reason, however irresistible.

In the very moment of our Lord’s disappearance from the sight of His disciples, “Two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:10-11).

To the same purport is I Thess. 4:16-17: “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).

“For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be cFor our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.” (Phil. 3:20-21).

“Beloved, now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (I John 3:2). “And behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be” (Rev. 22:12).

For this “blessed hope” we are taught to “watch” (Mark 13:33, 35, 37; Matt. 24:42; 25:13), “wait” (I Thess. 1: 10), and be “ready” (Matt. 24:44). The last prayer in the Bible is one for Christ’s speedy return (Rev. 22:20).

By these Scriptures it abundantly appears that the second advent will be personal and bodily. Therefore it does not mean the death of the believer, nor the destruction of Jerusalem, nor the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, nor the gradual diffusion of Christianity, but that it is the “blessed hope” of the church, the time when sleeping saints will be raised, and, together with saints then living, who will be “changed” (I Cor. 15:51-52), caught up to meet the Lord-the time when we who are now the sons of God will be like Him and when faithful saints will be rewarded for works of faith, for His name’s sake, after they have been saved.

The following Scriptures will further bring into view the contrast between the two advents of our Lord. Compare the first advent with the second.
FIRST ADVENT

And she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn (Luke 2:7).

But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb. 9:26).

For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10).

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved (John 3:17).

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world (John 12:47).
SECOND ADVENT

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man, in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Matt. 24:30).

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation (Heb. 9:28).

And to you who are troubled, rest with us: when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess. 1:7-8).

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead (Acts 17:31).

The student may multiply these contrasts almost indefinitely. Enough, however, has been put forth that both the promises to Israel and to the church imperatively require a return of our Lord to the earth.

It may be helpful to beginning Bible students to consider, briefly, the various theories which are put forward to oppose the scriptural doctrine of the personal and corporeal return, or second advent, of Christ.

It will, of course, be clearly understood that the Scriptures which speak of His visible and bodily appearing at the close of this dispensation must be distinguished from those which refer to His divine attributes of omniscience and omnipresence, by virtue of which He knows all things and is always present everywhere and of which such passages as Matthew 18:20 and Matthew 28:20 are examples. It is blessedly true that, in this sense, He is with us always, even unto the end of the age.

But the man Christ Jesus is now personally and corporeally at the right hand of God, as Acts 1:9-11 plainly declares: “And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”

Stephen saw Him there: “But he, being full of the Holy Ghost looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55-56). “When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb. 1:3). “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God” (Col. 3: 1).

During the Franco-Prussian war Von MoItke, by his genius and skill and by a network of telegraph wires, was really present on every battlefield, though visibly and personally present in his office in Berlin. Later in the war he joined the army before Paris, after which his actual and visible presence was there. So our Lord, by virtue of His divine attributes, is really present with His church now, but He will be visibly and personally upon the earth at His second coming.
1. The prophecies concerning the return of the Lord were not fulfilled by the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, nor by His manifestation in powerful revivals and happy prayer meetings.

a. This interpretation practically nullifies the doctrine of the Trinity, making the Holy Spirit only a manifestation of Christ.

b. In Christ’s promise of the descent of the Spirit He distinctly speaks of Him as “another Comforter” (John 14:16), and in John 16:7 Christ says: “If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart I will send him unto you.”

c. The inspired writers of Acts, the Epistles, and of Revelation, mention the return of the Lord more than one hundred and fifty times after Pentecost, and always as yet future.

d. None of the events predicted to accompany the second advent of Christ occurred at Pentecost. These are: the resurrection of sleeping saints (I Cor. 15:22-23; 1 Thess. 4:13-16), the “change” of living believers, by which they “put on incorruption”, their vile bodies” being “fashioned like unto His glorious body,” and their being caught up to meet the Lord in the air (I Cor. 15:51-53; 1 Thess. 4:17; Phil. 3:20-21), and the mourning of all the tribes of the earth because of the visible coming of the Son of man in power and great glory (Matt. 24:29-30; Rev. 1:7).

These are the phenomena associated with the event of our Lord’s return. When He comes, these phenomena will be present. Not one of these things occurred at Pentecost, nor in any other manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

2. The conversion of a sinner is not the coming of the Lord.

One would think this theory too puerile to be seriously put forth as a sufficient explanation of prophecies so numerous and circumstantial.

a. According to Scripture this is exactly reversed. Conversion is the coming of a sinner to Christ, not the coming of Christ to a sinner (Matt. 11:28; John 5:40; John 7:37; John 6:37).

b. None of the events enumerated above, predicted to occur when the Lord returns, accompany the conversion of a sinner.

3. The death of a Christian is not the coming of Christ.

a. When the disciples understood the Lord to say that one of their number should tarry till He came, the saying went abroad among them that “that disciple should not die” (John 21:22-24).

b. The inspired writers always refer to a believer’s death as his departure. In not one instance is the coming of the Lord connected with a Christian’s death. (See Phil. 1:23; 2 Tim. 4:6; 2 Cor. 5:8.) Dying Stephen saw the heavens opened, and the Son of man, not coming but “standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55-56).

c. None of the events predicted to occur when the Lord returns accompany the death of a Christian.

4. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans was not the second coming of Christ.

a. In Matthew 24 and Luke 21 three events are foretold: the destruction of the temple, the coming of the Lord, and the end of the world (age). (See Matt. 24:3.) It was the needless confusion of these perfectly distinct things which gave rise to the notion that the fulfillment of one was the fulfillment of all.

b. The apostle John wrote the book of Revelation after the destruction of Jerusalem, but still speaks of the coming of the Lord as a future event (Rev. 1:4,7; 2:25; 3:11; 22:7,12,20). The last promise of the Bible is, “Surely, I come quickly”; the last prayer, “Even so, come Lord Jesus.”

c. None of the events predicted to occur when the Lord returns occurred when Jerusalem was destroyed. (See I Thess. 4:14-17 Matt. 24:29-31; Matt. 25:31-32.)

5. The diffusion of Christianity is not the second coming of Christ.

a. The diffusion of Christianity is gradual, whereas the Scriptures refer to the return of the Lord as sudden and unexpected (Matt. 24:27, 36-42, 44, 50; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 3:3).

b. The diffusion of Christianity is a process; Scripture invariably speaks of the return of the Lord as an event.

c. The diffusion of Christianity brings salvation to the wicked, whereas the coming of Christ is said to bring not salvation to them but “sudden destruction” (I Thess. 5:2, 3; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; Matt. 25:31- 46).

6. These alleged explanations and theories, though widespread, do not appear in the books of reputable theologians of any school or denomination, nor are they maintained by a single exegete of universally recognized eminence. These all maintain the bodily and visible second coming of Christ.

It is, however, sometimes said that this coming cannot occur until after the world has been converted by the preaching of the gospel and has submitted to the spiritual reign of Christ for one thousand years. It is submitted that this view is wholly erroneous for the following reasons.

a. Scripture clearly describes the condition of the earth at the second coming of Christ to be one of awful wickedness, not of millennial blessedness (Luke 17:26-32, with Gen. 6:5-7 and Gen. 13:13; Luke 18:8; Luke 21:25-27).

b. Scripture describes the whole course of this dispensation from the beginning to the end in such terms as to exclude the possibility of a converted world in any part of it (Matt. 13:36-43, 47-50; Matt. 25: 1 – 10; 1 Tim. 4: 1; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; 4:3-4; 2 Pet. 3:3-4; Jude 17-19).

c. The purpose of God in this dispensation is declared to be to “gather out of the Gentiles a people for his name,” not the conversion of the world. After this He “will return,” and then, and not before, will the world be converted. (See Acts 15:14-17; Matt. 24:14 ["for a witness"]; Rom. 1:5 ["among" not "of' all nations]; Rom. 11:14 ["some," not "all"]; I Cor. 9:22; Rev. 5:9 ["out of" not "all" of].)

d. It would be impossible to “watch” and “wait” for an event which we knew could not occur for more than one thousand years.

Back to the Table of Contents

Posted in Prophecy, The Rapture and tagged "spiritualizing" Scripture, Bible, Bible Prophecy, Bible Study, Blogs, Christianity, Church, Church Age, Daniel, Dispensational Bible Study, dtbrents, Faith, Family, God, Holy Spirit, Inspiration, Israel, Jesus, Jews, John, Life, News, Religion, Revelation, THE TWO ADVENTS, World, Writing, y C I Scofield

28 Feb 2012

Which View Of The Rapture Is True

bibleprophecyblog.comhttp://www.bibleprophecyblog.com/2012/02/which-biblical-interpretation-is.html
Which Biblical Interpretation Is Correct?

By Dr. Tony Garland
SpiritandTruth.org

RSS Contact Amazon

Q. We know from Ephesians 4 that God has given the Church “pastors and teachers” to contribute toward the equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry and for the edifying of the Body of Christ. This means that those who are called as teachers are to help us understand God’s Word so that we grow in spiritual maturity and Christ-likeness.

But when our godly and gifted teachers differ significantly in their understanding of how certain passages of Scripture are to be understood, what do we do? When we hear different gifted and knowledgeable teachers disagree significantly in their understanding of some of these passages and themes how are those of us who are not called as teachers to know which view is correct? It doesn’t seem that the Bible can be teaching all these views since they often differ fairly radically from one another (e.g., the nature of the 1,000 reign of Christ in Revelation 20).

What’s a Christian to do?

A. Your question is an excellent one which all of us struggle with at one time or another in our Christian walk—especially before coming to a settled conviction on what Scripture actually teaches in relation to some of the varied interpretations which we hear taught.

Be a Berean

At first it may seem somewhat hopeless for those who sit under various teaching ministries to try and judge the accuracy of the doctrine which is being taught—but we are commanded to do so. In fact, the Ephesians passage mentioned above indicates that one of the purposes of the teaching ministry is to equip believers in such a way that they “should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine…” (Ephesians 4:14). We also have the example of the Berean’s in the book of Acts which were said to be more fair minded than the believers in Thessalonica, in part because they “searched the Scripture daily to see if these things [being taught by Paul and Silas] were so” (Acts 17:11). So one of the first aspects of being a responsible believer is to search the Scriptures and use them as a basis for judging that which is being taught. If what is being taught is not consistent with the Scriptures, then it should not be accepted.

So far, so good! Isn’t that what most believers do? Well…I’m not so sure. What do I mean by that?

At the time Acts 17 was written there was no New Testament so the Scriptures which were being searched were those of the Old Testament—which comprise the majority of the Bible. So the message here isn’t just to search the Scriptures, but in the original context in Berea, it was to check the message of the teacher for consistency with what the Old Testament teaches. When the Bereans evaluated the message of Paul and Silas for consistency with the Old Testament Scriptures, they found their message to be validated. As a result, “many of them believed” that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah (Acts. 17:12). This has at least two significant implications concerning how we are to be “good Bereans.”

First, whatever is being taught must be consistent with the Old Testament. It can’t spiritualize or redefine what has already been laid down by God in the majority of the Bible. Although He is free to enlarge upon what He has said in the Old Testament, He is bound by the meaning of language and His own character to maintain consistency with what has been plainly said in the past. Thus, teaching which uses the New Testament in ways which subvert the plain sense of various Old Testament passages would not pass muster with the Bereans! Nor should it do so with us today.

Second, how familiar are we with the Old Testament, especially when it comes to the historical context wherein various passages were given? It is precisely this lack of knowledge of the Old Testament context which enables some teachers to “hijack” the original meaning of a passage and use it as a launching pad to take their listeners to new destinations which would have been completely alien to the original Old Testament recipients. (To be clear, I’m not talking about progressive revelation here which is a subject for another day. Progressive revelation extends or adds to what was previously revealed, but does not subvert the original meaning.) I would suggest that a better grounding in the Old Testament—including its historical context—would go a long way to truly make us better Bereans. Of course part of the fault here lay at the feet of today’s pastors and teachers who fail to provide their sheep with significant exposure to the Old Testament. When believers have a better grasp of the Old Testament, this knowledge serves as an extremely important anchor which tethers doctrinal teachings to their God-given moorings such that they cannot drift too far from the truth.

Take Passages at Face Value

To help us in reading the text plainly, be it Old Testament or New, we should consciously consider how we are reading the text. A helpful summary statement of how to approach the text is found in the Golden Rule of Interpretation by D. L. Cooper:

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise. [1]

When you think about it, this is generally how we read any other book—or even the back of a cereal box. But it is surprising how many believers put on a spiritual or non-literal set of glasses when reading the Bible. The proper principles to be used when reading a text (
hermeutics

) may seem trivial, but can be a big deal and is often the primary reason for the divergence among interpretations. Inconsistency in how teachers read the text often leads to an elastic interpretation which differs significantly from what the original author, inspired by the Holy Spirit, meant to convey. [
2

] We want to stay close to what would normally be considered a literal interpretation, while recognizing figures of speech and symbols as Cooper’s rule makes clear, so we are found among those whom Isaac Newton described: “About the Time of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition.” [
3

]

Related Passages as a Safety Net

Another principle that can help us assess the accuracy of what is being taught is to consider all that the Bible has to say on the subject. For instance, I once listened to Dr. James Kennedy teach for a full 45 minutes on the notion that there is one and only one resurrection. What was particularly telling to someone knowledgeable in the Scriptures was what Dr. Kennedy didn’t say. He completely neglected to mention or interact with several key passages which contradicted his thesis.

In many cases, knowing that the teacher is omitting is the most important yellow flag that something is astray. Of course knowing what isn’t being said requires a greater grasp of the entirety of Scripture. It is one thing to check out that a few passages used in support of a view are actually found in Scripture (they usually are) and being understood in context (less frequently true). It is quite another to notice the “deafening silence” of telltale omission.

In the age of the Tall Ships, “when boats were made of wood and men of steel,” during particularly dangerous storms a net was sometimes stretched above the rails along each side of the ship. The net served to strain out sailors as waves swept over the deck keeping them on board the vessel. Although we want to avoid giving undo priority to related passages in such a way that they overrule the immediate context of a passage in view, comparing Scripture with Scripture can serve in a similar way as a tremendous “safety net” to keep us from being swept overboard with an errant interpretation.

Give Heed to the Biblical Covenants

If you compare the Bible to a human being made up of flesh and bones, the skeletal frame which gives the Bible its overall structure and upon which all its teaching hangs (the flesh) is the Biblical Covenants. In other words, all the teachings of the Bible weave in and out of a larger framework made up of formalized statements made by God which are known as covenants. [4]

Have you ever considered why God made covenants? After all, God is not a man that He should lie (Num. 23:19) so isn’t a simple statement by Him good enough? Yes, ’tis true. Yet God chose to make a number of very important formal statements with various individuals (e.g., Abraham, David, Phinehas) and groups of individuals (e.g., Israel, the Church). These formal statements are more than mere promises (although a promise is as good as gold from God). They are intended to highlight particularly important themes and actions which God is dedicated to working out as He moves history from creation to consummation. Since these themes are so important, we should pay special attention to them: our interpretation must never contravene God’s covenants. To do so is akin to breaking a bone in the body of Scripture. Failure to pay due attention to the Biblical covenants, can only result in a tendency toward interpreting Scripture much like a spiritual jellyfish—an invertebrate with all too-malleable form.

Notice too that I keep referring to these covenants as Biblical covenants. This would not be necessary if it weren’t due to a historical movement which has down-played the formal statements which the Bible calls covenants in favor of other inferred “covenants” (of Covenant Theology) which the Scripture nowhere actually refers to as covenants. When imagined covenants which have their basis entirely in man’s deductive logic rather than the pages of Holy Writ are allowed to supersede what the Bible itself calls covenants then little good will result.

Understand the Original Context and Audience

Assume we do try to be true Bereans including improving our understanding of the Old Testament and paying attention to the rules of interpretation and covenants. What else do we need to consider? Well, the best way to read the Old Testament is to read it while pretending we don’t have the New Testament. Say WHAT?! No, really! Practice putting yourself into the shoes of the original recipients of the Old Testament. They did not have the New Testament, yet God’s Word was still said to be pure and holy (Ps. 119:40; Pr. 30:5). Yes, they lacked the insights arrived at from the progressive revelation given in the New Testament, but if we read the Old Testament in this way we will also guard against the error of reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament in places it doesn’t belong.

I remember the first time as a Christian I heard some of the many clever statements concerning how the two testaments interrelate. For example: “the New Testament is in the Old concealed and the Old Testament is in the New revealed.” The unfortunate reality with many of these statements is that although there is a kernel of truth to be found there, they also embody significant error, if not in what they explicitly say but in what they infer. Too frequently among today’s Christians we hold the troublesome view that the Old Testament cannot be understood apart from the new Testament.

But consider what would have been your choice if you had been born B.C. instead of A.D.? The original readers of the Old Testament had no choice in this matter. God communicated to them what He intended to reveal. Being the originator of language and adept at its use, we can count on the simple meaning of the Old Testament to be accessible to those who read the text plainly. Even without access to the New Testament: the Old Testament can stand on its own two feet. Again, this comes down to an issue of God’s character and His purpose in giving the Old Testament. After all, there were long stretches of history during which people were still accountable for faith and obedience—all without the aid of New Testament insight. If the New Testament is required to understand the Old—as some teachers seem to suggest—then what is to be said about those who lived prior to completion of the New Testament? What is to be said in light of God’s blessing or condemnation of this population based on an adequate understanding of what He had already revealed—before having the New Testament? More than that, how could it have been acceptable for Jesus to chide His generation for failing to recognize Him if the only written Word of God available to them was the Old Testament? Clearly, the body of writings making up the Old Testament was declared by our Lord Himself to be sufficient to this task (Mat. 22:29; Mark 12:26; John 5:39,46).

To aid us in this task, we may consider the following list of 40 reasons to avoid reinterpreting the Old Testament by the New Testament [5] suggested by Dr. Paul Henebury.

Neither Testament instructs us to reinterpret the OT by the NT. Hence, we venture into uncertain waters when we allow this.
It would mean no one could correctly interpret the OT until they had the NT. In many cases this deficit would last for a good three centuries after the first coming of Jesus Christ.
It forces the NT into saying things it never explicitly says (e.g. that the Church is “the New Israel” or the seventh day Sabbath is now the first day “Christian Sabbath.”)
It forces the OT into saying things it really does not mean (e.g. Ezekiel 43:1-7, 10-12).
It would require the Lord Jesus to have used a brand new set of hermeneutical rules in, e.g., Lk. 24:44; rules not accessible until the arrival of the entire NT. These would have to include rules for each “genre”, which would not have been apparent to anyone interpreting the OT on its own terms.
If the OT cannot be interpreted without the NT then what it says on its own account cannot be trusted, as it could well be a “type” to be reinterpreted by the NT.
Thus, it would mean the seeming clear predictions about the Coming One in the OT could not be relied upon to present anything but a typological/symbolic picture which would need deciphering by the NT. The most clearly expressed promises of God in the OT (e.g. Jer. 33:15-26; Ezek. 40-48; Zech. 14:16-21) would be vulnerable to being eventually turned into types and shadows.
It would excuse anyone (e.g. the scribes in Jn. 5:35f.) for not accepting Jesus’ claims based on OT prophecies—since those prophecies required the NT to reinterpret them.
Any rejection of this, with a corresponding assertion that the OT prophecies about Christ did mean what they said, would create the strange hermeneutical paradox of finding clear, plain-sense testimony to Christ in the OT while claiming the OT cannot be interpreted without the NT.
The divining of these OT types and shadows is no easy task, especially as the NT does not provide any specific help on the matter.
Thus, this approach pulls a typological shroud over the OT, denying its Author the credit of meaning what He says and saying what He means (e.g. what does one make of the specificity of Jer. 33:14-26 or Zeph. 3?).
If the Author of the OT does not mean what He appears to say, but is in reality speaking in types and shadows which He will apparently reveal later, what assurance is there that He is not still speaking in types and shadows in the NT? Especially is this problem intensified because many places in the NT are said to be types and shadows still (e.g. the Temple in 2 Thess. 2 and Rev. 11).
It imposes a “unity” on the Bible which is symbolic and metaphorical only. Hence taking the Bible in a normal, plain-sense (the sense scholars advocating this view take for granted their readers will adopt with them, which we would identify as “literal”) would destroy any unity between the Testaments.
However, a high degree of unity can be achieved by linking together the OT and NT literature in a plain-sense, even though every question the interpreter may have will not be answered. Hence, this position that the NT must reinterpret the OT ignores or rejects the fact that, taken literally (in the sense defined above) the OT makes good sense.
Saying the types and shadows in the OT (which supposedly include the land given to Israel, the throne in Jerusalem, the temple of Ezekiel, etc.), are given their proper concrete meanings by the NT implies neither the believer nor the unbeliever can comprehend God’s promises solely from the OT.
Thus, no unbeliever could be accused of unbelief so long as they only possessed the OT, since the apparatus for belief (the NT) was not within their grasp.
This all makes mincemeat of any claim for the perspicuity of Scripture. At the very least it makes this an attribute possessed only by the NT.
Thus, the OT is deprived of its own hermeneutical integrity. This would render warnings such as that found in Proverbs 30:5-6 pointless.
A corollary to this is that the authority of the OT to speak in its own voice is undermined.
In consequence of the above the status of the OT as “Word of God” would be logically inferior to the status of the NT. The result is that the NT (which refers to the OT as the “Word of God”) is more inspired than the OT, producing the unwelcome outcome of two levels of inspiration.
It devalues the OT as its own witness to God and His Plans. For example, if the promises given to ethnic Israel of land, throne, temple, etc. are somehow “fulfilled” in Jesus and the Church, what was the point of speaking about them so pointedly? Cramming everything into Christ not only destroys the clarity and unity of Scripture in the ways already mentioned, it reduces the biblical covenants down to the debated promise of Genesis 3:15. The [true] expansion seen in the covenants (with all their categorical statements) is deflated into a single soundbite of “the Promised Seed-Redeemer has now come and all is fulfilled in Him.” This casts aspersions on God as a communicator and as a covenant-Maker, since there was absolutely no need for God to say many of the things He said in the OT, let alone bind himself by oaths to fulfill them (a la Jer. 31 & 33).
It forces one to adopt a “promise-fulfillment” scheme between the Testaments, ignoring the fact that the OT possesses no such promise scheme, but rather a more relational “covenant-blessing” scheme.
It effectively shoves aside the hermeneutical import of the inspired intertextual usage of an earlier OT text by later OT writers (e.g. earlier covenants cited in Psa. 89:33-37; 105:6-12; 106:30-31: 132:11-12; Jer. 33:17-18, 20-22, 25-26; Ezek. 37:14, 21-26). God is always taken at face value (e.g. 2 Ki. 1:3-4, 16-17; 5:10, 14; Dan. 9:2, 13). This sets up an expectation that covenant commitments will find “fulfillment” in expected ways, certainly not in completely unforeseeable ones.
It forces clear descriptive language into an unnecessary semantic mold (e.g. Ezek. 40-48; Zech. 14). A classic example being Ezekiel’s Temple in Ezek. 40ff. According to this view it is not a physical temple even though a physical temple is clearly described.
It impels a simplistic and overly dependent reliance on the confused and confusing genre labeled “apocalyptic”—a genre about which there is no scholarly definitional consensus.
It would make the specific wording of the covenant oaths, which God took for man’s benefit, misleading and hence unreliable as a witness to God’s intentions. This sets a poor precedent for people making covenants and not sticking to what they actually promise to do (e.g. Jer. 34:18; cf. 33:15ff. and 35:13-16). This encourages theological nominalism, wherein God’s oath can be altered just because He says it can.
Since interpreters in the OT (Psa. 105:6-12); NT (Acts 1:6); and the intertestamental period (e.g. Tobit 14:4-7) took the covenant promises at face value (i.e. to correspond precisely to the people and things they explicitly refer to), this would mean God’s testimony to Himself and His works in those promises, which God knew would be interpreted that way, was calculated to deceive the saints. Hence, a “pious transformation” of OT covenant terms through certain interpretations of NT texts backfires.
The character of any being, be it man or angel, but especially God, is bound to the words agreed to in a covenant (cf. Jer. 33:14, 24-26; 34:18). This being so, it would mean that God could not make such covenants and then not perform them in a way totally foreign to the plain wording of the oaths He took; at least not without it testifying against His own holy veracious character. Hence, not even God could “expand” His promises in such a fashion that would lead literally thousands of saints to be misled by His oaths.
A God who would “expand” His promises in such an unanticipated way could never be trusted not to “transform” His promises to us in the Gospel. Thus, there might be a difference between the Gospel message as we preach it (relying on the face value language of the NT) and God’s real intentions when He eventually “fulfills” the promises in the Gospel. Since it is thought that He did so in the past, it is conceivable that He might do so again in the future. Perhaps the promises to the Church will be “fulfilled” in totally unexpected ways with a people other than the Church?
Exegetically it would entail taking passages in both Testaments literally and non-literally at the same time (e.g. Isa. 9:6-7; 49:6; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9; Lk. 1:31-33; Rev. 7).
Exegetically it would also impose structural discontinuities into prophetic books (e.g. God’s glory departs a literal temple by the east gate in Ezekiel 10, but apparently returns to a spiritual temple through a spiritual east gate in Ezekiel 43!).
In addition, it makes the Creator of language the greatest rambler in all literature. Why did God not just tell the prophet, “When the Messiah comes He will be the Temple and all those in Him will be called the Temple”? That would have saved thousands of misleading words at the end of Ezekiel.
It ignores the life-setting of the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 in the context of their already having had forty days teaching about the very thing they asked about (the kingdom—see Acts 1:3). This reflects badly on the clarity of Risen Lord’s teaching about the kingdom. But the tenacity with which these disciples still clung to literal fulfillments would also prove the validity of #’s 23, 26, 27, 28 & 32 above.
This resistance to the clear expectation of the disciples also ignores the question of the disciples, which was about the timing of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, not its nature.
It turns the admonition to “keep” the words of the prophecy in Revelation 1:3 into an absurdity, for how many people can “keep” what they are uncertain is being “revealed”?
It makes the unwarranted assumption that there can only be one people of God. Since the OT speaks of Israel and the nations (e.g. Zech. 14:16f.); Paul speaks of Israel and the Church (e.g. Rom. 11:25, 28; Gal. 6:16; 1 Cor. 10:32; cf. Acts 26:7), and the Book of Revelation speaks of Israel separated from the nations (Rev. 7), and those in New Jerusalem distinguished from “the kings of the earth” (Rev. 21:9-22:5), it seems precarious to place every saved person from all ages into the Church.
In reality what happens is the theological presuppositions of the interpreter which are read into the NT text and then back into the OT. There is a corresponding breakdown between what the biblical text says and what they are assumed to mean. Thus, it is the interpretation of the reader and not the wording of the biblical text which is often the authority for what the Bible is allowed to teach.
This view also results in pitting NT authors against themselves. E.g. if “spiritual resurrection” is read into Jn. 5:25 on the rather flimsy basis of an allusion to Dan. 12:1-2, that interpretation can then be foisted on Rev. 20:4-6 to make John refer to a spiritual resurrection in that place too. Again, if Jesus is said to refer to His physical body as “this temple” in Jn.2:19 then he is not allowed to refer to a physical temple building in Rev. 11:1-2. This looks like what might be called “textual preferencing.”
This view, which teaches a God who prevaricates in the promises and covenants He makes, also tempts its adherents to adopt equivocation themselves when they are asked to expound OT covenantal language in its original context. It often tempts them to avoid specific OT passages whose particulars are hard to interpret in light of their supposed fulfillment in the NT. It also makes one over sensitive to words like “literal” and “replacement,” even though these words are used freely when not discussing matters germane to this subject.
Finally, there is no critical awareness of many of the problems enumerated above because that awareness is provided by the OT texts and the specific wording of those texts, which, of course, are not allowed a voice on par with what the NT text is assumed to mean. Only verses which preserve the desired theological picture are allowed to mean what they say. Hence a vicious circle is created of the NT reinterpreting the Old. This is a hermeneutical circle which ought not to be presupposed.

Summary

The above principles should help all of us to become better able to determine which of various conflicting interpretations offered by teachers most closely represents the full truth of God’s Word. It will require work, but since when has true Christian discipleship been a walk in the park?

Endnotes
[1] J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come : A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), p. 44.
[2] “Changing the rules in the middle of the game can make anyone a winner.”—Robert Thomas
[3] Alva J. McClain, Daniel’s Prophecy of the 70 Weeks (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1969), p. 3.
[4] There are also promises and simple statements of fact, all of which are equally true if their source is found in God.
[5] http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-the-old-testament-by-the-new-the-first-twenty/ and http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-the-old-testament-by-the-new-the-last-twenty/ accessed [20120222].

Posted in Prophecy, The Rapture and tagged 2012, All, Announcements, Beauty, Bible Doctrine, Bible Study, Blogging, Blogs, Book Reviews, Christian Blogs, Christianity, Church, Current Events, Daniel, DIY, Dr. Tony Garland, Economics, Economy, English, Environment, Europe, Faith, Featured, Features, Friends, God, Holy Spirit, Inspiration, Interviews, Israel, Jesus, Leadership, Life, Lifestyle, Literature, Miscellaneous, Mobile, Musings, My Life, News, News Music Life Travel Photography Politics Food Art Fashion From Kittesencula Photo Blog Family Events Poetry Sports Video Local Movies Entertainment Personal Blog Recipes Photos Books Writing Love V, Opinion, Other, Parenting, Photo, Photo Galleries, Places, Poems, Political, Portfolio, Posts, Projects. Journal, Prophecy, Psychology, Random Thoughts, Relationships, Religion, Research, Revelation, Science, Shopping, Social Media, Society, Spirituality, Stories, Syndication, Television, Theology, Updates, Watch & listen, Welcome, Women, Work, World, Writing

03 Feb 2012

Chapter Nine

Chapter Nine. Read Here

The doctrines of Millennium and Rapture of Saints are important to the study of Eschatology. Since there are too many different views of these important doctrines, the readers may feel difficult to comprehend these doctrines. This chapter is designed to help the readers to understand the rationale of all the major views. This chapter is divided into two major divisions, they are:

views of the millennium; and
views of the rapture.

1. VIEWS OF THE MILLENNIUM

Sincere believers disagree about what the one thousand years of Revelation 20 is, and one’s view of the Millennium tends to govern his view on most other details of eschatology. There are three major views:

amillennial;
postmillennial; and
premillennial.

Posted in Bible Prophecy, The Rapture and tagged amillennial, Bible, Bible Study, Christian Blogs, Church, Daniel, Faith, God, Holy Spirit, Inspiration, Israel, Jesus, Life, News, postmillennial, premillennial., Prophecy, Religion, Revelation, World, Writing

14 Jan 2012

Where Is The Promise of His Coming?

Where Is The Promise of His Coming?. Read Full Article

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of His coming?… II Peter 3:3-4

Posted in The Rapture and tagged Bible Study, Church, Faith, Israel, Jesus, Last Days, Life, News, Pre-Tribulation, Prophecy, Religion, Resurrection, World, Writing

Bible Prophecy Articles

Links to Bible Articles That I enjoy reading.

Archive for the category “The Rapture”

THE OLIVET DISCOURSE AND THE BOOK OF REVELATION

Chapter 3 THE TWO ADVENTS

Chapter Nine

Where Is The Promise of His Coming?

Follow Blog via Email

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Meta

Blog Stats

Blogroll

Follow “Bible Prophecy Articles”

Bible Prophecy Articles

Links to Bible Articles That I enjoy reading.

Archive for the category “The Rapture”

THE OLIVET DISCOURSE AND THE BOOK OF REVELATION

Related articles

Share this:

Like this:

Chapter 3 THE TWO ADVENTS

Share this:

Which View Of The Rapture Is True

Share this:

Chapter Nine

Share this:

Where Is The Promise of His Coming?

Share this:

Post Navigation

Follow Blog via Email

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Meta

Blog Stats

Blogroll

Follow “Bible Prophecy Articles”