20

T H E S I G N M I N I S T R I E S N E W S L E T T E R / F A L L 2 0 0 1

Examining an Amillennial Interpretationof Revelation 20:1-6

Whose Wrath Is It?

Meet a Berean

Examining an Amillennial Interpretationof Revelation 20:1-6

Whose Wrath Is It?Prophecy Under Fire

Meet a Berean

Parousia — page 2

n the last issue of Parousia we examined the historical roots of amillennialism and discovered that it did not arisefrom a balanced, biblical exegesis of the Scriptures. Rather, the theological, political and cultural tensions and in-

fluences upon the early church of the first four centuries proved to be the mother of this theological system. In thisarticle, we will examine an interpretation of the primary passage in the Bible, which speaks of the duration of Christ’s

temporal kingdom, Revelation 20:1-6:

And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laidhold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threwhim into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he should not deceive the nations any longer, until thethousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time. And I saw thrones, and theysat upon them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of thetestimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and hadnot received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for athousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first res-urrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power,but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Those in the amillennial camp, who hold to a spiritualized kingdom of unlimited duration and deny any future earthly reignof Christ, do not believe that Revelation 20 should be interpreted in a literal sense. They see this passage full of symbolismand figurative language. They teach that believers who have died are reigning with Christ right now in the heavenlies andthat this constitutes the fulfillment of the millennial reign of Christ. At some point in the future, according to amillennialists,Christ will return and there will be a general bodily resurrection of all people—a resurrection of believers to life and of un-believers to judgment. The primary textual basis for this claim is John 5:25-29, which states,

Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, andthose who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life inHimself; and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; foran hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the gooddeeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

In order to harmonize John 5:25-29 with Revelation 20:1-6, according to this view, Revelation 20 does not sequentially fol-low chapter 19. In contradistinction, Revelation 20:1-6 recapitulates the binding of Satan at Christ’s first coming, relates thecurrent reign of believers with Christ in heaven, and then teaches the ultimate destruction of Satan at Christ’s second com-ing. The phrase “a thousand years” is not taken literally but is merely a symbol representing a long time.

Iby Gary Vaterlaus

AR

Examining anmillennial

Interpretation ofevelation 20:1-6

Parousia — page 3

There are, of course, differences amongthe views of amillennialists, just as there areamong premillennialists. For our purposes inthis article we will analyze the view arguedby Dr. Robert Strimple of WestminsterTheological Seminary in the book, ThreeViews on the Millennium and Beyond. In thisbook, Dr. Strimple writes for the amillenni-al position. In his discussion, he offers aninterpretation of the Revelation 20 passagein question. Our purpose is to examine Dr.Strimple’s exegesis of Revelation 20 in lightof Scripture, evaluate his hermeneuticalmethod, and draw some conclusions aboutthe nature of the resurrection and the mil-lennium.

Hermeneutics: Literal or Allegorical?For more than a thousand years theologianshave debated the meaning of the thousandyears in Revelation 20. After all the argu-ments are weighed, the basic issue comesdown to one of hermeneutics—how one is tointerpret and understand the meaning ofScripture. As we have mentioned before,broadly speaking there are two hermeneuticalapproaches: literal (or face value) and symbol-ical (allegorical or spiritualizing). The facevalue method takes the Scripture for what itsays, believing that God communicated Histruth in a way that man can understand it. Wetake words in their normal, natural customarysense. The interpreter’s job is to understandwhat the original intent of the author (humanand divine) was. The non face value methods,on the other hand, believe that Scriptureshould not be taken at face value, but thatthere are many hidden truths in Scripture thatare revealed in allegorical and symbolic lan-guage. The interpreter’s job is to uncoverthese hidden truths through proper interpre-tation of symbolic words, figurative languageand allegories.

Though the purely allegorical methodwas popular from about the third century upto the Reformation, no serious biblicalscholar today would claim to adhere to apurely allegorical method of interpretation.However, there are many portions ofScripture, which are spiritualized or taken atless than face value by modern-day theolo-gians. One of them is Revelation 20. Ratherthan taking this passage at face value, the

words are redefined, reinterpreted, and madeto fit a predetermined theological system.

We will now turn to Dr. Strimple’s exege-sis of Revelation 20:1-6. He attempts toshow how this portion of Scripture supportsthe idea of a present millennial reign ofChrist and rules out the thought of a futureearthly kingdom, ruled by Christ for 1,000years.

Revelation 20:Sequence or Recapitulation?It is Dr. Strimple’s position that Revelation20:1-6 represents a recapitulation of the firstcoming of Christ and depicts the presentreign of the Saints in heaven with Christ. Hewrites:

“The order in which the visionsappear in the book of Revelation is notnecessarily the order of fulfillment. Itseems that the end of chapter 19 bringsus right down to the end of the age,the second coming of Christ, the greatfinal battle, judgment on the beast andfalse prophet. It does not follow thatchapter 20 necessarily speaks of whatwill happen next. Its visions may takeus back to the first coming of Christand the beginning of the presentgospel age.”1 (italics mine)

Notice the uncertainty of his statements.He punctuates his comments with phrasessuch as not necessarily, it seems, may, etc. Thereason for this is the absence of textual indi-cators that provide an explicit basis for suchclaims. Unless Scripture gives us explicit in-dications that chapter 20 is a recapitulationwe ought to take these chapters sequentially.While recapitulation is found in the book ofRevelation (e.g. chapters 12 and 13), there issimply no contextual reason to not takechapter 20 of Revelation as following in se-quence chapter 19. A face value reading ofthis passage presents the following order:After the battle of Armageddon the Beast andFalse Prophet are consigned to the lake offire. This is followed by the binding of Satanand the resurrection of beheaded saints. Thereign of those saints for a thousand years fol-lows these events, while Satan is bound. Afterthe thousand years, Satan is released. Hefights against the “camp of the saints” (20:9)

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF INTERPRETATION

is defeated and thrown into the lake of fire.Following this is a general resurrection of thewicked dead (minus those judged at thesheep and goat judgment) and those right-eous folk who died during the millennialreign of Christ. This is generally labeled theGreat White Throne judgment. This judg-ment results in eternal punishment for thewicked in the lake of fire.

The Binding of Satan: Now or Later?Concerning the binding of Satan mentionedin Rev. 20:1-3, Strimple argues that:

“...the New Testament emphasizestwo climactic points in Christ’s victo-ry over Satan: victory at the cross,and victory at his second coming...Revelation 20:1-10 is a figurativerepresentation of Christ’s victoryover Satan at each of the two climac-tic points. At the cross Satan is bound—but not absolutely. Revelation20:2-3 does not say that Satan isbound, period. He is bound in onerespect only, namely, “to keep himfrom deceiving the nations [theGentiles] anymore.”2

Strimple claims, as do almost all amillen-nialists, that the binding of Satan in theseverses refers to Christ’s victory over Satan atHis first coming. Consequently, Satan is nowbound as a result of the victory that Christ

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond.Darrell L. Bock, editor. Published by Zondervan(Grand Rapids, MI) 1999.

Parousia — page 4

The Resurrection: One or Two?Dr. Strimple writes of the resurrection spo-ken of in Revelation 20:4-6:

“Verses 4-6 are a vision of the reignof Christians with their Savior afterthey depart this life and as they awaitChrist’s second coming, the resurrec-tion, and eternal bliss. The saints arepictured as martyrs for their Lord.Perhaps this picture represents allGod’s people.”3

Notice his “reinterpretation” of this pas-sage. How can these verses be speaking ofall of God’s people who have died through-out the ages when it quite specificallyidentifies this group as “the souls of thosewho had been beheaded because of the tes-timony of Jesus and because of the word ofGod, and those who had not worshiped thebeast or his image, and had not received themark upon their forehead and upon theirhand”? Not all believers are martyrs. All be-lievers are not confronted with the decisionto take the mark or not take the mark. It isclear that John is speaking of a limited groupof believers—those who had been beheadedfor their faithfulness to Christ and thosewho had not taken the mark of the beast. Dr.Strimple ignores the plain sense of this pas-sage and interprets it in a way that suits histheological bias, without any attempt to rec-oncile his view with the actual text of theScripture.

Continuing with his exegesis of theseverses, Dr. Strimple writes:

“In verse 5 we read that “the rest ofthe dead did not come to life untilthe thousand years were ended.” Thepoint that John is making is not thatthey will live then. Rather, he isemphasizing that the unbelievingwill not enjoy this wonderful bless-ing that the saints enjoy, the wonder-ful blessing of living and reigningwith Christ throughout the thousandyears.”4

We must question whether Dr. Strimpleknows what John wanted to emphasize inthis text. Instead of speculating as to John’smain point, one should look at the languageemployed by John to determine what he

won at the cross. While Christ’s victory at thecross certainly spelled the beginning ofSatan’s ultimate doom, there remains a majorproblem with Dr. Strimple’s interpretation.We are told throughout the New Testamentthat Satan is alive and active in his role astempter (1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).2 Corinthians 4:3-4 explicitly states thatSatan blinds the minds of unbelievers. Paulwrites, “And even if our gospel is veiled, it isveiled to those who are perishing, in whosecase the god of this world has blinded theminds of the unbelieving so that they mightnot see the light of the gospel of the glory ofChrist, who is the image of God.”

What does Paul mean by veiled? He statesthat “the god of this world (Satan) has blind-ed the minds of the unbelieving so that theymight not see the light of the gospel.”Therefore, a veiled unbeliever who is perish-ing is a blinded unbeliever who cannot seethe truth. How then does Satan blind unbe-lievers? That is, how does Satan keepunbelievers from the truth? Clearly, he de-ceives them to believe a lie rather than thetruth. Revelation 2:20 indicates Jezebel theprophetess “leads My bond-servants astray.”This is the same Greek word, which means,“to deceive.” This practice of deceiving, Johncalls the deep things of Satan (Rev 2:24).

Thus, Satan is very active and apparentlyunhindered in his role as the deceiver. Infact, the book of Revelation describes Satanas follows: “...the serpent of old who iscalled the devil and Satan, who deceives thewhole world...”(Rev. 12:9). If the Bible is ac-curate in describing Satan as presently in thebusiness of deceiving the whole world, thenhe cannot be bound at this time in the man-ner described in Revelation 20:1-3. Satanwill be bound after the return of Christ andwill remain so during the thousand-yearreign of Christ.

EXAMINING AN AMILLENNIAL INTERPRETATION

meant. The phrase “came to life” (ε′ζησαν),meaning “lived” in the Greek, speaks ofphysical life—resurrection. When this wordis used elsewhere in the book of Revelationit always refers to physical life, not spiritual(see Rev. 2:8, 13:14). John writes that therest of the dead “did not come to life untilthe thousand years were ended.” This meansthat after the thousand years they will cometo life—there will be a physical resurrection.

Dr. Strimple argues that the term “until”used in the New Testament does not neces-sarily mean that a state of being willcontinue for a certain time and then change.For instance, when Paul writes in Romans11:25 that “a partial hardening has hap-pened to Israel until the fulness of theGentiles has come in”, Dr. Strimple says thatthis does not mean that Israel’s hardeningwill be removed after the fullness of theGentiles has come in, but just that it will lastthat long, up to the final eschatological day.5

However, he ignores the very next verse thatreads, “and thus all Israel will be saved; justas it is written, ‘The deliverer will come fromZion. He will remove ungodliness fromJacob.’”

When my children want some dessert, Itell them that they cannot have dessert “un-til” they have finished their dinner. I do notmean that they will not enjoy the benefits ofeating dessert up to and including the end ofdinner time. Rather, I mean that AFTERthey finish their dinner THEN they mayhave dessert. In the same way, Revelation20:5 is saying that the rest of the dead willnot come to life UNTIL the 1,000 years arecompleted, that is, they will come to life AF-TER the 1,000 years.

If our face-value reading is correct, thenwe should expect the book of Revelation toconfirm this interpretation. And it does. Justa few verses later we read:

And when the thousand years arecompleted, Satan will be releasedfrom his prison… And the devil whodeceived them was thrown into thelake of fire and brimstone, where thebeast and the false prophet are also;and they will be tormented day andnight forever and ever. And I saw agreat white throne and Him who sat

IF THE BIBLE ISACCURATE IN DESCRIB-ING SATAN… THEN HECANNOT BE BOUND AT

THIS TIME IN THEMANNER DESCRIBEDIN REVELATION 20:1-3.

Parousia — page 5

with him. The second resurrectionwill be bodily at Christ’s secondcoming, when believers are madeready for the eternal state.”6

Again, Dr. Strimple reads his own bias in-to the Scriptures. Where in the Bible is thedeath of believers ever called a “resurrec-tion”? Where is there ever a spiritualresurrection spoken of ? Rather, wheneverScripture speaks of “resurrection” it means abodily resurrection. Notice that John firstsees the “souls” of these martyrs and thensees them “come to life.” What can this meanbut a resurrection from the dead? It wouldmake no sense to say that these souls inheaven “come to life” by dying and thenreign with Christ in heaven. John alreadysees them as souls in heaven who have died.Then they “come to life” and reign withChrist—this is the First Resurrection.

Why is this called the “first resurrection”?My colleague, Charles Cooper, addressedthis in a recent FAQ on our website. Here ishis lucid answer:

The New Testament does not have a sin-gle term for the resurrection. John 5:28-29indicates that there will be a resurrection tolife and a resurrection to judgment. However,no indication is given that these two eventswill not happen at the same time. It is theapostle Paul who delineates stages or groupsof the resurrection. He writes, “…by a manalso came the resurrection of the dead. For asin Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall bemade alive. But each in his own order: Christthe first fruits, after that those who areChrist’s at His coming, then comes theend… (1 Cor. 15:21-24a).” It is clear thatPaul saw the resurrection of Christ and“those who are Christ’s at His coming” astwo distinct aspects of a single resurrection.

Paul designates the Lord’s resurrection as“first fruits.” This is important. The term fruitin the Greek is a singular term, but repre-sents a plural number (what is called acollective noun). The concept of a “first por-tion” or “first fruit” is a familiar one. In thenatural order, the first fruit of any cropwould involve more than one, thus, theNASB’s translation first fruits. Interestingly,Matthew 27:52-53 states, “and the tombswere opened; and many bodies of the saints

upon it, from whose presence earthand heaven fled away, and no placewas found for them. And I saw thedead, the great and the small, stand-ing before the throne, and bookswere opened; and another book wasopened, which is the book of life;and the dead were judged from thethings which were written in thebooks, according to their deeds. Andthe sea gave up the dead which werein it, and death and Hades gave upthe dead which were in them; andthey were judged, every one of themaccording to their deeds. (Rev. 20:7,10-13)

These verses speak of a resurrection of thedead AFTER the thousand years for the pur-pose of judgment. Those whose names arenot found written in the book of life will bethrown in the lake of fire, which is the sec-ond death. Revelation 20:7-13 repeats andconfirms the order of events spelled out inverses 4-6: another resurrection follows the1000-year reign of Christ.

The First Resurrection:Spiritual or Bodily?Dr. Strimple continues with his exegesis ofRevelation 20:

“In verses 5-6 Johns speaks of “thefirst resurrection.” Clearly, this phraseimplies a second resurrection. Butdoes this mean that premillennialismis correct after all, that there will betwo resurrections, the resurrection ofbelievers at Christ’s coming and theresurrection of unbelievers a millen-nium later? Not at all! The referenceto the first resurrection implies a sec-ond, true—a second resurrection forthe same people! Similarly, “the sec-ond death” (v. 6) implies a firstdeath—but also for the same people,the unbelievers.

“We might say that the believer inChrist will experience one death andtwo resurrections. The first resurrec-tion occurs when he or she departsthis life and is immediately usheredinto the presence of Christ to reign

BY GARY VATERLAUS

who had fallen asleep were raised; and com-ing out of the tombs after His resurrectionthey entered the holy city and appeared tomany.” These individuals should be includedin the first fruits of the general resurrection.

The essential point that we can deducefrom 1 Corinthians 15 is that the separationof one phase of the resurrection from anoth-er does not nullify the designation of ageneral resurrection. Therefore, the indica-tion in Revelation 20 that a resurrection willoccur in close proximity to the beginning ofthe millennium is consistent with the teach-ings of the apostle Paul. John limits thisparticular resurrection to those beheaded forrefusing to actively participate in the wor-ship of Antichrist. Killed for theirfaithfulness to Christ, the beheaded faithfulare blessed because they have “a part (literal-ly, to experience along with others[Louw/Nida, § 90.83]) in the first resurrec-tion.” Only by spiritualizing this passageand ignoring the textual details can thisgroup be made to represent all believers ofall the ages. John clearly intends a smallergroup, every single one of them, beheaded.

Consequently, we are able to posit thatJohn’s resurrection to life and his first resur-rection both refer to a general multi-phasedresurrection of the righteous. It stretchesfrom the resurrection of Christ and thoseraised with Him (Mat. 24:52-53), to thoseraised at the Rapture/Parousia (1 Cor.15:23), to those beheaded martyrs raised inclose proximity to the beginning of the mil-lennium (Rev. 20:4-5). This is the firstresurrection.

John does not designate the resurrectionthat will follow the millennium as the “sec-ond resurrection.” Probably the reason Johndoes not do this is that the resurrection after

WHERE IN THEBIBLE IS THE

DEATH OFBELIEVERS

EVER CALLED A“RESURRECTION”?

Parousia — page 6

of the saints with Christ. Matthew 19:28,and 2 Timothy 2:12 both speak of the reignof believers with Him. Revelation 5:10 ex-plicitly states that those purchased by theblood of the Lamb, “will reign upon theearth.” Our reign with Christ does not con-sist entirely of sitting with Him in theheavenlies, but will be fulfilled by an earth-ly reign. Christ is not now ruling the nations“with a rod of iron” as the book ofRevelation says that He will (Rev. 2:27,12:5, 19:15). Are we experiencing perfectjustice? Are we experiencing true peace?These will be fulfilled after His return. It isclear that this picture in Revelation 20:4, ofthe saints coming to life and reigning withChrist, speaks of a physical resurrection andan earthly reign.

A Thousand Years: Literal or Symbolic?Concerning the meaning of the term “athousand” as used in Revelation 20, Dr.Strimple writes:

“But what is the significance of thenumber “one thousand”? We mayreadily assume that the number issymbolic, for numbers are used sym-bolically throughout Revelation.”8

There are two problems with this state-ment by Dr. Strimple. First, he assumes thatnumbers, when used in the book ofRevelation, are symbolic. The book ofRevelation is full of numbers: four, seven,ten, twelve, forty-two, one thousand twohundred and sixty, one hundred and forty-four thousand, two hundred million, athousand, etc. When Dr. Strimple says thatthese are symbolic and are not to be takenliterally, he reveals his allegiance to a non-literal hermeneutical method. We cannot justassume that since the book of Revelation isan apocalyptic book that all references tonumbers are symbolic. Unless context de-mands a figurative interpretation of thenumbers in Revelation, we must take themliterally. The second problem with Dr.Strimple’s statement is found in the phrase,“we may readily assume that the number(one thousand) is symbolic.” That is a big as-sumption. Even if there is evidence thatsome numbers in the book of Revelation areused symbolically, that does not warrant us

the millennium will be distinctively differentfrom the first. In Revelation 20:5, Johnrecords that “The rest of the dead did notcome to life until the thousand years werecompleted.” This by definition must involvethe wicked that have not been raised to thispoint in biblical chronology. Revelation20:11-15 describes the resurrection untojudgment, which John alluded to in John5:38-39. This judgment is generally calledthe white throne judgment. John states thatanyone whose name is not found in thebook of life will be thrown into the lake offire—the second death.

That the book of life would be consultedat this point highlights the fact that both be-lievers and unbelievers will be present at thisjudgment. Isaiah 65:17-25 supports thisconclusion. There, Isaiah indicates that thosewho enter the kingdom in physical bodieswill live long lives during the temporal king-dom on earth. However, he also indicatesthat these people will die. While the resur-rected saints will not die, those Jews andGentiles who survive the sheep and goatjudgment of Matthew 25:31, ff. will enterthe kingdom, but will not live the entire1000 years. Thus “the white throne judg-ment” will involve all the wicked dead of allthe ages—with the exception of Antichrist,the false prophet (Rev 20:10), and the goatsfrom the sheep and goat judgment ofMatthew 25:41—and the righteous deadwho died during the 1000 years.

The Reign of the Saints:On Earth or in Heaven?Dr. Strimple argues that the saints will reignwith Christ in heaven, but not on earth. Hewrites:

There is also reference here to thrones.Throughout Revelation, the throne ofChrist and his people is always inheaven. In 3:21 this specific promise isgiven: ‘To him who overcomes, I willgive the right to sit with me on mythrone, just as I overcame and satdown with my Father in his throne.’Revelation 20:4 pictures the fulfill-ment of that blessed promise.”7

Dr. Strimple ignores some very clearstatements in Scripture regarding the reign

taking every number as symbolic withoutadditional contextual clues.

Dr. Strimple makes the following boldstatement about the premillennial position inhis article:

“Not only does the New Testamentnot teach a future millennial king-dom, in what it teaches us aboutChrist’s second coming, the NewTestament rules out an earthly millen-nial kingdom following Christ’sreturn... Because this is so, Scripturehas to be forced into artificial inter-pretations in order to fit in a millen-nial period after Christ’s return…”9

Dr. Strimple accuses premillennialists withtwisting Scripture to try and “fit in” a millen-nial reign of Christ after His return. Afterhaving examined Dr. Strimple’s exegesis ofRevelation Chapter 20, we must ask thequestion, who is truly the one forcingScripture into “artificial interpretations?” Aface value interpretation of Revelation 20(and the rest of the Old and NewTestaments) leads clearly to a premillennialview of Christ’s return. When He comesagain he will rescue the righteous, punish thewicked, and set up His one thousand-yearreign upon earth. It all boils down tohermeneutics.

For those unaccustomed to the amillenni-al interpretative system, most would recoil at

EXAMINING AN AMILLENNIAL INTERPRETATION

UNLESS C

DEMANDS A

INTERPR

OF THE NU

REVELATION

TAKE THEM

Parousia — page 7

their interpretation of Revelation 20:4-6.Their exegesis is so blatantly poor. If theirinterpretation of Revelation 20 was the solebasis of their position, few outside the amil-lennial camp would give it the time of day.However, most Amillennialists base their po-sition on three critical Scriptures. John 6:40is primary. It states, “For this is the will ofMy Father, that everyone who beholds theSon and believes in Him will have eternallife, and I Myself will raise him up on thelast day.” Similarly John 12:48 states, “Hewho rejects Me and does not receive Mysayings, has one who judges him; the wordI spoke is what will judge him at the lastday.” The final passage of the amillennial tri-umphant is John 5:27-29, which states,

Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour iscoming and now is, when the deadwill hear the voice of the Son ofGod, and those who hear will live.For just as the Father has life inHimself, even so He gave to the Sonalso to have life in Himself; and Hegave Him authority to execute judg-ment, because He is the Son of Man.Do not marvel at this; for an hour iscoming, in which all who are in thetombs will hear His voice, and willcome forth; those who did the gooddeeds to a resurrection of life, thosewho committed the evil deeds to aresurrection of judgment.

BY GARY VATERLAUS

At first glance, these verses would seem tosettle the debate. The resurrection of therighteous and the wicked will occur “at thelast day,” then a general judgment will occurfollowed by God’s reign in eternity.However, to maintain a literal face value in-terpretation of these passages from John’sgospel, Revelation 20:1-6 must be sacri-ficed. The reason this is necessary is becauseif one takes Revelation 20:1-6 at face value,the Amillennialist sees a contradiction. Thus,the problem is clear. Revelation 20:1-6 willnot allow anything less than a face value in-terpretation. John’s statements in his gospelare clear—the resurrection occurs on the lastday. We have a contradiction, but contradic-tions are not acceptable in our hermeneutic.Are we at a standstill? No! The problem iscreated by the assumptions one has regard-ing two phrases in John’s gospel. What doesJesus mean by “an hour is coming” and “onthe last day?”

This is a clear case of reading the simplesense of an English translation without con-sidering the author’s intended meaning.John 5:27-29 states the fact of the resurrec-tion, but it gives few details concerning theprocess of the resurrection. Because of 1Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4, weknow that there are other details concerningthe resurrection of the righteous that are notgiven in John 5:27-29. The critical phrasefor our discussion in John 5:27-29 is, “anhour is coming…” Is this phrase to be takenliterally or metaphorically? In the gospel ofJohn, eight specific “hours” are identified.10

It does not take much investigation to revealthat when Jesus refers to “an hour,” He is notreferring to a literal sixty-minute hour. Onewould get the correct sense by substitutingthe word time for hour. In John 2:4 Jesusstates, “My hour (time) has not yet come.” InJohn 12:27 the Lord states, “What shall I say,‘Father, save Me from this hour (or time ofintense suffering)’? But for this purpose Icame to this hour (time of intense suffer-ing).” These passages clearly indicate that“hour” does not refer to a literal sixty-minutehour. Rather, the Lord is referring to a spe-cific time that will involve his death, burialand resurrection, which will occur overmany days and hours. Therefore, John 5:27-29 does not limit the resurrection of both

the righteous and wicked to a single hour.Whether there is or is not a gap in time be-tween the resurrection of the righteous andthe wicked cannot be argued based on John5:27-29. It merely states the fact of the res-urrection, but nothing of the process of theresurrection.

John 6:40 and 12:48 are a bit more diffi-cult to explain. It is very tempting to acceptthe simple sense of the English translation.The first question that screams to be an-swered is this: the last day of what? Theapostle John uses this phrase six times. It isunique to the Gospel of John. It does not ap-pear in any other gospel or epistle in theNew Testament. Is the Lord referring to aliteral twenty-four hour day or is He speak-ing metaphorically?

In the gospels, the issue is always the factof a resurrection and not the process of theresurrection. This is clearly seen in John11:24. Martha tells the Lord, “I know that he[Lazarus] will rise again in the resurrectionon the last day.” In the resurrection on the last dayaffirms the fact of the resurrection, but saysnothing about the details of the resurrection.This is affirmed in Matthew 22:28. There,the Sadducees use the same expression. Theyquestion Jesus about a woman who marriedsix brothers. Their question concerns whosewife the woman will be “in the resurrection[at the last day]?” Matthew begins this storyby telling the reader that the Sadducees “saythere is no resurrection.”

In His answer to the Sadducees’ question,Jesus uses two very important phrases: (1) inthe resurrection and (2) the resurrection of thedead. It is our contention that in the resurrec-tion refers to the fact of the resurrection.Jesus makes two points in response to theSadducees’ question. First, He says, “in theresurrection they neither marry nor are giv-en in marriage, but are like angels inheaven.” Jesus makes no distinctions at thispoint. Is this true for the wicked as well asthe righteous? Will the lifestyle of thewicked be the same for the righteous? Jesusdoes not say. The fact of the resurrection isthe Lord’s point here. Resurrected people(whether righteous or wicked) have no needfor marriage as such.

The Lord’s second point to the Sadduceesconcerns God’s relationship to the dead. He

CONTEXT

FIGURATIVE

ETATION

UMBERS IN

, WE MUST

M LITERALLY.

Parousia — page 8

states, “But regarding the resurrection of thedead, have you not read what was spoken toyou by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, andthe God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? Heis not the God of the dead but of the living.”Why does Jesus refer to the resurrection of thedead? There is no other kind of resurrectionother than the dead. This is Jesus’ point.God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, andJacob. “He is not the God of the dead but ofthe living.” Therefore, Jesus is here speakingof the resurrection of the righteous dead. Heclearly distinguishes between the righteousdead and the wicked dead. This proves thatJesus is referring to the fact of the resurrec-tion and not the process.

On/at the last day cannot refer to the lasttwenty-four hour day of this age. The OldTestament prophetically details that the Dayof the Lord is the last day of this age (Zeph.1:14-18). Acts 2:17 states, “And it shall be inthe last days, God says, that I will pour forthof My Spirit on all mankind…” This indi-cates that the coming of the Holy Spirit atPentecost occurred during the last days. Thisalso confirms that the phrase the last daysdoes not refer to literal twenty-four hourdays, but to a time involving possibly years,months and days. Similarly, the last day doesnot refer to a single twenty-four hour day,but to a period of time during which the res-

urrection of the righteous and the wickedwill occur. Again, whether a gap in time oc-curs between the resurrection of therighteous and the wicked cannot be arguedbased on these texts.

ConclusionAs I stated earlier, the key to understandingthe Millennium is one of hermeneutics. Ourhermeneutic influences not only our under-standing of the Millennium, but may affectour understanding of other doctrines in theword of God as well. Some of those whohave abandoned a consistent literalhermeneutic have strayed into erroneous be-liefs about salvation, such as Universalism (allpeople will eventually be saved) or falseviews of hell, such as Annihilationism (thewicked will cease to exist). Others haveadopted incorrect views of God, such as non-trinitarianism (denying the doctrine of thetrinity).

We must be very careful to come toScripture with the belief that it is the infalli-ble word of God and we must studycarefully to find the truth of the Scripture.We must never come to Scripture with a sys-tem, and then interpret the Scripture so thatit fits our system. It appears that this is whatDr. Strimple has done with the text ofRevelation 20. Rather than saying we are

EXAMINING AN AMILLENNIAL INTERPRETATION

dispensationalists, Calvinists, Arminianists,premillennialists, or adherents of any othersystem, we must say we are “biblicists”, thatis, that the Bible is our sole authority. All ofour systems must be subjected to the teach-ing of the Bible. All of our doctrines mustcome from the clear teaching of the word ofGod. As A.W. Tozer said, “When you findthe truth of Scripture, that truth alwaysstands in judgment of you; you never standin judgment of it.”

ENDNOTES

1. Darrell L. Bock, Ed. Three Views on theMillennium and Beyond (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1999), p. 120-121

2. Ibid., p. 1233. Ibid., p. 1264. Ibid., p. 1265. Ibid., p. 1176. Ibid., p. 1277. Ibid., p. 125-1268. Ibid., p. 1279. Ibid., p. 100-10110. John identifies 8 specific “hours” in his

gospel: (1) an hour of death (2:4; 7:30; 8:20;12:29); (2) an hour of true worship (4:21,23); (3) an hour of resurrection (5:25, 27,28); (4) an hour of glorification (12:23;17:1); (5) an hour of murder (16:2); (6) anhour of childbirth (16:21); (7) an hour ofplain truth (16:25); (8) an hour of scattering(16:23).

WWith great regret, the staff of Sola Scriptura and The Sign Ministries reports to our larger ministryfamily the sad news that Bill Lee-Warner went to be with the Lord September 10, 2001.

After less than a year's struggle with an inoperative brain tumor, Bill closed his eyes to this world.In our age of longevity, when someone "falls asleep" at age 55 it is not uncommon to hear it said,"He was so young." In Bill's case, we agree. We are naturally saddened to see Bill "fall asleep."However, having watched a vibrant, energetic, and joyous co-laborer for the Lord slowly loseweight, hair, and fast wit, we gladly surrender him to eternal blissfulness.

Bill was a graduate of Oregon State University, receieved his M.Div. from Western EvangelicalSeminary, and pastored churches for more than twenty years before serving Sola Scriptura andThe Sign Ministries faithfully as a writer, lecturer, editor, and friend. He will be greatly missed.

On behalf of the Lee-Warner family, we at the ministry acknowledge your cards, letters, emails,prayers, and calls of concern over this past year.

We salute our brother - a soldier retired from active duty.

Parousia — page 9

Whose Wrath Is It? Prophecy Under Fire • Critics & Critiques

Renald E. Showers’ critique of theprewrath view in a Dictionary ofPremillennial Theology warrants a

line by line response. Not because he pre-sents a compelling case for the rejection ofthe position, but because he so clearlydemonstrates the typical “knee-jerk” re-sponse of pretribbers to those who attempt abiblical solution to the Rapture questionother than pretribulationism. Case in point:under the heading Problems with the View,Concerning the Tribulation and the Day of theLord, Showers writes:

1. The [prewrath] view requires acomplete distinction between theGreat Tribulation and the Day of theLord, insisting there is no overlap-ping of the two, that the GreatTribulation contains only humanwrath, that the Day of the Lord con-tains the wrath of God, and that theScriptures never associate Tribulationwith the Day of the Lord’s wrath.There are at least three difficultieswith this distinction, (1) the Bibleassociates both the Day of the Lord(Joel 2:1-2) and the Great Tribulation(Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:21) with theunparalleled time of trouble. Thiscommon association prompts theconclusion that the Great Tribulationcannot be totally separated from theDay of the Lord. (2) Certainly God’swrath is far worse than human wrath.In light of this, how can the GreatTribulation be the unparalleled timeof trouble if it will contain onlyhuman wrath? (3) The Scripturesassociate Tribulation with the Day ofthe Lord’s wrath. The same Hebrewword that communicated the conceptof Tribulation or trouble was used forboth the Great Tribulation (Dan.12:1) and the Day of the Lord

(Zeph. 1:15). Paul associatesTribulation with “the day of wrathand the revelation of the righteousjudgment of God” (Rom. 2:5-9).

It should not escape the reader’s attentionthat Showers fails to quote one explicit text,which would have settled this debate sum-marily. The reason Showers does not statethe case otherwise is that there is no explic-it scriptural basis for associating “the greattribulation” with “the Day of the Lord.”Showers correctly states that the prewrathview differentiates between the wrath ofGod and the wrath of Satan/Antichrist. TheGreat Tribulation is the wrath of Satan. TheDay of the Lord is the wrath of God.However, he errs with the statement, “[theprewrath view requires] that the Scripturesnever associate Tribulation with the Day ofthe Lord’s wrath.” By leaving out the term“great”, Showers misleads the reader. Theprewrath view insists, “that the Scripturesnever associate the Great Tribulation withthe Day of the Lord’s wrath.” Now this is atrue statement. There will certainly be tribu-lation for the wicked during the Day of theLord. However, as Showers uses the termtribulation (meaning Great Tribulation),there is no biblical basis for teaching thatScripture indicates overlap between the Dayof the Lord and the Great Tribulation, as weshall see below.

Showers’ first difficulty with our distinc-tion regarding two periods (the Day of theLord versus the Great Tribulation) concernsScriptures’ association of these two events.Based on Joel 2:1-2, Daniel 12:1 andMatthew 24:21, Showers concludes thatScripture does associate the Day of the Lordand the Great Tribulation. As people whotruly want to dialogue with pretribulation-ists regarding the timing of the Lord’sreturn, we are often frustrated by pretribberswho will not look honestly at the Scriptures.Joel 2:1-2 states,

Blow a trumpet in Zion, and soundan alarm on My holy mountain! Letall the inhabitants of the land (ofIsrael) tremble, for the Day of theLord is near; surely it is near, a day ofdarkness and gloom, a day of cloudsand thick darkness. As the dawn isspread over the mountains, so there isa great and mighty people; there hasnever been anything like it, nor willthere be again after it to the years ofmany generations.

Now without getting into the finer pointsof this text, let’s deal with the obvious. First,this passage refers only to Zion in the land (ofIsrael) and not the whole world. Second, theDay of the Lord is near, but not there yet.Third, the Day of the Lord is not the imme-diate danger, but “a great and mightypeople, [an army]” is approaching. Fourthand finally, in context, the unparellelednessthat Joel is referring to concerns the ap-proaching army and not the Day of theLord. Therefore, Joel 2:1-2 has no bearingon the issue Showers is discussing. He takesthis passage totally out of context. He as-sumes a connection simply because the Dayof the Lord is mentioned. However, closerexamination rules out that the unparalleled-ness refers to the Day of the Lord.

by Charles Cooper

…There is noexplicit scriptural

base for associating“the great tribula-tion” with “the Day

of the Lord.”

Parousia — page 10

Regarding Daniel 12:1 and the issue ofunparalledness, notice:

Now at that time Michael, the greatprince who stands guard over thesons of your people, will arise. Andthere will be a time of distress such asnever occurred since there was anation until that time; and at thattime your people, everyone who isfound written in the book, will berescued.

Again, stating the obvious, this text address-es the nation of Israel. The people of Israelwill face an unparalleled time of distress.After the unparalleled time of distress, theelect will be rescued. Matthew 24:21 states,“For then there will be a great tribulation,such as has not occurred since the beginningof the world until now, nor ever will.” It isclear, in context, that the Lord is describingthe same event depicted in Daniel 12:1.However, at no point and in no way doesDaniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 indicatethat the “time of distress” and “a great tribu-lation” refer to the wrath of God. In fact, thecontext states otherwise. In both cases, theelect are rescued from the “trouble” causedby the one who sets up “the abomination ofdesolation.”

Therefore, Showers has not established anoverlap between the Day of the Lord and theGreat Tribulation. There is no explicit or im-plied basis to do so. One text that hasbearing on this discussion is Jeremiah 30:7,which states, “Alas! For that day is great,there is none like it; and it is the time ofJacob’s distress, but he will be saved from it.”This text does in fact state that a period ofunparalleledness awaits Jacob (Judah andIsrael). Contextually, this period is describedas “that day.” That day is a semi-technicalterm used throughout the Old Testament torefer to the Day of the Lord. Therefore,Scripture explicitly states that the Day of theLord will be a period of unparalledness forJacob (Judah and Israel). Scripture also statesthat the Great Tribulation (three and a halfyears) will be a period of unparallelednessfor Israel. However, does it naturally followthat there can only be one period of unpar-alleledness? We shall see!

Showers’ second difficulty with our dis-tinction regarding two periods (the Day ofthe Lord versus the Great Tribulation) con-cerns the distinction between the wrath ofGod and the wrath of Satan/Antichrist—particularly, the fact that the wrath of God isby definition worse than the wrath of Satan.Therefore, Showers asks, “How can the greatTribulation be the unparalleled time of trou-ble if it will contain only human wrath?”This question turns on a very subtle issue.Fundamentally, the issue is this: can there bemore than one unparalleled time in humanhistory. The answer is obviously “yes” fortwo reasons. First, the executor of the un-paralleledness must be different. Secondly,the object of the unparalleled persecutionmust be different! This is the case here. BothDaniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 speak of anunparalleled time of trouble for unsavedIsrael and God’s elect (elect Israel is put inprotective custody, Rev 12:6, 14-16).Jeremiah 30:7 and Zephaniah 1:18 speak ofa time of unparalleled trouble for Israel andthe world by God. That’s the difference. Isthis an explicit biblical distinction?

No one doubts that the eschatologicalDay of the Lord is a day of trouble for Israel(Jer 30:7) and the world (Zep 1:18). That’sexplicit. That the Great Tribulation is threeand a half years long is also explicit (Dan9:27, 12:11). That the reign of “the princeof the people who is to come” is three and ahalf years long is explicit in Scripture (Dan9:27, Rev 13:5). That the man of lawlessness—“the prince”—is empowered by Satan isexplicit in Scripture (2 Thess 2:9, Rev 13:2).Revelation 12:12 indicates that Satan isthrown down to the earth by Michael andhis angels “having great wrath.” The wordwrath used here is the same word used to de-scribe the wrath of God elsewhere inScripture. Therefore, it is possible for Satanand God to pour out the same kind of wrath.The objects of the wrath is the difference.

Satan comes down to earth “having greatwrath” because Michael, the archangel dri-ves him from heaven (Rev 12:7, Dan 12:1).Now Revelation 12:12 indicates that afterSatan is thrown down to the earth, “he hasonly a short time.” This time is further limit-ed in Revelation 12:13-14 to time, times andhalf a time—three and a half years or forty-

two months. This can be none other thanthe same time as Antichrist (the prince of thepeople to come) rules on the earth, which isthe same time as “a time of distress” (Dan12:1) which equals “a great tribulation”(Matt 24:21). It should not escape the read-er’s attention that at no point is God’s wrathindicated at any point during these activities.In fact Jesus explicitly states that the signthat indicates the imminent outbreak of theeschatological Day of the Lord will followthe great “tribulation of those days” (Matt24:29). In the whole of Matthew 24:4-27,there is not one explicit or implied event at-tributed to the wrath of God. Only after thetribulation of those days does the wrath ofGod come. Therefore, the reason there canbe two unparalleled times of trouble is be-cause the objects are different. God punishesthe wicked with His eschatological Day ofthe Lord’s wrath. Satan punishes the peopleof God with his eschatological GreatTribulation wrath. Sorry, Dr. Showers, youare wrong again.

Showers third and final difficulty withour two separate unparalleled times concernsthe fact that “Scriptures associate Tribulationwith the Day of the Lord’s wrath,” which istrue. This however, is not the question. Thequestion is this: Does Scripture associate theeschatological Day of the Lord with theGreat Tribulation? The answer is an emphat-ic “no!” Now Daniel 12:1 does use the sameword for trouble that is used in Zephaniah1:15. However, Zephaniah 1:15 makes clearthat God is causing the trouble, but Daniel12:1 does not in any shape, form, or fashionsay God causes the trouble to Israel. This isan unwarranted assumption on Showers’part.

Equally, the apostle Paul does state inRomans 2:5-9 the following:

But because of your stubbornnessand unrepentant heart you are stor-ing up wrath for yourself in the dayof wrath and revelation of the right-eous judgment of God, who will ren-der to each person according to Hisdeeds: to those who by perseverancein doing good seek for glory andhonor and immortality, eternal life;but to those who are selfishly ambi-

PROPHECY UNDER FIRE

Parousia — page 11

tious and do not obey the truth, butobey unrighteousness, wrath andindignation. There will be tribulationand distress for every soul of manwho does evil, of the Jew first andalso of the Greek, but glory andhonor and peace to everyone whodoes good, to the Jew first and alsoto the Greek. For there is no partial-ity with God.

However, it is yet to be proven that Paulis describing the period known as the GreatTribulation (three and a half years) bySatan/Antichrist of God’s people. It is clearthat Paul is describing a future judgment ofJews and Gentiles by God. Paul describesthis judgment as a part of “the day of wrathand revelation of the righteous judgment ofGod.” When does this judgment occur? Theday of wrath puts this time frame clearly

within the Day of the Lord. However, wehave demonstrated above that the “day ofGod’s wrath” and the time of Satan/Antichrist’s wrath are not the same and thereis no explicit or implied scriptural basis toclaim otherwise.

BY CHARLES COOPER

Meet a Berean • Pastor Eric VanBuskirk

As senior pastor of Church Triumphant,Pastor Eric VanBuskirk has weatheredthe storms of many struggles that twen-

ty-four years in a single pastorate can bring.One of those struggles is his journey to adopt-ing the prewrath position as his view on thetiming of the Lord’s return. A true Berean, let’sread his testimony. He writes:

In the mid-1970s as a relatively new Christian,I requested and was granted permission by mypastor to show the popular new release, Thief inthe Night. The movie featured the then growingand fashionable doctrine of the pretribulationRapture. Naturally, the film portrayed the removalof Christians from the earth prior to the coming agreat tribulation the Bible warns of, and the com-mencement of Antichrist’s regime. As with allmovies, which advance this doctrinal position,past and present, the rapturing away of theChristian church signifies the time when theworld will become consigned to utter chaos.“Would be” Christians are left with the decisionto wholly reject Christ or suffer martyrdom. Thus,the church is portrayed as removed, entirely un-scathed by the trouble that is coming to thisearth—current Christian persecution, martyrdomand global distress excluded, of course.

The movie, much like the books promulgatingthe pretribulation Rapture, was relatively enter-taining and creative for the times, and thoughtprovoking in many aspects. Nonetheless, whilethe film could not be accused of a dull evangelis-tic thrust, it could be heavily criticized based onflawed biblical hermeneutics. Although I couldnot clearly articulate a Scriptural argumentagainst this production at the time, I was able todiscern, based upon my limited understanding of

eschatology, that something was inherentlywrong with it.

It wasn’t until the early 1980s, and then as anordained minister that members of my own con-gregation would request that I teach on thesubject of eschatology. The challenge was readi-ly accepted and materials were garnered fromevery corner of the earth. My desk was piled highwith books by those who, at the time, were con-sidered to be experts on the topic, i.e., HalLindsay, Tim LaHaye, J. Vernon McGee, Jack VanImpe, just to mention a few. Added to these ma-terials were numerous other commentaries andtheological works compiled by contemporaneousand time-honored authors and, finally, the ulti-mate source of all truth, the Bible. Obviously, theBible would become the filter through which thevarious exegeses and eschatological apologieswould be examined.

It was during this research that I realized howcritically important it becomes for one to thor-oughly examine Scriptural truth based uponScriptural texts, in context, before venturing intothe arena of popular and widely accepted teach-ings. At one point, it seemed my studies weretaking me farther away from a plausible biblicalinterpretation into that of mass confusion. Thatis, until I turned to sola scriptura.

Eventually meticulous contextual examinationof Scripture deepened my conviction that thepretribulation Rapture position was built upon ashifting foundation of sand. It became quite clearto me that Christian apologist’s, regardless ofhow intellectually astute, do not necessarily al-ways produce sound theology. Clearly apparentwas the fact that many teachers on end timeswere merely parroting what they had been taught

within their circles of influence—primarily, C.I.Scolfield’s notes.

It should also be understood that I arrived atthese conclusions by merely examining each au-thor’s interpretation of Scripture against theScriptures themselves. Moreover, I had no bias orpreconceived theology regarding the topic in myinitial approach to the study. I would later learnthat many other students came to the same con-clusions as myself using the same method. TheSign by Robert Van Kampen is one such exam-ple. His book was a breath of fresh spiritual air,especially in light of the fact that he had thecourage to admit he had only been teaching whathe had been taught not what he had studied.Amazing things do happen when we allow theHoly Spirit to guide us into an understanding ofthat which He inspired.

My elementary examination of the pretribula-tion Rapture position found the doctrine to befilled with textual and semantic hyperbole which,for the casual observer, places suppositional in-terpretation of scripture [allegorical deduction] onequal par with literal face value interpretation. Aclassic example of this is found in Revelation3:10 in which Jesus speaking to the “faithful”church of Philadelphia said,

“Because you have kept My command to per-severe, I also will keep you from the hour of trialwhich shall come upon the whole world, to testthose who are on the earth.”

Proponents of the pretribulation Rapture arenotorious for drawing upon this Scripture to infer

continued on back

Nonprofit Org.U.S. Postage PaidGrand Haven, MIPermit No. 383

Parousia is produced and published four times a year by The Sign Ministries, P.O. Box 113, West Olive, MI 49460; (800) 627-5134; info@signministries.org; Editor: Rev. Charles Cooper;Associate Editors: Dean Tisch, Sandy Ksycki, Dirk Eichhorst; Creative Director & Designer: Scott Holmgren; ©2001 The Sign Ministries. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced or transmitted without publisher’s written permission. Scripture taken from the New American Standard Bible, ©1977, 1987, 1988, The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.The Sign Ministries is a ministry of Sola Scriptura. Visit our website at: www.signministries.org

THESIGN Ministries

P.O. Box 113West Olive, MI 49460

A Ministry of Sola Scriptura

ADDRESSSERVICEREQUESTED

that all Christians will escape thehour of trial that is to come upon theearth. Compare this passage toRevelation 2:10 in which Christ isspeaking to the “faithful” church inSmyrna:

“Do not fear those things whichyou are about to suffer. Indeed, theDevil is about the throw some of youinto prison, that you may be tested,and you will have tribulation tendays. Be faithful until death, and Iwill give you the crown of life.”

Here we have, in context, two“faithful” churches coexistent witheach other yet receiving what ap-pears to be a completely divergentmessage. Is God then to be consid-ered partial to the church atPhiladelphia and impartial towardSmyrna? Alternatively, have scholarsattempting to find Scriptural basis

for “their doctrine” blindly rejectedone passage while readily acceptingonly that that applies to their doctri-nal position? I’m not a “brainsurgeon”, but such methods repre-sent poor hermeneutics by anystandard. If Rev. 3:10 pertains to thechurch of the last days, how thencan Rev. 2:10 be any less significantto the same?

An issue like this drove me awayfrom a pretrib view to what I laterwould find entitled a prewrathRapture. There was also the matterof a simplistic “common sense” ap-proach to scriptural interpretation.First of all, the Bible clearly teachesthat the sufferings of Christ arecommon to the Christian in everygeneration. The great tribulation isno exception, for it represents a peri-od when iniquity will abound and

man’s hatred for God and His right-eous seed will become intensified.“Great Tribulation” simply meansmore trouble than previously experi-enced, much like the labor pains awoman undergoes before givingbirth to a child. While such condi-tions have existed throughouthistory, this period will hasten the cli-max of the ages, dwarfing all that,which has occurred in previous gen-erations. Instead of regional andintermittent persecution, suchdespotism will become universal inscope. Yet, at the same time, thisdoes not mean that all will suffermartyrdom. If that were the case,who are the elect Jesus is coming af-ter? It remains, however, that morepeople have been martyred for theirfaith in Christ in this generation thanin all previous generations.

A look at history and a lookaround, coupled with some commonsense would go along way in helpingus to understand how easily the in-culturation of Western thought hascorrupted our understanding of sim-ple biblical truth. As critical as thismay sound, it needs to be said andwithout apology. Nowhere does theBible teach or remotely imply an es-capist theology. Why should weconsider ourselves above those whohave suffered before us and that arecontemporary with us? It appears elit-ist to say the least. The only thingChristians are promised in connec-tion to “final things” is deliverancefrom the wrath of God that is to comeon an unbelieving and rebelliousworld.

Meet a Berean • continued from inside