Welcome to the January, 2006, edition of Strong Tower Publishing's e-newsletter.

In case you were wondering, no, you didn't miss the December, 2005, issue. A death in the extended family at Strong Tower Publishing prevented publication, but we resume our schedule starting in 2006.

IN THIS ISSUE:

* Call for Prewrath Churches
* Are Matt. 24:29 and Rev. 6:12-13 the same event?
* Book Review: Apocalyptic Literature: A Reader
* New Prewrath Blog
* New Movie Reviews: Mr. & Mrs. Smith, March of the Penguins

CALL FOR PREWRATH CHURCHES

Recently, Strong Tower Publishing began maintaining a list of churches that openly teach or, at the least, are sympathetic to the prewrath view. You can view the list, organized by state, at www.strongtowerpublishing.com/prewrath_churches.htm. We would like to continue expanding that list, so if you attend or know of a church that teaches prewrath, please email us at strongtowerpubs@aol.com and let us know!

PREWRATH DISCUSSION GROUP UPDATE

One of the pillars of the prewrath view is the relationship between the Second Coming of Christ and the triple sign of sun, moon, and stars that heralds the beginning of the Day of the Lord (Joel 2:31). It is this sign that nails down the timing of the return of Christ, the beginning of His eschatological judgment, and the rapture of the Church.

Prewrath ties the start of the Day of the Lord (Joel 2:31) with the Second Coming after the great tribulation (Matt. 24:21, 29-31), which occurs at the sixth seal (Rev. 6:12-13). This trio of verses has become the foundation on which the prewrath view is built.

There are those, however, who question this foundation based on the differences in the details in the two descriptions:

Matthew 24:29: Immediately after the distress of those days sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.

Revelation 6:12: I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood.

They point to two (they believe) key differences that distinguish these two passages are referring to different events:

1. In Revelation, the moon's glow becomes “like blood,” where in Matthew 24, it does not shine at all.

2. Matthew's version includes a great earthquake, while John's vision does not.

These differences, they argue, are sufficient to justify the interpretation that these are two different events, occurring at different times.

This is one of the topics we took up in the prewrath discussion group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prewrathonly/) during the month of December.

Does this argument hold up? I don't think so.

First, there is no inconsistency between the moon's light being “darkened” and the moon appearing “like blood.” Any atmospheric phenomenon that would make the moon's light appear to be a dark red color would severely diminish its brightness, even to the point where it might not be giving off useful light. This is similar to describing a glass as being half empty or half full. The words are different, but both phrases are describing exactly the same thing.

Second, the context of both passages describe the same extended series of events: the darkening of the sun, the darkening of the moon, the shaking of the heavens, the coming of Christ, followed by the angels from the found winds, then the rapture of the Church (Matt. 24:29-31 / Rev. 6:12-13, 7:1, 9, 14). The inclusion of an earthquake in one passage and the lack of inclusion of the earthquake in another is not a sufficient justification for separating these two passages.

Look at Paul's description of the translating of living believers at the rapture in 1 Cor. 15:51 and in 1 Thess. 4:16-17. In both versions, he describes the translation occurring at the coming of the Lord, with the blast of a trumpet, and at the rising of the dead. But in 1 Thess. 4:16-17, he mentions that Jesus will come in the clouds, while in 1 Cor. 15:51-52, no clouds are mentioned. Does this, then, justify the contention that these are two separate events? No one seriously makes this suggestion. By the context, we know that these are the same event, one simply with an additional bit of detail beyond the other.

Thus, we cannot legitimately conclude that the appearance of Christ in Matthew 24 and Revelation 6 are different events based on the absence or inclusion of the earthquake. Nor can we justify it based on describing the moon as “turning dark” or “to blood.” We must go by the larger context, and this context strongly supports - even demands - that they must be the same event.

BOOK REVIEW: APOCALYPIC LITERATURE: A READER

One of the challenges in biblical prophecy is separating style from substance. For example, in the Bible, when we read of the sun turning dark, the moon into blood, and the stars falling from the sky in Matt. 24:29, is this to be taken literally? Many Christian interpreters say yes. Others say no, it is simply apocalyptic language and cannot be used as a determiner in the sequence and timing of end-times events.

I have recently become interested in the question of apocalyptic imagery, particularly as it relates to the sequential or non-sequential nature of the seals, trumpets, and bowls in Revelation. So pulled a book off my shelf that I ordered long ago: Apocalyptic Literature, compiled and edited by Mitchell G. Reddish. I hoped, both from the introduction and reading of these non-canonical Jewish and early Christian texts to get a sense for the apocalyptic writing style of the period that would give me some additional perspective.

Many in the posttribulation camp, for example, feel that the seals, trumpets, and bowls overlap. While in modern writings, we would not interpret sequential events as overlapping, especially without any internal identification of an overlap, I am open to the idea that, perhaps in ancient writing, unannounced overlap was common. After all, over thousands of years, styles change. Indeed, I had recently read that this was the case. In this text, which is billed as appropriate for college undergraduate courses, I was looking for scholarly confirmation.

The collection of apocalyptic writings is chosen to represent different non-canonical apocalyptic writing styles in both ancient Jewish and Christian literature. But the introduction is something to be taken with a grain of salt, and if this text is used in undergrad coursework, it is presenting an extremely skewed viewpoint that is potentially as dangerous as it is inaccurate.

The editor, Mitchell Reddish, adopts the view that all apocalyptic literature, including the canonical book of Daniel, was written ex eventu, or after the fact, by a writer using a pseudonym of an ancient historical figure, such as Moses, Abraham, or Daniel. This places all apocalyptic literature in the realm of human origins - works of fiction and imagination - and denying the possibility of divine inspiration. In other words, despite the internal evidence and the testimony of other ancient writers, the only way biblical writings could contain accurate prophecies is for them to have been written by imposters centuries later.

Ironically, throughout the introduction to the book, Reddish repeatedly uses the term "God," as if he accepts the existence of a divine being, and he even refers to Jesus as "the Christ" and refers to His resurrection; and yet his evaluation of all apocalyptic literature, including the writings of the biblical canon, is that that it is nothing more than "protest writing" of human origin. Futurist interpretations of Revelation - or even any attempt to see these prophecies as literal, even in terms of historical fulfillment - are written off as foolishness.

Although this book is a compilation of non-canonical literature, and therefore is not a direct attack on the inspiration of scripture, there is still a dangerous combination of fact and personal belief as it relates to all apocalyptic literature that is packaged as if it is ALL fact. His bias even goes so far as to indicate that most Christians who do venture to study Daniel and Revelation discover them so impenetrable that they give up all hope of finding any clarity within them. This is so blatantly untrue that it makes all of his other unverifiable statements suspect, as well.

In a way, this reminds me of the writings of the Jesus Seminar, whose standard for evaluating Jesus' sayings in the gospels as true or untrue is, "Do I think that Jesus would have said that?" Anything supernatural is disqualified as factual. Automatically disqualifying something based on a preconceived notion or worldview is such poor academia that I find it amazing that the academic world continues to accept it.

As for the remainder of the book itself, this is an interesting collection of apocalyptic literature, and for anyone interested in this genre, it provides a perspective that is important for all students of prophecy. As students of prophecy, it's important to have a broader perspective than our own worldview. If we want to understand the style, organization, and flow of books such as Revelation, it helps to have a larger sense for the genre. The inspiration for the scriptures may have come from God, but the biblical authors used the language and style of their times. And in the world of biblical interpretation, it's all about context, context, context - historical, language, and scriptural. So understanding the other apocalyptic writings of the period has definite value.

So purchase the book, read the literature, but take the introduction for what it is - a single, biased perspective that does not reflect the complete body of scholastic thought, but only one narrow view.


NEW PREWRATH BLOG

Strong Tower Publishing author Dave Bussard has started his own prewrath blog, which can be accessed at http://thepre-wrathtribune.blogspot.com/. This month, he discusses a thorny issue faced by students of prophecy: Is the destruction of the temple described in Matthew 24 the same as the destruction of the temple described in Luke 21? We won't ruin the surprise, but Bussard has some great insights that help to resolve this issue.

This commentary is also available on the Strong Tower Publishing site under the “Talkin' Rapture” column, broken into a three-part series:

Part 1: Argument for the two prophecies being given at different times, to different audiences, relating to different events.

Part 2: Analysis of the 13 most common arguments against this interpretation.

Part 3: Analysis of the “Matthew 24 / Luke 21 as fulfilled” argument and conclusions based on this very comprehensive compilation of evidence. 


MOVIE REVIEWS:

FOUR STARS: Mr. and Mrs. Smith (PG-13). Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. It would be easy not to like this film: Two Hollywood megastars, "hot" subjects of the tabloids and entertainment shows, paired in a film that is transparently designed to ensure box-office sales. And so it is. But it's also a very funny, clever run-up of "spy-vs.-spy" films and a campy, satirical treatment of the big-gun, blow-em-up school of action movie. But you must be patient: The first half-hour makes it seem as if you've rented a bad Woody Allen film. The action is framed in the context of marriage counseling sessions for these two professional assassins, who discover each other's professions only after being married for five or six years, and who are using their campy-dull suburban lives as cover for their real-life activities. However, they work for rival companies, which makes them direct competitors and therefore each other's deadly enemies. Slowly, the story begins to move, and then it's action-central the rest of the way. There's enough sexually suggestive interaction between Jolie and Pitt to explain why they've become a Hollywood couple, but the serious stuff is quickly edited out and left to the imagination. Pitt quietly utters Jesus' name several times, but otherwise the dialogue is clean. This film is probably best for adults who get the in-jokes, can handle a couple of knock-down drag-out fights between the main characters, and who like a lot of firepower, not only at the box office, but also on the screen. Be prepared for unexpected laughs and a lot of silly good fun, as spy-vs.-spy takes on an added Hollywood twist by making the battle of the sexes a literal war…but in a "good way." Enjoy. (Reviewer - G. P.)

THREE STARS: March of the Penguins. Not rated. Despite all of the wonderful praise for this movie, it's basically just a pretty good nature film, showing the life and death struggles of Emperor penguins living in the Antarctic. It's well-made and tells a compelling story of the penguins, who must walk up to seventy miles to their breeding grounds, in extremely cold and harsh conditions, and then walk arduously back (sometimes making several trips) to feed their fragile chicks. There's a little sadness in seeing some of the chicks and eggs frozen on the ice, and some drama as the chicks are attacked by aerial predators. But the tension is brief and quite moderate. And life goes on. Perhaps the story itself is so amazing that it can't fully be captured on film, but somehow, this was not such an extraordinary viewing experience that it can stand up to the rave reviews. Rather, it's just a well-made documentary of the annual life-cycle of some pretty extraordinary creatures. (Reviewer - G. P.)



 

Back to Newsletter Archive



 

Free counters provided by Andale.