Welcome to the November 2007 edition of Strong Tower Publishing's e-newsletter. In this issue:

* H. L.'s Shameless Political Plug
* A New Thought on the Word 'Church' in Revelation
* Responses to Reader Questions
* Movie Reviews

H. L. Nigro's Shameless Political Plug

I don't know about you, but national politics have always pained me because I want what I can't have - a candidate willing to take the Republican position on moral values and yet willing to take the Democrats' stand on education and the environment. Every presidential season, I hope for something different. Every presidential season, I am disappointed. Until this one. This year, I actually have a candidate I am excited about. It is Mike Huckabee.

Mike Huckabee is a former governor of Arkansas and former Baptist preacher. When you listen to Huckabee speak, there are three thing that distinguish him.

1. He doesn't sound like a suit - he has clearly thought through the issues and his ideas are his own.

2. His ideas take into consideration the root issues. Consequently, he raises issues and brings forth ideas you don't hear anywhere else.

3. He sees it as his moral responsibility, not just to stand for the unborn, but to be a good steward of the environment and to support education.

To many, Huckabee is an unfamiliar name, but he's been rising in the polls. According to the Rasmussen Reports, he's dead even or, on occasion, ahead of Mitt Romney and John McCainin the daily national polls. In Iowa, he comes in second or third, depending on which poll you view. As his media exposure and public profile rise, so does his funding.

To get a full range of Huckabee's ideas, visit www.mikehuckabee or see the interview with PBS' Charlie Rose taped November 1 at www.charlierose.com.

- H. L. Nigro


A New Thought on the Word "Church" in Revelation

By Dave Bussard

While challenging a pre-tribber the other day, I had an epiphany. I think it's another piece that helps solve the question that many have had concerning why the word “church” is not used in Revelation 4 through 21 when John writes of the Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord.

I suggest that the reason John used the word “church,” or “churches,” frequently throughout Revelation 1-3 and then abruptly stopped using the word is quite obvious. It's like so many of the other puzzles I've encountered in the book that have been staring me back in the face for years, yet I have walked past them one hundred and one times, only to be smacked in the back of the head one day by the simplicity of the answer.

The word “church,” or “churches,” is used seventeen times in the NASB through Chapter 3 (eighteen times in the original Greek). Then, in Chapter 4, the usage of the word halts. Pre-tribbers will inform us that it's because the words said to John, “Come up here,” in Revelation 4:1 are symbolic of the pre-trib rapture. Thus, the need to use the word “church” from this point on is no longer valid because the Church is gone. They say that the earthly Church no longer exists and that the term “saints” in Revelation describes what they call the “Tribulation saints.”

But could there be another explanation? Could it be that the reason that the word “church” is so frequently used before this time, but is not used afterwards, is because the text, itself, shifts? Is it possible John did not stop using the word "church" in Chapter 4 because he never used it in the first three?

I know. I just said a moment ago that the word “church” is used eighteen times up to Chapter 4, but there's a hitch. Notice that in the first three chapters, it is Jesus giving John the words to write. Then John wrote exactly what Jesus told him to do: "To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write...” and so on. But from Chapter 4 on, the text shifts. It is no longer Jesus giving John the exact words. Instead, the words are straight from John's pen as he attempts to describe what he's seeing.

If this is the case, why should John have to use the word “church”? They're his thoughts and he can write in any style he wishes as long as it coincides with the vision he is seeing.

Some would say that John does use the word “church” in his own words. He does so when he starts his first letter to the seven churches: “To the seven churches in the province of Asia” (Rev. 4:4). But John is not addressing the Church, as in the universal Church. He is addressing “the seven churches” in Asia. These are seven local churches who represent seven segments of the universal Church, and he is addressing them in the same manner that Jesus told him to do: “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches” (Rev. 1:11).

When John began choosing his own words in Chapter 4, as in the word “saints,” his message was not limited to the seven churches. Now, he is writing to the universal Church! The word “saints” is used 48 times in the NASB before the book of Revelation. Every time, except maybe three where it refers to angels or Old Testament saints, the word refers to the Church. So why, in Revelation 4-21, would the term “saints” somehow, all of a sudden, not mean the universal Church? Why ascribe to it some new pre-trib meaning?

Guess what? As soon as John's vision of the end is over, the text shifts again. Once again, John is no longer writing of the events with words of his own choosing. Now, he is writing the words that are straight from the lips of Jesus, the word “churches” reappears and is used to conclude the book of Revelation!

“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches” (Rev. 22:16).

I bet the true believers within the seven churches listened when they were told that the words were for them. Maybe pre-tribbers should listen, also.


* * * Note from H. L. : It is interesting that John does not use the word “church” in his other writings, either. The only he uses the word “church” in his gospel and the books of 1, 2, 3 John is in 3 John 1:10, in which he is clearly addressing a specific local church body.

For more of Dave's blog, visit www.thepre-wrathtribune.blogspot.com

RESPONSES TO READER QUESTIONS:

Q: From Georgia (just outside of Savannah). I have been here at this church for eight years.  What book could you recommend as a commentary on the book of Revelation from the prewrath standpoint?  Also, where can I find information on the stance of church history in regards to the timing of the rapture?  I have read that we have 1800 years of church history on our side in regards to believing the Church will go through some portion of the Tribulation.  Which church fathers wrote on this and is pre-trib mentioned anywhere in church history before 1830's?  Thanks so much and for all you do!

A: In terms of a prewrath commentary on Revelation, I would recommend Don Salerno's Revelation Unsealed. I've only had a chance to read the first few chapters, but it was excellent, and all of the reviews I've heard from other prewrathers indicate that it is a solid, very useful volume. Salerno is also a member of the prewrath discussion group, in and out.

As for church history, the challenge is that, until the last century, we didn't really have names for the various positions. The writers simply wrote what they believed, and it wasn't until the 1900s that the views really congealed into coherent, well-argued positions. Thus, it's very difficult to really nail down who believed what when. The writings of the church fathers, for example, weren't defenses of one rapture position or another. Any references to the end times were secondary illustrations to a larger point. Most of them would fit either the historicist or the posttrib views.

Unless someone recently has sat down to objectively outline the history of the rapture positions, I think it's been up to the rest of us to sort through the best we can.  The closest I've seen is Gary Vaterlaus' history of amillennialism in Sola Scriptura magazine, which I pulled from to create my brief history of the rapture views in Before God's Wrath. But it's a short history intended only to give some insight into how pretrib could have taken hold at the time that it did and is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the history of the rapture debate.

You can find a selection of the church fathers' views on the end times in Appendix F of Before God's Wrath: “What the Church Fathers Taught About the Church and the Coming of the Antichrist.” But as for a definitive history, I can't help on this one, but unless someone has written a text that I'm not aware of, this one is still up for grabs.

Q: Is there any difference between “parousia” and “epiphaneia”? Pretribbers say there is. Please explain.  

A: “Parousia” simply  means “coming,” and in the Greek, the word has the connotation “to come and to stay.” In English, we might say, “My family is coming to visit.” You don't mean that your family is walking in the door and then walking out again. They are coming to visit for awhile. The word parousia used this way, not just in the New Testament, but throughout ancient literature. It is used of visiting dignitaries, for example, and Paul has also used it of himself when talking about coming to visit a local church. Epiphaneia, on the other hand, carries with it the visible manifestation of a hidden deity.  This term is usually translated “appearing.” But does this mean that there are two comings? Hardly! Scripture is clear that, when Christ returns, it will be both an extended stay and a sudden manifestation of His deity. Thus, an attempt to suggest that these terms require two different comings severely compromises the scriptures. A detailed discussion of this issue, written by Oswald T. Allis, can be found in Appendix E of Before God's Wrath.

Q: Prewrath teaches that the Philadelphian church will somehow be spared from the full brunt of the Antichrist's wrath. Isn't this just pretrib light? 

A: No, for two reasons: First, because this is not the corporate Church as a whole. It is only one segment of the corporate Church -- those believers who have kept the commands of Christ. Second, the Philadelphian church is comprised of those who have kept Christ's commands, who have not strayed from their first love, and who have persevered in their daily lives. In the passage addressed to this church, Jesus tells us that these believers have already passed the test -- they have gotten an "A" -- and that "being kept" is a reward for faithful service. The other five churches (excluding the persecuted church) require further testing.

I agree that, once the treaty is signed, most Christians will abandon the pretrib position. The danger, at that point, is two-fold: In 2 Thessalonians 2:11, Paul tells us that God will send upon the world a delusion "that they will believe the lie." Not all who profess to know Christ are truly saved. If some people's mistake about the timing of the rapture causes them to be complacent, and this complacency keeps them from accepting Christ as Savior and Lord, they may not have a second chance if they fall under this delusion. Second, although many believers will "wake up" at the signing of the treaty, the kind of faithful service that allows the Philadelphia church to be "kept" is not something you develop at the last minute. It is a reward for faithful service. Those in the compromising, lukewarm, corrupt, loveless, and dead churches may be saved, but they will still undergo the further refining hand of our loving and gracious Lord.

Q: What do you think about the following passage in light of prewrath? 

Revelations 9:3-6: "Then from the smoke came the locusts on the earth, and they were given authority like the authority of scorpions. They were told not to damage the grass of the earth or any green growth or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were allowed to torture them for five months, but not to kill them.... And in those days people will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will flee from them."

Does it mean that there will be Christians around after the rapture (newly converted)? Obviously, this occurs during God's wrath.  Is it the Jews who remain?

A: Prewrath holds that there will be believers on earth after the rapture. In fact, it holds that the 144,000 will be the first converts, most likely biblically knowledgeable Jews who know the scriptures but have not yet accepted Christ as Messiah. When He appears in the sky to rapture the Church, these elect will recognize their error and believe right away. Hence, they are the firstfruits. Paul also tells us that, by the end of all things, “all” Israel will be saved. If this refers to the end of the 70th Week, then this reinforces that there will, in fact, be at least some salvation during the 70th Week. Thus, according to prewrath, there will be a distinction between saved and unsaved during the Day of the Lord during the latter part of the week.

Q: In Revelation 6:12-14, we read: “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.  And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind.”  Here, the sun, moon, and stars are darkened. However, in  Revelation 8:12, we read: “Then the fourth angel sounded: And a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them were darkened. A third of the day did not shine, and likewise the night.”

If we believe that the seals, trumpets, and bowls of Revelations are to be taken in chronological order, where can we find where the lights of the heavens are turned back on?

A: In the modern evangelical world, we pride ourselves on taking the text of scripture literally, but sometimes, taking the text literally means understanding that sometimes it is not literal, such as when the text uses figures of speech, metaphors (something is “like” something else), and in this case, hyperbole (literary exaggeration). Not only does scripture use the language of everyday people, in which we use figures of speech as part of our “literal” communication, but Revelation is also an apocalypse, which is a literary style of writing used in the ancient world. Apocalypses used lots of symbolism and hyperbolic language.

While Revelation is God-breathed scripture, because it uses the style of the apocalypse (just as the Psalms used the style of poetry), I don't think we should be trying to nail down every word as being literal. In this case, John is communicating a specific event, but I don't think we should read here that, because the stars are “darkened,” at some point, they need to be turned back on. Perhaps that they are darkened is literary hyperbole to communicate apocalyptic judgment. Perhaps there is an atmospheric event that does, in fact, temporarily darken their light (such as heavy cloud cover). Perhaps this scripture is referring to something else. Regardless, I think looking for the lights to need to be turned back on is reading more into the text than John intended.


MOVIE REVIEWS

Inside Man. A Spike Lee film with Denzel Washington. A bank robbery apparently goes wrong, but is really a deliberate cover for stealing diamonds from the vault of a Nazi sympathizer who got rich from the wealth extracted from the Jews during WWII. An improbable and very tiring and too-long movie involving bank hostages, negotiations with the head of the robbery gang, the extensive shifting and intermixing of hostages with the gang of perpetrators--all of whom are disguised by the same clothing and face masks. One wonders why they bothered making it.  (1 star)

Blood Diamond. Excellent film, with global scale and epic themes. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou (Amistad). Well worth the dramatic violence that comes with the story, though it is always tastefully filmed. Exposes the issue of the corrupt "conflict diamond" trade thriving in the Sudan just a few years ago, as well as the continuing issue of war crimes against children, who are still being used by thuggish gang leaders to inflict murderous raids on innocent villagers.  Powerful performances and story line, including the saga of a father (Honunsou) who refuses to lose his son or his family to this practice, and a rogue diamond smuggler (DiCaprio) who is faced with the ultimate choice between self-aggrandizement or self-sacrifice. Clean, but for mature audiences. A memorable film. (5 stars)

The Painted Veil. Based on a Somerset Maugham novel. This is a good film, if rather depressing. A socialite marries a civil servant, a doctor, to spite her mother. He carts her off to remote China/Shanghai to get her away from an adulterous relationship; there, he volunteers both himself and his wife to go to a village suffering from cholera outbreak. Themes of marriage, infidelity, self-sacrifice. But don't expect a happy ending. (4 stars)


Note: You are receiving this newsletter as someone who has recently contacted or ordered from Strong Tower Publishing. If you would like to be removed from this list, simply reply to the subject line with the words "REMOVE NEWSLETTER."
 

Back to Newsletter Archive

 

Free counters provided by Andale.