|
Welcome to the
December 2007 edition of Strong Tower Publishing's e-newsletter.
IN THIS ISSUE:
* Looking for Christmas Gifts? Try Revelation Jewelry
* Responses to Reader Questions
* Movie Reviews
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHRISTMAS
Looking for last-minute Christmas presents for that special
prophecy fanatic in your life? Try Revelation jewelry. It's a
class of jewelry designed using the stones described in
Revelation 21 as being part of the base of the New Jerusalem:
jasper, sapphire, chalcedony, emerald, onyx (sardonyx),
carnelian (sardius), peridot (chrysolite), aquamarine (beryl),
topaz, chrysoprase, zircon swarovski crystal (jacinth), and
amethyst.
Our personal favorite is the Revelation necklace designed by
Mark and Greta Hanesworth, sold through the Art of Ohio website:
www.artofohio.com/product.php?productid=16485
Mark and Greta are old family friends of H. L.'s, and she has
fond childhood memories of summers spent playing in the
waist-high grass on their farm, picking eggs from beneath
chickens, and sitting around the campfire in the teepee with
Mark and Greta and her family, singing crazy Appalachian folk
songs around the fire.
Another site offering Revelation jewelry is Morning Star.
Marianne makes both Revelation necklaces and bracelets in
sterling silver and gold-filled.
www.morningstarjewelry.com/Revelation%20Jewelry.htm
RESPONSES TO READER QUESTIONS:
Q: May the LORD bless the Strong Tower ministry as you labor
in His kingdom during these trying times. I want to thank you
for the Strong Tower Publishing e-newsletter. I have a friend in
Israel who believes the rapture will take place immediately
after the Great White Throne Judgment. I, of course, am a
prewrath believer. I have searched the scriptures for evidence
for his stance. He doesn't wish to share any comments or
scriptures. Have you heard any debates about this or run into
anyone who believes this approach? If so, would you mind sharing
what scriptures they use? It doesn't line up with posttribbers.
Thank you for your input.
A: I have not heard of this view and can't think of a
single scripture to support it. It is entirely possible that the
reason your friend doesn't want to share scriptures is that he
doesn't know the scriptures well enough and knows that he can't
defend the position. One way to deal with the situation is
simply to ask questions. "What do you think about this...?"
Gently -- gradually. Not trying to be pushy or overwhelming.
Just once in awhile, let a question drop. You may get the wheels
turning.
Q: Revelation 6:14 says: “And the heaven departed as a
scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island
were moved out of their places.” Revelation 16:20 says: “And
every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.” Where
is the difference? I understand that in Revelation 16:20, the
Lord will be judging the nations in His wrath. But in Revelation
6:14? The wrath of God has not begun here yet. So, who is dying
in Revelation 6:14? Christians? When a mountain or island is
moved from its original location, that is a catastrophe. Can you
please help me understand this?
A: The Revelation is an apocalypse, which was a style of
writing common in the first and second centuries (and beyond).
In apocalyptic language, descriptions are often exaggerated in
order to make a point. While we in the twenty-first century tend
not to relate to this kind of writing, it was common when
Revelation was written. There are many apocalypses collected
from antiquity (see “Apocalyptic Literature: A Reader”), and
this kind of language was widely used. It was also used in the
Old Testament prophecies, such as Isaiah, and we also know that
these prophecies were not always fulfilled in strict
literalistic fashion.
The challenge for us, today, is to determine what, in
Revelation, should be taken in a strict literalistic sense (that
the mountains actually flee away) and what is to be taken as
apocalyptic language. Since the entire book of Revelation is
written as an apocalypse, we have to be very careful not to
hyper-literalize where it's not warranted. It is entirely
possible that these passages are merely describing God's
cataclysmic power and judgment, not a literal moving of every
mountain. After all, if every mountain was actually moved
out of place, not a single person would survive.
Anyone studying Revelation should read other apocalypses to get
a sense of how this book fits into the larger genre. Ultimately,
the goal is to understand what the original writer intended.
Keep in mind, too, that even if we read something as apocalyptic
language, this doesn't mean that the interpretation isn't
"literal." When Jesus said, "I am the door," He didn't mean for
us to see Him as three timbers nailed together. The literal
interpretation is the one He intended, which was the gateway to
the Father. Likewise, if the writer of Revelation intended to
use apocalyptic language to make a point of God's cataclysmic
judgment, if we take it in a hyper-literal fashion, we are
actually not reading it literally. We would be reading it like
arguing that Jesus said He was a set of timbers. By
over-literalizing, we are actually moving away from the intended
point, not towards it.
This a huge challenge for us in interpreting Revelation. Does
the water really turn to blood? Are there literal scorpions who
sting people? Those who read this as apocalyptic are often
criticized for "not taking Revelation literally,” but the impact
of apocalyptic language on our interpretation is something that
we must at least consider. Revelation is an apocalypse,
the same way that the Psalms are poetry. We have to read it as
the genre that it is -- and interpret it within the rules of
that genre -- while still understanding the scripture as the
holy, inerrant Word of God.
Q: I am prewrath, but I have a question concerning
Revelation 7:13-15: "Then one of the elders answered, saying to
me, 'Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they
come from?' And I said to him, 'Sir, you know.' So he said to
me, 'These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation,
and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the
Lamb.'” If we believe this is the rapture of the church, where
are the others? Why do we see only those who came out of the
Great Tribulation? Where are the saints who have died since Acts
2?
A: The scriptures are silent on this issue, so all I can
do is give you my interpretation. That is that the Revelation
was written to give hope to those who endure the horrific period
described in its pages. Thus, the focus is on comforting and
encouraging them, not all saints throughout the ages (although,
clearly, it does apply to all saints in some sense, since all of
scripture is profitable for teaching and exhortation). This does
not mean, however, that the other saints are not seen in this
group. Think of it like the weather. If the weatherman says, “It
will rain in Boggs Township on Thursday,” it doesn't mean that
it will rain only in Boggs Township and nowhere else. Likewise,
this passage. Just because it says, “those who come out of the
Great Tribulation” does not automatically mean that the rest of
the saints are excluded.
Q: I read somewhere -- and I don't know where -- that the
Lord would judge the world with fire. I have searched and
searched and can't find the reference anywhere. I was going over
Revelation and noticed that we don't see the Lord using fire as
a means of his wrath/judgment until after the seventh seal. Can
you help me? Also, something that you might already know but the
Lord just showed to me is that the word "tribulation" is not
used after we see those who have come out of the Great
Tribulation (Rev 7:14).
A: You might be thinking of 2 Peter 3:10-12: "But the day
of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the
heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will
melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in
it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be
dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy
conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of
the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved,
being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?"
Throughout the Old Testament, the Day of the Lord is described
as a day of wrath, judgment, fire, and brimstone.
The Day of the Lord starts after the opening of the sixth seal,
but it contains many different elements and different purposes,
only one of which is to judge the earth with fire. It is also
the time that all Israel will be saved and that the Messiah will
be anointed King of Israel and reign a thousand years in peace
and prosperity.
Thus, there is no conflict with the fact that we don't see fire
or brimstone in Revelation until after the seventh seal, since
this is only one of many purposes of this Day. Just as in, when
you go on vacation, for example, you have lots of things to
during this one period of time -- vacation -- but they do not
all happen at once; they happen in their proper course of time.
In fact, Peter's reference to the earth being burned up and all
its works being burned up could also refer to God's creation of
a new heaven and a new earth, which does not come until the end
of the Day of the Lord in Revelation 20 and 21.
Yes, God is sparing in His references to "tribulation." In fact,
Marvin Rosenthal has pointed out that there are only three or
four uses of the term "tribulation" in a future, prophetic
context, and they all refer to one period of time -- the great
tribulation.
Q: I received your book and have read it once already. It
brought out some interesting points that I never saw before.
There is one thing, though, that comes to mind. I got the
impression that you might not consider the trumpets the wrath of
God. Any comments would be welcome.
A: I have a very difficult time justifying the trumpets
as the wrath of God, since it is clear that there will be
believers alive during this time period. I address this in
detail in the Talkin' Rapture column at
www.strongtowerpublishing.com/trumpets.htm.
Others have wrestled with this problem, as well, and some
resolve it by suggesting that the trumpets are a generalized
wrath, while the bowls are “eschatological wrath.” To me, saying
the bowls are “eschatological wrath” rather than “generalized
wrath” is like calling a woman “a little bit pregnant” versus
“completely pregnant,” but I understand the argument. Rather
than go into it here, however, I invite you to read the Talkin'
Rapture column, which addresses the discussion in detail.
MOVIE REVIEWS
The Prestige. (PG-13, two stars) This movie may please
connoisseurs of magic, but it's too long and seemingly
purposeless beyond playing out a tale of revenge. It concerns
two magicians who become fierce rivals as the result of a deadly
accident and one's attempt to repay his adversary by rendering
an eye-for-eye as payback for what he has lost. Scarlett
Johansson seems miscast as a woman caught between these two men,
and sharing her affections with both, in this oddly unromantic
rivalry. The movie is generally clean, though includes some
violence, and a setting that puts its characters in violent and
life-threatening situations. Best for adults.
The Illusionist. Four stars. This is much better than
"The Prestige." It offers a more interesting story and is a
better, more satisfying film overall. It involves a plot that
must free a young woman from the overbearing domination of
Vienna's Crown Prince Leopold; a magician's love, since
childhood, for the Prince's intended fiancée (played moderately
well by Jessica Biel); and his clever scheme for working his
"magic" to free her, while avoiding the repercussions of defying
the Prince. Edward Norton, as the magician, is very good as the
counterpoint to a police inspector assigned to discover his
secrets, played by Paul Giamatti. Notably, all the "illusions"
are said to be true to the techniques of the time. Clean and
entertaining.
Night at the Museum. Three stars. This is an okay movie,
if a bit silly. It's pretty much what you'd expect. The story is
told with humor and is generally fun to watch. The plot involves
a gang of three old-timers, scoundrels all -- Dick Van Dyke,
Mickey Rooney, and veteran character actor Bill Cobbs -- who are
looking to steal treasures from the museum to support their
retirement. Ben Stiller plays an out-of-work father trying to
impress his young son by getting a job as a night watchman. In
the after-hours, things come alive. Nice supporting roles played
by Robin Williams and Owen Wilson. Good for all ages.
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.
|
