ESCHATOS MINISTRIES

Eschatos Ministries is dedicated to teaching biblical prophecy from a futurist, premillennial, prewrath perspective.

  • Become an Eschatos Partner by Giving Monthly

Church History

A Critique of the Pretribulation Interpretation on Daniel’s 70 Weeks’ Prophecy

by

Most pretribulationists make the deep-seated assumption that God does not work with Israel and the church at the same time throughout redemptive history. They believe that God has “postponed his dealings” with Israel during the church age and will resume them once again after the church is raptured. This theological framework impinges directly on their interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, because they cannot allow for God to be working with both Israel and the church at the same time period of the Olivet Discourse. This point fundamentally impacts their interpretation of imminence. I will contend that God has relatively postponed his dealings with Israel during this church age, not absolutely. While Israel is promised national and territorial restoration in the future when Jesus returns, God, nevertheless, is presently working with Israel during the church age. During Christ’s first coming, God extended his salvific program to the Gentiles, while continuing to work with Israel. In this article, I will give a critique of the pretribulation interpretation on Daniel’s 70 weeks’ prophecy. I will explain why pretribulationists believe God does not work with Israel and the church at the same time based on their interpretation of Daniel’s key passage of the 70 weeks of Daniel. Finally, I will critique this interpretation showing its inconsistencies.

Pretribulationism on Daniel’s 70 Weeks’ Prophecy

Why does pretribulationism deny that God works with Israel and the church at the same time? To answer this question, we must turn to one of the most important and fundamental prophecies recorded in the Bible, the book of Daniel:

Seventy weeks have been determined concerning your people and your holy city to put an end to rebellion, to bring sin to completion, to atone for iniquity, to bring in perpetual righteousness, to seal up the prophetic vision, and to anoint a most holy place. So know and understand: From the issuing of the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince arrives, there will be a period of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will again be built, with plaza and moat, but in distressful times. Now after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off and have nothing. As for the city and the sanctuary, the people of the coming prince will destroy them. But his end will come speedily like a flood. Until the end of the war that has been decreed there will be destruction. He will confirm a covenant with many for one week. But in the middle of that week he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt. On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys, until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys. (Dan 9:24–27)

The prophet Daniel anguished over the sins of rebellious Israel praying to God and confessing on behalf of his nation and asking for mercy, forgiveness, and repentance. While Daniel was praying, God sent a prophetic word through the angel Gabriel. Daniel was told that God would take a block of 490 years out from history: “Seventy weeks [i.e. 490 years] have been determined concerning your people and your holy city to put an end to rebellion, to bring sin to completion, to atone for iniquity, to bring in perpetual righteousness, to seal up the prophetic vision, and to anoint a most holy place” (Dan 9:24). In the generations ensuing Daniel, the first 483 years of the 490 were fulfilled by the time of the first century; however, the last seven years remain to be fulfilled. When those last seven years are fulfilled in the future completing the 490 year prophecy, the prophecy of Israel’s salvation will be accomplished. I want to make a couple of comments on this temporal framework. A very important verse is Dan 9:27:

He [the Antichrist] will confirm a covenant with many [Israel] for one week [i.e. seven years]. But in the middle of that week he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt. On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys, until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys. (cf. Dan 12:11)

This verse states “he” will confirm a covenant with many for “one week” (šābûa), which in this Hebrew context denotes seven years. The New English Translation rendering “confirm” may not capture the force of the underlying Hebrew verb gābar. The English Standard Version renders it “make a strong covenant,” which better captures the sense (cf. Ps 12:4); but the sense behind the Hebrew may better indicate oppressing, imposing, or coercing, suggesting that the other party to the covenant may not have much say in the matter. The “he” is an antichrist figure. The covenant may be for protection or permission to reinstitute the sacrificial system in return for some other service or action. It is implied that the Antichrist will break the covenant by stopping the sacrifices and offerings, causing abominations. This will occur in the middle of that week (i.e. the midpoint of the seven-year period). Accordingly, the “many” refers to Israel since the covenant relates to the stopping of the sacrifices and offerings associated with the Jewish temple. However, the “many” could also suggest that most of Israel will support the covenant, but a remnant will dissent.

Pretribulational theologians call this seven-year period the tribulation period. This expression implies that this entire period is characterized by God’s wrath. It is misleading because it is vague and it neglects the biblical distinction between the Antichrist’s great tribulation and the day of the Lord’s wrath. I prefer to use the more neutral biblical terms Daniel’s 70th week or seven-year period. Incidentally, prewrath eschatology views the seven-year period as unfolding in three phases. The first half characterized by the “beginning of birth pangs,” where the pre-revealed Antichrist will position himself politically. The midpoint begins the second phase where the Antichrist is revealed ensued by his great tribulation against the people of God. The third phase occurs when Jesus returns at some unknown point during the second half of the seven year period cutting short the great tribulation and then pouring out his day of the Lord’s wrath upon the wicked and the Antichrist’s kingdom.

Pretribulational theology is part of a larger theological system called Traditional (or Classical) Dispensationalism. It teaches a sharp separation between the church and Israel to the point that not only are there two distinct entities—which I agree— but going as far as to claim that God does not work with them at the same time in history; that is, in the past, present or the future (Contemporary or Progressive Dispensationalism does not make this temporal sharp separation, which is why there are many who are prewrath). Classical Dispensationalism basically claims that when the church was inaugurated at Pentecost, God postponed his activity with Israel and will pick up his program with Israel again only after the rapture of the church, concluding then that God will work only with Israel, and not the church, during the future seven-year period.

Pretrib Inconsistencies

How do pretribs draw this conclusion from Daniel’s prophecy? In order to maintain this interpretation they must make assumptions. They must claim that since the church did not exist during the first sixty-nine “weeks” (i.e. 483 years), it cannot be there during the last seven years. This is fallacious for several reasons:

(1) It is logically wrong-headed, a non-sequitur. The church does exist now.

(2) It is an argument from silence. The passage is addressing Israel. Pretrib teachers are making Daniel’s prophecy say more than it intends. Daniel’s prophecy is not making claims of excluding the church. That assumption is being read into the prophecy. The prophecy is a positive statement for Israel, not a negative statement for the church.

(3) Pretrib theology typically calls Daniel’s 70th week a “Jewish” week. But more accurately it should be called a Gentile week because Daniel’s prophecy states that all seventy weeks (including the last week of seven years) will be characterized by Gentile domination. Only after this block of 490 years is complete, Daniel says, will Israel be redemptively restored. To be sure, God will be working with Israel during that period, but it will be characterized by Gentile domination against Israel until she finds salvation in their messiah.

Daniel’s prophecy to Israel is not replaced by the church. But God extends his redemptive program to the Gentiles, while keeping his promises to Israel.

 

4 Reasons Why the Great Tribulation Does NOT Span Over the Entire Church Age: A Reply to Historicism – Ep. 113

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Historicism is the eschatological position that says the thrust of prophecy in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are fulfilled in the span of the church age. So for example, they would say that the great tribulation was not fulfilled in the first century, nor is it to be fulfilled in the future. Instead, it spans the entire church age (i.e. inter-advental). 4 Reasons Why the Great Tribulation Does NOT Span Over the Entire Church Age: A Reply to Historicism – Ep. 113

You may by surprised to learn that most evangelical scholars are not preterists or futurists—they are historicists. But many are a mixture of preterist-historicist.

There are at least four reasons why Historicism is not a valid interpretation.

For then there will be great tribulation unlike anything that has happened from the beginning of the world until now, or ever will happen. And if those days had not been cut short, no one would be saved.  (Matt 24:22)

 

 

Reply to Thomas Kidd: “When Christians Began Speaking of ‘the’ Antichrist”

by

Since the comment section of Thomas Kidd’s blog does not work, I will post my comments to his blog article here (his blog article is linked below).

Thomas,

Thank you for your article. If I may, I would like to point out a fundamental flaw in your reasoning without being verbose.

I believe you are linguistically stacking the deck by framing the issue around selective evidence (i.e. the word-concept fallacy).

Christians have been talking about “the Antichrist” from the very beginning because they interpreted Scripture as teaching a future Antichrist personal figure that would persecute the last generation of the church. This is shown in the first Christian document outside of the New Testament, The Didache:

“And then the deceiver of the world will appear as a son of God and will perform signs and wonders, and the earth will be delivered into his hands, and he will commit abominations the likes of which have never happened before” (16:4, my emphasis).

I could cite many more like this in early Christianity, who clearly teach both a future and a personal, individual Antichrist figure; e.g.:

“For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule” (5Iren 35:1).

Now, you may claim that the first example above does not use the phrase “the Antichrist”; but then you would be committing the word-concept fallacy, confusing word with the concept. See James Barr’s The Semantics of Biblical Language (ch. 8).

In other words, you are suggesting in your conclusion that Christians did not talk about the concept of a personal eschatological Antichrist figure because the term The Antichrist was not used in most of church history (which is not true in the first place), while at the same time you are limiting your evidence to a single term.

Typically the word-concept fallacy is discussed in biblical texts. But per your argument you can find it in church history. Just another example, Michael Kruger points out when liberal scholars try to argue for a late date of the canon, they focus on the single term “canon,” appealing to the fact that the term “was not used to refer to a list of Christian Scriptures until the fourth century or later” (The Question of Canon, p. 28).

You also assume that in English the lack of an article means that it is not referring to a definite person. My book is titled Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord and yet there is no article in my title, not to mention in the book itself I talk about the Antichrist numerous times without using an article. In the history of the English language, anarthrous ellipsis has been so incredibly common, among other languages as well.

In summary, I believe your analysis and intended conclusion is skewed by excluding important evidence, and thus confusing word with concept.

The notion of the Antichrist is not some recent “dispy” teaching, nor was it some idiosyncratic concept in the corners of church history. The notion of a personal, future, Antichrist figure was the pervasive teaching of our Lord (personified in “the abomination of desolation”), Paul (“man of lawlessness”), John (“Beast”), a host of other terms in the OT, and pervasive in the early church writers.

So to answer your question: “But why do historians routinely assume that sources like this must mean ‘the’ antichrist, even to the point of putting ‘the’ in corrective brackets?”

Perhaps they do this because that was the concept that people were aware of.

Regards,
Alan

 

When Christians Began Speaking of ‘the’ Antichrist

 

 

What Is the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)? – Michael Heiser’s Interview with Holly Pivec

by

LISTEN HERE

The New Apostolic Reformation possesses skewed eschatology, to say the least, containing some of the most bizarre—and unbiblical—interpretations I have come across in my studies.

Holly Pivec (who is prewrath, incidentally) has co-authored two of the standard books on NAR.

A New Apostolic Reformation?: A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement and God’s Super-Apostles: Encountering the Worldwide Prophets and Apostles Movement by R. Douglas Geivett and Holly Pivec

 

 

Revelation 12, the Great Sign, the Woman, the Rapture, and September 23rd 2017

by

I have been asked a number of times what I think about the prophecy of Revelation 12 and the astronomical event this coming September 23rd 2017. Is there prophetic significance to this event? This issue has taken the Bible prophecy world by storm, to say the least. There are a number of factors to examine on this issue. In a couple of weeks there is a California production company flying out to Jersey to interview yours truly on these issues. They are producing a major television documentary on this Bible prophecy issue. They know that the book of Revelation is my special area of scholarly research, so I told them I am happy to give them an interview, but I would be interested in focusing on talking about the various interpretations of this text throughout church history up to the present day, whether this passage is talking about the rapture, and provide my opinion on the astronomical phenomenon.

(You can follow my ongoing series critiquing Scott Clarke’s “Great Sign of Revelation 12” theory at this link.)

“Then a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and with the moon under her feet, and on her head was a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was screaming in labor pains, struggling to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: a huge red dragon that had seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadem crowns. Now the dragon’s tail swept away a third of the stars in heaven and hurled them to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. So the woman gave birth to a son, a male child, who is going to rule over all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was suddenly caught up to God and to his throne, and she fled into the wilderness where a place had been prepared for her by God, so she could be taken care of for 1,260 days.” (Rev 12:1–6 NET)

 

The Myth that Chiliasm (aka Premillennialism) was Condemned in Early Church Councils

by

Francis X Gumerlock (who is an expert in Patristic commentaries on the book of Revelation) refutes the perpetual myth that Chiliasm was condemned in early church councils; for example at the Council of Constantinople  in 381 or the Council of Ephesus in 431.

He begins his essay situating this question by talking about how premillennialism was not the universal position of the early church, that a form of amillennialism was present as well. I think this latter issue receives important qualification that I can take up another day. But I want to draw your attention to the main part of his essay that argues that it is a historical inaccuracy to say that Chiliasm was condemned at any early church council.

You can read his well-documented essay here entitled “Millennialism and the Early Church Councils: Was Chiliasm Condemned at Constantinople.

 

Reply to H. Wayne House on the Claim that APOSTASIA Can Mean ‘Spatial Departure’

by

In my public debate in the cross-examination period with Thomas Ice I honed in on the Greek noun apostastia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. I finally got him to admit in our cross-examination that he was incapable of producing a single document in all of Koine literature where apostasia means a “spatial departure.” (See the video below that starts our discussion on this point and the timestamp at 13:05 where Thomas Ice finally admitted that he could not cite a single instance for the debate).

The term apostasia means a political or religious departure in Koine Greek, not a physical departure such as in a rapture. See my article here.

Thomas Ice relies on H. Wayne House’s chapter “Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3: Apostasy or Rapture” in the book When the Trumpet Sounds  edited by Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy.

In the cross-examination, Ice refers to House’s citations of “papyri,” which are on pages 294–295. When one turns there all they find is two instances of the noun apostasia, both of which are translated as “rebels”! So Ice completely blundered by referring to a source that he was ignorant about—which is why he could not actually cite them in the debate. But worse, Wayne House, Ice’s source, completely blundered by using them in his chapter because they actually support my position that the noun means a political or religious departure.

Moreover, the problem with citing House’s chapter is that in all of his 35 pages of the chapter not once does he ever cite a single instance in Koine literature of the noun apostasia meaning a “spatial departure.” Much of his chapter is filler that is not relevant to the issue. House spends a good time digging himself into the cognate fallacy, a fallacy where you assume a noun’s meaning based on the verb’s form or vice versa. He focuses on the verb forms of apostasia, committing the cognate fallacy.

The 800-pound gorilla remains in the room. Where does the noun apostasia mean a “spatial departure” in Koine literature? 

It reminds me of the frequent claim by pretribulationists that the early church taught a pretrib rapture. They have never been able to produce a single document that indicates a rapture event occurring before the arrival of the Antichrist.

VIDEO: Preterism, the Antichrist, and the Early Church Fathers

by

On Antichrist’s Persecution of the Church: Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian – Ep. 71

In this episode I read the primary literature of quotes from seven early church fathers who explicitly taught that that the Church would suffer at the hands of the Antichrist before Jesus returns: On Antichrist’s Persecution of the Church: Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian.

Not every early church father taught on this topic, but every one that did taught the same view that Christ’s return was not imminent, but first had to encounter the Antichrist’s great tribulation before Jesus returned for his Church.

This issue also refutes preterism in that the very early church fathers viewed a future Antichrist figure, not one that was fulfilled back in the first century.

https://www.alankurschner.com/71

On Antichrist’s Persecution of the Church: Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian | Early Church Fathers – Ep. 71

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

itunes cover art biblical program 3000In this episode I read the primary literature of quotes from seven early church fathers who explicitly taught that that the Church would suffer at the hands of the Antichrist before Jesus returns: On Antichrist’s Persecution of the Church: Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian.

Not every early church father taught on this topic, but every one that did taught the same view that Christ’s return was not imminent, but first had to encounter the Antichrist’s great tribulation before Jesus returned for his Church.

In my previous episode (70) I focused on the Didache, the earliest Christian document outside of the New Testament that taught explicitly that the church would face the Antichrist.

E-Pamphlet: The Early Church Teaching on the Relationship Between the Church and Antichrist

E-Pamphlet: The Dida-What? The Earliest Church’s Teaching on the Antichrist

 

The Earliest Christian Document Outside of the New Testament (the Didache) Explicitly Teaches that the Church Will Face the Antichrist – Ep. 70

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

itunes cover art biblical program 3000We discussed how the very Early Church affirmed Jesus’ teaching that the Church would face the persecution of the Antichrist before the return of Jesus and the resurrection. The earliest Church document outside of the New Testament—the Didache—establishes this point.

The core teaching of prewrath goes back to apostolic times, teaching that the Antichrist’s persecution against the Church must happen before the return of Jesus. I talked about how this document completely contradicts pretribulationism and their teachers who claim the Early Church taught otherwise.

I also listed 15 parallels between the Olivet Discourse as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew with the Didache itself. It can be considered a “commentary” of sorts on the Olivet Discourse. In other words, the fact that the Didache explicitly supports a prewrath teaching and not a pretrib teaching speaks volumes. In addition, I explained that this document refutes preterism.

Get the DIDACHE pamphlet here!

For more on this document see Appendix 5 in my book Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord: What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Return of Christ.

 

How to Prepare for Jesus’ Second Coming: 4 Views that Militate Against Biblical Readiness – Ep. 65

by

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

itunes cover art biblical program 3000I started a series talking about how to prepare for Jesus’ second coming in a biblical fashion. Today I described four views that militate against this readiness.

1. Pretribulationism: The warnings are relegated to “tribulation saints.” We will be raptured out of here so we do not have to concern ourselves with Jesus’ warnings.

2. Preterism: The warnings were only applicable to the church in the first century. No need to concern ourselves with them now or in the future.

3. Historicism: The events are not referring to concrete circumstances in the future, so they only apply generally. They have no discernible features.

4. Pan-millennialism: We cannot know what will happen so don’t concern yourselves with biblical prophecy. Focus on “more important” issues.

 

Links mentioned in program:

Learn Biblical Greek

Prewrath Pamphlets

Bible Prophecy Conference in PA

 

Copyright © 2018 by Alan Kurschner.