In part 1 of 2 parts, I gave some context to one of the most common interpretations for the posttrib view, where the seals, trumpets, and bowls occur roughly at the same time. Indeed, many posttribs believe the corresponding elements are the same events; i.e. the seventh trumpet is the seventh bowl.

Over the years from studying posttribulationism, I am convinced that this posttrib interpretation necessarily forces a framework upon the book of Revelation because of a deep-seated presupposition that they hold.

The presupposition is that the depiction of the battle of Armageddon in Revelation 19 with Christ appearing in the sky with his heavenly armies indicates the beginning of his parousia. Yet, many posttribs recognize this causes a discrepancy because the book of Revelation shows the day of the Lord’s wrath unfolding before the battle of Armageddon during the trumpet and bowl judgments. In other words, how can the parousia begin at the battle of Armageddon but at the same time affirm that his judgment does not begin before his parousia? They also recognize the discrepancy of affirming that God’s people have been resurrected between the sixth and the seventh seal in Revelation 7 and, at the same time, claiming that the resurrection occurs in association with the battle of Armageddon in Revelation 19 that they say initiates the parousia. How then do they attempt to reconcile these problems?

Enter the concurrent-recapitulation interpretation of posttribulationism.

Since this issue is important and a very common point of disagreement between prewrath and posttrib, I will argue that the concurrent-recapitulation interpretation is not only implausible but contradictory. In addition, I will show that the consecutive-progressive framework is the most natural, intended interpretation to the relationship of the seals, trumpets, and bowls.

The prewrath position interprets a sequential chronological framework for the seals, trumpets, and bowls. That is, the seal-trumpet-bowl septets (sets of seven) will happen in a consecutive-progressive fashion with each septet consecutively following each other. For example, the trumpet septet cannot begin until the seventh seal is opened; and the bowl septet cannot begin before the seventh trumpet is blown. The last judgment element of the day of the Lord’s wrath will be the seventh bowl. Accordingly, the seventh seal and the seventh trumpet serve as transitions to the next set of God’s climaxing judgments, culminating with the seventh bowl.

Posttribulationists subscribe instead to a concurrent-recapitulation framework with the septets occurring at the same time with the judgment elements giving different emphases or perspectives. For example, it is said that the sixth seal, sixth trumpet, and six bowl describe the same event from a different angle. Accordingly, the last element in the day of the Lord’s wrath describes the seventh of each septet; thus, the seventh seal, seventh trumpet, and seventh bowl is the same event from different perspectives. And there are those posttribulationists who hold that it does not describe the exact same event, but they affirm that the three elements occur roughly at the same time. For all practically purposes, the main point is that both of these posttrib interpretations do not view the trumpets and bowls occurring after the seventh seal is opened.

I should note that this debate does not hinge on whether each judgment element within the septets succeed each other; that is not the issue. The main question is: does each of the three septets themselves succeed each other (consecutive) or do they simultaneously unfold (concurrent)?

My aim is to demonstrate that the concurrent view is flawed. I will also argue for the consecutive nature to the three septets, showing that the seventh seal does not depict the culmination but the introduction to the day of the Lord via the seven trumpets and culminating in the seven bowls.

There are two main observations from the book of Revelation that lead posttribulationists to conclude the concurrent-recapitulation theory is correct. First, they will point out that the septets possess a similar structure, thinking these depict the same events with different emphases. They draw attention to at least two observations: (1) the first four elements of each septet share a structured unit, and (2) the first two septets, the seals and trumpets, each contain a parenthetical section between the sixth and seventh element.

However, this is a non sequitur (no pun intended) to reason that because they share similar forms, therefore they must possess the same content and occur at the same time. It is a fallacy to equate similarity with identity.

The second observation is where their theory either falls or stands. They will point out similarities between the sixth and seventh element of each septet, along with their parenthetical sections, concluding all three describe the end. They argue that since there cannot be “three ultimate ends,” it follows that they recapitulate the trumpet and bowls back into the seals giving a composite of a single event (see the chart above). Marko Jauhiainen pinpoints their key argument for the recapitulation theory, he writes,

[R]egarding the septets, the recapitulation theory seems to be logically necessary only if one sees the ‘end’ narrated or described before the seventh bowl. That is, if the ‘end’ has indeed been reached already with the seals or trumpets but another ‘end’ is still to come with the seventh bowl, then some sort of recapitulation theory appears to be necessary. Thus, it is the ‘end’ that is being described before the seventh bowl, which both requires recapitulation and constitutes the primary evidence for it (emphasis mine). Jauhiainen, “Recapitulation and Chronological Progression in John’s Apocalypse: Towards a New Perspective,” New Testament Studies 49 (2003): 545–46.

In part 2, I will give reasons against the concurrent-recapitulatory framework of the septets, while at the same time showing that the consecutive-progressive structure is the most natural interpretation.

Links mentioned:

https://www.alankurschner.com/2014/02/22/seals-trumpets-bowls-at-the-same-time-or-one-after-the-other-i-e-concurrent-recapitulation-or-consecutive-progressive/

The post Seals, Trumpets, Bowls in the Book of Revelation: Concurrent-Recapitulation or Consecutive-Progressive? (Part 1 of 2) – Ep. 36 appeared first on ESCHATOS MINISTRIES.

In part two, I explicated the lines of evidence that Colin R. Nicholl adduces that supports the “Restrainer” being Michael the archangel.

1. Contemporary Jewish literature viewed the characteristics of Michael having eschatological pre-eminence as the chief opponent of Satan and Restrainer of God’s people.

2. Michael is viewed as a celestial restrainer of God’s people in Daniel 10–12, the passage serving as the source for Paul’s exposition in 2 Thessalonians 2:3–8.

3. Daniel’s use of the Hebrew term ʿmd comports with the activity of the restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2:6–7.

4. The Greek term parerchomai in Daniel 12:1 of the Septuagint (LXX) means, “to pass by,” which corresponds with the ceasing of restraint in 2 Thessalonians 2:6–7.

5. Early Rabbinic interpretation of Daniel 12:1 perceived Michael as “passing aside” or “withdrawing” just after Antichrist’s establishment near or at the temple mount (Dan 11:45), just before the eschatological unequaled tribulation against God’s people (Dan 12:1).

6. Revelation 12:7–17 supports viewing Michael as the Restrainer because it links the cessation of Michael’s war against the dragon with the unprecedented persecution of God’s people, which is consistent with 2 Thessalonians 2:6–7 and Daniel 11:45–12:1.

Given this evidence the only candidate which can explain the Restrainer being removed is Michael. Other proposals for the Restrainer are hard-pressed to comport with those roles. Thus, this is a strong case that the apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:6–7 refers to Michael the archangel as the Restrainer, whose ministry ceases and causes the eschatological temple to be desolated by Antichrist, ensued by his great tribulation against God’s people.

At the conclusion of the program, I explained Colin Nicholl’s understanding of the masculine and the neuter in reference to Michael, where in verse 6, it is in the neuter gender to katechon (“what holds him back”), and in verse 7, it is in the masculine gender ho katechōn (“the one who holds him back”). Nicholl believes the best explanation is recognizing the Greek can use the neuter gender to refer to a person while the emphasis is on an exceptional quality of the individual (e.g., 1 Cor 11:5; 1 Cor 1:27–28; Gal 3:22; John 3:6; 17:24; 1 John 5:1–4; Matt 12:6). Thus, the neuter in verse 6 refers to Michael with a focus on his restraining ministry, while the masculine in verse 7 refers to Michael himself.

Bibliography:

In the April 2000 volume of The Journal of Theological Studies, Colin R. Nicholl published the seminal article, “Michael, The Restrainer Removed (2 Thess. 2:6-7),” arguing strongly that Michael is the Restrainer. After his journal article was published Nicholl published it as an appendix in his important monograph (which was his dissertation) From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Links mentioned:

https://www.alankurschner.com/2015/05/12/archangel-michael-the-restrainer-removed-2-thessalonians-26-7-part-1-of-2-ep-34/

https://www.alankurschner.com/prewrath-a-very-short-introduction-to-the-great-tribulation-rapture-and-day-of-the-lord/

The post Archangel Michael, the Restrainer Removed, 2 Thessalonians 2:6–7 (Part 2 of 2) – Ep. 35 appeared first on ESCHATOS MINISTRIES.

In this first part of two parts, I explained the context to the Restrainer question.

Who is the “Restrainer”? This question stems from Paul’s text in 2 Thessalonians 2:6–7.  “And so you know what holds him back, so that he will be revealed in his own time.  For the hidden power of lawlessness is already at work. However, the one who holds him back will do so until he is taken out of the way.”

I am from the persuasion that the identity of the Restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2:6–7 is the Archangel Michael. There are several compelling lines of evidence to conclude this, and the value of this conclusion is its consistency to the overall prewrath position, even though it is not an essential tenet to the prewrath view. From a negative point of view it undermines the pretribulational interpretation that the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit.

The Michael interpretation is not a new, since there has been about a dozen theologians and scholars over the last hundred years who have taken this position, even Robert Van Kampen a pioneer of the pewrath position held to this view.

But it was not until the year 2000 that a young Thessalonian scholar by the name of Colin R. Nicholl who came along that would, for many scholars, put the nail in the coffin on the Restrainer debate.

In the April 2000 volume of The Journal of Theological Studies, Colin R. Nicholl published the seminal article, “Michael, The Restrainer Removed (2 Thess. 2:6-7),” arguing strongly that Michael is the Restrainer. After his journal article was published Nicholl published it as an appendix in his important monograph (which was his dissertation) From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Cambridge University Press, 2004.

I gave some context to Paul’s restrainer text that helps situate this question for next week’s episode.

Paul reminds the Thessalonians that they know about the restraining ministry of Antichrist’s revelation: “And so you know what holds him back.” The Thessalonians are under the false impression that the day of the Lord is occurring. To correct their error, Paul teaches that before the Lord’s revelation happens, the Antichrist’s revelation will occur first. But even before the Antichrist’s revelation occurs, Paul explains that the individual who restrains Antichrist’s revelation must be first taken away.

Traditionally, the enigmatic person who restrains has been properly designated “the Restrainer.” Once the Restrainer is removed, this causes Antichrist’s revelation, eventuating in Antichrist taking his seat in the temple and proclaiming himself as God (2 Thess 2:4). When this happens at the midpoint of the seven-year period it will cause the abomination of desolation and the unabated great tribulation will commence.

I also note that the issue of the identity of the Restrainer is not essential to the prewrath position, namely because it does not sway the fact that Paul teaches two events must occur before Christ’s return: the apostasy and the revelation of the man of lawlessness. So one can be prewrath and disagree that it is Michael, because it simply is not inherent to the prewrath position. Conversely , it is possible for pretribs to hold the Michael view. Similarly, the issues of identifying the religion or ethnicity of the Antichrist, the False Prophet, the Great City of Babylon, or the Two Witnesses are not exclusive to a particular a rapture view. That being said, I believe that identifying the restrainer as Michael is the most consistent interpretation, and that it fits well with the prewrath position.

In part 2 next week, I will distill Colin Nicholl’s argumentation, providing the specific lines of evidence.

The post Archangel Michael, the Restrainer Removed, 2 Thessalonians 2:6–7 (Part 1 of 2) – Ep. 34 appeared first on ESCHATOS MINISTRIES.

I replied to pretrib teacher Dr. Mark Hitchcock’s grossly misrepresented explanation of the prewrath position in his workbook on the Book of Revelation in his three bullet points:

PRE-WRATH

“Approximately the last fourth of the tribulation is wrath.”

“Believers will be raptured just before that point.”

“The wrath begins in the sixth seal, so the rapture is between the sixth and seventh seal.”

I took these point by point and explained why prewrath does not affirm these points. Hitchcock is described as a “leading Bible prophecy expert.” But his research on prewrath does not reflect his title. This is typical of many pretrib teachers. But when you have one of the most noted pretrib teachers producing shabby material like this, it does not bode well for pretribulationism.

The post Quick Reply to Pretrib Teacher Mark Hitchcock on Prewrath and the Book of Revelation – Ep. 33 appeared first on ESCHATOS MINISTRIES.

I talked about the nature of the fulfillment of Matthew 24:14: “And this gospel of the kingdom  will be proclaimed throughout the whole world  as a testimony  to all nations, and then the end will come.”

I first explained the structure of Matthew 24 which situates Matthew 24:14 for its meaning. Verse 14 completes the major section in Matthew 24, where v. 15 begins a parenthetical section.

Then I talked about why I do not believe the gospel prophecy in Matthew 24:14 refers to the Great Commission in Matthew 28. Instead, I believe Matthew 24:14 refers to the angelic proclamation portrayed in Revelation 14. It will happen just before the return of Jesus to judge the world. It is a gospel of judgment, warning the world that they need to give God glory, lest they experience the impending wrath of God at Christ’s return.

Links mentioned in the program:

Register for upcoming rapture debate.

https://www.alankurschner.com/debate-on-the-rapture/

Charles Cooper’s article on Matthew 24:14.

http://www.solagroup.org/products/pdf_files/parousia08.pdf

The post Will the Church or an Angel Fulfill the Gospel Prophecy in Matthew 24:14? – Ep. 32 appeared first on ESCHATOS MINISTRIES.