Spiritual Fitness; -Daniel Takes His Pulse(s)

This originally appeared in the Moriel Bulletin of August 2013.

One of my favourite books is Daniel, not just because it contains some of the most important eschatological prophecies in the Bible; (Jesus' dialogue in Matthew 24, and the entire book of Revelation being vitally connected to it), but because it contains some of the most vivid depictions of living godly in the midst of persecution and standing for the LORD in the very heart of Babylon itself. We see the great trials of faith of for Daniel's and his friends with the Fiery Furnace, and the Den of Lions. However we should take note of the progression in the book. The fight of faith for Daniel and his friends begins not at the moment of potential martyrdom, but in chapter One.

“And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king. Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael,... But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. ...said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants. So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days."

Daniel purposed he would not defile himself with the meat and wine of the king of Babylon. Of course under the Old Covenant a faithful Israelite would avoid foods not permitted in the Torah. Interestingly enough the Torah does not mention wine itself as being unkosher. Perhaps underlying this there was an issue with the food (Aramaic pat-bag: delicacies) and wine of the king of Babylon being connected to idolatry in some way as well, in a manner reminiscent of that which Paul addressed the Corinthians about. The main application that I want to make here is typological. Babylon is THE major scriptural type of a world religious and value system that is directly opposed to God. It is typological of an evil and seductive religious system, that if it cannot deceive, entice or enslave the people of God on the one hand, will attempt to persecute and destroy them on the other. Daniel saw that if he began to compromise and let a little of that which is tainted by Babylon's idolatrous system in, it would begin a process which would cause problems further on down the line.

The Wine Of Babylon

Typologically wine has a number of different meanings, but in connection with Babylon they are wholly negative: it is called the wine of the wrath of her fornication; that is the wine of the wrath arising of her immorality and idolatry. Wine can lull us to sleep, or leave us disoriented, like a drunk in the street; vulnerable and ready to be mugged, or lay us open to further seduction in our intoxicated state. At the very least it can make us insensible just at the moment when we need to be alert and watching, The wine of Babylon is particularly dangerous as it leads us into actively sinning and drifting away from the LORD. Scripture tells us very clearly in the Last Days the love of many would grow cold because iniquity would abound. “Once Saved Always Saved” was never part of Jesus doctrine nor that of the Apostles or the Early Church. Paul says that if we are drunken and fall asleep, then the Day of the LORD (which is not the Tribulation, but when Jesus visibly returns in glory to gather up His saints and punish the ungodly), has every possibility of catching us unawares too. It shouldn't but it could, something that both Jesus and the Apostles said could happen to genuine believers (Luke 12:45-48; 1 Thess. 5:4-8 ; 1 Pet. 2:15-22, you will look in vain for a “Once Saved Always Saved” doctrine in the Scriptures. In its proper biblical context Eternal Security is always conditional).

Spiritual Junk Food

To eat of the delicacies of Babylon means we ingest its essence and values, they become a part of us, and change our makeup. They will weaken us, subtly sap our spiritual vitality, incrementally crush our spiritual vigour. To draw a parallel with modern day nutrition, it's like trying to live on a diet of Megaburgers, Chicken Mucknuggets, sugar filled shakes, snacks and sodas and the processed rubbish that is passed off as food. In fact we know that eating this stuff is a sure but steady way to obesity, diabetes, clogged arteries and congestive heart failure (It does make you wonder if the plague of obesity and Type 2 Diabetes in the UK and USA is typological of the spiritual state of those nations, but that's another issue).

Typlogically speaking we are exiled in Bablylon until our Lord returns in glory and frees us. As believers the King of Babylon comes to offer his delicacies, Satan wants to re-program our system of values and priorities, to squeeze us into the world's mould (Rom 12:2). One of the primary ways that he does this is through the entertainment media, which when not seducing us with the world's value sytem acts as a marvellous sinkhole down which our precious time disappears to no profit. Ever done that come home from work relax after tea-time flop in front of the telly thing, and wonder how it got to midnight, finding yourself too tired to read even a small portion of God's Word? So we go to bed exhausted, wake up later than we intended and rush to work without that needed time with the LORD? For most people and many believers too this is a pattern of life. 

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying its sinful to own a TV set, but somebody once defined insanity as repeating the same course of action but expecting different results each time. If this is our lifestyle then somethng is seriously wrong! In this modern era the entertainment industry has become the siren-song of Satan to seduce the saints into sin and serial squandering of the precious and all too finite time we have left to grow and develop in the knowledge of God and His Word. Satan uses the world system and its entertainments very powerfully indeed against the believer. He uses the bright lights of Babylon to draw strangers and pilgrims in from the wilderness, so he can entrap them in his allurements. We may be exiles in this world, trapped in the Land of Babylon awaiting our deliverance, but we dare not settle down in its city and become naturalised citizens! We seek a city that has foundations whose builder and maker is God.

God's Healthy Diet Plan

In Hebrews 12 we are warned not just to cast off entangling sins, but every other encumberance which can hinder our walk with God, and one of the biggest stumbling blocks for modern day believers is mismanagment of our time! Jesus called these things "the lusts of other things entering in, which choke the word and render it unfruitful".

If the spiritual spring has gone out of our step, if we feel jaded and exhausted in our inner man, we need to be realistic with ourselves and look at our priorities. In Genesis 18, if Abraham was a modern Christian, he would have asked the LORD and his angelic companions to "Sit down over there for while will you, -I just have to catch this episode of Coronation Street!". Of course in reality Abraham dropped everything in order to serve the LORD and sit with Him. We should be mindful for the LORD to be lord of our lives indeed, means that He be master of our time also.

If Daniel had not set his heart to be faithful and not defile himself with the wine and delicacies of Babylon, he may not have had the strength to stand in the later much more severe trials. If he had not run with the footmen he would not have been able to run with the horses. He that is faithful in little will be faithful in much.

We are living in highly dangerous and volatile times and the LORD is not going to snatch us away at any moment a la J.N. Darby's delusions, (Darby, in addition to founding a self-excommunicating and controlling cult-group, promulgated an eschatology that flat out denies explicit teachings of the Scriptures by adopting a spiritualising hermeneutic to insert teachings into the Body that can not be honestly derived from Scripture. Not only so, but he held to a form of Neo-Marcionism, that hacked the Scriptures up and effectively wrote major parts of the New Testament off. No one should claim that these errors are the product of the work of the Spirit.), but things can change so rapidly that we could quite possibly be standing on the very cusp of the Tribulation itself At the very least Europe and the USA are fast becoming places where faithful believers in Jesus are being officially persecuted. Remember democracy and religious freedom are a historical anomaly in human history, not the norm. Are we ready for this? Unless we prepare ourselves for what lies ahead, we imperil ourselves. The junk food of Babylon can cripple our spiritual health and effectiveness, and render us unfit for service, or even worse.

“Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse. As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.” (v.16)

Daniel and his friends chose to eat pulses and drink water instead of eating Babelburgers and Nebuchadnezzar McNuggets. Interestingly enough the Hebrew word for pulses is "zaronim" from the Hebrew word "zera" -a seed, a type of the Word of God (see Matthew 13, Mark 4 etc) . We are to desire the word that we might grow thereby.

“at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat.” (v. 15)

Consequently they enjoyed better health than those who ate from the King of Babylon's portion. They were not just better equipped for the trials ahead but God also blessed them for their faithfulness, and gave them wisdom and understanding above that of their peers, in particular that which related to the Last Days. To him who hath more shall be given but to him that hath not even that which he hath shall be taken from him. We all desperately need understanding for the days ahead, but it comes at a price, that of forsaking the things not needful and choosing the good portion.

War is Declared

In a strange parallel to the departure of peace from Europe and the US; it has now also gone from the Premillennial and pro-Israel community as well. Few can be unaware by now, that the disagreement over timing of the Rapture went nuclear at the recent Berean Call Conference. Dr Paul Wilkinson of Prophetic Word Ministries International dropped the "H-Bomb" during his rebuttal of the Left Behind or Led Astray DVD, stating that those who do not agree with his Pretribulational Rapture position are holding to "terrible heresy". I know Jacob and others have addressed some of the points raised by Dr Wilkinson, but no one as yet seems to have covered this one, so I thought it good to include it in this bulletin.

It is not wrong to state one's position with passion, but laying aside the personal accusations made there, which are a separate issue; I am not sure that Dr Wilkinson, (who stands by and will not withdraw his heresy accusation) truly understands biblically what the term heresy means, or its implications, or he would not have used it in such an uninformed and offhand manner.

1. What actually is Heresy anyway?

Heresy has been defined in three main ways:

Denial of the fundamentals of the faith as laid down in the the Creeds. The wording of the historic Creeds is very specific, they were formulated as a standard of orthodoxy in response to heresy. Such a definition, however, is inadequate, as it only holds good in the areas covered by the Creeds, and because some later confessions of faith such as the Westminster Confession contain calvinistic elements that many would regard as defective or seriously erroneous at best and the logical implications of which are even blasphemous, as they impugn God's holy character.

Denial of prevailing orthodoxy. This is how most dictionaries would define it, but such a definition only holds good as long as the Church is in good shape doctrinally. Particularly in the Dark Ages and the Inquisition, the prevailing orthodoxy was actually anti-Scriptural, as Christianity had became Christendom and drifted away from any biblical moorings. After all, what kind of orthodoxy bans you from translating or reading the Bible on pain of death?

Denial of what is explicitly taught in Scripture. Of the three definitions, of course this is the most important. Scripture is our ultimate and final authority and the basis for any and all doctrine.

2. Heresy Doesn't Happen By Accident.

Heresy is not a difference of opinion on some subject or even merely possessing erroneous ideas about something: all of us have had at one time or another some wonky notions, particularly when we were young in the Lord, thankfully most of these are ironed out as we mature in our knowledge of the Scriptures and of the faith; however, heresy is not these. Heresy involves the will and is about a choice:--it involves demonstrably false doctrine, wilfully and persistently held to, in defiance and rejection of admonition from the clear teaching of the Scriptures. Consequently, heresy is not something that happens to a Christian by accident; it is a way that one has chosen to follow, therefore, someone who is teaching heresy, is by definition a heretic; thus, by his employment of the term heresy, Dr Wilkinson has implicated all who do not hold to his Secret Pretribulational Rapture Theory as heretics.

Scripture teaches us to shun heretics and keep our distance, because they are uncorrectable.

"A man that is an heretic (or factious) after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."

Heresy is the stock-in-trade of false teachers, who no longer love the Lord Jesus and whose end is destruction.

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."

In actual fact Dr Wilkinson is not the first in the Pretribulational Rapture Theorist Camp to make this kind of accusation, he is merely imitating, in a more emotionally-charged manner, what Tim LaHaye, the guru of Leftbehindism stated in his 1999 book Revelation Unveiled:

This promise, however is to the church of Philadelphia: she will be raptured before the Tribulation begins. It seems difficult to understand why some false teachers suggest that the Church must go through the Tribulation in view of this clear-cut statement of our Lord.

Be that as it may, we can see from the book of Acts that this does not refer to someone who has merely preached something a bit "off" once in a while, or whose understanding or grasp of something is immature.

Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the scriptures.  This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spake and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John: and he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately. 

Apollos hadn't got everything perfectly right, so Priscilla and Aquila took him aside and straightened things up. They didn't label him a a false teacher or heretic because his understanding of the Gospel was incomplete. A real false teacher or heretic on the other hand, is someone who is persistently promulgating demonstrably unbiblical and destructive false doctrine, and who refuses to be corrected. It is someone who has gone "off the rails" altogether; which is why Paul counsels Titus to reject (shun or avoid) such people after they have refused two admonitions. This effectively means disfellowshipping or excommunication.

Scripture also defines false teachers as wolves:

Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.  I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock;  and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.  

In the Old Testament, when used of people, wolves depicts those who mercilessly exploit or plunder others for their own gain or advantage. It is used particularly in two excoriating condemnatory addresses against Israel's national and religious leadership (Eze. 22:23-31 & Zep. 3:1-4.).

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.  By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.  Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

When we take heresy in its biblical definition; Dr Wilkinson, by his declaration of all eschatological views other than his own to be terrible heresy; has in actual fact labelled all who do not teach the Pretribulational Rapture Theory as heretics, false teachers and wolves, exploiters of the Body, workers of iniquity, who await only the Lord's judgement and destruction, fit only to be shunned and avoided by other believers.

Heresy is not something about which believers can ever remain neutral, Scripture commands us to separate from heresy, and shun those who wilfully propagate false teaching: thus, biblically speaking, Dr Wilkinson's heresy charge, if taken seriously, is also a call to Pretribulational Rapturists to excommunicate those who do not endorse their eschatological theory.

3. Is Non-Pretrib Actually Heresy?

Can Dr Wilkinson demonstrate that Post-tribulationism or Prewrath contradict any of the historic creeds, Apostolic, Athanasian, Nicene? Absolutely not.

Can Dr Wilkinson demonstrate that Pretribulationism was ever part of the orthodoxy of the Church, particularly the immediate Post-Apostolic Church? I am sure like other Pretribulation Rapture theorists he would love to be able to do that, but he is confronted by a deeply embarrassing silence for the first 1800 years of Church history in regards to anything that could be taken as as serious evidence of a Pretribulation Rapture. They proclaim Pretrib as a "lost" doctrine rediscovered by John Nelson Darby, but for something to be rediscovered, it has to be proved to have previously existed as part of the Apostolic deposit of faith once delivered to the saints, which they can not do. Without Scofield's (a convicted felon and con-man) insertion of Darby's errors into the very pages of Scripture itself, Pretrib would have remained the crank teaching of a tiny self-excommunicating cult-group. So the "rediscovery" claim is, on their part, wishful thinking at best, and downright deceit at worst, because they have no basis for such a pronouncement. Pretribulational teachers that are claiming definitive Pretrib support from Early Church history or that it is an orthodox doctrine that was "lost" are selling their listeners timeshares on Mars.

Can Dr Wilkinson demonstrate by sound exegetical process that Pretribulationism is clearly and unambiguously taught in Scripture? The fact that he could not do so in either his video or written rebuttal is very telling indeed.

The grounds of his accusation of "terrible heresy" are that non-Pretrib eschatologies place the Church in the Seventieth Week of Daniel, because the Seventieth Week is decreed for Israel and the city of Jerusalem, but his reasoning here is a non-sequitor. Yes, indeed, the Seventieth Week is decreed upon Jerusalem and the Jewish people, but it does not follow that it does not affect the Church, for a great number of very important reasons, just one of which I will list below.

Dr Wilkinson's position makes the assumption that God can not deal with Israel and the Church at the same time.

Firstly this concept is nowhere found in Scripture; it is one of those vaporous presuppositions upon which Pretribulational Rapture theorists build their castles in the air. Secondly God was dealing with Israel after the New Covenant was inaugurated and after Pentecost, (which is assumed by dispensationalist to be the birthday of the Church) and even more so now after 1948, Israel is a nation once more and the Church is still here. Thirdly it could even be argued that God has never stopped dealing with Israel, that the very fact of their judicial hardening and exile among the nations and the preservation of the Jewish Remnant is evidence of that.

Things decreed or ordained explicitly for Israel actually have massive relevance for the Church.

Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

Nowhere will you find in Scripture that the New Covenant was made with the nations or the "Church". It is made specifically with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. According to Dr Wilkinson's rigid and over-realised demarcation, the New Covenant should have no relevance to the Church because it is "Jewish" and appointed to the nation of Israel. The fact is however, Scripture records that the Gentiles are graciously included in this promise given to the Jewish people.

Secondly the Apostle Paul makes it quite clear in Ephesians that Gentile believers now occupy the following position:

Joined with the Jewish Messiah,

Of the commonwealth of Israel,

Partakers in the covenants of the promise, sharing in the hope of Israel.

Made nigh in the blood of the Messiah.

Part of the one new man created from Jew and Gentile.

Reconciled along with Jewish believers unto God.

Sharing a common access [with Jewish believers) through the Spirit to the Father

No more strangers and sojourners,¹ but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,

Built upon the foundation of the [Jewish] apostles and prophets,

Fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

Dr Wilkinson's eschatology is wrong, because his ecclesiology is wrong. Though it is beyond the scope of this article to enter into great details on the doctrine of the Church, very briefly it could be said thus: that the "Church" is really nothing other than an expansion and development of the saved remnant of Israel. Paul makes it absolutely clear that when a Gentile comes to faith he is plugged into the wonderful promises and destiny that God has intended for Israel; he comes to share in what Paul calls the commonwealth of Israel, thus as part of the remnant he shares in its relationship to the nation of Israel as a whole. So, like the remnant which he has now joined, he is distinct from unbelieving Israel, but not separated from it, he shares the same connection with it as does the rest of the Remnant. He does not become a Jew, or cease to be a Gentile, but he is now of the seed of Abraham by faith (Gal. 3:29). If then, a Gentile believer is part and parcel of the commonwealth of Israel, of Abraham's seed, a fellow-heir of the promise, and of one body with the Remnant of Israel and part of the nation that would render the vineyard's fruit in its season, then it stands to reason that he must also share in what befalls that Remnant also, for example in Revelation 12:

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

So then we see on all three counts, the Ancient Creeds, Historic Orthodoxy and faithfulness to Biblical Truth, Dr Wilkinson's charge of heresy is all flurry and fluff, without substance, an ill-advised and emotional venting, which while it played to the pretribulational gallery at Berean Call, does not correspond to any biblical definition of the term heresy at all.

4. Dr Wilkinson's Controversial Remarks on the Trinity.

I am making no accusations and have no desire to; if however, Dr Wilkinson had pointed the finger at himself instead of accusing others, he might have found more grounds for his accusations, because he is certainly encroaching on the areas covered by two of the definitions.

In regards to Historic Orthodoxy; his castigation of the Post-Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers for their faults in order to discredit their eschatological testimony, was in itself, a tacit admission of the fact that they were post-tribulational to a man, and that a post-tribulational eschatology was actually stated to be part of Christian orthodoxy in that period; and Dr Wilkinson brought forth no evidence to demonstrate Pretribulational Rapturism was ever widely accepted among Evangelical Orthodoxy until very recently (and even that mostly geographically isolated to the USA). Rest assured, could he have done so, he most certainly would have.

In regards to Biblical Support, the most important category of all; in place of an exegetical argument, Dr Wilkinson presented us with this:

Well yes, I would agree that there is not one verse of Scripture to prove the Pretrib Rapture Theory", as he put it, . . . doctrine. Erm . . . I don’t believe he should have said that, had no need to say that. It's a none argument. Are you going to give me one verse of Scripture that proves that God the Father, that the Father is God and the Son of God and the Spirit is God, is that what we are about, proof-texting like the Jehovah's Witnesses? No we have the full counsel of God the progressive revealed Word of God to our hearts and so when you are talking about like the Rapture or the Trinity or whatever it is, you pull in lots of Scriptures.

The doctrine of the Trinity, so fundamental to biblical Christianity, cannot be proved by quoting a single verse of Scripture! Joe Schimmel is making a non-argument. We are not Jehovah’s Witnesses hanging our theology on proof-texts, but Evangelical Christians seeking to show ourselves approved by studying the whole counsel of God, from Genesis to Revelation. As we do so, we discover that many of the precious truths of the Christian faith, including the doctrine of the Trinity and the Rapture of the Church, are progressively revealed.

I am convinced that Dr Wilkinson was not paying any attention to what was said on the Left Behind or Led Astray video he was rebutting. Pastor Joe Schimmel was not asking for merely one isolated proof-verse to support Pretrib. It was clear throughout the presentation that what was required was more broadly defined:

We had offered 10,000 USD to anyone who could show just one clear teaching proving that Jesus returns in a Pretrib Rapture . . . . Can you show us one scripture that clearly teaches Jesus Christ comes before the Tribulation to rapture the Church? It was not just average believers who could not give us clear Scripture teaching the Pretrib Theory . . . . to ask Colin LeNoury if there was one clear verse or passage of Scripture that taught the Pretrib Rapture . . . . When we asked Colin for one verse or passage . . . .

Dr Wilkinson is trying to eat his cake and have it here. He rails on proof-texting, but then actually uses parts of Daniel as proof-texts for his claim that those who teach that the Church is present on earth during the Tribulation are teaching "terrible heresy"! The fact is, that there is nothing wrong with a proof-text, providing it is in context. He also seems to misunderstand the term "progressively revealed," as being akin to non-contextual, or inferential, something which it absolutely does not mean.

And this is really what lies at the heart of this matter of the Trinity and why Dr Wilkinson is so in error to equate the doctrine of the Trinity with that of the Pretribulational Rapture Theory. The doctrine of the Trinity rests on passages of Scripture which in context either explicitly state or unavoidably imply, to any honest mind, one or more of the propositions underlying the doctrine.

For example, Jesus explicitly states his divinity on a number of occasions in John's Gospel and it is clear from the response of the Jewish authorities that he was making such a claim. He is worshipped as God, seen as co-equal with the Father and one with the Father, the Father, Son and Spirit share the same one name, the Holy Spirit is revealed to be divine and personal not a mere force, etc. There is no need to read presuppositions into these texts to make them say this; these passages, in context, speak for themselves. We could fill a small book with them to exegetically demonstrate the undergirdings of this precious truth of Scripture.

Pretribulationism on the other hand can offer nothing like this, as was so vividly illustrated by Pretrib gurus own admissions in "Left Behind or Led Astray," and their constant scrabbling for pretexts, be they ever so slim, on which to hang their theory, a pastime which frequently involves outrageous historical revisionism (to try and read Pretrib into Early Church history) and the adoption of a thoroughly dishonest hermeneutical methodology that is completely at variance with any and all of their claim to "literal interpretation".

5. Something More Than a Spat.

Consequently Dr Wilkinson's response to Left Behind or Led Astray's reporting of these Pretrib Leader's admissions (that the Scriptures do not, as such, teach Pretrib, and that it is a doctrine derived solely from inference); --was not to present us with clear biblical teaching for the Pretribulational Rapture Theory, but instead to hermeneutically downgrade the precious doctrine of the Trinity; to claim it has the same wretched basis and paucity of scriptural support as their beloved theory; and thus effectively to debase the Trinity doctrine, as Jacob puts it,--to the status of mere opinion. This is why this issue is no mere "strife about words" or a spat between preachers, but an extremely serious one. Dr Wilkinson's remarks about the Trinity are so dangerous, not because he himself actually denies the doctrine, (it is clear from his written rebuttal that he does not) but because they are a wide open door to those who do and will; because to put the Trinity on the same basis as Pretrib, is to, in effect, assert that the Scriptures do not actually teach it, thus undermining it altogether.

The same downgrading is being applied to the scriptural and historic testimony of the Body to other doctrines as well, as leading Pretribulational Rapture theorists labour to degrade hermeneutical standards to make their theory sound acceptable. We may remember the reckless remarks of Thomas Ice who on the December 2014 Berean Call Radio Show, not only said the same thing; (and was endorsed in it by T.A. MacMahon) but also threw in some historically inaccurate and wildly irresponsible utterances about Justification by Faith and the Atonement as well², all while plugging the lethal "Apostasy equals Rapture" doctrine with which certain Pretrib Rapture theorists are currently intoxicated, and which, sadly, Dr Wilkinson includes in his book "Understanding Christian Zionism".

The Rebuttal Fiasco, the Berean Call endorsement of the Trinity Doctrine Downgrade, Apostasy Equals Rapture, undermining of other core doctrines, etc. all these are unsettling individually, but taken together they are an alarming indicator of the underlying rot and putrefaction within Pretrib.

6. The Core of the Matter

Dr Wilkinson's claims about the doctrine of the Trinity, have exposed very publicly the real contention between the Pretrib Camp and the Post-Trib or Prewrath teachings, which is actually not about the timing of the Rapture at all, but is everything to do with the tortuous and unsound hermeneutical methods by which Pretrib theorists arrive at their position. Though by no means perfect, the Post-Trib, Intra-Trib and Pre-Wrath, are at least attempts to work out an eschatology based on clear and in context or explicit statements of Scripture. Leaders from these three camps would stress that there is much that we "see through a glass darkly;" but the basic premise that the Church will go through the Tribulation is based on a literal exegesis, backed up also by nearly 2000 years of Church history. The Pretrib doctrine on the other hand, has to resort to a handling of the Scriptures kith and kin with cult-groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, including denial of what Paul and Jesus explicitly state. Small wonder that one of the commentators in Left Behind or Led Astray described Pretrib as a doctrine "characterised by deceit". These kind of violations of the Scripture text and the manifest errors it engenders, are what the early opponents of Darby, like B. W. Newton, S. P. Tregelles and others raised their cry against, and they, in an interesting parallel to our own times, were also castigated as heretics, and relentlessly hounded and demonised by Darby for standing up to his unbiblical novelties; but they stuck to the Word, as one of their number, the famous George Muller put it:

"My brother, I am a constant reader of my Bible, and I soon found that what I was taught to believe did not always agree with what my Bible said. I came to see that I must either part company with John Darby, or my precious Bible, and I chose to cling to my Bible and part from Mr. Darby." 

Sadly, recent events show us, that within the Pretrib Camp, some are, at present, making the opposite choice.

1 The phrase strangers and sojourners corresponds to the O.T. Hebrew words "gerim" and "toshavim," non-Jews who while dwelling among the children of Israel, were not permitted to eat the Passover or partake of the holy things or enter the inner Temple courts. Paul is basically saying that Gentile believers do not have second-class standing, but are on an equal basis with a full pass into all the benefits and privileges promised to Israel.

2 See "Theological Propanganda" in Mar. 2015 Moriel Bulletin or go to http://morielisrael.blogspot.co.il/2015/03/theological-propaganda-introduction-to.html

Stormy Weather and Car Repairs.

Appropriately enough for the beginning of the rainy season, September was a tempestuous month, few can have failed to observe the storm that blew in from the outer Left Behind regions after the recent release of the DVD "Left Behind or Led Astray" in which Jacob featured. This harsh weather looks set to abound rather than abate, and as it has been occupying a good deal of my own thought recently, and as Moriel supporters (who generally lean towards a non-Pretribulational eschatological viewpoint) may in their local fellowships find their views the subject of controversy, I thought it best to address one of the issues in this bulletin.

The Dangers of Acquiring Second-Hand Goods.

After learning to drive, in my now distant youth, the first two cars I acquired were second-hand. The first was the inherited family car, (with synchromesh so awful I learnt how to double de-clutch), and the second a Citroen 2CV, the first car I bought myself, and my most beloved car ever (as my wife says I never stop telling everyone). Both cars gave me good service, but there were problems: I had to fix or replace a number of things, and I always took a full tool kit with me on any long journey, (and was sometimes glad I did). For each car I bought the workshop manual, and I learnt a lot about fault diagnosis, repair and maintenance. Truth is, when you get something second-hand it needs checking over and possibly some rectification.

Even so with theology and doctrine. When we are new believers, we are bequeathed something. For the most part the doctrinal "car" might be basically roadworthy, but after we have been driving it a while, we may perceive things that are less than perfect and need to be fixed, to restore it to factory condition.

I rapidly learnt how to fix things by the roadside and do repairs away from home by myself, when there was no one around to help. I also discovered, however, after I acquired the workshop manual, that my Dad, who did know something about cars, sometimes had faulty advice which caused problems if followed. Yes, I discovered that even though he knew quite a bit about engineering, he didn't know everything and he wasn't infallible. Sometimes I had to choose between listening to my Dad or following the manual, and occasionally this caused friction, but in the end I was now an adult, it was now my car and I was responsible for it.

When we are new in the Lord, we lack the discernment and knowledge of the workshop manual (the Bible) to ascertain whether the body of doctrine we are being taught by our pastor or in the books we read is actually wholly biblical. We have not established enough of a working knowledge yet of biblical doctrine, or even how to skilfully and rightly handle the Word of Truth for ourselves. Such things as understanding context, the importance of grammar, skills of observation, inductive study and critical thinking, might be new and foreign to us. But it should not stay that way for ever. We absolutely must grow in our understanding and grasp of the Word, and how to interpret it properly and fully grasp the teachings contained within it, Though not everyone is called to be a teacher of the Word or a pastor, every pastor should be encouraging his flock to develop these skills, and to test and evaluate even what he himself is teaching in the light of the Word. In fact, any pastor who advocates or expects that his flock accept everything he says carte blanche, is not worthy of the name; and members of the flock who uncritically accept everything that proceeds from their pastor's mouth are failing not only in their own duty to "test everything", for the sake of their own safety and spiritual well-being, but also in their duty of care towards their pastor as well. We are biblically obligated to flag up or approach him with something that just doesn't seem quite right, or line up with Scripture.

This does not mean that there should be a weekly "bash the pastor" session or, that there should be constant interruptions during the sermon or disruptive behaviour of dissenting members; these things can be done in good order with humility, love and respect: but any congregation where there is no atmosphere of openness, no humble willingness to discuss doctrinal matters or that does not equip its members in how to interpret the Word and discern between truth and error; or where the pastor is not open to correction is extremely vulnerable (even with the best intentions of its leadership), to becoming what is in effect, a cult.

Another thing that we can acquire second-hand is Christian-Jargon. Of course all specialist fields have their technical terminology and theology is no different. The specialist theological meaning of terms such as justification, imputation, redemption etc. are very different to how these terms are used in the secular world, but on the whole the meaning of these terms is well established, and I don't really mean those. By jargon, I mean those kind of terms and expressions that we hear at a popular level and often absorb unthinkingly almost by osmosis. I remember many years ago, reading of a pastor who had just finished a meeting at some town or other, and was set to travel on. The congregation offered to pray for his safe journey: "Preacher, do you want us to cover your car with the blood?" they asked. "Actually" he said, "I would much rather that you washed it. for me." The congregation, though well-intentioned, had unthinkingly adopted an understanding of the blood of Jesus, via this jargon, that was disconnected from any biblical reality. This kind of phenomenon is absolutely rife in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, where believers accrue the "Christianese" of their peer-group assuming it to be true and scriptural without further investigation, and use such jargon with almost mantra-like repetitiveness. Sadly this is not restricted to the lunatic fringe it can even affect otherwise sound believers and well-known preachers.

This usage of terminology divorced from biblical meaning or context was amply illustrated in Dr Paul Wilkinson's emotionally charged and excoriating tirade (with which most Moriel supporters will most likely now be familiar) delivered at the recent Berean Call Conference against those who would dare to disagree with the Secret Pretribulational Rapture Theory. Dr Wilkinson's eyebrow-raising speech and his later written paper expressing similar sentiments, have indeed created some waves and also attracted a certain amount of notoriety, which he may later come to regret. However, their tone and manner is not my concern here, but rather the scriptural issues which his "rebuttals" raise, and for the purposes of this bulletin, one in particular:

. . . . it's destructive it's damaging, and it's thoroughly dishonest. . . . the Post-Tribulation belief that Joe Schimmel espouses, Joel Richardson, the Pre-Wrath view that Jacob Prasch espouses, these are heretical views. To teach that the Church is going to go through any part of the Tribulation period is an abominable thing to teach. because it robs believers of the blessedness of the Blessed Hope. It doesn't fill believers with joy and expectancy and longing , it fills them with fear, it fills them with a kind of militancy that they have to stand against the Antichrist, they have to face the Mark of the Beast. I have spoken at Churches in England where people have been in fear how they are going to get through the Tribulation, how their children are going to get through the Tribulation. Will they be strong enough to resist the Mark of the Beast when it comes. Praise God the Lord uses many of us to bring freedom and release from that kind of teaching.

Throughout his message the term "blessed hope" was repeated as something being under attack by non-Pretrib proponents, and from this it soon became impossible to escape the impression, that Dr Wilkinson, (who is a dear brother in Christ; we must never forget that!) and it grieves me to say it, does not actually comprehend what the "Blessed Hope" is,--from Scripture; that his understanding of the term as referring to a secret Pretribulational Rapture, is merely something received from others; that he has never investigated the meaning of it for himself, and is merely parroting second-hand theology and religious jargon, and this can be demonstrated by a simple text, context and co-text study of the term.

What then is the "Blessed Hope"?

The term "blessed hope" only occurs in one place in Scripture, namely Titus 2:13:

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and [or even, Gr. καὶ] the glorious appearing [lit. the appearing of the glory] of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

In order to ascertain what the term "blessed hope" means; we need to look at what information we are provided in the context. For the pretribulationist to honestly (an important distinction) equate "the blessed hope of the appearing of the glory," with their theorised Secret Pretribulational Rapture, then the following is needed:

• A clear chronological reference that places the event before the Tribulation.
• A clear indicator that the event is "in secret", that is to say the unsaved world as a whole does not perceive the Lord's return for his Church, as Pretribulational Rapture Theorists would put it.

In the letter to Titus, the fact is that both these indicators are lacking. There is nothing, in its context in Titus, to even remotely suggest that it refers to a secret or Pretribulation Rapture. There are no direct chronological indicators or other such explicit information, therefore another approach is needed. We need first of all to observe how Paul defines the term "blessed hope" in context in the passage and then look for the same concept in related co-texts.

In the A.V. the "blessed hope" is defined as "the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour," but the Greek would be better rendered as "the appearing of the glory," and the Greek word behind "appearing" is ἐπιφάνεια (Epiphaneia).

The Greek word καὶ: translated in some versions as "and" can also mean even, which essentially means that the "blessed hope" and the "appearing of the glory" are not separate items but that the "blessed hope" is the "appearing of the glory," and this is the way also most Christians understand this verse anyway. Indeed, Dr Wilkinson's own translation of choice, the Revised Standard Version, renders it:

. . . awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,

We should note that this theme of "appearing" is also mentioned a few verses previously.

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

This grace that appeared to all men (not the Church only) is described as a completed act, something that has already happened, and surely must refer to Jesus' First Coming. It should be noticed that this is not described as a secret appearing but open and manifest to all, this hints that Paul may be using the first to inform us to some extent about the second; namely that both comings share this characteristic, and indeed, Paul uses ἐπιφάνεια (epiphaaea) to also describe Jesus' first coming in 2 Tim. 1:10.

Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

Now, the Greek noun ἐπιφάνεια behind the English word "appearing" is also translated as either manifestation, appearing, or in one place in the A.V. brightness. It appears in but a few places in the NT, and all of them are in Paul's letters, (namely: 2 Thess. 2:8, 1 Tim 6:14, 2 Tim 1:10, 2 Tim 4:1, 2 Tim. 4:8, Titus 2:13) this also gives us a hint that it is a term that Paul uses to describe something specific.

Moving on to our next occurrence of ἐπιφάνεια, we see Paul use it in his exhortation to Timothy:

I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing (ἐπιφάνεια) of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;¹ Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. (1 Tim 6:14)

Once again, the context is absent of any implication that this "appearing" is before the Tribulation, or that this "appearing" is only to the Church.

Next we read in Paul's second letter to Timothy:

. . . God . . Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing (ἐπιφάνεια) of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. . . .

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing (ἐπιφάνεια) and his kingdom;  . . watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing (ἐπιφάνεια). 

There are many themes in common between the letters to Timothy and Titus. Paul exhorts both to a godly and dedicated life, in light of the appearing (ἐπιφάνεια) and to teach the same to others. It is self-evident that the appearing in chapter 1.v. 10 is that of the Lord's first coming. It is superfluous to add once again, that this first appearing was in now way secret or done in a corner.

In v. 18 Paul introduces another element, namely "that day".

In chapter four, Paul adds some extra information about this "appearing" that is to come:

the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.

To the time of the appearing Paul adds the idea of kingdom and that Jesus shall judge the living and the dead.

Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

In v. 8 Paul reiterates the judgement theme again and this verse makes it clear that the time of judgement, at least includes all believers, for Paul specifies the reward which he will receive. Secondly v. 8 reveals the connecting information, that, that day, the time of judgement of living and dead, the appearing and the kingdom are all at the same time.

Thus far then, we have the following information connected with this term ἐπιφάνεια "appearing":

• It is the appearing of the glory of the great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
• It is linked with the idea of Jesus revealing that He indeed King of kings and Lord of lords and the time of the kingdom.
• It is a judgement of living and dead, and therefore includes a resurrection.
• It is a time of giving rewards to believers: "rest".
• It is also referred to as "that day".

While these passages inform us of events associated with it, none of them directly tell us when the time of this appearing is, but certainly none of them even remotely suggest in their context that this appearing (ἐπιφάνεια) is either secret or Pretribulational. There is however, one final passage in which this word appearing (ἐπιφάνεια) occurs, that pulls nearly all the above motifs together and also provides us with an unambiguous chronological reference.

 We are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, even as it is meet, for that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the love of each one of you all toward one another aboundeth;  so that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and in the afflictions which ye endure;  which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God; to the end that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:  if so be that it is righteous thing with God to recompense affliction to them that afflict you,  and to you that are afflicted rest with us, at the revelation [Gr. ἀποκάλυψις (apocalupsis)] of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire,  rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus:  who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might,  when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at in all them that believed (because our testimony unto you was believed) in that day. To which end we also pray always for you, that our God may count you worthy of your calling, and fulfil every desire of goodness and every work of faith, with power;  that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the Coming [Gr. παρουσία (Parousia)] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together [Gr. ἐπισυναγωγή (episunagoge)] unto him; to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as that the day of the Lord is just at hand [is come as most modern versions render it];   let no man beguile you in any wise: for [it will not be], except the falling away [Gr. ἀποστασία Apostasy] come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,  he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God.  Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?  And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season.  For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way.  And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation [ἐπιφάνεια (Epiphaneia)] of His Coming; [Gr. παρουσία (Parousia)] even he, whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,  and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie:  that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

What do we see in this entire passage?

Firstly in chapter 1:7-10 there is a glorious, and highly visible to all, revelation of the Lord Jesus, from heaven with his angels, because He punishes (i.e. judges) the wicked as well as gives rest to His saints. Paul also calls this event that day:

"when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at in all who have believed, . . ." (RSV)

This is most clearly occurs after the Tribulation and is obviously a reference to Matt. 24:

"they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, . . . . but of that day and hour knoweth no man"

Now in chapter 2:8-12 we clearly see the same event as in chapter 1:7 etc., because once again Paul reveals that at this time unbelievers are judged. It is abundantly clear that these verses refer to the same event as chapter 2:8-12:

And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation [ἐπιφάνεια (Epiphaneia)] of His Coming; [Gr. παρουσία (Parousia)] even he , whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Thus the Coming (Parousia) of chapter two is referring back to the "revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God, . . . when he shall come to be glorified in his saints" in chapter one. In this highly informative passage, the Apostle links the Epiphaneia chronologically with the destruction of the Antichrist; which all would agree occurs at the end of the Tribulation period.

And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation [ἐπιφάνεια (Epiphaneia)] of His Coming; [Gr. παρουσία (Parousia)].

So now we have the following information about the ἐπιφάνεια -the Appearing:

• It is the appearing of the glory of the great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
• It is linked with the idea of Jesus revealing that He indeed King of kings and Lord of lords and the time of the kingdom.
• It is a time of judgement of living and dead, and therefore includes a resurrection.
• It is a time of giving rewards to believers, "rest".
• It is also referred to as "that day".
• It occurs at the end of the Tribulation period when the Antichrist is destroyed, and it is connected with the Lord's coming (Parousia) in glory.
• The fact that three things the Parousia, the ἐπιφάνεια-Appearing and the destruction of the Man of Sin occur on or around the same time is very helpful, because it now gives us a time frame for another prophesied event:

Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the Coming [Gr. παρουσία (Parousia)] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together [Gr. ἐπισυναγωγή (episunagoge)] unto him . . .

Paul now adds to the visible glorious, angelically-accompanied Parousia event, another linked concept: namely the "gathering together [Gr. ἐπισυναγωγή (episunagoge)] unto Him."

There are no chapter divisions in the Greek; not only so, but chapter two contains no contextual information that indicates Paul has now changed subjects to speak of a Santa-like secret coming and rapture separate from that of the first chapter. Neither is there ought to suggest a disconnection or seven-year gap between the Parousia event and the "gathering together;" there is no hint that one is invisible and the other not; nor is there anything from which we can honestly infer that the Episunagoge is anything other than a part or component of the Parousia event itself. When we are establishing doctrinal truths, we must never, ever, look for, insert into, or infer from a biblical text, what it does not explicitly state or can clearly and unambiguously be drawn from it. In Second Thessalonians, Paul intimately connects the Episunagoge (which all with one consent know to be the Rapture) event with the Parousia, and later in the passage he connects the Parousia with the ἐπιφάνεια-Appearing by the phrase "Epiphaneia of His Parousia," that is to say, Jesus' manifest coming in glory.

And of course, in reality, Paul, in his eschatological teachings is really just faithfully presenting the teachings of Jesus Himself from Matt. 24 and other places,, where we see the same elements, with the same chronology, and this is of course only to be expected (Matt. 28:20).

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together (ἐπισυνάγω [episunago]) his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

In an interesting note of irony, W. E. Vine, whom Dr Wilkinson mentions as helping to understand the fulness of meaning of biblical words, and who was himself a pretribulationist, refers thus in his very useful Expository Dictionary to Titus 2:13:

" . . . the shining forth of the glory of the Lord Jesus "as the lightning cometh forth from the east, and is seen even unto the west," Matt. 24:27, immediately consequent on the unveiling, apokalupsis, of His Parousia in the air with His saints, 2Thess. 2:8; Titus 2:13."²

The fact that Vine, who had every motive to interpret the "blessed hope" as a pretrib rapture if he could have, but did not, is very telling. Dr Wilkinson should take note.

It was the purpose of this article only to deal specifically with one issue, the biblical definition of the "blessed hope" of Titus 2:13 and to expose the error and hermeneutical bankruptcy of the assertion that it refers to a pretribulational rapture. Exegetically, from the text in question and related co-texts, we can only draw the sure and certain conclusion, that the "Blessed Hope," or more correctly "the blessed hope of the appearing, -the Epiphaneia of the glory," is connected with a visible appearing in glory of Jesus to gather his saints, destroy the Antichrist and set up His kingdom after the Tribulation; no other information is provided to assume otherwise. We must therefore conclude that Dr Wilkinson's definition of the "Blessed Hope" is in actual fact a serious misrepresentation of this precious scriptural concept, and one which robs it of its blessedness, because he is in fact presenting his audiences with a lie, even though we would believe there is no deliberate intent to deceive on his part. We would remonstrate with our good brother Dr Wilkinson; that surely, brother Paul, in the interests of remaining true to the Scriptures and to the God who is their Author, and also to yourself and to those whom you minister; that you desist from using the term "blessed hope" or "appearing" in your current misleading and damaging manner, that you should discontinue this unhelpful and destructive labelling as "heretics" those who are actually trying to understand this term in its biblical context; and finally, that you as a matter of urgency, stop listening to those voices that are giving you faulty information, pull out your workshop manual, do some fault-finding, and please, please, fix your second-hand car, because some things are seriously out of alignment.

Elon Moreh.

Moriel Israel

1 The sentence, "the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords." is an interesting one. Though of course, it could not be pressed exegetically from this text that Paul is referring to Rev. 19, (which was written considerably later) the thematic connection however, is certainly obvious, because Revelation 19 does reveal exactly to us which are the times in which the Lord Jesus Christ will shew who is the King of kings and Lord of lords.

2 I am also aware of the fact that Vine presented in his dictionary epiphaneia also "the coming of the Lord Jesus into the air to the meeting with His saints, 1Tim. 6:14; 2Tim. 4:1,8" as if it were a separate event, (i.e. a Pretrib Rapture) however there is no contextual or exegetical reason for doing so. Vine at that point was simply reading his presuppositions into the text.   

Theological Propaganda -An Introduction to Pretrib Mythology

By Elon

This post originally appeared in the First Quarter Moriel Bulletin of 2015.

Just recently I read some very sad transcripts for some recent editions of the "Berean Call" radio show. Some wild claims were made and unsubstantiated terminologies were thrown around as if they were settled fact. It was so shocking, that I felt some of the statements in this show needed to be addressed, so I intend to follow this post with a series entitled "Pretrib Mythology" based upon the extravagant claims made in the Radio Show.

Now before I go any further, let me emphasise that what I am about to write is about doctrines and hermeneutics, not people. I testify from personal experience that Dave Hunt's books the Seduction of Christianity and Beyond Seduction, were great helps in awaking me personally to the errors of the Word of Faith Movement in the 80's; and Dave's book "What Love is This?" is a great resource to people who are struggling with, or have been afflicted by Calvinitis. It lays out very clearly what Calvinism is all about, using Calvnistic authors own words; which is exactly why his Calvnistic antagonists hated and maligned it so much. This was Berean Call at its best.

So it was particularly tragic to read these transcripts. Each of then was littered with scripturally unsubstantiated claims,¹ which is bad enough, (however, I have read enough Pretrib material by now to become used to that): but, there were some statements made, especially in the interviews with Thomas Ice,² that were particularly problematic.

Ice: You know, it’s amazing to me that no one articulated the substitutionary atonement of Christ until a thousand years in church history with Anselm. Their view in the early church was closer to Benny Hinn, you know? It was called the “ransom to Satan” theory. No one that we know of articulated the doctrine of justification by faith until Martin Luther came along for 1,500 years! And it led to a schism, you know, within the church, thank God…

References to substitutionary atonement can actually be found in early writers such as the 2nd letter to Diognetus, the writings of Athanasius, Chrysostom and Eusebius etc. But ultimately there is the testimony of Scripture.

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." 1 Pet,. 3:18

 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;  Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:  Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. Rom. 3:23-25

But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;  Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. (Rom. 4:24-25)

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood [substitutionary death], we shall be saved from wrath through him.  For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.  And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Rom. 5:8-11

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; . . . he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed . . the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all . . . . he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due . . . it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, . . . by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities . . . . because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

And to this we could argue that the whole OT sacrificial system teaches us about substitutionary atonement.

In addition, what Anselm actually articulated was not Substitutionary Atonement per se, but the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement, where he posited that the injury done to God's honour and glory by mankind's sin was rectified by the death of Christ, who paid the debt to God's honour that man owed. Perhaps Ice is confusing this with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, where Christ suffers the punishment for every sin of man.³

However regardless of the above; it is clear that Ice, by his claim that certain Atonement Theories were not fully articulated for a considerable time, would thus have us accept that there should be no barrier to our receiving a Rapture Theory that only appeared in the 1830's. However, he is here glossing over or omitting a fact of critical importance: whatever aspect of Atonement is emphasised by any of the various theories; its substitutionary nature is clearly and explicitly taught throughout the Scriptures in numerous places, as shown above. The same can be said for the doctrine of Justification by Faith, this can be found throughout the Bible, and is most explicit of course in Paul's Epistles; indeed, it is so ubiquitous in the New Testament, that it would be superfluous to give references here. Both Substitutionary Atonement and Justification by Faith, are explicit teachings of the Bible, derived by exegetical method from in context statements of Scripture. We must not forget this or allow it to be glossed over, because this is the real issue that is at stake.

The Pretribulational Rapture on the other hand; never was, nor is it now, in any shape or form, exegetically or contextually derived from any verse in the entire Bible; all of the verses it uses as proof texts have to be severely contorted or quoted out of context to arrive at a predetermined Pretrib conclusion. As we have repeatedly stated, even its own proponents readily concede that it is a doctrine based solely upon "inference",--which brings us to another comment from the transcripts.

T.A. McMahon: Now, however, and I want to talk about this: now, we believe in, you know, the objective Word of God. We believe in literal interpretation. But when we look to Scripture, yes, we want the verse. We want to see the verse clearly, objectively, and so on. But we also believe in extrapolation. In other words, a number of the doctrines – you know, I think you mentioned this before we started recording; we were talking about something like the Trinity and so on. You can’t find that term. But we find so many other verses that we can put together that form a clear doctrine.

Now, the part that we don’t want to go – we don’t want to go beyond that to speculation. So we can accept, you know, what a verse says clearly and distinctly, but we can also extrapolate a number of other verses to put together a solid teaching, a solid doctrine of the church.

Now, it’s speculation where we draw the line. Would you agree with that?

While admittedly, the teaching on the Trinity is more scattered throughout Scripture, and it is less explicitly taught but rather assumed as a "given" by the NT writers; nevertheless the reasoning behind the doctrine can be inductively derived from contextual exegesis of explicit statements or facts made in the passages used to support it. Here are just a few samples;

Jesus undoubtedly claimed to be the YHWH and his hearers understood that is what he was saying.

He accepted the worship of the disciples.

The angels are said to worship him.

He explicitly claimed to one with the Father.

He explicitly claimed to have glory with the Father before the world began.

Many, many OT texts describing YHWH are explicitly applied to Jesus.

The Spirit is revealed to be a personal being, who works in concert with the Father and Son. Divine attributes are explicitly ascribed to Him in numerous places. He shares a name with the Father and the Son.

These things found in the very warp and woof of the New Testament. Scripture does not have to be twisted to arrive at some kind of Trinitarian conclusion.

Extrapolations and Self Contradictions.

The "extrapolation" statement is actually very revealing, because in spite of Ice's claim that:

 . . .if you remove pre-Tribulationalism from the New Testament epistles, it’s like trying to unravel a piece of cloth, or pull a thread out of the cloth, you know? It just doesn’t work because it’s embedded, and a lot of people just don’t take the time to understand that later on in 1 Corinthians, it’s called a mystery, meaning it’s a new revelation, see?

and McMahon's claim that:

" . . It was in the Bible all along" and "And there’s so many verses that support that. And the thing that shocks me, . . . is that people are saying, “Oh no, this is some kind of esoteric, secret…you know, this isn’t there, they’re making it up,” and so on. it’s as clear as it can be."

They actually admit that it is only obtainable by extrapolations. The question is then: If it is so "clear as it can be", not "esoteric"or "secret" and so "embedded" why the necessity to resort to "extrapolations" in order to arrive at it? This is completely self-contradictory:--and why does this seem to be the only doctrine in modern evangelicalism that is given special dispensation to based on extrapolation/inference alone?

A doctrinal basis that is established upon exegesis and honest handling of the biblical text, is what separates orthodox biblical Christianity from the cults, and the likes of "Kenny and Benny". The Pretribulational Rapture is indeed problematic, but is it an outward symptom of an underlying malaise that is far more disturbing; an indicator of how willing we are to bend the Word of God to suit our wishes?

It is not biblical hermeneutics that we see in these radio interviews, but theological propaganda masquerading as biblical doctrine. The praises of literal interpretation are sung, and speculation is decried; but it is all too readily apparent that this is lip-service; for to do homage to the Golden Calf of Pretrib theory, literal interpretation must be deposed, context summarily executed and "extrapolation" usurp their place to provide an apologetic for a doctrine which orthodox hermeneutical method can not. If this is not in actuality "esoteric" or "secret" I don't know what is. Without the extrapolative tradition/magisterium of the Pretrib "elders" this doctrine simply cannot be arrived at. Scripture warns us very clearly about "making the Word of God of none effect through our tradition."

When we try to create or sustain a doctrine with the kind of methods exemplified in these radio interviews;--are we not in essence saying that we love our favoured notion more than the truth that God has explicitly stated? When we show an unwillingness to honestly handle God's Word, because to do so would deal a death blow to our pet theories; are we not actually revealing that we have at least in some measure departed from love of the truth and prefer a lie? This is serious enough for us on a personal level, but what for teachers of the Word? --are they not even more accountable?

There has been quite a lot written on the "Apostasy equals Rapture" teaching that is so enthused over in this interview. Its utterly baseless nature has been well and truly documented;⁴ I am astonished that this canard keeps being repeated by Ice, as he does again in these broadcasts. The "Apostasy equals Rapture" is way out beyond the speculation Ice claims to want to avoid, it is pure fantasy; but such is the nature of spiritual deception, it will take us to places, that if we escape it to look back from the outside, we shake our heads in wonder that we actually ran with such nonsense. I know, because I have been in that place myself.

Many years ago, when I was walking in the false doctrines of the Word of Faith movement; there was a point when I began to experience a sense of misgiving about the way WOF teachers were handling Scripture; but at the same time the doctrine was very appealing. Initially I tried to avoid listening to or reading anything that would contradict it, but that internal disquiet would not go away. One day a dear friend, who saw clearly WOF for what it was and had been praying for me, handed me a copy of "Seduction of Christianity". I really did not want to read that book! But at that point I knew I was being presented with a choice: I could ignore my misgivings and carry on in that which was exciting and pleased my flesh; or I could read the book. The message of the book did sting somewhat; but in its wake it brought great joy. New light broke forth from the Scriptures as the deluding mists were blown away, and this point in time marked the beginning of my understanding of what it means to "rightfully handle the word of truth". Over time since then, a serious amount of theological demolition went on, as ideas, practices and teachings that could not be exegetically substantiated were disposed of; but what I gained has always been well worth the cost. The hermeneutical principles that I began to learn at that time, when applied, have also been of tremendous benefit in preserving and protecting me from the Apostasy that has mushroomed in our midst since then.

These interviews worry me, because they may be a sign that the Pretrib camp is simply ignoring calls to sharpen up on their hermeneutic, and is instead closing its ears so that it may blithely continue on with these cult-style interpretive methods. Will we soon observe even sharper declinations from biblical truth, of which this "Apostasy equals Rapture" claim is but an early symptom? Will it come to pass that in a wilful refusal to return to sound hermeneutics they will veer every deeper into error and ironically, eventually be found fulfilling the prophecy of 2 Thess. 2:3 in themselves? I truly hope not, because I shudder to think where I would be today if I had chosen other than I had;--if I had not hearkened to the voice of the LORD. I thank God for that woman who prayed for me and kept "getting on my case" about Word Of Faith, even if I did not want to hear it, and who ultimately gave me the book that was such a life changer.

I heard recently, that some, even among Pretrib's big names,--are beginning to entertain reservations about it. This is very encouraging, it means that God is answering prayers for these our brethren. We need to continue to pray earnestly for them and for friends and associates who are ensnared by this doctrine, that their hearts be soft to the truth, that they make the right choices, even if it costs them dearly in prestige, finance and following. Let us also pray for courage for all those leaders who know Pretrib to be serious error, but are afraid to come out of the closet.

Many truly godly men preach this error in sincerity, I count a number of precious friends among them. Let us in all humility, lift these brethren up to the LORD.

1  I intended to deal with some of these issues on the this site, because there are too many of them for the article in the Moriel Quarterly.

2 The transcripts for the Radio shows in question can be found on the Berean call site under the December 2014 boadcasts "What about the Rapture?".

3  I think it fair to say that substitutionary atonement is explicitly declared in the Scriptures, and it appears that through Church history the differing views of atonement that arose, were more to do with the details of what substitution actually entailed not over the fact of substitution itself. The Atonement is a multifaceted concept and it accomplished a number of different things; while the New Testament is clear over what Christ's death has accomplished, the question of how it did this is not really emphasised.

4 Yakov has dealt with this on a number of occasions, and this was also covered in a previous Moriel Bulletin.