Daniel 12:4 foretells that in the End Times knowledge shall be increased. That is often taken to be about Knowledge in general, the explosion of knowledge that has happened since the Industrial Revolution. But some have taken it to be about specifically knowledge of God's Word.
I say those two naturally go together. We today have lots of advantages in studying God's Word that didn't always exist. Today in debates people often get mad at you if you neglect to cite the exact Chapter and Verse, when Jesus didn't have that luxury, He just named the Prophet He was quoting and that had to be enough. Not to mention how the Internet and Computer Programs have made it easier then ever to do word searches and to check the original Greek and Hebrew, and compare variant manuscripts.
But even before all of that. The New Testament interprets some parts of The Hebrew Bible in ways that seemingly no Israelite ever thought of in the B.C. Era.
The Canon was closed I believe with the publication of The Book of Revelation. So it's a part of The Bible that never gets interpreted by other parts of The Bible, instead it is a key to helping us interpret other parts.
But I'm a Continuationist, I believe God does still inspire people, but those revelations have to be scrutinized against Scripture. Sometimes I think even the person who receives the revelation might mis-interpret it.
This has become a vital part of the Rapture Dispute. With people wondering why it took till the 19th Century for The Pre-Trib view (and by extension anything like Mid-Trib or Pre-Wrath) to be popularized, however many debatable hints at it before you might find.
This tactic conveniently ignores how Futurism in general was not popular in the Protestant world till the late 19th Century, their default Eschatology was Historicism.
For over a Thousand Years the Catholic Church kept most people from reading The Bible in their own language. After the Reformation started it still took awhile for Translations to be made, and arguably the first ones made weren't the best. So that's why it makes perfect sense that lots of valid interpretations of Scripture wouldn't be discovered or re-discovered till the 1600s or later.
Now there is a lot of mis-information about Darby. He first wrote out the basics of his Pre-Trib Rapture view in early 1827, before Margaret MacDonald had her vision in 1830, and also before Irving published his translation of Manuel Lucanza.
Still neither of those sources teach a Pre-Trib Rapture. MacDonald's account of her revelation has certain things left out of it when people make it seem like it could have inspired Darby's Pre-Trib view, like how she did say The Church would be persecuted by The Antichrist. Her vision does not lay out a clear chronology however, I feel it could be compatible with either Post-Trib or Mid-Trib, but certainly not Pre-Trib. Plus Darby said he thought her visions were Satanically inspired.
This whole "The Rapture must be false since it started with Darby" rhetoric definitely has an Anti-Continuationist tone to it. Darby's own account of how he first came to the idea makes it seem slightly like a divine revelation. And then they add the association with a controversial proto-Charismatic.
I think it's possible that Darby did receive a legit Revelation about Christ gathering His People before His Wrath is poured out. But then made many mistakes when trying to figure out how that fit into Scripture. In a way making the same key mistake Post-Tribbers make.
Because in my opinion, no amount of precedent for Post-Trib makes up for the fact that Post-Trib (in both it's Futurist and Historcist varieties) is based on an inherently wrong assumption, that Revelation 19 is the Second Coming. Pre-Tribers make the same mistake however when they say The Rapture is distinct from the Second Coming.
But I understand why this mistake would be so common. If you start your study of Bible Prophecy with Revelation, which many do, it's easy to see why one would make that mistake. I myself did originally which is why I used to be Post-Trib, though I was always distinct from most Post-Tribbers.
Morgan Edwards taught a form of Pre-Trib in the mid 18th Century, while also being one of the earliest Futurists of the English Speaking world.
So I still haven't given up on finding some obscure little known Ancient or Reformation era precedent for something similar to my Midway-Point view. But regardless it is not necessary.
My view on The Rapture is the one that correctly identifies where to find The Parusia in Revelation using Scripture to Interpret Scripture.
No comments:
Post a Comment