OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: book review by Darth Xena

[Trout]

Review of Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind by David B. Currie

by Darth Xena

[all emphasis added]

This was an interesting book for me in that it dealt with eschatology from a Roman Catholic perspective. Although this should not be surprising since the first systematizer of preterism was a Catholic (Alcazar), I have not run across many popular-level books presenting preterism from this perspective. The difficulty level of this work is "popular," meaning that it is not scholarly treatise but rather for Catholic laity, and surprisingly, it is used as an outreach conversion tool to reach Protestants who are tired of sensational and hyperliteral rapture theories. However David Currie himself descends into tinfoil hat territory in this effort by stating things such as, "by denying the present existence of God's Kingdom, the rapturist builds a firewall against Catholicism in his congregation's soul." [page 81] And in speaking of the gap that rapturists insert into prophecy, the illuminati, I mean Currie, claims, "In fact, this gap does great violence to the text, to the fundamental message of the vision -- all for the purpose of protecting rapturists from the idea that the Catholic Church might have to be examined as a possible candidate for the present-day Kingdom of Heaven." [page 82] In some respects, this book was a very accurate and very fair (the author makes a point in his introduction to state that his goal is to present other views fairly); however, when it deviated from accuracy and fairness, it completely went off the cliff. This bothers me, not just because accuracy is important, but that it fosters a distrust in the author regarding items about which I am not personally knowledgeable about and thus unable to vouch for his representations. I will note the good, the bad, and the ugly in this review. Additionally, this review will be unapologetically Protestant and preterist in it's presuppositions.

There was a great quote in this book attributed to Jean Cardinal Danielou: "Prophecy is the typological interpretation of history." [Page IX] In that sentence is one of the keys to understanding the proper interpretation of New Testament prophecy as well as the New Testament's authors' hermeneutics when dealing with the Old Testament. Specifically with regards to our subject matter, Currie states: "The destruction that God brought down on the Temple was a fulfillment of prophecy, but it was also itself a prophecy." BINGO!! The past fulfillment of specific prophecy does not negate future application as prophecy and especially when it is specifically applied with regard to Christological redemption and consummation. This is where many preterists fall off the cliff headlong into the hyperpreterist heresy - it is prophetic myopia gone wild.

Beginning in chapter 3 Currie states that he will provide some simple summaries of the three millennial positions. And this is where he slides off the horse and falls onto his head. I will demonstrate this by letting his own words speak for themselves:

"Another prominent characteristic of premillennialism is found in its treatment of the Bible. Unlike postmillennialism, it truly seeks faithfully to answer the biblical data."

[Excuse me while I vomit ... okay I'm back]

Postmillennialism

"Postmillennialists believe that the second advent of Christ will follow the Millennium of peace and Justice -- the opposite of what the premillennialists leave. Postmillennialists teach that it is the duty of the Christian community to improve the world to such a point that Christ deems it ready for His return. They believe man can establish the "utopian kingdom" on earth. Unlike the pessimistic premillennialist, the postmillennialists espouses a very optimistic view of man."

[Yeah, those wily Calvinists - which the vast majority of postmillennialists are - are just using reverse psychology on us with that "total depravity" shtick, we all know they have an optimistic view of man. I think my tongue just got stuck in my cheek.]

For a modern rationalist, this idea is much easier to believe then an imminent supernatural second advent. It found fertile ground in the rationalistic mindset that enveloped Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries and still appeals to those whose theology is of a modernist, anti-supernaturalist bent. In postmillennialism, any supernatural invasion of our world by a victorious Christ is roughly a thousand years away. [pages 46-48]

I have wonder from the sheer and reprehensible misrepresentations above if Currie has even read any recent postmillennial work before he decided to slander. He Shall Have Dominion by Kenneth Gentry perhaps? Is it true that postmillennialism doesn't seek to faithfully answer the Biblical data? The question isn't if one thinks postmillennialism is true, it is if that statement is factually correct. Wait a second while I retrieve the Gentry book, which is one of the mainstay foundations of modern postmillennialism, and see if Currie is even in orbit in this solar system. As a matter of fact just for poops and grins I also grabbed Paradise Restored by David Chilton and Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope by Keith Mathison. Heck, just to be thorough with I also grabbed The Millennium by old-school postmillennialist Loraine Boettner. Gentry's book contains 10 pages of only selected Scriptures that he references in his book, Mathison's book also contains 10 pages, and Chilton's book has 14 pages. Boettner does not have the Scripture index but in randomly cruising through the book, Scripture is often mentioned. Ironically, Currie's book does not have a Scripture index either.

Next on to his second inflammatory characterization, are we called to to be obedient to Christ? Of course we are. Do we expect our obedience to potentially have an effect on culture? I know Catholics believe that, thus there are many notable works against abortion. So, Currie sneers at the idea that it is the duty of the Christian to improve the world - or perhaps he only means in conjunction with preparing the world so that Christ deems it ready for His return. Good thing that such a crass characterization is not what postmillennialists believe. Postmillennialists believe that it is the duty of Christians to evangelize the world from which will flow cultural changes as hearts are changed. I don't believe that anyone can disagree with this without castrating the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. Now Currie may disagree that such worldwide evangelism will be successful to the degree that postmillennialists hope for, but that is not the point of his criticism which is patently false. Postmillennialists also believe that the Scripture teaches that Christ will put all of his enemies under His feet in time and in history. In direct contradiction to Currie's assertion, they believe that this is not within the capacity of some inherent goodness in man, but is a work of Christ. There is absolutely no way that Currie could both have read mainstream representations of modern postmillennialism and be telling the truth.

Further, it appears that the only postmillennialism that Currie is familiar with is a system that hasn't been held in any great numbers over roughly the past that twenty years, that is, a belief that the millennium is a discreet period of time yet in our future. I do not know of any mainstream current postmillennial author that holds that view. To suggest that postmillennialism is somehow anti-supernaturalist is also recklessly deficient. Postmillennialists in fact are highly super-naturalist for they believe that the world will be transformed by the power of Christ, which in light of the moral decadence of America is quite a supernatural claim.

Now are there perhaps people who were in fact "Christian humanists" who might have identified themselves as postmillennial but in fact were completely outside of the Christian worldview? Of course. There are some people who claim to be Catholic who hold things which would be abominable to Currie. If I were to simply point them out in a book intended to be a basic and accurate summary of the major sects within Christendom, I would be rightly denounced - perhaps even hated as much as James White - I certainly would be labeled with the slur of "anti-catholic" with the express intention of dislodging any credibility.

Enough with my rant about this portion of the book but, as a postmillennialist, I don't appreciate being misrepresented and theologically slandered.

Currie claims that the prevalence of premillennialism in the earliest church writers is debatable. In fact, he makes the astounding (and I would say irresponsibly outrageous) claim that "early Christian writers could have talked about a thousand-year reign of Christ and still have been amillennial." [page49] In isolation that statement is correct, amillennialists (and modern postmillennialists) both believe in a thousand-year reign of Christ, they disagree with the premillennialists on the meaning of "thousand-year reign." However, in context, Currie is speaking of the same early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, who made more than the simple statements about a "thousand years," but in fact were more explicit and definitely not amillennial in their understanding of that period. In an appendix he further explains that even Justin Martyr believed that the church was in fact the New Israel and that kingdom blessings were applicable to the present time. However, that does not make him amillennial, it simply makes him definitely non-dispensational.

As a bit of a sidetrack, I note that Currie clarified that the Roman Catholic Church has been silent on an authoritative interpretation of the vast majority of Biblical texts. Therefore, it appears to me, that the soundbite criticism of alleged private interpretation that is lobbed against Protestants is hypocritical. The alleged "authoritative interpreter" has not interpreted much at all, and further has declared as de fide, doctrines that are not found in Scripture such as the Immaculate Conception and the bodily assumption of Mary.

Beginning on page 54, he presents some excellent material on ground rules for interpreting eschatological Scripture which are summarized as follows:

* Prophecy inspired by God can foretell events in advance of any possible human foresight.

* Numbers in prophecy denote a symbolic meaning that trumps any empirical value.

* An event can be a prophecy of a still-future, final fulfillment, and when it is, we should consider the entire historical context of the events to gain a fuller understanding.

* Apocalyptic visions may use one image to symbolize two realities.

* Apocalyptic literature uses dramatic imagery of cataclysmic disruptions to describe changes within the human political sphere.

* Physical objects can signify spiritual realities; for example, clouds can signify the glory of God the The judge.

* Physical-resurrection language can symbolize spiritual renewal.

* Chronological order is not always observed and apocalyptic visions.

* Christ's first advent catapulted humanity into "the last days."

Daniel

His discussion on Daniel, and most particularly for me, Daniel 9,was very good. There was a great deal of food for thought on the common assumption that the 70 weeks of Daniel reckon one day for one year and that the three blocks of time (seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week) run consecutively. The summary of his argument is that the first seven sevens denote the forty nine decades from 457 B.C. (the decree of King Artaxerxes recorded in Ezra 7:11-26) to 32 A.D. The second block of time, the sixty-two sevens, began when the rebuilding of Jerusalem actually began which he places in 444 B.C. (Nehemiah chapters 1 and 2). This block of time would end in 10 B.C., the time he states that Herod's temple, without the additional annexes and adjoining buildings, was completed. The last week he places as beginning with Christ's birth in 4 B.C. and ending seven decades later at 67 to 70 A.D. This was a completely new concept to me and from the short summary here it may seem unconvincing, but I do recommend the reader to refer to Currie's presentation in pages 119 through 128.

Now, my fellow Protestants, its time for a snicker moment. Currie states [page 145] in conclusion of his correct demonstration that the "secret rapture" has no Biblical support: "Without any biblical support, why believe it?" [chortle, choke, choke] - You mean like the MARIAN DOGMAS????? Well then Mr. Currie, I agree with you. Why DO you believe that Mary, for instance, was bodily assumed into heaven when there isn't any Biblical support. Without any Biblical support, why believe it?

The Olivet Discourse

Moving into his treatment of the Olivet Discourse, Mr. Currie could really have benefited from referring to some of the extensive works already done on this subject by notable modern preterist authors (his only current "preterist" author cited in the endnotes is hyperpreterist John Noe.) Mr. Currie (quite ignorantly) claims that "this generation" in Matthew 24:34must mean the generation then living because, in part, Jesus just used that same phrase in Matthew 23:36and "no one tries to reinterpret the meaning of this word on that occasion." O Rly? Well Mr. Currie, meet fellow amillennialist Tony Warren:

"Is all those people standing there (the physical generation) guilty of the blood of all the Prophets, and will be judged of God for it? God Forbid! The Apostles and all believers there won't have the Blood of the Prophets required of them. That is quite obvious to anyone who knows scripture. God says every man is responsible only for his own sin, not the sins of others (Deuteronomy 24:16). Which is why The Blood of these prophets will be required of 'that generation.' ..How? Because Those who killed the Prophets, though they lived hundreds of years before, were part of 'that Generation.' They are part of the family of Satan their father, for the generation of evil spans time."

"This couldn't either logically, rationally, or Biblically mean everyone physically there at the time, so what it does mean should be evident with a little thought. It is a kinship of evil. Those of the lineage of Satan. Jesus called them, 'Children of the Devil.'" (http://members.aol.com/twarren14/generation.html)

Tony is not unusual in this as anyone decently well-read with eschatological debate would surely know. I am not disagreeing with Mr. Currie's position that such is what it DOES mean, but he is wrong that no one denies this (and I am not counting some fringe nutbars but mainstream views). This simply strengthens my early impression that Mr. Currie has been published on this subject a bit prematurely.

Mr. Currie takes the position that the Olivet Discourse divides primarily after verse 34 with the subject switching to the Second Coming. A major premise of his argument is that the disciples asked two questions of Jesus which would have been cognizantly distinct questions in their minds. The theory that two separate questions that were understood by the disciples is not unusual, but it is untenable. I agree with Mr. Currie that the questions were understood by the disciples, but I posit that they properly (and in their own understanding) understood their questions as involving one event. As I stated in "It's Not the End of the World!" http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html:

-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-==-=--=-=-

The remainder of the review will be continued in the following post below:

[Trout]

In Mark and Luke any references to "coming" are missing. That is strange if this passage were talking about the Second Coming ~ that would mean Mark and Luke entirely omitted the Main Eventtm. If we line up Matthew, Mark, and Luke we appear to have these equivalent phrases.

Matthew:What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?

Mark: What will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?

Luke: And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?

Interesting. The narratives equate "these things" with "Your coming and of the end of the age?"

We have to ask at this point (and there is a BIG hint above) why did Matthew include a reference to Christ's "coming" when, as we have seen, there is nothing in the context so far that refers to Christ's Second Coming (or even a First Going), and the other Gospel authors didn't record the disciples even asking a thing about that event? Doesn't that seem odd to you? Even stranger still, Currie supposes that Jesus went on a rabbit trail in the middle of the Discourse about Jerusalem to contrast His Second Advent with the false messiahs because "Jesus needed to assure His disciples that they need not worry about missing His second advent." Huh? First, Currie argues elsewhere that the Second Advent would not be preceded by any signs - and that the destruction of Jerusalem, with many precursory signs, happened forty years later, and result in the expansion of the Kingdom. Thus.... if one connects the dots, the disciples would not even be alive at the time of the second advent to be in danger of "missing" it.

Currie postulates that the disciples intended their question to mean, "What signs can You give us that history is coming to its eschatological climax with the second advent." [page 155] I believe the Biblical context shows that a "second advent" was the last thing from their minds. However, in general, I find his exegesis of the Olivet Discourse very good in most parts despite his inconsistencies. He also referenced several master thesis papers that I have since obtained and am grateful for the lead on additional resources. He also postulates that the verses comparing the coming with lightning and the gathering of the eagles to the body are both referring to the second coming as parenthetical comments. The most glaring flaw in this line of reasoning is his highly peculiar claim that "wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together" is referring to believers (presumably represented as eagles) being gathered to Christ (the body) - for a complete exegesis in support of my position that the eagles are in fact the Roman armies and the body is the carcass of Jerusalem please see http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/w...nd.html#eagles. It is these sorts of things in which it is painfully obvious that Currie would have benefited from some further preterist sources.

The Epistles

Currie nails the resurrection down in a quite satisfactory manner in his treatment of 1 Corinthians 15. In my own journey, that was the passage that shoved me out of premillennialism and led me down the road of rejecting dispensationalism. The other passages he brings into play regarding the resurrection are Phil. 3:20-21; Colossians 3:4; 1 and Thessalonians 4:13-5:3. There is one potentially (though inadvertently) dissonant argument with regards to the fact that the general resurrection is one coherent event - not multiple events separated by years or a millennia - beginning with a "secret rapture." The argument proceeded as follows:

"If there were two stages to the second advent, we would be able to find one passage that speaks of them together, teaching us in one place of the differences. That we are not able to do so is a terrible handicap to rapturists. It is evidence of their deceptive double vision. Of course, we have not been able to find a passage that unequivocally teaches about a secret rapture at all, much less a passage that speaks of it side-by-side with the second coming."

The problem is that we cannot consistently hold that position. Why? There is no one passage that clearly defines the Trinity and Jehovah's Witnesses, at least the clever ones, capitalize on this fact. The stronger point that Currie should have relied upon is that the doctrine simply isn't taught at all, even if the multiple references to the second coming are taken holistically.

The Apocalypse

With the very important and strong exception of the parts where he waxes wild with Catholic theology, his treatment of Revelation is very informative and well-said. He does a very good job of showing the intent of John to track and parallel certain parts of Daniel, a conclusion with which I totally agree, in fact, I find little to disagree with in this section. He further derives this interesting theory:

"The theme of The Apocalypse is identical to that of Daniel: 'The mystery of Christ's Kingdom: proof that Christ is coming again.' The only difference is generated by the six hundred years of events that transpire between the two books. While Daniel envisions the time from the re-establishment of the earthly Jerusalem to the first advent, St. John envisions the time from the establishment of the New Jerusalem to the second advent."

In this section I found another spot where Currie appeared to potentially be a bit conflicting - earlier in the Olivet Discourse, he applied most dogmatically the verse about the flashing of the lightning from east to west to the Second Advent; yet here in Revelation (page 316), he notes that the approach of the kings of the east referred to the coming of the troops of Titus from the east. It seems to me lacking that he did not at least mention this possibility in his treatment of the Olivet verse. He offered a perspective that I cannot recall hearing before - that is the cities on seven hills in Revelation is not Rome, but rather Jerusalem, noting that Jospehus even gave the name of the seven hills of Jerusalem (page 322.)

Why the Rapture is Appealing and What is an Honest Christian to Do?

I do believe Currie has nailed some of the escapist appeal of Rapture theology, but he also is out of his tree in one of his charges. He actually claims similarity between Rapture theology and the Health and Wealth Gospel. This is a scandalously inaccurate charge based upon the flimsy reed that since Rapturists believe that we will escape the Great Tribulation that such means we are entitled to escape all suffering. That is simply and blatantly false. He goes on to point out that both "too high" and "too low" a view of Scripture contribute to the issue. While I would disagree with his terminology and the RCC spin, I do actually agree with him in essence. However, what is perceived by some in the Rapturist camp as being a "high" view of Scripture is simply an ignorant one that disregards historical contexts and rich meaning in favour of hyperliteralism. As far as Currie's claim that he as an RCC has further resources to draw upon, I would point that the fact he feels the need to argue his preterist position means it simply is not settled infallibly, and that Protestants have thus the exact same resources at their disposal, unless Currie would like to point me to the Infallible Interpreter's commentary on the book of Revelation - which would make Currie's book unnecessary.

Appendixes

Curries includes five appendixes: Early Church Fathers, The Masoretic Silluk in Daniel, Zechariah, The Authorship and Dating of Revelation, and A Response to Hyperpreterism. Out of these, only two were, in my opinion, worthwhile - The Authorship and Dating of Revelation and Zechariah. The "Response to Hyperpreterism" frankly sucked unfortunately. The two worthwhile ones were, thankfully, very very good. I believe that he should have reduced the appendixes to just one - The Authorship and Dating of Revelation, and move his very excellent treatment of Zechariah to the main portion of the book. Though I am not partial to charts, he has an excellent chart showing the hopscotch absurdity of dispensational interpretations of Zechariah switching back and forth over millennia within verses and chapters. I would recommend his section on the dating of Revelation for people to get a quick handle on a great many of the major arguments for the early date position. However, there is one absolute stinker of an argument - and one which I mentioned that Gary DeMar also used, and it stinks just as badly the second time. That is that the Seven Letters to Seven Churches is evidence of an early date because it is unlikely that "seven" was a symbolic representation of all the churches, which numbered more than seven - but that there actually were only literally seven churches prior to AD70.

In conclusion, Protestant readers will find much to disagree with in his Catholicizing of many events and passages, but that is to be expected. I would expect though that some Catholic readers would also be dismayed at some of his shallow apologetics for the Catholic position. For instance:

"As an aside, rapturists sometimes claim that Hebrews criticizes Catholic belief in the sacrifice of the Mass. Out of the other side of their mouths, they try to claim that belief in the Mass as an unbloody sacrifice did not appear in the Church until as later as the Middle Ages. Of course, they cannot have it both ways! How could the author of Hebrews be criticizing the sacrifice of the Mass if it was not believed to be a sacrifice yet?"

Does Currie actually believe that is a good and fair argument? Or an accurate representation of what his opponents believe. First, one should never assume an understanding of another's argument in such a way that would make them as dumb as a rock. Skeptics do the exact same thing when they accuse Solomon of contradicting himself in ignorant bliss when he first says "Do not answer a fool according to his folly," and in the very next verse says, "Answer a fool according to his folly." Opponents of Catholicism are NOT stating that the writer of Hebrews was speaking exactly and specifically of the Mass - but rather was articulating a principle that is applied to the Mass - and frankly, the shoe fits. In the same way, when I state that hyperpreterists are guilty of the Hymenaean heresy, I am NOT claiming that Hymenaeus was precisely a hyperpreterist and denied the resurrection in precisely the same way.

And there is something for everyone! Currie breaks the cardinal rule of preterism - "we don't need no stinkin' charts" - and scatters multiple visual references for his timelines.

EDITORIAL NITS

On page 177 there is an endnote reference of "OTP"; however, no such entry exists in the endnotes. Further, on page 317 the word "know" is used rather than "known."

Ack!!! The back cover blurb says, "In these remarkable pages - which constitute the world's most careful and thorough study of the rapture...."

Humility is a virtue. However, though I do think the book is very good in a lot of parts, as I have and will continue to demonstrate, it is certainly NOT as accurate or thorough as it could have been. And I am the world's most careful and thorough reviewer ;)

For more articles like this one please visit www.preteristsite.com

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-==-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statementor be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

[JonLanceBarker]

wow...what a mixed bag.
sounds like nearly everyone could be better served by going elsewhere for preterist/amillennial literature...

(note: above statement originates from orthodox preterist & amillennial presuppositions. )

[Trout]

[Trout]

[Dee Dee Warren]

Everyone just agrees with me. Smart people

[Glenn P]

Johnmartin, please make at least one post without both missing the point and flying into a scholastic wannabe rage. Especially your comment about binding and loosing - look very carefully at the sentence you're responding to and what it means. You aren't even remotely on target.

Make a real comment on the meat of the review or bugger off.

[TyRockwell]

DX, I read your review and now I know I don't want to read Mr. Curries book, nor any of the others cited.

On some points I agree with you. But I digress....

Ty

[Glenn P]

I’m right on target and as usual you have no content.

Your reply about binding and loosing was not even connected to the comment you replied to. It was just your autoscipt(tm) kicking in.

Still stinging after your loss on the Papal Infallibility thread.

Spoken by a fanclub/audience of one.

Be absolutely assured, JM, nobody - Nobody but you holds that view of what took place. Nobody.

[Glenn P]

blah blah blah blah....

True to his ultra defensive self... JM merely rehashes already defeated arguments.

JM, the debate was over. You had your chance. OK, so you blew it. I'm sorry. But this thread is not the place to air your hurt feelings. Move on.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am wondering what any of this has to do with my article. If it doesn't please take it elsewhere.

[Glenn P]

I am wondering what any of this has to do with my article. If it doesn't please take it elsewhere.

Quite right. I should not have replied to jm's bait laden post in the first place. My apologies for upsetting him and generating the reactions.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am not interested in arguing Catholicism JohnMartin that is not the main thrust of the review. Please have the respect not to drag someone else's work into your pet topic.

[Dee Dee Warren]

So says the plagiarizer. Okay, that's for the concern, but I think I will sleep fine at night.

[Glenn P]

JM must surely have predicted that his words would be deleted given that they so flagrantly disrespect the intention of this thread. I suppose ensuring that he becomes the martyr was part of the plan. never mind some of the laughable arguments he used.