Eschatology Notes: Samuel Waldron
One of the fundamentals of evangelical and orthodox Christianity is the doctrine
of the bodily return of Christ to earth from heaven. That is to say, it is
essential to Apostolic Christianity that one believe that the unique, historical
person known as Jesus of Nazareth and whom the church worships as the Son of God
will one day return to this earth from heaven with the same resurrected but real
human nature with which He ascended to heaven. The classic and often cited proof
of this doctrine is found in the words of the angels to the Apostles in Acts
1:11, "and they also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the
sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just
the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.""
It is not the purpose of this section of our studies, however, to argue for
the bodily return of Christ. That doctrine is here rather assumed as one
accepted by all evangelical and orthodox Christians. My purpose here is to take
up the problems associated with what has become known as the imminence of
Christ's return.
The New Testament, as we shall see, clearly teaches the nearness and unknown
time of the return of Christ and urges Christians to have an attitude of
expectancy and alertness with regard to that return. It is this that I refer to
when I speak of when I refer to the imminence of Christ's return. All sorts of
practical excesses and doctrinal extremes in the history of the church have
taken as their pretext this doctrine. It is my purpose to examine three such
extremes in this section of our studies and then by way of conclusion and
contrast ask what the real meaning of this doctrine of imminence is for the
disciple of Christ.
We begin, then, by dealing with three extreme reactions to the New Testament
doctrine of the imminence of Christ's return: pretribulationism,
preterism, and date-setting (or, if you will, calculationism).
I. Pretribulationism
Introduction:
Pretribulationism, or the secret rapture theory, is the teaching that Christ
will come for the Church before the great tribulation at the end of the age. It
is a distinctive feature of Dispensationalism. The teaching that Christ will
come both before and after a future tribulation (whatever terminology may be
used for these "two comings")(1)
is justified by and based upon the Church/Israel distinction of
Dispensationalism. Only the strict separation of the Church and Israel can
justify and ground this theory.
From one perspective Pretribulationism is so groundless a theory that the
propriety of dealing with it may be questioned. Several considerations constrain
this treatment of it:
(1) The dogmatism with which this theory is believed is divisive. One product
of this is its wide-spread incorporation into statements of doctrine in
`Fundamental' churches.
(2) It is so widely believed that most pastors will almost certainly be
confronted with the necessity of publicly or privately refuting it and/or
defending your rejection of it. Even many who are clearly unconverted believe
this theory.
(3) In a very real sense it is the source of many of the practical,
destructive tendencies of the modern, popular eschatology.
(4) Pretribulationism is the practical outgrowth and shows the necessary
doctrinal result of the kind of doctrine regarding the imminence of Christ's
return at work in the resurgent Premillennialism of the 19th Century. Here let
me remind you of the observation of Sandeen cited in the historical introduction
to these studies:
But perhaps more important was the continually reiterated argument of the
pretribulationists that the hope of Christ's return had to be an imminent hope
or it was not hope at all. If one believes that a period of tribulation must
first take place before the coming of Christ, they said, then he cannot look
forward to the second advent but must wait only for greater suffering.
Regardless of the question of scriptural justification for one point of view
over the other, the pretribulationist position was certainly more likely to
appeal to that portion of American Christendom which was attracted by the
millenarian message.(2)
Though Pretribulationism is justified by means of the Dispensational
Church/Israel distinction, in all likelihood the doctrinal force which created
this view was what Sandeen calls above "the imminent hope" of the millenarians.
Our procedure in this treatment will be as follows:
A. Arguments Against Pretribulationism Presented
B. Arguments for Pretribulationism Refuted
A. Arguments against Pretribulationism Presented.
1. The Unity of the Church and Israel
In the preceding lectures the Church/Israel distinction of Dispensationalism
has been refuted at length. Not withstanding the clear element of superiority in
the Church, the fundamental principle of the unity and continuity of the Church
and Israel has been clearly established. This principle completely undermines
Pretribulationism. It does so for three reasons.
a. It destroys the substructure of Pretribulationism, the alternate dealings
of God with the Church and Israel.
The stiff division of time between the `Church age' and the `Tribulation' can only be maintained in conjunction with a stiff division between the Church and Israel. This the Bible does not teach.
|
ISRAEL |
CHURCH |
ISRAEL |
|
The Dispensation of Law |
The Church Age |
The Great Tribulation |
b. It destroys the whole rationale for the secret rapture theory.
One of the main props of Pretribulationism is the argument that the Church
will be taken out before this tribulation. This temporal deliverance is the
practical rationale for the pretribulation theory. It would be a mistake to
assume, however, that this implies that no true saints will be on earth during
the seven year tribulation. As a matter of fact many and perhaps all
pretribulationists hold that many people will be saved during the `Great
Tribulation'. Unless, however, you believe in the strict Church/Israel
distinction, such saints must be thought to belong to the Church. If they belong
to the Church, then the whole practical rationale for a pretribulation rapture
is destroyed. Without the Dispensational Church/Israel separation, the whole
point of the Pretribulation rapture is nullified.
c. It destroys the only hermeneutical defense of Pretribulationism in many
passages of Scripture
Luke 17:22-37 may be used to illustrate this assertion. Several observations
will clarify the point. This passage obviously does not have in view a
Pretribulational rapture. The coming is universally visible (vv. 23, 24). It
brings immediate destruction to the wicked (vv. 28-30). It is the coming that
concerns Christ's disciples (v. 22, cf. vv. 31-35).
Pretribulationists realize all this. Thus, they explain that Christ wasn't
speaking to His disciples as representatives of the Church, but as
representatives of the saved Jewish remnant of Israel. Pretribulational exegesis
usually regards the disciples of Christ in the Gospels as representative of
Israel and not the Church. Many obvious objections may occur to us with
reference to this explanation. One point, however, is unavoidable. If no
separation between the Church and Israel exists, this--the only feasible
explanation of the passage from a Pretribulational standpoint--is destroyed.
2. The Obvious Relation Between the Coming, Rapture, and Tribulation in Those
Passages Where They Are Explicitly Related
Now I must explain that this argument is to some degree ad hominem.
I do not accept the identification of the tribulation in a couple of these
passages with the "little season" at the end of the age. Nonetheless most, if
not all, Pretribulationists would, and therefore the argument holds for them.
a. Matthew 24:29-31
Pretribulationalism generally identifies the tribulation mentioned here as
"the great tribulation." The order, however, is tribulation, coming, rapture in
the most explicit terms.
b. Revelation 1-22
The Futurist-Dispensationalist view of Revelation is as follows:
| Chapters 1-3 | Chapters 4-18 | Chapter 19 | Chapter 20 | Chapters 21-22 |
| Church Age | Tribulation | Second Advent | Millennium | Eternal State |
Assuming for the sake of argument that this presentation is correct, note the
clear order: Church age (no mention of Pretribulation rapture); Tribulation, The
Second Coming (issuing in the first resurrection). Again the clear
order is : Tribulation, coming, rapture.
c. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
I accept the identification of the events of this chapter with the
"tribulation." Again, however, the order is explicit: tribulation (apostasy and
the revealing of the man of lawlessness), coming, rapture (note the order of v.
2).(3)
Certainly these passages, the only ones in the New Testament where coming and
rapture and tribulation are explicitly related would seem to leave little doubt
on this issue. At the very least, they create an immense presumption in favor of
Posttribulationism.
3. Paul's Systematic Teaching on the Subject to the Thessalonians.
Introduction: The Importance of This Argument
Several considerations which underscore the importance of this particular
argument may be mentioned: (1) Even the most extreme Dispensationalists accept 1
and 2 Thessalonians as authoritative for the Church. (2) 1 Thess. 4:13-18 is
supposed to be the classic passage on the rapture. (3) 1 and 2 Thessalonians
contain the most detailed, systematic, and homogeneous presentation of Paul's
teaching on the subject. Granted, much of significance is conveyed elsewhere. 1
Corinthians 15 is especially rich in this subject. Yet 1 and 2 Thessalonians
taken together as Paul's doctrinal instruction to a single church is of
unparalleled importance and clarity. The teaching of Paul on this subject to the
Thessalonians ought to be understood as a whole, and when it is, tremendously
clarifies our subject.
a. 1 Thess. 4:13-5:11
The teaching of this passage may be delineated around the discussion of five
exegetical issues.
1) The Problem of the Thessalonians
The theme of this passage in general is clearly to comfort and encourage the
Thessalonian believers concerning believing loved ones who had died (4:13, 18;
5:11). This raises the question: What precisely was the doctrinal problem which
resulted in their `grieving like the rest who had no hope'? One must be wary of
twisting the more clear aspects of the passage to fit one's speculation about
the exact doctrinal problem or lack of information which resulted in the problem
Paul now addresses.(4)
However, if a clear picture of the precise misunderstanding which troubled
the Thessalonians can be formed, it will certainly assist our understanding. If
we examine carefully Paul's first and last statements in his doctrinal
instruction in the passage, such a clear picture does emerge. According to v.
13, the problem centered on the condition of those believers who die before
Christ's return. Paul's first words in v. 14 are to the effect that such will be
brought with Christ, i.e., brought again from the dead. Paul proceeds to assure
the Thessalonians that so far from their death being a cause of grief, it is, if
anything, a promotion (vv. 15, 16). After digressing in the early verses of
chapter 5, Paul returns to the opening theme of the passage in verse 10, where
he repeats his assurance that whether we are awake or asleep at Christ's return
resurrection-life with Christ will be ours.
Some have thought it extreme to view the Thessalonian problem as centering on
the resurrection of believers. Surely such a fundamental doctrine could not have
been doubted, it is thought. Thus, Gundry makes the Thessalonians' worry concern
only a delay in dead believers' resurrection.(5)
The following considerations refute this minmizing of the problem. (1) Paul's
teaching at Thessalonica, though effective, was brief and violently interrupted
(Acts 17:1f.). (2) Any but the most clear teaching on this subject would be
subject to misinterpretation or doubt because of the intellectual hostility of
the Greek intellectual world to the resurrection (Acts 17:32). (3) As a matter
of fact, Paul's word in 1 Thess. 4:13 prevents any mitigation of the problem. He
says explicitly, "we do not want you to be uninformed that you may not grieve
as do the rest who have no hope." This speaks against the problem being
a mere delay of resurrection which makes some miss the millennium.
In solving the Thessalonians' problem and supplying their lack of
information, Paul makes clear that not only that the parousia (), resurrection
and rapture occur in a certain order, but also that they occur at the same time.
This is significant because it makes clear that for Paul parousia (),
resurrection, and rapture are insolubly related temporally and logically.
2) The Sounds of the Descent
Every Pretribulationist believes and must believe that 1 Thess. 4:13-18
speaks of the pretribulational rapture of the Church. This rapture, so they say,
is secret. If this is so, Paul certainly gives a misleading presentation of the
subject in verse 16. The shout of the Lord, the voice of the archangel, and the
trump of God seem more calculated to wake the dead than to encourage secrecy.
Furthermore, when one examines the biblical backgrounds of these matters,
evidence for a posttribulational viewpoint accumulates.
Posttribulationism gains nevertheless, in the parallel between the "great
(i.e. loud) trump," in which the emphasis lies on the publicity of the
posttribulation advent (Matt. 24:27-31), and the "voice" and the "trump" in 1
Thess. 4:16. And there is good reason to connect the "voice of the archangel"
(presumably Michael, the only archangel named in the Bible) with the
resurrection of Old Testament saints. Michael is specially associated with
Israel in Dan. 10:21 and 12:1, 2, in the latter reference in close
juxta-position with the resurrection. If the resurrection and translation of the
Church will occur simultaneously with the resurrection of Old Testament saints
as indicated by the "voice of the archangel," the rapture will occur after the
tribulation, for the resurrection of Old Testament saints will not occur till
then (Isa. 25:8; 26:19; Dan. 12:1-3, 13).(6)
3) The Meeting in the Air
Often this statement is assumed to imply that after the meeting, Christ and
the Church return to heaven. Actually, this is neither stated, nor implied. In
fact the original words ( ) imply exactly the opposite. F. F. Bruce says:
When a dignitary paid an official visit or parousia to a city in Hellenistic
times, the action of the leading citizens in going out to meet him and
escorting him on the final stage of his journey was called the
apantesis....(7)
Gundry aptly comments on this connotation of the word here used: "This
connotation points toward our rising to meet Christ in order to escort Him
immediately back to earth."(8)
This meaning of is confirmed by its two other uses in the New Testament. Matt.
25:6 speaks of the ten virgins who were waiting to go out and mett the
bridegroom and then return with him to the wedding feast. Even more clearly Acts
28:15 speaks of how the brethren came out to meet Paul and accompanied him on
the final leg of his journey to Rome.
4) The Connection with Chapter 5.
The traditional chapter division has created the impression that 5:1f. takes
up a different subject than 4:13-18. This idea has been defended by some and (as
will become clear) is necessary to a Pretribulational interpretation of 4:13-18.
Such an interpretation is, however, indefensible.
(1) The articles in 5:1 prevent this division and tie 5:1f. to the foregoing.
Note, " ," the times and the epochs. The articles obviously
indicate that Paul is continuing to speak of Christ's parousia. It is the times
and the epochs of the events just being discussed to which is Paul referring.
The article is used here as Dana and Mantey say, "to denote previous
reference".(9)
(2) The typical division between 4:13-18 and 5:1f. is to the effect that the
first passage deals with parousia and the second with the Day of the Lord. The
implication is that these are distinguishable events. The day of the Lord,
however, designates precisely that event described in 4:13-18. Note that the
fivefold use of in 4:13-18 leads up to and anticipates µ in 5:2.
(3) The further implication of the distinction between the parousia and the
Day of the Lord is that the Church does not have to do with the Day of the Lord
because of the pretribulation rapture. This, however, is not the teaching of
5:4-6. Paul's language is careful, "you brethren, are not in darkness that the
day should overtake you like a thief." The warning of v. 6 to be alert
and sober implies the expectation of the Day of the Lord. The Day of the Lord
comes like a thief to both believers and unbelievers, but it does not
overtake believers like a thief. The practical result of all this is
that one must identify the Day of the Lord with the parousia of 4:13-18. This,
however, is devastating for Pretribulationism. It is to say that the same
parousia which brings resurrection and rapture to the Church brings "sudden
destruction" (v. 3) to the wicked. It overtakes the wicked like a thief
in the night (v. 2).
5) The Timing of the Day
Paul comments in verses 1 and 2 that the Thessalonians do not stand in need
of written instruction concerning the timing of the parousia because of previous
oral instruction. Thankfully, he then elaborates what it is that they know
already. Verses 2-4 tell us two bits of information concerning the timing of the
Day of the Lord.
(1) Verses 2 and 3 indicate that the day will be wholly unexpected by the
wicked and will catch them in a state of carnal security. The analogy of a thief
in the night indicates this. It occurs in a similar context in Matt. 24:36-44
(note esp. vv. 37-39). 1 Thess. 5:3 conveys a similar impression. Note that they
are saying (not crying out for) peace and safety. Cf. Jer. 6:14 and
8:11.
(2) Verse 4 indicates that the Church will be alert and ready and thus will
not find the day to be like a thief (Matt. 24:42-44). The context in 1
Thessalonians 5, however, may further indicate that the Church is aware of
certain indications of the day's approach. While we must be careful not to
contradict the statement of Matt. 24:36 that "of that day and hour no one
knows," yet it may be that Paul is thinking of the events depicted in 2 Thess.
2:3-12 as giving some warning to believers of the approaching advent of Christ.
It is noteworthy to observe the parallel between 1 Thess. 5:1 and 2, and 2
Thess. 2:5. In both passages Paul speaks of his previous oral instruction to the
Thessalonian believers.
If this is the reference, the perspective of Paul and that of Jesus may be
reconciled by the consideration that Jesus has in mind the contrast between the
clear indication of time given for the destruction of Jerusalem (this
generation) and the lack of any such indication for the parousia. The sequence
of events given in 2 Thess. 2 is not at all a time reference like that in Matt.
24. Jesus prophesied that a generation and no more would occur before the
destruction of Jerusalem. Paul gives no indication of when the apostasy and the
revelation of the man of sin may be. It is assumed, however, that the Church may
well understand once these events occur that the "little season" before the
parousia has begun.
b. 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10
This passage is perhaps one of the most overlooked and yet most important on
the question of Pretribulationism. In the context of verse 4, Paul is commending
the Thessalonians for their faith in the midst of persecution. Verse 5 adds
Paul's encouragement that such sufferings are a mark of their future inheritance
of glory. Verses 6 and 7a then proceed to delineate what God's righteous
judgment of verse 5 will consist in. It will consist in God's repaying with
affliction those who afflict the Thessalonian believers (v. 6). It will also
consist in God's giving relief to His afflicted people including the
Thessalonians as well as Paul and his helpers (v. 1).
The crucial point is reached in verse 7b where Paul tells us explicitly when
all this will happen. It will be "when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from
heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire." The original is " ....". Paul's
plain meaning is that the event which brings relief to God's afflicted Church is
the revelation of Jesus Christ bringing immediate destruction to the wicked.
There is no conceivable way this plain passage of the Word of God can be squared
with Pretribulationism. (1) Most Pretribulationism acknowledges Christ's
`revelation' to be Posttribulational (for the obvious reason that a revelation
can scarcely be a "secret rapture". (2) Christ's revelation means immediate and
eternal destruction for those afflicting Christ's people (v. 8f.). (3) Christ's
revelation brings relief from affliction to the Church, not tribulation saints
(vv. 6, 7, 10). Every escape route for Pretribulationism is cut off.
c. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
1) Its General Subject (v. 1).
"the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him"
" µ µ "
The parousia of and the gathering of Christians to Christ are here viewed as
one event occurring at one time. Every exegetical consideration demands this.
(1) In 1 Thess. 4:13-18 Paul has taught in the most explicit terms possible that
the parousia of Christ and the rapture and resurrection of Christians are
practically simultaneous and certainly not divisible by seven years of time. (2)
The single article "means that the two things are closely connected.... two
parts of one great event".(10)
(3) Unless the gathering is subsumed under or identified with the parousia, Paul
does not discuss or mention the gathering in the passage. Paul, however, tells
us that he intends to discuss this very subject in verse 1. This again points
toward the two being viewed as a single occurrence. (4) The order is
significant: parousia, then gathering. This is the order of 1 Thess. 4:13-18.
The idea that the parousia occurs after, but the gathering before the
tribulation is contradicted by this. The point of all this for the subject under
discussion is clear. In this passage the one, inseparable event of parousia and
gathering is clearly placed after "the tribulation" (note v. 3 and v. 8).
2) Its Precise Occasion (v. 2)
The words of this chapter were penned to counter aberrations that were
beginning to trouble the church at Thessalonica. These were a practical
aberration related to a doctrinal aberration.
a) The Practical Aberration
Paul points at this aberration in the words, "that you may not be shaken from
your composure or disturbed." What was the character of this disturbance? Some
have taught that the Thessalonians were disturbed by fear or sorrow that they
had missed the pretribulation rapture. These is no indication of fear or sorrow
in 2 Thess 2:2. The real problem seems to have been an inordinate excitement
leading to the kind of problem addressed in chapter 3, an undisciplined life
(3:6-12).
b) The Doctrinal Aberration
The source of this problem was the rumor that Paul had taught or was now
teaching, "that the Day of the Lord has come" (NASV). Much discussion has been
devoted to the precise meaning of the verb, , in this verse. Does it mean "is at
hand" or "has come"? Not withstanding Warfield and others, the proper meaning is
clearly the latter. (1) It is in the perfect tense. (2) In its other occurrences
in the New Testament it always designates something present and is often
contrasted with things about to come. ( µ, 1 Cor. 3:22; Rom. 8:38). (3) Paul
could not be refuting the notion that the day was at hand because he would be
explicitly contradicting himself (Phil. 4:5; Rom. 13:11, 12). Paul taught that
the day was at hand.
If this interpretation is correct, this raises the problem, How could the
Thessalonians have taught or believed that the day had come in the absence of
the things associated with it in 1 Thess. 5:1? Some have speculated that the
false teachers included certain events preceding the parousia in the "Day of the
Lord." In light of Paul's clear teaching in 1 Thess. 5:1f. to the effect that
the day of the Lord was coming as a thief in the night and bringing sudden
destruction, this is unlikely. Rather their teaching is to be equated with the
idea that the parousia or the Day of the Lord was to occur in the immediate
future. It had come in the sense of being certainly in the most immediate
future, a few more days, weeks, or months at most. Thus, they gave over their
normal employment in wild anticipation of the parousia.
The question must be raised, Are there modern counterparts to the
Thessalonian fanatics? Tragically, there are. Any one who says with certainty
that Christ's coming will take place at a specific date which he has calculated
from the Scriptures certainly commits the same doctrinal blunder. Any emphasis
on a "soon" coming which must occur in the immediate future and which could be
"any moment" approaches the error of the Thessalonians and often in our day has
produced practical effects which tend toward the practical error of the
Thessalonians.
3) Its Clear Teaching (v. 3).
"(It will not come) unless the apostasy comes first and the man of
lawlessness be revealed." Paul here refutes the fanatics, by clearly asserting
that the Day of the Lord could not be in the immediate future because two events
must first occur. Several observations are warranted.
(1) The doctrine that imminence means any moment-ness is clearly refuted by
Paul's words. Paul did not believe either that no prophesied event remains
before the parousia or that it could be at any moment. In fact implicitly he
exposes such teaching as an incipient form of the Thessalonian error.
(2) Paul clearly assumes that "the apostasy and the revelation of the man of
sin" would be clearly observable and identifiable events to the generation of
Christians living when they occur. This militates against identifying these
events with any that have occurred so far in church history! No such event as to
give rise to such a universal consensus to a single generation of Christians has
occurred.
(3) The presumption is that the events described in verse 3 occur shortly
before the parousia. Once they do occur, Paul implies, and only then, will the
statement that the Day of the Lord has come be appropriate. The destruction of
the man of lawlessness by the parousia also indicates this (v. 8).
4) The Pretribulational Perversions
Two interpretations which attempt to insert a pretribulation rapture into
this passage must now be addressed.
a) Incredibly, some pretribulationists have attempted to identify "the
apostasy" of verse 3 with the rapture. English, Wuest and others have attributed
the meaning departure to deriving that meaning from the cognate verb,
µ. Gundry's thorough destruction of this thesis should be consulted.(11)
There is no example in the entirety of Greek (including, of course, the 40
occurrences in the LXX and the one occurrence in the New Testament) of
designating anything other than political revolt or religious apostasy. As
Gundry comments, "It is unthinkable that Paul would use for the rapture a word
the connotation of which overwhelmingly has to do with civil and religious
defection".(12)
b) Some pretribulationists have attempted to identify the "restrainer" with the Holy Spirit in the Church.(13) Several comments are appropriate: (1) No identification of the restrainer can be more than probable and tentative given the neglect of Paul himself to identify the restrainer with clarity. (2) Even the identification of the restrainer with the Holy Spirit does not entail the idea that it is the Holy Spirit in the Church removed in the rapture. (3) A more likely identity of the restrainer and the restraint is that of an angel and his angelic power. Nothing can be urged against such an identity. Angels are viewed as in conflict with the powers of darkness in closely parallel passages (Dan. 10:10-13; Rev. 20:1f.; 13:7f.). Since the mystery of iniquity is the product of (fallen) angelic operation, one would expect by the law of parity that its restraint would be angelic. (4) Insuperable objections can be raised against the restrainer being the Holy Spirit in the Church.(14) For instance, such a withdrawal of the Spirit would amount to a reversal of the infallible results of Christ's death.
B. Arguments for Pretribulationism Answered
1. The Argument from Imminence
R. H. Gundry provides us with the definition of imminence assumed in the
Pretribulationists argument from imminence. He comments, "By common consent
imminence means that so far as we know, no predicted event will necessarily
precede the coming of Christ. The concept incorporates three essential elements
suddenness, unexpectedness or incalculability, and a possibility, of occurrence
at any moment."(15)
The argument which Pretribulationists derive from imminence so defined for
their peculiar view may be stated in a syllogism:
Major Premise: The Church is taught to expect Christ's coming as imminent (one that could occur at any moment).
Minor Premise: If predicted events such as the tribulation must occur before Christ's coming it cannot be imminent (one that could occur at any moment).
Conclusion: No predicted events such as the tribulation can occur
before the coming of Christ, i.e. it must be pretribulational.(16)
The problem with this syllogism is not its formal validity. Assuming the
truth of its premises, it appears valid. The problem is with the major premise
which contains the assertion that Christ's coming is imminent in the sense of
its possible occurrence at any moment. The doctrine of the any moment return of
Christ is refuted by two lines of argument from the New Testament. The first of
these is the following:
1) The The New Testament ideas used to prove `any-moment-ness' neither teach
or necessarily imply it.
Three different New Testament ideas or terminologies are often used to
support the idea of an any-moment coming of Christ: the idea of expectancy
regarding Christ's return, the idea of the nearness of Christ's return, and the
idea of the alertness for Christ's return.
The terminology of expectancy does not imply any-moment-ness. The
New Testament often uses language which teaches that Christians should live in
expectation of Christ's return. Prosdecomai which means to wait for or expect is
used in the following passages regarding Christ's return.
Luke 12:36 "And be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks.
Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our
great God and Savior, Christ Jesus;
Apekdecomai which means await eagerly is used in these passages of Christ's
return.
Romans 8:19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
Romans 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
Romans 8:25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.
1 Corinthians 1:7 so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Galatians 5:5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.
Philippians 3:20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;
Hebrews 9:28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of
many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to
sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
Ekdecomai which means to expect or wait for refers to the second coming in
James 5:7:
Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the
farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until
it gets the early and late rains.
Prosdokaw which means to wait for or look for is used of the second coming in
the following passages:
Matthew 24:50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know,
Luke 12:46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him, and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
2 Peter 3:12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
2 Peter 3:13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent
to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
Blepw which means to see or look at is used of expectation of Christ's second
coming in these passages.
Mark 13:33 "Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time is.
Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of
some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day
drawing near.
Anamenw which means to wait for or expect is used regarding the second coming
only in 1 Thess. 1:10:
and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that
is Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come.
A number of observations show the uselessness of these words and passages to
the cause of any-moment imminence. First, the idea of expectancy conveyed by
these words does not necessarily imply the thought that what we expect may come
at any moment. Common sense reveals that we may wait for and expect things which
we know cannot come at any moment. Gundry says and then proves that these words
occur in all branches of Greek literature with reference to events that cannot
take place at any moment. For instance, prosdecomai is used in the sentence,
"Let Lucia wait until the year expires."(17)
Second, each of these words conveying expectancy is used of eschatological
events which the pretribulationist himself admits cannot occur at any moment.
"The appearing of the glory of our great God" (Tit. 2:13), "the revealing of the
sons of God" (Rom. 8:19), "the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 1:7), "the
early and later rains" (Jas. 5:7), "the coming of the day of God, on account of
which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with
intense heat!" (2 Pet. 3:12), "But according to His promise we are looking for
new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells" (2 Pet. 3:13) and
"the appointed time" of the posttribulational coming of Christ (Mark 13:33)--all
of these events are posttribulational according to pretribulationists
themselves. All the words in the above list are covered by the just cited events
except anamenw which is used of Christ's second coming only in 1 Thess. 1:10 of
the second coming of Christ--a passage which pretribulationists would claim as
pretribulational, but which by itself is inconclusive.
The terminology of nearness does not imply any-moment-ness. Here the
root egguj and its relatives are most important. Perhaps the most obvious proof
that this root does not convey any-moment-ness is that it is regularly used of
Jewish feasts being near. Such feasts far from occurring possibly at any
moment--fell on set days (John 2:13; 6:4; 7:2; 11:55). This terminology is used
of an obviously posttribulational advent in Luke 21:28 and 1 Peter 4:7. It is
also used of the seasons of the year (Matt. 21:34; 24:32; Mark 12:38; Luke
21:30). Also significant here is phraseology which speaks of Jesus being "at the
door":
Matthew 24:33 even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
Mark 13:29 "Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
James 5:9 Do not complain, brethren, against one another, that you yourselves
may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door.
Since in two of these passages this phraseology is closely associated with
the nearness of Christ's coming, there is no reason to attribute to it an
any-moment-ness clearly not conveyed by the language of nearness.
The terminology of alertness does not imply any-moment-ness. This
idea is conveyed by a number of different words. Grhgorew is the most important
and is used of the second coming in Matt. 24:42, 43; 25:13; Mark 13:34, 35, 37;
Luke 12:37; 1 Thess. 5:6, 10; Rev. 3:3; 16:15). Often translated by the word,
watch, this word does not mean to scrutinize the sky or the signs of the times,
but means literally to stay awake. Agrupnew also has the meaning of staying
awake but with the idea of being alert or vigilant. It is used of the second
coming in two passages: Mark 13:33; Luke 21:36. Nhfw is used of the second
coming in 1 Thess. 5:6, 8; 2 Tim. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:13; 1 Pet. 4:7. If the first two
words convey alertness through the idea of wakefulness. This one conveys the
same idea, but through the idea of sobriety. It means to be sober,
self-controlled, or free from excess.
The terminology of alertness does not in itself contain any necessary
implication of the any-moment-ness of that which we are remaining awake and
sober for. I have been told that a friend of mine stayed awake all night the
night before his plane was to return to the USA from a time of overseas'
ministry. His staying awake did not imply that his plane might leave at any
moment, but only that he feared he would oversleep if once he fell asleep.
Wakefulness and sobriety do not contain the idea of any-moment-ness.
The terminology of alertness is used of eschatological events that cannot
occur at any moment. It occurs frequently, for instance, in the Olivet
discourse. The point is, of course, that the coming described in that discourse
is admitted by pretribulationists to be posttribulational. Clearly, such
terminology does not imply `any-moment-ness' in this usage.(18)
Only nhfw is not used in the Olivet Discourse, but this word does not help the
pretribulationists because it is used in 1 Pet. 1:13 and 4:7 of "the revelation
of Jesus Christ" and "the end of all things"--events which are also plainly
posttribulational from a pretribulationist's perspective.
These two reasons together make impossible any deduction of any-moment-ness
from the use of these words, especially the use of these words in the Olivet
Discourse. Still, it must be allowed that certain places where this terminology
is used and coupled with the idea that the time of the second coming is unknown
might seem to contain this idea or could naturally suggest this idea. Perhaps
the most difficult passage here is Matthew 24:42-44:
"Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is
coming. "But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what
time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and
would not have allowed his house to be broken into. "For this reason you be
ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He
will.
Herman Ridderbos (who is certainly no friend of Dispensationalism) is frank
enough to say, "The warnings to be watchful may in themselves be interpreted in
such a way that it is at any moment possible for the Lord to come."(19)
The implication of any-moment-ness is most plausible when the warning to stay
awake is coupled with the motivation that we do not know which day the Lord is
coming. This seems to mean that we must be always awake because Christ could
come at any time.
Plausible as this interpretation might seem, it is the Olivet Discourse
itself--the context of this statement--which forces us to search for an
interpretation which does not imply such any-moment-ness. Several things in the
immediate context of this warning demand this. First, early in the discourse
Jesus warns his disciples that at a certain point in the future they are not to
believe any declarations that He has returned and says specifically of that
period, "the end is not yet" (Matt. 24:4-8). Second, Jesus also declares that
"this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness
to all the nations and then the end shall come" (Matt. 24:14). Third, the coming
of Christ for which the disciples are to stay awake is plainly said to occur
after the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 24:15 with v. 29). In the parallel
passage this language is explained to include the surrounding of Jerusalem by
armies and the leading of the Jews into captivity till the times of the Gentiles
are fulfilled (Luke 21:20-24). Fourth, in the succeeding parables Jesus tells
one which plainly states that "after a long time the master of those slaves
came" (Matt. 25:19). This theme of a long delay in Christ's return is implied
again and again in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:48; 25:5) and in parallel
passages in the gospels. Luke 19:11-27 is, in fact, is deliberately addressed
against those who thought "that the kingdom was going to appear immediately" and
likens the inter-adventual period to "a certain nobleman" going "to a distant
country".
For all of these reasons and many more (see the treatment below) it is plain
that the context of the warning of Matt. 24:42-44 teaches that there would be a
necessary delay in Christ's return incompatible with an any-moment
interpretation of this warning. How, then, should such warnings be understood?
Actually, upon examination the supposed implication that Christ could come at
any moment involves a complete misunderstanding of the danger against which
Jesus was warning His disciples. The exhortations to watch are not addressed
against a present apathy or sleepiness in Jesus' disciples. That was clearly not
their problem. They were excited about the end times--on the edge of their
seats, as it were. Cf. Matt. 24:1-3. Jesus even warns against the tendency to
credit premature announcements of His return saying "the end is not yet". During
the initial period after His departure, He warns, they are to regard
announcements of His arrival as false.
The problem addressed by Jesus in the exhortation to watch is the tendency to
drowsiness and sleepiness produced by the passage of time and the delay in His
coming. Against this danger Jesus remarks that they do not know the future
period of His coming. They must not fall asleep, because there is no way set a
spiritual alarm clock to wake them before Jesus' return. The time of that return
is unknown. The only alternative, then, is to stay awake and never indulge the
tendency to sleep in light of the long delay. There will be a delay, but
Christ's return at the end of it will be unexpected and incalculable.
Consider Matt. 24:43. Jesus there as much as says that had the head of the
house known that the thief was coming at 3 am, he could have slept from 10 pm
till 2 am. Neither that head of the house, nor we ourselves, however, know when
the thief is coming. Therefore, we must be constantly awake.
The implication, then, of this warning is not that Jesus may return at any
time, but that He will return after a long time and at unknown time, and,
therefore, we must stay awake the whole time.
This discussion forms an appropriate introduction to the second New Testament
consideration which devastates an any-moment imminence teaching.
2) The New Testament postulates a necessary delay before the second coming.
This delay completely undermines any supposed any-moment imminence.
Any-moment-ness has frequently been defined by saying that no predicted event
needs to occur before the rapture. The problem is that many predicted events
prior to the second coming are mentioned in the New Testament.
a) There was to be a delay of undetermined length before Christ's return
(Matt. 24:45-51; 25:5, 19; Luke 18:7; 19:11-27).
b) The carrying out of the great commission demanded some delay (Matt. 24:14;
28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 22:21; 23:11; 27:24).
c) The death of Peter in old age required many years of delay (John
21:18, 19; 2 Peter 1:14).
d) The destruction of Jerusalem and the carrying of the Jews captive into all
the nations until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled must occur first (Luke
21:23-38). Since most of the New Testament was written before that destruction,
at least those parts of the New Testament cannot encourage believers to an
any-moment expectation.
e) The commission of Paul to take the gospel far away to the Gentiles and the
prediction that he would bear witness at Rome involved some delay in the second
coming (Acts 9:15; 22:21; 23:11).
f) 2 Thess. 2:1-12 contains Paul's explicit teaching that the signs of the
apostasy and the man of sin must occur "first" and connect these events with a
period just prior to the second coming of Christ.
These well-known teachings of the Apostles must have prevented their teaching
(or the church believing) an any-moment expectation of Christ's return.
2. The Argument from the Church's Salvation from Wrath.
a. Stated
Again, one may summarize this argument by means of a syllogism.
Major Premise: The Church is saved from the wrath of God.
Minor Premise: The tribulation is the wrath of God.
Conclusion: The Church is saved from the tribulation.(20)
b. Refuted
1) The passages used to support the idea that the Church is saved from the
wrath of God have nothing to do with the so-called tribulation judgments. Cf.,
for instance, 1 Thess. 5:9.
a) The context restricts the meaning here to God's eternal wrath beginning
with the Day of the Lord after the tribulation (1 Thess. 5:1f.; cf. 2 Thess.
2:1f.; cf. esp. 1 Thess. 5:2-4).
b) The contrast with salvation in 1 Thess 5:9 demands the meaning of eternal
wrath because the salvation is clearly eternal salvation not salvation from
tribulation (1 Thess. 1:9, 10; 2 Thess. 1:6-10; 2:10-14).
c) The usage of the word dictates the meaning of eternal wrath. While it is
twice used of the wrath of God in the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:23; 1
Thess; 2:16), it is never used of tribulation judgments. It most frequently
refers to final destruction (1 Thess. 1:9-10).
d) Consistency demands that if such passages teach the deliverance of the
Church from the tribulation, they also teach the deliverance of every saved
person from the tribulation (including the tribulation saints). The reasons
given in 1 Thess. 5:9, 10 for salvation is that Christ died for them. Didn't
Christ die for and thus save the "tribulation saints"?(21)
2) Presence in the tribulation does not imply participation in the wrath of
God. Tribulation is the portion of God's people, though this does not mean, of
course, that they experience the wrath of God (1 Thess. 3:4; Acts 14:22). The
same events may be wrath for some and chastisements for others. Rev. 7:1-3 shows
that some are protected in the midst of the tribulation. The analogy of Israel
in Egypt is pertinent to illustrate such protection. It is all the more
pertinent because the seven plagues of the Revelation are reminiscent of the ten
plagues on Egypt.(22)
3) Rev. 3:10 which promises that the church of Philadelphia will "be kept
from the hour of testing" does not teach or imply a pretribulational rapture.
The key words are " µ."
a) The preposition, , universally conveys the idea of "emergence from within"
in John's writings. The idea is, then, of emergence from tribulation rather than
previous removal (Rev. 7:14).(23)
b) The verb, , means to guard. This meaning is superfluous if the church is
removed to heaven before the tribulation. Who needs protection in heaven? The
only other occurrence of in the New Testament shows that it conveys the exact
opposite of removal from danger. It implies preservation while in danger (John
17:15). Gundry appropriately remarks
There is but one other place in Biblical Greek (LXX and NT) where and occur
together, John 17:15 .... The parallels between John 17:15 and Rev. 3:10 are
impressive. Both verses appear in Johannine literature. Both come from the lips
of Jesus. A probability arises, therefore, of similar usage and meaning. In John
17:15 the words "take out of" ... mean to lift or raise up and
remove. The expression gives an exact description of what the rapture
will be, a lifting up and removal. Yet it is this expression against which Jesus
throws in full contrast and opposition. How then can refer to the rapture or to
the result of the rapture when in its only other occurrence the phrase opposes
an expression which would perfectly describe the rapture?(24)
c) The "hour of testing" may not be a reference to the tribulation at all. It
may refer to the outpouring of judgment at Christ's second advent. Thus, Rev.
3:10 may not teach a Pretribulational rapture, but only a pre- "hour of testing"
rapture (Luke 21:34-36; Matt. 24:37-40; Luke 17:28-30). Note that in these
passages, Lot leaves and the fire falls without a long interval.
Concluding Applications
(1) Pretribulationism is part of the system of easy Christianity promoted in our day. This unwritten theology governs evangelical churches in our day. Easy Christianity includes the teachings of (1) eternal security (2) easy believism (3) the carnal Christian theory (4) the imbalanced view of God as mainly love (5) entertainment in worship (6) judgments according to decision rather than works. The teaching of Pretribulationism which assures men that God would never allow His Church to go through the great tribulation is simply another exhibition of this system and mentality.
(2) Pretribulationism tends to leave men unprepared. Paul warned men of coming tribulation to prepare them. This teaching taken seriously would leave professing Christians utterly unprepared for such tribulation (1 Thess. 3:4).
(3) The clearly unbiblical character of Pretribulationism shows the utter bankruptcy of much of modern evangelical thought.
(4) Pretribulationism raises false hopes and tends to the Thessalonian error by teaching an any-moment view of imminence.
(5) Pretribulationism teaches an incipient second-chance-ism. It necessarily teaches that men will be saved after Christ's return for His Church.
1.
Many different distinguishing phrases have been used to make this distinction. The "two" comings have been called, for instance, "the rapture and the revelation" and/or "Christ's coming for His saints and coming with His saints".2.
Sandeen, op. cit., pp. 220, 221.3.
A more length treatment of this chapter is given below.4.
Robert H. Gundry, The Church and The Tribulation, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1973), p. 100.5.
Gundry, loc. cit., p. 100-101.6.
Gundry, loc. cit., p. 104.7.
Gundry, loc. cit., p. 104.8.
ibid.9.
Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (Macmillan, New York, 1967), p. 141 and p. 137.10.
Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1959), p. 214..11.
Gundry, The Church and The Tribulation, pp. 114-118.12.
Gundry, loc. cit., p. 117.13.
Gundry, loc. cit., p. 125.14.
Gundry, loc. cit., p. 126f.15.
R. H. Gundry, loc. cit., p. 29. I will argue below that another definition of imminence and one which does not imply Pretribulationism is possible.16.
The book, Things to Come, by J. Dwight Pentecost, a standard Dispensational work on eschatology, on pp. 202-204 provides this argument for the Pretribulational rapture position.17.
Gundry, loc. cit., p. 30.18.
Gundry, p. 33f.19.
Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, (Presbyterian and Reformed, Philadelphia, 1975), p. 517.20.
For this argument compare Gundry, loc. cit., p. 44; and Pentecost, loc. cit., pp. 216f.21.
Gundry, loc. cit., pp. 44f.22.
Note Rev. 16:1f; Gundry, loc. cit., p. 47.23.
Gundry, loc. cit., p. 55f.24.
Gundry, loc. cit., p. 58f.II. Date-setting (or Calculationism)