Posted on 11/30/2014 11:21:01 AM PST by wmfights
Argument from imminency of the return of Christ. One of the precious promises left as a heritage to His disciples was the announcement of Christ in the Upper Num Room, “I come again.” The literalness of this passage, though often assailed, is obvious. Christ said: “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:3). Just as literally as Christ went to heaven, so He will come again to receive His disciples to Himself and to take them to the Father’s house.
It is rather strange that the literal interpretation of this passage should be even questioned. It is perfectly obvious that that Christ’s departure from earth to heaven represented in the expression, “if I go,” was a literal departure. He went bodily from earth to heaven. By the same token, “I come again” should be taken as a literal and bodily return. While the present tense is used in the expression, “I come again,” its meaning is an emphatic future. The Authorized Version accordingly translates it, “I will come again.” A. T. Robertson describes it, “Futuristic present middle, definite promise of the second coming of Christ.”1 As in English, a present tense is sometimes used in the Greek of a certain future event pictured as if already coming to pass. A similar instance is the word of Christ to Mary in John 20:17, “I ascend unto my, Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” The present is used for an emphatic future action.
The revelation given in John 14 is to the point that the departure of Christ from earth to heaven is required in order to prepare a place for them in the Father’s house, used here as an expression equivalent to heaven. The promise to come again is connected with the return of Christ to heaven with the disciples. Christ is promising to take His disciples to the Father’s house when He comes again.
It should be carefully determined just what takes place at the time of the event here described: Christ returns to the earthly scene to take the disciples from earth to heaven. This is in absolute contrast to what takes place when Christ returns to establish His kingdom on earth. On that occasion, no one goes from earth to heaven. The saints in the millennial kingdom are on earth with Christ. The only interpretation that fits the statements of John 14 is to refer it to the time of the translation of the church. Then, indeed, the disciples will go from earth to heaven, to the place prepared in the Father’s house.
The idea of going to the Father’s house in heaven was quite foreign to the thinking of the disciples. Their hope was that Christ would immediately establish His kingdom on earth and that they would remain in the earthly sphere to reign with Him. The thought of going to heaven first was a new revelation, and one that apparently was not comprehended. In Acts 1:6 they were still asking about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. In making the pronouncement in John 14, Christ is holding before His disciples an entirely different hope than that which was promised to Israel as a nation. It is the hope of the church in contrast to the hope of the Jewish nation. The hope of the church is to be taken to heaven; the hope of Israel is Christ returning to reign over the earth.
The passage so clearly teaches that the disciples will go from earth to heaven that those who deny the pretribulation translation of the church are forced to spiritualize this passage and make the expression “I come again” a coming of Christ for each Christian at the time of his death. Marcus Dods states, “The promise is fulfilled in the death of the Christian, and it has changed the aspect of death.”2 It is certainly desperate exegesis to dream up not only a spiritualization of the term, “I come again,” but to postulate a personal coming of Christ at the death of each saint, a teaching which is never found explicitly in the Scriptures. Dods himself admits this is strange doctrine when he adds weakly, “The personal second coming of Christ is not a frequent theme in this Gospel.”3
The point is that a coming of Christ to individuals at death is not found in John’s Gospel at all, nor in any other Scripture. Here again is an illustration of the fact that spiritualization of Scripture goes hand in hand with denial of the pretribulation rapture. Certainly, the hope set before the disciples cannot be reduced to the formula, “When you die you will go to heaven.” This would not have been new truth. Rather, Christ is promising that when He comes He would take them to heaven where they would be forever with Him, without reference to death.
The ultimate objective of the return of Christ is that the disciples may be with Christ forever, “that where I am, there ye may be also.” It is true that saints who die are immediately taken to heaven as far as their immaterial nature is concerned. In Scripture, however, the hope of being with Christ is connected with the translation of the church as if the intermediate state is not a full realization of what it means to be with Christ. Hence in 1 Thessalonians both the living and the resurrected dead shall “be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thess 4:17-18). It is true, however, that the intermediate state is described as being “with Christ,” (Phil 1:23), and as being “at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). Nevertheless, the full expression of fellowship with Christ and being with Him wherever He goes is conditioned on the resurrection of the body for the dead in Christ and the translation of the living saints.
The hope of the return of Christ to take the saints to heaven is presented in John 14 as an imminent hope. There is no teaching of any intervening event. The prospect of being taken to heaven at the coming of Christ is not qualified by description of any signs or prerequisite events. Here, as in other passages dealing with the coming of Christ for the church, the hope is presented as an imminent event. On this basis, the disciples are exhorted not to be troubled. If the teaching of Christ had been to the intent that His coming for them was after the great tribulation, it is difficult to see how this message would have been a source of solace to their troubled hearts. Contrast the message of Christ to those living in the tribulation to flee their persecutors (Matt 24:15-22).
Other exhortations in relation to the return of Christ for the church also lose much of their meaning if the doctrine of imminency is destroyed. It should be obvious that only flagrant spiritualization of the tribulation passages which predict the program of events during the tribulation period can possibly save the doctrine of imminency for the posttribulationist. If there are definite events of horrible suffering and persecution yet ahead before the return of Christ to establish His kingdom, in no sense can this coming be declared imminent. When Calvin anticipated the imminent coming of Christ, it was on the ground that the tribulation was already largely past—a deduction which depended upon spiritualization of the tribulation passages. Most posttribulationists today oppose the doctrine of imminency and regard the coming of Christ as approaching, but not immediate. For the most part, Scriptural evidence for imminency today is equivalent to proof of the pretribulation viewpoint.
In addition to the exhortation, “Let not your heart be troubled,” there is coupled with the doctrine of the coming of the Lord in John 14:1 the charge, “Wherefore comfort one another with these words” (1 Thess 4:18). The doctrine of the coming of the Lord was a comfort or encouragement to the Thessalonian Christians. This comfort was not merely that their loved ones would be raised from the dead, a doctrine with which they no doubt were already familiar, but the larger truth that they would be raised in the same event as Christians would be translated. This they had been taught as an imminent hope. In 1 Thessalonians 1:10, they are described as those who “wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come.” Their hope was the coming of Christ and they had been delivered from all wrath to come, including the wrath of the future tribulation period. At the end of chapter 2 and chapter 3 , there are renewed assurances of the hope of Christ’s return.
Most of the immediate significance of this hope would be lost if, as a matter of fact, the coming of Christ was impossible until they had passed through the tribulation period. In 1 Thessalonians 5:6, they are exhorted to “watch and be sober,” hardly a realistic command if the coming of Christ was greatly removed from their expectation. In 1 Corinthians 1:7, Paul speaks of the Corinthians as “waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,” which is another mention of the coming of the Lord when He will be revealed in His glory to the church,. In Titus 2:13, our future hope is described as “looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” While the appearing of the glory of Christ to the world and to Israel will not be fulfilled until the second coming to establish the kingdom on earth, the church will see the glory of Christ when she meets Him in the air. This is the express teaching of 1 John 3:2: “but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (AV) Again, it is difficult to make realistic a command to “look” for the glory of Christ if, as a matter of fact, the event is separated from us by great trials and persecutions which in all probability would cause our destruction.
The passage in 1 John 3:1-3 adds the exhortation: “And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 John 3:3, AV). The hope of seeing Christ as He is and being like Him is a purifying hope. Again, the hope is realistic in proportion to its imminency. Housewives engage in special efforts of preparation when guests are expected momentarily, while the tendency would be unconcern if visitors were far removed. The teaching of the coming of the Lord for the church is always presented as an imminent event which should occupy the Christian’s thought and life to a large extent.
By contrast, the exhortation to those living in the tribulation is to look for signs first and then, after the signs, to look for the return of Christ to. establish His kingdom. Accordingly, in the Olivet Discourse, describing the tribulation, thy are exhorted to look for the sign of the abomination of desolation (Matt 24:15), and to anticipate the announcement of false Christs. Then, the exhortation to them is to “‘watch,” that is, after the signs have all appeared (Matt 24:42; 25:13 ). Watching for the return of the Lord to establish the kingdom is related to the preceding signs, while the exhortation to the church is without this context, and the coming of the Lord is regarded as an imminent event. The only concept which does justice to this attitude of expectation of the church is that of the imminent return of Christ. For all practical purposes, abandonment of the pretribulational return of Christ is tantamount to abandonment of the hope of His imminent return. If the Scriptures present the coming of the Lord for His church as imminent, by so much they also declare it as occurring before the predicted period of tribulation.
Argument from the nature of the work of the Holy Spirit in this age. In the Upper Room Discourse, our Lord predicted, among other important prophecies, the coming of the Holy Spirit. While the Holy Spirit had been immanent in the world and active in creation, providence, inspiration, and salvation, a new order of the Spirit was foretold. This truth is gathered up in the momentous declaration recorded in John 14:16-17: “And I will pray the Father, and he shall gave you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he abideth with you, and shall be in you.” In the distinction made in the last phrase, “abideth with you, and shall be in you,” there is predicted the tremendous change to be effected at Pentecost. While formerly the Spirit was “with you,” thereafter He would be “in you.” The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit was to be one of the outstanding dispensational changes effected at Pentecost. While formerly the Spirit was with the saints and only in extraordinary cases indwelled them, now His indwelling all believers was to mark the wider extent of grace in the new age. The present age is the dispensation of the Spirit.
Just as Christ was omnipresent in the Old Testament, incarnate and present in the world in the Gospels, and returned to heaven in the Acts, so the Holy Spirit, after His period of ministry on the earth in the present age, will return to heaven. The chief proof text concerning the return of the Holy Spirit to heaven is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8, in connection with the revelation of the coming lawless one, described as “the man of sin,” and “the son of perdition.” This character is usually identified with the coming Antichrist or world-ruler of the tribulation period. The passage of Scripture dealing with this subject states that the man of sin cannot be revealed until the restrainer is “taken out of the way.” But who is the restrainer?
Expositors of all classes have had a field day in attempting to identify this restrainer. Ellicott cites Schott as suggesting Paul himself.4 As another suggestion, Ellicott refers to Wieseler who identifies it as a collection of the saints at Jerusalem.5 Still more “plausible,” according to Ellicott, is that it refers to “the successor of Roman emperors,” which he traces to Wordsworth.6 His final suggestion, which he thinks is best, is that it is merely a “personification” of “what was previously expressed by the abstract to katecon.”7 that restraineth.” This is, however, easily explained. It may be the difference between the power of God in general as a restraining force in contrast with the person of the restrainer. Another possible explanation is that the change in gender is a recognition of the fact that pneuma, the word spirit in Greek, is grammatically neuter but is sometimes regarded as a masculine in recognition of the fact that it refers to the person of the Holy Spirit. Hence in John 15:26 and 16:13-14 the masculine is deliberately used in reference to the Spirit. In Ephesians 1:13-14 the relative pronouns are used in the masculine.
The ultimate decision on the reference to the restrainer goes back to the larger question of who after all is capable of restraining sin to such an extent that the man of sin cannot be revealed until the restraint is removed. The doctrine of divine providence, the evidence of Scripture that the Spirit characteristically restrains and strives against sin (Gen 6:3), and the teaching of Scripture that the Spirit is resident in the world and indwelling the church in a special sense in this age combine to point to the Spirit of God as the only adequate answer to the problem of identification of the restrainer. The failure to identify the restrainer as the Holy Spirit is another indication of the inadequate understanding of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in general and His work in relation to the larger providential movements of God in human history.
If the Spirit be identified as the restrainer, a chronology is set up which unmistakably places the translation of the church before the tribulation. The passage teaches that the order of events is as follows: (1) the restrainer is now engaged in restraining sin; (2) the restrainer, will be taken away at a future point of time; (3) then the man of sin can be revealed. Inasmuch as the man of sin is identified with the world ruler, the “prince that shall come” of Daniel 9:26, it should be clear to students of prophecy that the restrainer must be taken away before the beginning of the last seven years of Daniel’s prophecy.
The very fact that the covenant will be made with the head of the revived Roman Empire will be an unmistakable token. A covenant involving the regathering of Israel to the land of Palestine and their protection from their foes could not be a secret covenant. Its very nature is a public matter requiring public declaration. A believer in Scripture would be able to identify the man of sin at once when this covenant is made. The chronology, therefore, requires the removal of the restrainer before the manifestation of the man of sin by the very act of forming the covenant with Israel.
It should also be evident that, if the Spirit of God characteristically indwells the church as well as the individual saint in this age, the removal of the Spirit would involve a dispensational change and the removal of the church as well. While the Spirit will work in the tribulation period, He will follow the pattern of the period before Pentecost rather than this present age of grace. The Spirit of God will return to heaven after accomplishing His earthly work much as the Lord Jesus Christ returned to heaven after completing His earthly work. In both cases, the work of the Second Person and the Third Person continues, but in a different setting and in a different way.
If, therefore, the restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2 be identified as the Holy Spirit, another evidence is produced to indicate the translation of the church before the final tribulation period will begin on earth. While in the realm of debatable conclusions if left unsupported by other Scriptural evidence, it constitutes a confirmation of the teaching that the church will be translated before the tribulation.
This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.
1 A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, V, 249.
2 Marcus Dods, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, I, 822.
3 Loc. cit.
4 Charles C. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians with a Revised Translation, 122.
5 Ibid., pp. 122-23.
6 Ibid., p. 123.
7 Loc. cit.
Just as Christ was omnipresent in the Old Testament, incarnate and present in the world in the Gospels, and returned to heaven in the Acts, so the Holy Spirit, after His period of ministry on the earth in the present age, will return to heaven. The chief proof text concerning the return of the Holy Spirit to heaven is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8, in connection with the revelation of the coming lawless one, described as “the man of sin,” and “the son of perdition.” This character is usually identified with the coming Antichrist or world-ruler of the tribulation period. The passage of Scripture dealing with this subject states that the man of sin cannot be revealed until the restrainer is “taken out of the way.” But who is the restrainer?
The ultimate decision on the reference to the restrainer goes back to the larger question of who after all is capable of restraining sin to such an extent that the man of sin cannot be revealed until the restraint is removed. The doctrine of divine providence, the evidence of Scripture that the Spirit characteristically restrains and strives against sin (Gen 6:3), and the teaching of Scripture that the Spirit is resident in the world and indwelling the church in a special sense in this age combine to point to the Spirit of God as the only adequate answer to the problem of identification of the restrainer.
t should also be evident that, if the Spirit of God characteristically indwells the church as well as the individual saint in this age, the removal of the Spirit would involve a dispensational change and the removal of the church as well. While the Spirit will work in the tribulation period, He will follow the pattern of the period before Pentecost rather than this present age of grace. The Spirit of God will return to heaven after accomplishing His earthly work much as the Lord Jesus Christ returned to heaven after completing His earthly work. In both cases, the work of the Second Person and the Third Person continues, but in a different setting and in a different way.
If you would like to be added to this ping list please mail me.
Truly amazing read stuff like this is the reason why I embrace dispensationlism.
FWIW, it never dawned on me that once the Holy Spirit stopped restraining the evil one that He not only participates in the Rapture of believers, but His role on earth changes as well.
While the Spirit will work in the tribulation period, He will follow the pattern of the period before Pentecost rather than this present age of grace. The Spirit of God will return to heaven after accomplishing His earthly work much as the Lord Jesus Christ returned to heaven after completing His earthly work. In both cases, the work of the Second Person and the Third Person continues, but in a different setting and in a different way.
The indwelling of the Bride of Christ ends.
“But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. . . . Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace” (2 Pet. 3:8–14).
The indwelling of His Bride, the Church, ceases at the Rapture.
For the Millenium, God the Holy Spirit then indwells Israel, while Jesus Christ will rule with a rod of iron.
This is one reason all other nations and people at that time will continue to consult with Israel for guidance of His Plan.
“The teaching of the coming of the Lord for the church is always presented as an imminent event”
It is always presented as a certain and future event for which we should be both expectantly ready and patiently awaiting. However, it is NOT presented as an event that would not be preceded by signs or could happen at any random moment but at a specific time the Father had already determined.
His return becomes imminent, in the sense of any moment, only after all of the events which must precede it have occurred. No matter how much pre-tribulationalists want these passages to prove their doctrine, it is still a meaning that is forced upon the passages without regard for what is actually said in them.
The passage in John is cited in which Jesus comforts His disciples that He will come for them again to be with Him in the place He is preparing. The author argues the lack of any signs mentioned in this passage is proof that His return is imminent.
However, it is obvious from the context that this is not true. At the time He said this, He had not gone to Heaven. How can He return from Heaven without first going there? That is just one event that made His return NOT imminent. Is this the only such event? No.
He also was going to prepare a place for His disciples. Did He not need to actually complete this preparation before His return?
Before His return, the SIGNS of His death and Resurrection also had to be completed. Jesus said His disciples would forsake Him, Judas would betray Him, and Peter would deny Him. These things also HAD to happen before His return which was certainly not imminent when He spoke the words.
Further, He promised the Holy Spirit who would not come until Jesus left. That event had to precede His return.
He prophesied how Peter would die as a martyr, and Peter later wrote in his later years how this was going to happen to him soon after his writings were complete (as he had received from the Lord an opportunity to leave his teaching behind when he was gone). The rapture could not happen while Peter was still alive.
When Agabus prophesied that Paul would be imprisoned or when he foretold of a famine, these things had to happen before the Lord’s return.
Paul was chosen by God to go to the Gentiles. Was the Lord’s return imminent after this prophecy was given, but before it had been completed?
Jesus told His disciples they would be persecuted and would also carry the Gospel to the whole world. These things had to happen at least in part before the rapture.
So, when Christ spoke these words, and during most of the time the New Testament was being written, His return was not imminent. And the claim that based on the absence of signs in the passage that pretribulational imminence is explicitly taught here is yet another example of trying to force the pre-trib paradigm into scripture rather than demonstrating it exegetically.
None of the solid exegetically demonstrated arguments of the pre-trib position cannot also support a pre-wrath rapture.
The anti-Christ type of operation which God has restrained began BEFORE the church. Consider how He “restrained” Nimrod and his followers in Genesis. So, trying to infer that the Holy Spirit is in view when Paul describes the Restrainer still does not imply anything about the Church.
The outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts was a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy which would happen to Israel. This is very problematic for a pre-trib view because without the salvation of Israel (including fully turning to God), the whole point of Daniel’s seventieth week is missed.
Paul said that the falling away of Israel resulted in salvation being brought to the Gentiles and their being brought back to God would be “life from the dead”.
But their turning to God as a nation does not happen at the beginning of the seventieth week. Christ said that His own people did not receive Him, but that one would come in his own name (anti-Christ), and they would receive him.
Israel will trust in the anti-Christ until he breaks the treaty in the middle of the seventieth week. So, the repentance and salvation of Israel will not take place until after this. Israel will be brought to repentance as a nation when they see Christ in the heavens and mourn for Him. For those who have already believed, this appearance by Christ will literally be life from the dead.
Hebrews 10:25b
Exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.
If the Day of Christ could happen at any moment, it would not be possible to see it approaching. The doctrine of imminence as it is proposed by the pre-trib paradigm is not supported by the scriptures, nor is it necessary in order to follow the commands regarding Christ’s return which are to...
1) watch and be ready
2) wait patiently
The signs that forewarn His return are not distractions but rather point to the Savior and His soon return. Tribulation and persecution do not make us long for His return less but more. Our Blessed Hope is not to escape the call to follow in Christ’s steps, but to know that the wrath of God has been appeased for us. We take solace in the fact that during tribulations He is with us, and we will escape the coming fiery wrath of God.
Appreciate the series! I don’t see how anyone can doubt that Jesus WILL remove His bride BEFORE the wrath of God rains down on godless humanity and the broken world.
If you are a child of God through Jesus Christ, You should be comforted with these words...I never get tired of hearing about prophesy and the return of the Lord...
FWIW, the more I learn about prophesy the easier it is to understand Scripture. It all ties together.
The more I learn Scripture, the easier it is to understand Prophecy.
Maybe it would be a good idea to see what scripture says about what it means to watch rather than to jump at every word or idea and immediately draw a conclusion that it supports a preconceived notion.
Watch has at least two connotations as it is frequently used in the New Testament. It means to be on the lookout for something. So one connotation is the way we generally use the term in common, every day language. “Be watching for me to arrive.” It also means to stay awake.
Matthew 26:41
Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
In this case it is connected to the “watches” of the night as when a soldier stands guard.
It is often used in connection with prayer and fasting.
Do pre-tribulationists regularly go outside and look up to see if Christ is on His way to get them? No, they don’t. And it is exactly BECAUSE they believe He can come at any moment so there is no point in watching. It will be a surprise.
Luke 21:28
Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.
Isn’t this watching?
Do you think that Jesus contradicted Himself as you say I have?
A child might watch for his father to arrive from work in the evening. He might notice the time is late. He might hear the familiar sound of a car. He might look out of the window and see headlights. He might run outside and greet his father BECAUSE he was watching for him.
And this does NOT mean he would show up at any random moment. It could be related to the time he ordinarily arrived home or a particular time he said he would be back. It does not mean there would be no indicators prior to his arrival.
Christ told His disciples to watch in the Olivet Discourse.
Luke 21:29-36
Then He spoke to them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly. For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.”
So, here Christ says very specifically to watch for the signs, watch for the day, and watch for His return. Nothing about watching hints that no signs will precede His return.
To argue otherwise is to cling to a man made doctrine in spite of the plain and obvious teaching of the Bible.
According to the pre-tribulational view, Jesus could come at any moment. This could be today or in another thousand years. So there is no point in watching.
His return will COME SUDDENLY though. It will take the world by surprise. Only those who are prepared will be ready when He comes. So we are told to watch and be ready.
The pre-wrath view recognizes seven signs of the END. The return of Christ is number seven. So six signs precede His return. When these happen we will be watching and even more so as the Day of Christ approaches.
It is simply indefensible to assert that the command to watch and be ready proves His coming can be at any moment now, because the very passages of scripture that give us this command are mutually agreed to be in the context of His return AFTER the Great Tribulation.
My whole intention by posting responses here is to encourage people to read the scriptures for themselves and rely on the Holy Spirit to reveal the meaning rather than trying to prove a preconceived idea. If I am wrong I really, really want to be proved wrong by scripture. But, over time, I have been proved correct repeatedly as those who strongly advocate a pre-tribulational rapture have presented no convincing arguments.
As I have said before, I do not have all of the answers. But it has become clear to me that Christ’s return for His bride will occur before the Day of Wrath and AFTER the Great Tribulation. Those who expect otherwise are in danger of a nearly unbearable disappointment when the arrival of anti-Christ and the Great Tribulation happen and are not prepared to patiently wait and endure to the end.
But it is God who will preserve us. There will be a huge falling away of “Christians” when the Great Tribulation / Persecution period happens, just as Jesus said there would be. Yet, He does promise that this time will be cut short for the sake of the elect. It is not possible for the elect to fall away because God will preserve them. Yet the consequence of a false expectation to be raptured out before this time will have devastating consequences on the Church.
I wanted to add that I do appreciate the dialogue. I thought the oopsmillenialist comment was very funny. I could wish it were true. If you see me on the way up at a pre-tribulational rapture and say, “I told you so,” you will see a big smile on my face.
Sadly, it is not going to happen that way. The consequences of the pre-tribulational view being wrong are, unfortunately, quite severe and will not result in any smiles. And that is why I post my responses on this matter.
Don’t know the meaning behind your screen name, but maybe it has something to do with being a former pretrib, if that is indeed the case, and having to unlearn so much you had been taught. Certainly the case with me about the pretrib rapture.
Your posts on this thread are incisive, your points well taken. As an “unlearner” myself, I appreciate them.
The screen name “unlearner” is a tribute to Charles H. Hinton who wrote about such a person in An Unfinished Communication. If you click my screen name link, you will see an excerpt of this piece of literature that I admire. My tagline is a continuation of the thought.
It is neither directly related to my study of the rapture or the Bible in general, but I did read this a long time ago when I was also reading a bit of C.S. Lewis, whose writing I also admire. At one point I actually confused the two authors because they both write with such well-chosen words to convey their ideas, especially when writing fictional scene descriptions.
From this concept I came to understand that it is important for anyone who aspires to master any area of expertise to “know what he doesn’t know.” That is, learning often requires that we realize that our understanding of a thing is inaccurate or incomplete so that we may begin learning the subject correctly.
So, your screen name unrelated to the rapture, means you didn’t have to unlearn pretrib?
I meant that I did not chose my screen name with my views on the rapture in mind. You are correct that this is one of the many areas I have had to unlearn before I could learn what is right.
The modern view of the pre-trib rapture was started by J.N. Darby and popularized by C.I. Scofield. J.N. Darby was a prominent leader of the Plymouth Brethren movement which was seeking to practice “Biblical principles of gathering” for church. I have been a part of such churches for most of my life, and the idea that the pre-trib rapture could be a wrong interpretation of scripture is not well received within. However, as the movement is based on following the Bible and not man made doctrines and traditions, I suspect many will eventually wake up to the truth.
The Biblical arguments for a pre-trib rapture are really arguments for a pre-wrath rapture. (This does not include broad arguments from dispensationalism which are used to infer the pre-trib view. In my opinion, the pre-trib view is actually used to shape their dispensational views rather than drawing them from scripture directly. It is almost as if they see the Church as the bride of Christ but Israel as the bride of the Father, or perhaps the Church is His second wife after divorcing Israel. But these inferences do not line up with what is said in Ephesians 2:14: “For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation.” I am dispensational myself. National Israel and the Church are distinct.)
The arguments used to support a mid-trib rapture also support a pre-wrath rapture. The order of 2 Thes. 2 requires the rapture and Day of Christ to happen after the abomination of desolation. Yet, there is clearly a rapture of believers that is distinct from Christ’s coming to set up His kingdom. They are described very differently. So the mid-trib position assigns His return for the church in the middle, but it is also incorrect.
The post-trib view makes the error of supposing the Great Tribulation must last until the end of Daniel’s seventieth week. The pre-wrath view is a type of post-trib rapture, but it is distinguished by NOT being post-Daniel’s seventieth week.
The key that combines the correct aspects of each view together with none of their errors is to distinguish between the Great Tribulation (starting in the middle of Daniel’s seventieth week) and the Day of the Lord (which is the final part of this “week”).
I believe all pre-millenialists — pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, and pre-wrath — agree that the rapture of the church commences at the onset of the Day of the Lord. They disagree over what and when this Day is.
I believe a careful study will lead to the correct answer. The Great Tribulation begins with the abomination of desolation and ends with signs in the heavens, immediately after which Christ returns and the Day of the Lord begins. This transition is described in Revelation 6 and 7 after which the judgments of trumpets and bowls and thunders are carried out. After this Christ ends the three-and-a-half year reign of anti-Christ (which does not begin at the signing of a treaty with Israel but at the abomination of desolation), as Christ returns to set up His kingdom. Then there is the marriage supper of the Lamb and His kingdom begins.
I don’t agree on the pre-wrath rapture part, but, as usual, another great post. (I believe the 2nd coming is a singular event, post-trib)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.