from:
http://www.according2prophecy.org/future.html
FUTURISM: THE THIRD FOUNDATION
These articles are available for your edification, and research. The Pre-Trib Perspectives Journal is a publication of the Pre-Trib Research Center. These articles are made available courtesy of Evangelist Donald Perkins and According To Prophecy Ministries.
By: Dr. Thomas Ice
" The third biblical foundation for a systematic understanding of the pretribulation rapture is futurism. An important, but seemingly little-recognized aspect of proper interpretation of Bible prophecy is the role of timing. When will a prophecy be fulfilled in history? There are four possibilities. The four views are simple in the sense that they reflect the only four possibilities in relation to time-past, present, future, and timeless..
The third biblical foundation for a systematic understanding of the pretribulation rapture is futurism. An important, but seemingly little-recognized aspect of proper interpretation of Bible prophecy is the role of timing. When will a prophecy be fulfilled in history? There are four possibilities. The four views are simple in the sense that they reflect the only four possibilities in relation to time-past, present, future, and timeless.
The preterist (past) believes that most, if not all prophecy has already been fulfilled, usually in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The historicist (present) sees much of the current church age as equal to the tribulation period. Thus, prophecy has been and will be fulfilled during the current church age. Futurists (future) believe that virtually all prophetic events will not occur in the current church age, but will take place in the future tribulation, Second Coming, or Millennium. The idealist (timeless) does not believe either that the Bible indicates the timing of events or that we can determine their timing in advance. Therefore, idealists think that prophetic passages mainly teach great ideas or truths about God to be applied regardless of timing.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FUTURISM
Of the four views noted above, the only one that logically and historically has supported the pre-trib position is futurism. Why? Because, the timing of the rapture relates to when the tribulation will occur in history. Preterism declares that the tribulation has already taken place. Historicism says that the tribulation started in the fourth century with events surrounding Constantine's Christianization of the Roman Empire and continues until the second coming. Idealism denies that there is a timing of events. Thus, only futurism, which sees the tribulation as a yet future event could even allow for a rapture before the beginning of that seven-year period. This does not mean, however, that all futurists are pre-trib; they are not. But to be a pretribulationist, one must be a futurist.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF FUTURISM
While not as consistently developed as modern futurism, the early church would have to be classified as inconsistent futurists, more than any of the other three possibilities. With a few exceptions, the early church believed that events of the tribulation, millennium, and second coming were to take place in the future. As anti-millennial views begin to arise in the third century, and the Christianization of the Roman Empire through Constantine spread in the fourth century, futurism began to be displaced. As the fourth century turned into the fifth, Jerome and Augustine's influence against futurism drove it underground during the thousand-year era of medievalism. But there remained during this time pockets of futurist interpretation scattered throughout a number of the groups who refused to come under Roman Catholic authority. Further, there have been discoveries of medieval apocalypticism during this time which wrote from varying degrees of futurism.
The Reformation brought a return to a study of the sources. In Northern Europe those sources included the early church writers and aided in a renewal of the study of prophecy from a futurist perspective within the Roman Catholic and then the Protestant churches. The Jesuit, Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was one of the first to revive an undeveloped form of futurism around 1580. Because of the dominance of historicism, futurism made virtually no headway in Protestantism until the 1820's through Church of England scholar S. R. Maitland in 1826. In the late 1820s, futurism began to gain converts and grow in the British Isles, often motivated by a revived interest in God's plan for Israel, during which time it gained one of its most influential converts in John Nelson Darby. Through Darby and other Brethren expositors, futurism spread to America and throughout the evangelical world. The last one hundred years have seen for the first time, the full development of consistent futurism. This has lead in turn to the formulation of dispensationalism and a clearer understanding of the pretribulational rapture of the church.
SUPPORT FOR FUTURISM
A defense of futurism can be developed from the Bible by comparing and contrasting futurism with the other three approaches. For example, futurism instead of preterism can be shown by demonstrating from specific texts of Scripture that "coming" in the debated passages refer to a bodily return of Christ to planet earth, not a mystical coming mediated through the Roman Army. One area that supports futurism over historicism is demonstrated by the fact that numbers relating to days and years are to be taken literally. There is no biblical basis for days really meaning years. A major argument for futurism over idealism is the fact that numbers do count. In other words, why would God give hundreds of chronological and temporal statements in the Bible if He did not intend to indicate such?
Let's look at some general support for the futurist approach. First and foremost, only the futurist can interpret the whole Bible literally and having done so harmonize those conclusions into a consistent theological system. Just as the people, places, and times were meant to be understood literally in Genesis 1-11, so are the texts that relate to the end-times are to be taken literally. Days mean days; years mean years; months mean months. Thus, the only way that the book of Revelation and other prophetic portions of the Bible make any sense is if they are taken literally, which means that they have not yet happened, and thus, they are future.
Another proof for futurism is found in the Bible's understanding of who Israel is and God's plan for His people. If, whenever we see the Bible using the term "Israel" we remember that it always refers to the same people throughout the whole of the Bible, then it follows that many passages referring to Israel have never been fulfilled and for them to be fulfilled they will have to occur in the future. The fact of the matter is that an outline Israel's history was written in advance, before they ever set one foot into their land. One passage that illustrates this is Deuteronomy 4:25-31.
"When you become the father of children and children's children and have remained long in the land, and act corruptly, and make an idol in the form of anything, and do that which is evil in the sight of the Lord your God so as to provoke Him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that you shall surely perish quickly from the land where you are going over the Jordan to possess it. You shall not live long on it, but shall be utterly destroyed. "And the Lord will scatter you among the peoples, and you shall be left few in number among the nations, where the Lord shall drive you. "And there you will serve gods, the work of man's hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell. "But from there you will seek the Lord your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul. "When you are in distress and all these things have come upon you, in the latter days, you will return to the Lord your God and listen to His voice. "For the Lord your God is a compassionate God; He will not fail you nor destroy you nor forget the covenant with your fathers which He swore to them.
I have put in bold-faced type those major events that even a schoolchild would know as key elements in the history of Israel. If the first three events have happened to Israel, an no one would deny that they have, then it is clear from the text that the final two highlighted events will also happen to the same people. This is most clear from the context. The Bible does not "change horses in midstream" so that suddenly Israel who has received the curses is dropped out of the picture and the church takes over and receives the blessings. Any literal reading of this text will have to admit that the same identity is referred to throughout the whole text. If it is true that the same Israel is meant throughout the text, then the last two highlighted events have yet to be fulfilled for Israel in the same historically literal why in which the first three events have clearly taken place. Thus, a fulfillment of the final two events in the life of Israel will have to happen in the future. This is an argument for a futurist view of prophecy, since this kind of argument can be applied throughout the rest of the Bible. (See also Deut. 27-32 for an expansion of 4:25-31).
CONCLUSION
The Bible is one third prophecy and the majority of that is future prophecy. Since a consistently literal approach to the whole Bible, including prophecy is the proper way of understanding God's revelation to man, then the futurist approach is the correct way of looking at the timing of biblical prophecy. Only the futurist understanding of biblical prophecy can support the pre-trib rapture position.
Dr.Thomas Ice, is a good friend of Evangelist Perkins and this Ministry. Tommy's page will be up-dated on a regular basis, so keep visiting his page. You can respond to his articles via his email given below.
Dr. Thomas Ice: Heads up The Pre-Trib Research Center. The Pre-Trib Research Center is a "think tank" committed to the study, proclamation, teaching and defending of the Pretribulational Rapture (pre-70th week of Daniel) and related end-time prophecy. Editor: Thomas Ice, : Send correspondence to Rev. Thomas Ice, Executive Director, Address: Pre-Trib Research Center, P. O. Box 14111, Arlington, TX. 70694-1111
from:
http://www.according2prophecy.org/rapsec.html
THE RAPTURE AND THE SECOND COMING:
AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION
by Thomas Ice
In previous issues we have given a biblical basis or foundation for pretribulationism. In this issues I will begin by laying out specific biblical evidence for the pre-trib rapture. The first place to start is with the biblical notion that the rapture of the church is distinct from Christ's second coming to the earth.
John Feinberg notes that distinguishing between the rapture and second coming is important in establishing pretribulationism against the non-pre-trib claim that the Bible does not teach such a view.
The pretribulationist must show that there is enough dissimilarity between clear rapture and clear second advent passages as to warrant the claim that the two kinds of passages could be speaking about two events which could occur at different times. The pretribulationist does not have to prove at this point . . . that the two events must occur at different times, but only that the exegetical data from rapture and second advent passages do not make it impossible for the events to occur at different times. If he can do that, the pretribulationist has shown that his view is not impossible. And, he has answered the posttribulationist's strongest line of evidence.1
A key factor in understanding the New Testament's teaching of the pretribulational rapture revolves around the fact that two future comings of Christ are presented. The first coming is the catching up into the clouds of the church before the seven-year tribulation and the second coming occurs at the end of the tribulation when Christ returns to the earth to begin His 1,000 year kingdom. Anyone desirous of insight into the biblical teaching of the rapture and second advent must study and decide whether Scripture speaks of one or two future events.
FRAMING THE ISSUE
Posttribulationists usually contend that if the rapture and the second coming are two distinct events, separated by about seven years, then there ought to be at least one passage in Scripture which clearly teaches this. However, the Bible does not always teach God's truth in accordance with our preconceived notions or in such a way that answers directly all of our questions. For example, a Unitarian could design a similar kind of question regarding the Trinity. "Where is at least one passage in Scripture which clearly says that the Persons of the Godhead are distinct?" We who believe the Trinity reply that the Bible teaches the Trinity but in a different way.
Many important biblical doctrines are not given to us directly from a single verse, we often need to harmonize passages into systematic conclusions. Some truths are directly stated in the Bible, such as the deity of Christ (John 1:1, Titus 2:13). But doctrines like the Trinity and the incarnate nature of Christ are the product of biblical harmonization. Taking into account all biblical texts, orthodox theologians, over time, recognized that God is a Trinity and that Christ is the God-Man. Similarly, a systematic consideration of all biblical passages reveals that Scripture teaches two future comings.
Posttribulationists often contend that the pre-trib position is built merely built upon an assumption that certain verses 'make sense' if and only if the pre-trib model of the rapture is assumed to be correct. However, they often fail to make it clear to their readers that they are just as dependent upon assumptions as they say pre-tribers are. Their error stems from failure to observe actual biblical distinctions.
For example, Christ's ministry has two phases which revolve around His two comings. Phase one took place at Christ's first coming when He came in humiliation to suffer. Phase two will begin at Christ's second coming when He will reign on earth in power and glory. Failure to distinguish these two phases was a key factor in Israel's rejection of Jesus as Messiah at His first coming. In the same way, failure to see clear distinctions between the rapture and second advent lead many to a misinterpretation of God's future plan.
THE NATURE OF THE RAPTURE
The rapture is most clearly presented in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. In verse 17 the English phrase "caught up" translates the Greek word "harpázô," which means "to seize upon with force" or "to snatch up." Latin translators of the Bible used the word "rapere," the root of the English term "rapture." At the rapture living believers will be "caught up" in the air, translated into the clouds, in a moment of time.
The rapture is characterized in the Bible as a "translation coming" (1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thes. 4:15-17) in which Christ comes for His church. The second advent is Christ returning with His saints, descending from heaven to establish His earthly kingdom (Zech. 14:4-5; Mat. 24:27-31). Ed Hindson observes:
The rapture (or "translation") of the church is often paralleled to the "raptures" of Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2: 12). In each case, the individual disappeared or was caught up into-heaven. At His ascension, our Lord Himself was "taken up" into heaven (Acts 1:9). The biblical description of the rapture involves both the resurrection of deceased believers and the translation of living believers into the air to meet the Lord (1 Thess. 4:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:51 52).2
Differences between the two events are harmonized naturally by the pre-trib position, while other views are not able to account comfortably for such distinctions. (Notice the graphic on page four that lists passages that speak of the rapture and those referring to the second coming.)
RAPTURE AND SECOND COMING CONTRASTS
Rapture/Translation 2nd Coming/ Estab. Kingdom
1 Translation of all believers 1 No translation at all
2 Translated saints go to 2 Translated saints return to
heaven earth
3 Earth not judged 3 Earth judged & righteous-
ness established
4 Imminent, any-moment, 4 Follows definite predicted
signless signs including tribulation 5 Not in the Old Testament 5 Predicted often in Old
Testament
6 Believers only 6 Affects all men
7 Before the day of wrath 7 Concluding the day of
wrath
8 No reference to Satan 8 Satan bound
9 Christ comes for His own 9 Christ comes with His own
10 He comes in the air 10 He comes to the earth
11 He claims His bride 11 He comes with His bride
12 Only His own see Him 12 Every eye shall see Him
13 Tribulation begins 13 Millennial Kingdom begins
John Walvoord concludes that these "contrasts should make it evident that the translation of the church is an event quite different in character and time from the return of the Lord to establish His kingdom, and confirms the conclusion that the translation takes place before the tribulation."3
ADDITIONAL DIFFERANCES
Paul speaks of the rapture as a "mystery" (1 Cor. 15:51-54), that is a truth not revealed until its disclosure by the apostles (Col. 1:26), making it a separate event, while the second coming was predicted in the Old Testament (Dan. 12:1-3; Zech. 12:10; 14:4).
The movement for the believer at the rapture is from earth to heaven, while it is from heaven to earth at the second advent. At the rapture, the Lord comes for his saints (1 Thess. 4:16), while at the second coming the Lord comes with His saints (1 Thess. 3:13). At the rapture, the Lord comes only for believers, but His return to the earth will impact all people. The rapture is a translation/resurrection event where the Lord takes believers "to the Father's house" in heaven (John 14:3), while at the second coming believers return from heaven to the earth (Matt. 24:30). Hindson says, "The different aspects of our Lord's return are clearly delineated in the scriptures themselves. The only real issue in the eschatological debate is the time interval between them."4
POST-TRIB PROBLEMS
One of the strengths of the pre-trib position is that it is better able to harmonize the many events of end-time prophecy because of its distinction between the rapture and the second coming. Normally, posttribulationists do not even attempt to answers such objections and the few that try struggle with the biblical text. Yet, pretribulationists do not encounter difficulties in providing answers. What are some post-trib problems?
First, posttribulationism requires that the church will be present during the 70th week of Daniel (Dan. 9:24-27) even though it was absent from the first 69. This is in spite of the fact that Daniel 9:24 says that all 70 weeks are for Israel. Pretribulationism is not in conflict with this passage, as is posttribulationism, since the church departs before the beginning of the seven-year period.
Second, posttribulationism must deny the New Testament teaching of imminency-that Christ could come at any-moment. Pretribulationism does not have a problem with these New Testament passages, since they believe that no signs must precede the rapture.
Third, premillennial posttribulationism has no answer to their problem of who will populate the millennium if the rapture and second coming occur at the same time. Since all believers will be translated at the rapture and all unbelievers judged, because no unrighteous shall be allowed to enter Christ's kingdom, then no one would be left in mortal bodies to start the population base for the millennium. The pre-trib viewpoint does not have a problem at this point.
Fourth, posttribulationism is not able to explain the sheep and goats judgment after the second coming in Matthew 25:31-46. As in the previous problem, how would there be any believers in mortal bodies, if they were raptured at the second coming, who would be available to enter into Christ's kingdom? Pretribulationism does not have such a problem.
Fifth, since Revelation 19:7-8 indicates that the church, Christ's Bride, is made ready to accompany Christ to earth (Rev. 19:14) before the second coming, how could this reasonably happen if part of the church is still on earth awaiting Christ's Advent? If the rapture of the church takes place at the second coming, then how does the Bride (i.e., the church) also come with Christ at His return? There would not be sufficient time for this to happen within a posttribulational sequence, but the pre-trib position has no such problem.
CONCLUSION
The distinctions between Christ's coming in the air to rapture His church are too great to be reduced into a single coming at the end of the tribulation. These biblical distinctions provide a strong basis for the pre-trib rapture teaching. W
ENDNOTES
1John S. Feinberg, "Arguing for the Rapture: Who Must Prove What and How" in Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, editors When The Trumpet Sounds (Eugene, Org.: Harvest House Publishers, forthcoming July 1995).
2Edward E. Hindson, "The Rapture and the Return: Two Aspects of Christ's Coming" in Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, editors When The Trumpet Sounds (Eugene, Org.: Harvest House Publishers, forthcoming July 1995).
3The quotation and the first six contrasts in the graphic above are taken from John F. Walvoord, The Return of the Lord (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1955), 87-88.
4Hindson, Ibid.