The Rapture and the Millenium - a Research Paper

Brother Mark,

Thank you for your thesis on some important questions on eschatology. I trust that your research has been one for truth, and not one of prejudice. God knows your heart and will honor your search for truth.

Keep your heart in love with God, and continue being a diligent student of the Word.

I pray that the Lord will do great things through you.

May Jesus Christ be exalted, and the kingdom of God ex­ tended. And again I say thanks!

For His Glory!

The Rapture and the Millennium - A Research Paper

by Mark A. Pepin

I believe that the information that has been set forth in this work is a true and faithful representation of the Word of God.  I have done my best as a student of the Word, to remove all incorrect references.  I wrote this in 1992-1995, and am updating it for clarity and to remove any errors which I find from having learned more about my position.  Also, I want to note that I have found some discrepancies in my footnotes where I have incorrectly attributed some quotes, and I am working on resolving those discrepancies.  If you find any, please email me @ PEPCIS@aol.com.

Having said that, I strongly advocate for the dismantling of the dispensational method of interpretation, as I do not, and can not, find Scriptural warrant for its use.  I find that in order to accept and utilize this method of interpretation would require the same faith as that which the evolutionists require to uphold their theory.  Faith requires physical or spiritual substance - whether visible or not.  It cannot be upheld by the ideas, or philosophies of men, but by God's Word.  Nor should we uphold a doctrine based solely upon its historicity or because “Great and Godly men” are the developers of this system.

If your “faith” is built upon the dispensational approach to the Scriptures, then it is a faith that is void of any Scriptural justification.  This is not the equivalent of saying that you are "lost".  It just means that your faith is misguided.  A great test of any doctrine is to place it at the center of a wheel, as the hub.  Each spoke would then represent all the other doctrines.  All other doctrines must then logically attach to the center doctrine, in this case Dispensationalism.  It is important for us to test all of our doctrines in this manner to make sure that they all interconnect in a logical and spiritual manner that is consistent.

PRELIMINARY  CONSIDERATIONS

The Rapture Question; the Millennial Kingdom. Immediately upon reciting these words from your lips, or within your mind, thoughts of “pre”, “post”, “a-millennial”, “pre-millennial”, “tribulation”, etc. begin to pop up.  There are so many divergent views concerning the timing of the rapture, and each of these different rapture positions is necessarily wed to a particular millennial position.  Although one’s view of the millennium can be held independently of a particular view of the rapture, it is highly unlikely as one’s view of the rapture is tied logically and interpretationally to one’s view of the millennium.  There are exceptions to this (see John MacArthur).

My position is “Post-Tribulational, A-Millennial”

With that said, I will state the two fundamental reasons for my rejection of the dominant view of a Dispensational scheme which includes a pre-tribulational rapture.

1. Biblical evidence not only favors a mid-, or post-tribulational, a-millennial position, but actually refutes pre-tribulationism in many cases.  Granted, post-tribulation may have some “difficult” passages, but this is true for most positions.  Even so, a difficult passage is not grounds for refuting a doctrine.  Were that the case, then the Doctrine of the Trinity or the Virgin Birth would have been left at the wayside many years ago.
2. Dispensationalism is a method of interpretation which is neither warranted nor sanctioned by Christ, the disciples, or the Word of God.  It is never once used in any instance in the whole of the Bible by any writer.

Of the two preceding points of rejection, I would like to first deal with methods of interpretation, primarily because the whole foundational premise for a pre-tribulational rapture is wound up within a method. I refer to this method as the dispensational method of interpretation.

So what is wrong with Dispensationalism?  Isn’t this a Biblical word?  Yes.  However, the Biblical meaning of the word “dispensation”, as used in the Bible, and the meaning extended by those who propound a method of dispensational interpretation are two different things.

To understand the true meaning and proper method of Biblical interpretation, it would do us well to begin by examining the different methods of interpretation which are used in understanding the Bible.  They are:

• Literal
• Allegorical
• Dispensational

The literal method is one in which,  

“We should be satisfied with the literal meaning of a text unless very substantial reasons can be given for advancing beyond the literal meaning.”

LITERAL INTERPRETATION

Not much needs to be stated here: literal is literal.  It means exactly what it says.  If, for instance, we read, “The sky is black”, then we must take that to mean that the writer intends to state that the sky is quite literally black.  If we read that the sky is as if painted black, then we could take that as metaphorical.

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION

Next is allegorical.  This is the method whereby the writer of a story presents

“…abstract or ideas or moral principles in the form of symbolic characters, events, or objects.”

Many who reside within the camp of Dispensationalism resort to the defense of their position by attacking opposing views in the following manner: “They (the opposing view) spiritualize the Scriptures.”

Spiritualizing the Scriptures

What does it mean to “spiritualize” the Scriptures?  First, let’s look at the suffix “-ize”.  To place a suffix on a word is to modify that word.  For example: All living people have an appendix.  However, some people develop appendicitis, which is an inflammation of the appendix.  This is precisely the meaning of the suffix “-itis”.  It means “inflammation.” (Bronchitis – inflammation of the bronchia)

In the same manner, the suffix “-ize” has a meaning which modifies the word to which it is attached.  An example would be the word “character”.  Character means (simple definition), “specific patterns of behavior which mark a person as unique.”  That particular character trait would be unique to that particular individual.  To characterize then, would be a setting out of character traits to distinguish one individual from another.

The suffix “-ize” means to “act upon, or make,” such as civilize, legalize, fertilize, etc.  In each case, you are imposing a descriptive upon a particular person, place, or thing.  To fertilize means “to make the ground fertile.”  To legalize means “to make a thing legal.”  To civilize means “to make a person or persons civil.”

So then, to spiritualize would mean “to make a thing spiritual.”  In our particular case, we can say that the things to be made spiritual are the Scriptures.

The term “to spiritualize the Scriptures” is a term chock full of contradiction, for the Scriptures are spiritual.  We are told in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that the Bible (“the things of the Spirit of God”) is not received by the natural man because “they are foolishness unto him.”  The natural man has no ability to understand the Scriptures.  Nothing within a natural man (intellect, emotion, will) can help him to interpret Scripture.  And the reason is because the Scriptures ARE “spiritually discerned.”

The very next verse (1 Cor. 2:15) shows us that it is only the spiritual man who has “the mind of Christ” who is able to “spiritually discern all things.”

There are some things that a natural man can understand such as the metaphors contained within the Bible.  An example would be John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”  Natural man has the ability to understand the Jewish/Christian concept of the sacrifice of an animal to atone for the sins of a man.  Even the pagans offered sacrifices to appease their gods.

We must remember that where the problem of true spiritual understanding comes from is not the comprehension of a metaphor, but rather the knowledge of the spiritual message within the metaphor (or within the passage of Scripture under consideration).  There is nothing that natural man can do to enhance his understanding of “the things of the spirit of God”.

But there is a way for the spiritual man to understand, and that way is to “have the mind of Christ.”  Those who have the mind of Christ are spiritual and are able to “discerneth all things” (1 Cor. 2:15).  But this ability is not a guarantee of success.  This is because all too often, we get so cocky in our own wisdom that we leave behind that essential part of spiritually understanding God’s Word – His Spirit.  Job 32:8 says that,

“There is a spirit in man: and the inspiration (Hebrew Neshamah – wind, spirit) of the Almighty giveth them understanding.”

It is only through the Spirit’s working with man's spirit that man is capable of understanding the things of God.

Perhaps the difficulty in understanding and comprehending God’s Word is not in this area of God’s spiritualization of His Scriptures, but rather in the confusion of what it means to “spiritualize” or “allegorize”.  I believe that this confusion has come from the Reformational rejection of Catholic allegorism, as opposed to Protestant allegorism.

In the system of Catholic allegorism during the middle ages,

“It would not be an exaggeration to assert that the preponderance of exegetical work was allegorical.”

A logical outworking of this type of exegesis was the abuse of allegorical interpretation.  This came about in large part due to the primacy of the Catholic Church in regard to the laity.  It is believed that,

“The Bible was not given to the world, but deposited in the Church.  Hence, one of the rights of the Church is to interpret the Scriptures [and] that the written form is [so] obscure and needs an official interpreter.  The average man is not competent to interpret the Scripture because it is a task beyond his abilities.”

Another contributing factor to the abuse of allegorism was the belief that there are essentially two sources of revelation.

“The Roman Catholic believes that he has two sources of revelation which mutually interpret each other.  Scripture makes clear matters of the un-written tradition, and unwritten tradition makes clear obscure matters in Scripture.  Hence, the Catholic scholar does not feel it necessary to find full teaching of all his doctrines in the Bible, but allusions are sufficient (e.g., prayers for the dead, veneration for Mary, confession, the supremacy of Peter).  The Catholic Church does not intend to limit itself entirely to the word of Scripture.”

This, then, was the allegorism of the middle ages.  In reality, it was not allegorism, but an abuse of interpretation to uphold the “tradition of the fathers.”

When the Reformation came, Calvin and Luther both rejected this type of allegorical interpretation.  Not because it was wrong to find allegorical meaning in a passage, but because it was wrong to find allegorical meaning in a passage where there was none.  This is why Calvin called the Catholic system of allegorical interpretation “Satanic,” because it led men away from the truth of Scripture, and hence, from eternal salvation.

Nowadays, many men take Calvin and Luther’s statements about their rejection of Catholic allegorism and wrench them out of their context – not understanding that their rejection of Catholic allegorism was not a rejection of an honest Protestant allegorical method of interpretation.  And, ultimately, from this has come the modern-day, pre-millennial, pre-tribulational criticism (with a negative connotation attached to it), “to spiritualize (allegorize) the Scriptures.”

DISPENSATIONAL INTERPRETATION

The Dispensational method is really a mirror image of the Catholic method of allegorism.  The two accepted forms of Biblical interpretation both utilize a mixture of the literal and the allegorical methods.  The one (dispensational) leads to a specific view of the rapture and the millennium; the other leads to an opposite view of the rapture and millennium.  One is inductive (dispensational), the other is deductive.  One (dispensational) begins with an assumption and works to prove that assumption; the other starts with Scripture and works to see what is being taught.

An Example

It is argued that the following verse: “God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past….hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son” (Heb. 1:1,2), proves that the dispensational method is a viable method of interpretation.  But what does this verse say?  Does it say that when you come to Matt. 24, and Matt. 13 that you can depart from a literal method of interpretation of the Word, and adopt an allegorical approach that supports your view of the millennium?  Or does it say, in a quite LITERAL way, that God has chosen to speak forth His gospel to man in different ways, during different times?

In times past, God spoke to us through a burning bush; pillar of fire; a cloud; angels; a donkey; His servants the prophets; etc.  But in these “sundry (different) times” that He spoke to us, in these “divers (various manners, theophanies, etc.)”, the message preached was always the same.  The message has never changed, regardless of the “age” in which it was preached.

Notice in Hebrews 4:1, 2

“Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.  For unto us [in this age] was the gospel preached, as well as unto them [in the previous age]: but the word preached [the same gospel message] did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.”

The Word (the gospel message) did not change.  But what did was the result of its hearing “being mixed with faith.”

The Greek word for dispensation is oikonomia which simply means administration, or the dispensing of duties assigned to a particular individual or group of people.  In Lk. 16:2-8, the word oikonomia is translated variously as steward and stewardship.  This is in recognition of the meaning as being one who administers, or the office of one who administers.

Paul used this word several times (five times), and in every single instance we can see that the meaning is the same as that outlined above.  Notice Titus 1:7:

“For the bishop must be blameless, as the steward (oikonomia – or administrator of the gospel) of God.”

Or Ephesians 3:2,

“If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God [the preaching of the gospel to the world] which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God.”

There is only one instance of the nine occurrences of this word, which can be shown to be speaking of God’s responsibilities or duties as The Administrator.  All the other references talk of man’s duties.  This one instance is Eph. 1:10 where we see:

“…that in the dispensation [the administering, or unfolding] of the fullness of times he [God] might gather together in One all things in Christ.”

Clearly this shows how it is the Sovereign God alone who is in charge of the dispensing of the timing of the cross, as it was Christ who was,

“…delivered [up] by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” (Acts 2:23)

It is Him “with whom we have to do” that has administered or dispensed time according to the pleasure of His own good will.  When the time was ripe (the fullness of it – a pre-determined time set by God’s ministration methods [the office of His dispensation]), He gathered together in One Person all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.”

Nowhere in God’s Word can one find a proof-text in support of interpreting God’s Word dispensationally.  And, since this preceding statement is true then, the only recourse would be to abandon the dispensational method of interpretation in preference of some other method.

However, this is where the “great divide” between the two methods of interpretation becomes manifest.  How can a person who has built his whole theology on a dispensational method of interpretation, move to the other camp?  To do so would seem to be abandoning one ship to another ship of “questionable” integrity.  Men’s pride does not make many allowances for mistakes, especially when they are of such magnitude, and when dealing with such subjects.

Dispensational Leaven

(Or, The Dire Consequences of the Leaven of false Theology)

In every age, there is a desperate need to look for answers to questions that plague us and cause us much anxiety.  In this age (as I suppose it is with every age), there is a dangerous condition within the Church that has manifested itself as apostasy, and has given Christian “brothers” the “liberty” to choose the wrong.  In large part, this is the result of the outworking of a false theology which has infiltrated and permeated the Church.  That theology is Dispensationalism and all that it entails.

This doctrine of Dispensationalism touches, necessarily, on all other doctrines.  Naturally, there is a “leavening” effect where an assumption is accepted and further taught over here, it must then teach the following concerning this doctrine over there, and so on and so forth; until all other doctrines are infected with this virus.

Although John MacArthur, Jr. is a pre-millennialist, he has admittedly pinpointed the source of the Church’s present troubles, and he goes directly to the source of this offending doctrine:

“There is a tendency…for dispensationalists to get carried away with compartmentalizing truth to the point that they can make unbiblical distinctions.  An almost obsessive desire to categorize everything neatly has led various dispensationalist interpreters to draw hard lines not only between the church and Israel, but also between salvation and discipleship [more commonly known as the controversy between law and grace], the church and the kingdom, Christ’s preaching and the apostolic message, faith and repentance…The age of law/age of grace division in particular has wreaked havoc on dispensationalist theology and contributed to confusion about the doctrine of salvation.”

Still, MacArthur refuses to call an end to Dispensationalism, as this would rightly denounce pre-millennialism, and send him in other directions in search of solid answers that would assist him in repairing other portions of his theology which the tentacles of Dispensationalism have reached.

After characterizing Lewis Sperry Chafer and Clarence Larkin as “hyper-dispensationalists”, MacArthur says,

“This lamentable hermeneutic [of Matthew Chapter 5] is widely applied in varying degrees to much of our Lord’s earthly teaching, emasculating the message of the gospels.”

He concludes that, because of this leavening effect of Dispensationalism,

“It is no wonder that the evangelistic message growing out of such a system differs sharply from the gospel according to Jesus.  If we begin with the presupposition that much of Christ’s message was intended for another age, why should our gospel be the same as the one He preached?”

He also makes note that,

“It should be pointed out that many dispensationalists resent the criticism that they relegate the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings of Jesus to a future age.  Most dispensationalists will say they see application of the Sermon to the church age, but still stop short of saying its primary message is for Christians….After a lengthy defense of the traditional dispensationalist view of the Sermon on the Mount, Ryrie concludes that it cannot be applied “primarily and fully…to the believer in this age.” (Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 109).  Yet virtually every detail in the Sermon is repeated in the epistles.”

Because there is such confusion over the true Biblical understanding of the definition of the word “dispensation”, many dispensationalists have resorted to concocting their own definition.  I. M. Haldeman claims that,

“The warrant for the word “Dispensation” is to be found in Ephesians 3:2, and Colossians 1:25”

By this statement comes the assumption that “dispensation” means what a dispensationalist demands it to mean, and since the word “dispensation” is found in the Bible, then it must be true!  A simple reading of the Bible quickly disproves any claims that he makes regarding its meaning.  He continues with a portentous definition.

“The Greek word for dispensation is oikonomia, from which we get our English word economy, system, administration.  Such a word carries with it necessarily the idea of time, a period, an epoch, or age.”

You can see where Haldeman is going with this.  He’s trying to highlight the BYPRODUCT of the act of dispensing as if it were the actual product, thereby establishing a Dispensation as a period of time, instead of the administration of a task.

The implication may be that to dispense would require a passing of time, but this does not constitute a specified period of time, as in the construct of Dispensational Theology.  Furthermore, this does not authorize the calling of a period of dispensing God’s graces as a “dispensation” in the form of a period of time.

And more, even if this were acceptable, it could not require that separations or distinctions be made for each passage of Scripture, as to this one only referring to Christians and this one only referring to Jews or Israel.

This is, of course, what the Dispensationalist would have you believe: that certain passages deal specifically with Israel, and others only for the Church, and still others for the heathen nations.  This is borne out of Haldeman’s statement,

“From the Bible point of view a dispensation is a definite period or epoch in which God makes manifest some characteristic dealing with man; dealing in one age or epoch distinctly from that of another and with different individuals or classes…”

In conclusion he states,

“To confound these dispensations, to take principle of action revealed in one and apply it indiscriminately to another, to ignore the classes of persons and the peculiar aim of each dispensation is to produce confusion, contradiction, and lay the foundation for that disharmony which reigns all too manifestly today among Christian expositors.”

We find similar statements coming from other dispensationalists, some getting more imaginative and inventive than the next.  Oliver B. Greene, of The Gospel Hour, states that,

“Our text [II Tim.2:15] commands, “Rightly divide the Word of Truth.”  So, according to this verse there are divisions in the Word of God.  That is, it is divided into right divisions, and we are to see these divisions as the Holy Spirit leads us.  We cannot understand the Word of God unless we recognize the divisions, or ages, that are laid down in the Bible.  Anyone studying the Word of God…ignoring the divisions of the Word of God…will end up in confusion.”

Of course, this passage, nor any other passage in God’s Word, teaches “dividing” God’s Word up into neat little ages, or as MacArthur says, an “obsessive desire to categorize everything neatly.”  Notice that where I underlined his quote, he attempts to show that God’s Word says that the word “divide” means “dispensation”, as the dispensationalist understands it.

Not to be outdone in any outlandish fashion, R.A. Torrey takes it a step further in credulity, writing concerning II Tim. 2:15,

“The Greek word Paul actually used means, “cutting straight,” and that would be a better way to translate it here than the Revised Version…I tell you there is a lot of crooked cutting nowadays when men come to the study and interpretation of the Word of God, especially when they find something they do not wish to believe.” [Or perhaps when they invent something they do wish to believe?]

In general, there is a total lack of understanding relative to the definition of the word dispensation.  Vine intends to correct other’s abuses by stating,

"Note: A "dispensation" is not a period or epoch (a common, but erroneous, use of the word), but a mode of dealing, an arrangement or administration of affairs.  Cf. oikonomos, “a steward,” and oikonomeo, “to be a steward.”

In simple fact, the Greek word for “dispensation,” as used in the Bible is oikonomos, which means “a steward.”  Closely related to this is the Greek word oikonomeo, “to be a steward.”  Nowhere is there any freedom to allow for this word to be translated as a period of time or epoch.  Neither do we find warrant for justification of this “interpretation” in the context of the Bible, in part or in the whole.

Larkin seeks to give us the Dispensational understanding of the meaning of Dispensation, stating that,

“The difference between an “AGE” and a “DISPENSATION” is that an “AGE” stands for a period between two great physical changes in the earth’s surface, while a DISPENSATION” stands for a “moral” or “probationary” period in the world’s history.  The form of “Administration” is different in each “Dispensation.”

As can be evidenced by the preceding statement there is confusion as to the proper definition of the Greek word oikonomeo.  In order to uphold the pre-millennialist interpretation of what a “dispensation” is, this fabrication is absolutely necessary.  The confusion is confounded by a further confusion among Dispensationalists whereby they fail to recognize that any major doctrinal statements and definitions MUST have a firm basis and foundation in the Scriptures.

Granted, it is very easy to define “period[s] between two great [physical] changes in the earth” as an AGE.  But notice that whenever a Dispensationalist gives you a definition for Dispensation, he never gives a logical connection for a Scriptural basis for his definition.  

On what Scriptural basis can Larkin, or any Dispensationalist, claim that “a DISPENSATION stands for a “moral” or “probationary” period in the world’s history”?  And then the final statement that “The form of “Administration” is different in each “Dispensation” is not supported by a reading of the Scriptures.

This rendering of the word “dispensation” to mean “a period of time,” i.e., an age, is the introduction of the leaven into the doctrine of eschatology that quickly “leavens the whole.”

Larkin also refers us to the “Perfect Kingdom” (the handing of the kingdom over to the Father at the close of the Millennial Kingdom) as “a Dispensation,” as in the “Dispensation of the Fullness of Times.” Eph. 10:10.”  There are many different Dispensations in each Dispensationalists scheme.  And to be honest, I’m not sure how many dispensations there are in any given Dispensationalist’ teaching.

Let’s briefly consider how we (and others) treat each other as Christians when we debate these issues.

AGAINST THE MAN

One point to recognize in debating Doctrinal positions, is the issue of ad hominem attacks (personal attacks against the character or person of a man who holds the opposing view) versus attacks which are based on the work and Word of Scripture.  The first admission for each side is to understand that men are men, and as such, will sometimes “slip” to the lower level of an ad hominem attack.  I do not support any such tactics, and I pray that God’s Spirit will confirm in me this manner of thinking, and uphold me in this in all my writings and conversations with those of opposing view-points.

Unfortunately, these ad hominem attacks do occur, and they originate with equal ferocity from both sides of the spectrum.  I believe that it would be improper to conclude, as with certain others,

“…that post-tribulational literature, particularly of the controversial type, abounds in such [ad hominem] references.”

I have witnessed such displays of disdain from others within pre-millennial quarters, not just a- or post-millennialists.

I believe that these ad hominem attacks come principally from the belief that the opposing person is mishandling Scripture.  This is a logical outworking of one’s doctrinal position, coupled with their desire to destroy heresy within the ranks of believers – a noble quest.

In the section of Walvoord’s book dealing with “objections to Dispensationalism” (pgs. 147-150), he quotes various opponents of Dispensationalism, citing their ad hominem attacks against the adherents of Dispensationalism.  In effect, he lumps “all” of the offending opposers together and presents a group ad hominem attack against the ad hominem attackers!

Actually, Walvoord “slips” himself by stating that a prominent critic of the pre-tribulational view,

“…built an impressive case for his position, with a somewhat flamboyant journalism…[and that] common honesty would call for [him] to write another book confessing that his entire point of view has no basis in fact…”

This is just another manner in calling a man a liar.  Let’s face some hard facts here: one side is not presenting Biblical truth, and it is very easy to accuse the other of dishonesty, “aggressive sophistry and fanatic exegesis,” and then to demand that they “take it back”.  There have been some times I have felt myself being pulled toward such conclusions, because reality does indeed bring one to the logical conclusion that the opposing “heretic” must answer for his crimes, and we are the ones to do it!

SEARCHING FOR DEFINITIONS

In Walvoord’s “Objections to Dispensationalism,” which is presented in his chapter titled “General Post-tribulational Arguments,” I was hopeful to find some answers to the many “objections to Dispensationalism,” but there were NONE forthcoming.

Contrary to what we might want and expect from Walvoord’s book, his entire tome is predicated on the “truth” of the use of the Dispensational method of interpretation, without any Biblical support or references to be based upon.  His book is a defense of the manner in which Dispensationalists interpret the Bible, but without any Biblical proof of the Scriptural authenticity of what they claim dispensation to mean.  Indeed, without the use of this interpretation method, an expositor of the Scriptures could not honestly come to the conclusion that the rapture of the Church is pre-tribulational; that there is an imminency of the rapture; that the whole of the so-called seven-year tribulation is God’s wrath; that the translation and the second coming are to be contrasted; etc., etc.  These are all nothing more than distinctions drawn from suppositions and inferences.  The Dispensational method of interpretation is, indeed, unwarranted and never sanctioned by Scripture.  Nowhere can we find this mode of interpretation broken down in a logical sequence by Walvoord, or any other pro-Dispensational writer, with any Scriptural texts to support such a position.

I have read nearly every book which purports to establish a Scriptural justification for Dispensation Theology, and have yet to be introduced to any Scripturally-based arguments for them.  Yet every Dispensationalist insists that there is no other way to understand the Bible unless you interpret it in the manner in which they demand it be interpreted.

Feinberg states that for this study of the millennium, the Bible (and the Bible alone) is to be the source of his material.  It is to this claim that all Bible students would acknowledge lays their authority for interpretation and comprehension of the Scriptures.

The search for eschatological truth will bring one through several millennial positions, tribulational positions, judgments, raptures, etc.  But the conclusions reached for each position are the result of a specific or particular method of interpretation.

Feinberg asserts that,

“…if the Bible does teach a [literal] millennium, then we are compelled to admit that the premillennial view…is the correct one.”

However, in order to reach the conclusion of a literal, millennial reign of Christ, one must be prehensile to the method of Dispensational interpretation.  Likewise, we would conclude (with Feinberg) that if the Dispensational method of interpretation is not warranted or sanctioned by the Holy Word,

“…then we are logically constrained to acknowledge that the truth is with the amillennialists.”

Feinberg and others are quick to refer to the historicity of “the beliefs of the early Church, stating that,

“Every book that we have read and studied on the question of the millennium…admitted freely that the entire early Church for the first three centuries was premillennial…”

However, in my readings, other books have done a scholarly job of showing quite the opposite.  So the real question is not, and cannot be, “What do the majority of Christians believe?” but rather, “What does the Word of God teach?”

To this end, it is imperative that the Bible student determine for him/herself if the Dispensational method of interpretation is a legitimate means of interpreting God’s Word.  I join with Feinberg in the search of,

“the Scriptures [to see if it] bear[s] it out or not,” this “dispensational approach to the Scriptures.”

Feinberg does not address the assumed authority of the use of dispensational interpretation in Part I of his book, where it most likely should be addressed, (or anywhere in his entire book) as this is that part of his book which deals specifically with consideration of the methods of Biblical Interpretation.  As a matter of course, he follows the direction of others in his camp, in a refusal to acknowledge Biblical authority in these matters, and rather to fully assume that Dispensationalism is correct, and then to work toward interpreting the Bible with that method of interpretation.

This precipitous attitude of the Scriptures is further displayed in a seeming disregard for its “authority in all matters of Christian life and doctrine.”  Feinberg does not see any problem with rejecting a clear reading of Scripture when it clearly opposes his point of view.  When Feinberg is confronted with the reality of Scripture which shows his position to be in error, he readily admits that,

“…one is only required to show that a solution of the alleged problem is possible.”

Although, admittedly, harmonization is an essential precursor to reconciliation of a seeming contradiction of the Word, it is of the utmost importance to reflect upon where the conclusion in question originated (from what method of interpretation).  It is not God’s Word which is in question, but rather the methodology of interpretation.  However, this is exactly the approach to Scriptures that he employs throughout his analysis.  Instead of a direct interpretation of the Word, reading it for its “natural” meaning, he insists that a Dispensational lens must be attached to every reading of the Word.

In addressing Allis’ handling of Acts 3:24, Feinberg states that,

“This passage is indeed, a pivotal one, and will not at all bear the interpretation or “the inference a natural, if not a necessary one” which [Allis] places upon it.”

In other words, when approaching Scripture, you cannot infer a natural or plain reading of the words in order to understand the meaning.  You must instead, according to a dispensationalist, impose a pre-disposed mindset upon the Scriptures in order to properly distinguish between people groups and ages.

One of the reasons for the confusion surrounding the validity of the dispensational method of interpretation is the acceptance of a good working definition of the term “dispensation.”  Everyone seems intent on maintaining that a dispensation is a “period of time.”  Contrary to this definition, a dispensation is “the act of dispensing… [or] distribution, [e.g.]: The dispensation of supplies in the disaster area was delayed.”

The word “dispensation” does not quantify time, but rather an action, or “the act of dispensing.”  Time is a byproduct of dispensing, just as cartographic operations cannot be completed within a moment in time, but must have men conduct surveys and establish elevation points, etc until finalizing the project with the printing of a map.

Men in both camps of eschatology have erred in the use of the word, to the detriment of Bible students everywhere; as the doctrine of dispensation is built on the assumption that God dealt differently with man in each “dispensation,” when in fact, the Christian God is an immutable and never-changing God.  Oh, thank the Lord that He never changes.  If He did, we could never rely on Him to save us tomorrow, for He may change His mind.  But His Word forcefully declares,

“For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.”

While God certainly has manifested His grace to us in many different ways, and has spoken to us through may different means (Heb. 1:1,2), the message has always been the same and the means of obeying was always the same also (Heb. 4:1-5).  To reject Dispensationalism is not to reject a Biblical and historical understanding of “ages” or “periods of time” when God manifested His grace differently.  But in each of these “time periods” one can clearly delineate them by the same manner as Scofield does in his famous work, Rightly Dividing the Word.  

By the time Feinberg has completed his work on “Dispensation” in the chapter of the same name, we are in possession of no more knowledge than when he first began, as to whether or not the Dispensational method of interpretation is Biblically warranted or sanctioned.  The reason for this omission is obvious – it is not warranted, sanctioned, mandated, or even inferred to by Scripture as to the acceptability of this method of interpretation.

The truth is contrary to Feinberg’s statement that,

“When the dispensational scheme is studied carefully and without prejudgment…it will be found to be a method gleaned from the Bible, and not a system foisted upon it.”

This statement is simply unsubstantiated rhetoric.  The fact remains that no other Bible writer, or even Jesus Himself, ever once employed the Dispensational method of interpretation to define or explain Scripture.  Ever.

I would stand with Ladd who stated so eloquently,

“In the study of the millennium I am prepared to accept whatever anyone can establish as biblical teaching, and if I do not accept dispensational distinctives, it is because I feel compelled by the inspired Word of God not to do so.  Let this be clear: the Bible and the Bible alone is our one authority.”

In book, after book, after book, of dispensational eschatology, one would look for a concise definition of the term, “dispensation” or for a Biblical foundation for Dispensational Eschatology.  Since Scripture is “the final authority in all matters concerning Christian life and doctrine,” we should be able to gain authority for this method of interpretation from Scripture itself.

Herman A. Hoyt, a friend of Dispensationalism, states that dispensational Premillennialism,

“…is a system of theology comprising the Bible, confronting the problems of the Bible, confining itself to the Bible and commending hope to a world miserably failing and seized with fear.”

In the next paragraph he rightly refers to this system as a,

“…philosophy…that is the best and brightest of all philosophies.”

Philosophies are man-centered and originate from man, based on love (philos) of knowledge (Sophos).  I ask, “Where is the Scriptural authority for the use of any system of philosophy to be foisted upon the Scriptures as a method of interpreting Scripture?”  Where, indeed.  You will search for eternity to find this authority, because God declared that the origination of understanding of the Scriptures come from the Holy Spirit, not man (c.f. 1 Cor. 1:19, 21, 25).

Regardless of whether the individual who developed this dispensational method of interpretation should be “saved” or not, the Bible itself must be the source of knowledge, with the Holy Spirit as our guide, not a system of philosophy.

“Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth”

This does not mean that revelation comes apart from God’s Word, as is the case with the Dispensational approach to the Scriptures; but rather, revelation of a passage comes from the Holy Spirit in guiding us from passage to passage, “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13), not comparing man’s philosophies (Dispensationalism) with spiritual things.

In conclusion, I would put forth two logical reasons for rejecting Dispensationalism as a viable method of interpretation by quoting Robert G. Clouse, in the postscript to his book.  He begins by citing Charles Ryrie as exemplifying the premillennial/dispensationalist position with its logical and natural consequences.

"In his (Ryrie) view the only hope for humanity is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. This [mind set] discourages involvement in social action and fosters a supernatural social ethic which supports the status quo. Many evangelicals, heavily influenced by premillennialism, do not wish to see social change which would improve the lot of their fellow men.   Despite the clear teaching of the Bible that believers are to love their neighbors and help them physically and spiritually (Matthew 25; Rom.1 2:20), far too many Christians narrow their mission to an attempt to win souls for Christ.  "Often the church is viewed by those who advocate a premillennial position solely as a promotional  organization  for the  gospel of Christ  High pressure tactics are used to foster a pessimistic view of the world and an emphasis is placed upon  "winning the  last  soul" so that Christ will return. . .Premillennialists often take an extremely separatist position with regard to culture. . .There is a great danger in this because if Christians neglect the arts and entertainment media, these  avenues  of  expression  are  usually taken over by more secular, materialistic  influences…Another aspect of premillennialism that troubles many Christians is the effort to identify the "signs of the times." Often such occurrences as natural disasters and the rise of authoritarian political leaders are cited as proof that “the end is near” and that the Second Coming of Christ is "at hand" or "imminent".

So one reason I reject Dispensationalism is because it has influenced the mind of the average Christian to the point that he has not pursued any active interest in the arts and humanities, and instead Hollywood and everything liberal has infused itself and altered the best course for America’s moral backbone.

Reason #2 is that if you examine the eschatological position of those who have attempted to pinpoint the return of Christ, nearly all of them have been Dispensationalists.  This has led to all manner of speculation which has caused God’s people undue consternation and spent energy which would be better off applied to furthering His kingdom.

"In Truth thou canst not read the Scriptures too much; And what thou readest, thou canst not read too well;

And what thou readest well, thou canst not too well understand; And what thou understandest well, thou canst not too well teach;

And what thou teachest well, thou canst not too well live."

~ Martin Luther

THREE VIEWS

There are three basic positions or views on the so-called millennial kingdom of Christ. They are:

1. A-millennialism
2. Post-millennialism
3. Pre-millennialism

The actual phrase "millennial kingdom" does not exist in the Bible in the original or translated languages. It originates primarily from the understanding of Scripture in Revelation 20:1-6.  From this portion of Scripture, it is adduced that there exists, in the future, a kingdom that shall be ruled by Christ.  All three of the aforementioned positions agree as to the fact of a kingdom, but disagree as to when the kingdom shall begin, and how long it will last in relation to the coming (2nd advent) of Christ. This is because of a difference in methods of interpretation which I have discussed previously.

I would like, at this time, to make a clarification of my previous statements regarding dispensational interpretation. To come to an understanding of pre-millennialism virtually requires a proper working knowledge of Dispensationalism, but this is not absolute. There are men, currently or otherwise who hold to a post-tribulational, pre-millennial return of Christ.

While Dispensationalism is not required to come to a pre-millennial position, I would hazard a guess that nearly 80% or better of all pre-millennialists would vanish at the destruction of Dispensationalism. I may be wrong, but this has been my impression from the bulk of the writings concerning these eschatological issues. I am not alone in these sentiments. Charles Feinberg's sympathies concerning interpretation systems is in agreement with mine. He states,

"…just as premillennialism is linked to dispensationalism, so amillennialism is joined to covenatism (sic) or covenant theology."

I shall start my study of the millennium by first giving a quick review of the three main positions set before us. We shall also have opportunity to examine other aspects of each position as it regards interpretation methods and other research criterion.

1. Pre-millennialism

This is the theory that Jesus Christ will return just prior to the beginning of the millennial kingdom which Christ has promised to reign over. Some of the main tenets of pre-millennialism are:

• a belief in the uniqueness and separateness of the "kingdom of God" and the "kingdom of heaven."
• a fundamental belief in dispensational interpretation (being a
• certain mixture of literal and allegorical (also known as "spiritualizing")
• a belief that the future kingdom is a literal 1,000 year kingdom with specific dimensions as outlined in Revelation
• a belief in a separate future plan for the Church, which age we are currently in.
• a belief in a pre-tribulational rapture (specifics of this is dealt with in the separate portion of my paper dealing with rapture positions)
• a belief in several raptures (upwards of seven) and several judgments.

2. Post-millennialism

This is a view that holds to the belief that Christ will not return until after the 1,000 year reign of Christ.  What is unique about this position is that its adherents primarily hold to a belief of a social gospel.  This is, to me, most disconcerting, as it mirrors a liberal political doctrine that believes in taking money from the rich to benefit the poor.  To be fair, Postmillennialism in its perfected teaching, believes that everyone will give freely to eliminate the suffering of those less fortunate.

Postmillennialists believe that as people get saved, the gospel has a socializing effect on society. This has a multiplying effect as believers increase in numbers, and societies' ills become fewer and fewer because the Christian will put Biblical principles to work in their lives and into society.

This "Christianizing" would continue until the world is perfected, at which time Christ would return to receive His kingdom. At one time, this millennial system was quite popular because of its magnetic appeal to the world which looked for lasting peace (much the same as the Jews in Jesus' day were looking for Christ to set up His "earthly kingdom" (of which there is no phrase contained in the Bible).

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer of the Dallas Theological Seminary had this to say in the foreword to the first edition of Charles Feinberg's book, Premillennialism or Amillennialism?

"Of the three [millennial systems]…postmillennialism is dead…Whether the present insane,   corrupt condition of the world killed the theory by the contradiction of its own developing character, or whether the more intensified study of prophetic truth in these latter times so magnified its inconsistencies that it died, future historians must  determine."

My personal belief is not sympathetic to Postmillennialism.  I believe that our own country is an excellent refutation of it, and has shown how unreachable this goal is because of its non-conformity to Scripture where it says, “…for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat.”  If the way to Hell is broad, why should we expect to see more and more of the world Christianized?  It goes against what Christ taught us.

3. Amillennialism

This is the position of which I have aligned myself with.  As a consequence, I have read and researched many volumes of books.  By and large, while there is a comprehension of the basic mechanics of the Amillennial position by others, there is a seeming incredible lack of knowledge concerning many of the basic points of this system.  I liken this to a young teenager who is anxious to drive a car for the first time – he has the knowledge of the basic mechanics of how a car operates (brakes, gas, windshield wipers, etc.), but the more refined points of driving (staying within limits, not running out of gas, etc.) he is experientially lacking.

The Amillennial system holds to the following main tenets:

1. a literal interpretation of the Scriptures: “we should be satisfied with the literal meaning of a text unless very substantial reasons can be given for advancing beyond the literal meaning.
2. a belief that the millennial kingdom began at the first advent of Christ.
3. a belief in a literal, general resurrection which is to occur on “the last day.”
4. a belief in a literal, general judgment of all the living and all the dead, good and evil, to occur on “the last day”
5. consequently, a post-tribulational rapture of the Church – the Church goes through the whole of the tribulation and is raptured out only just prior to God’s wrath being poured out.

DEFENSE OF AMILLENNIALISM

At the outset, it should be noted that it is my belief that a clear doctrine of eschatology is not urgently necessary to the salvation of man.  What should be foremost is a desire to share and preach God’s Word, bringing the message of salvation to the world, with the end result of God being glorified.

As I begin this portion of my research, I should also like to make note that the greatest bridge between Premillennialism and Amillennialism is the method of interpretation employed by each other.  In the words of Albertus Peiters,

“As long as there is no agreement on this point the debate is interminable and fruitless.”

Most Bible students who desire to research more about eschatological positions and their historical developments, will no doubt run upon a man named the Rev. Charles Ingersoll Scofield, and may be very familiar with his study Bible.  His study Bible,

“…has done more than any other medium in promoting Dispensationalism in America.”

John F. Walvoord states in his book that,

“This teaching [pre-tribulational, premillennialsm] was espoused by Darby and the Plymouth Brethren and popularized by the famous Scofield Reference Bible.”

Albertus Pieters classifies the Scofield Reference Bible as perhaps the most influential single work in the religious life of America in our century.

J. Barton Payne states that,

“Of greater influence than any other single factor was the Scofield Reference Bible (improved edition, 1917), which inculcated the eschatology of dispensationalism even while making its primary contribution as a popular defense of evangelicalism, when all else seemed to be falling before the flood of twentieth-century modernism.”

George E. Ladd writes that,

“No other instrument has been more influential than the Scofield Reference Bible in implanting this view [pre-tribulation rapture] in the thinking of millions of Christians.”

Certainly, no thinking person could unduly deny the influence which the Scofield Reference Bible has had in the development of modern Dispensationalism.

INTERPRETATION METHODS

As I’ve noted earlier, my contention is that Premillennialists and Amillennialists are both literalists when it comes to the interpretation of the Bible.  Where they differ is in the area of the so-called method of Dispensational interpretation, not (as is usually hotly contended) in the area of allegorical interpretation.

To say that the Church is an extension of O.T. Israel is not to “spiritualize” the Bible if it can be supported by Scripture.  The Bible is replete with spiritual truths, of which this is one.  However, those in the camp of Premillennialism are quick to shoot anyone who differs with the “silver bullet of spiritualization.”

As I have attempted to point out elsewhere in this paper, “spiritualization” is not a method of interpretation.  The very word itself means,

1. to make spiritual; 2. to invest with a spiritual sense of meaning.

The Bible is a spiritual book – it cannot be made spiritual.  Every single passage, every single verse, every single word has spiritual meaning and significance.  This book was not written by the will of carnal, natural man, but Holy men who owned salvation by God, wrote down spiritual words and thoughts that they received by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21).

Even those in the Amillennial camp have “bought” into the argument and misuse of this word “spiritualizing.”  This is largely in part due to the tendency of some of these men (both Premillennialists and Amillennialists) to wrench passages out of their context and then to interpret them as they will.  It is also largely in part due to the preeminence of Dispensationalism within the Church in this century.  But the use of the word “spiritualizing” is not proper in this regard.  Instead, we should employ the use of the word “recensionization.”  The word “recension” means,

1. Critical or careful revision or editing of a text; 2. Text resulting from such recension

Whenever anyone should attempt to revise or edit any portion of God’s Word, they are guilty of recension.  Allow me to give two quick examples to illustrate pro and con:

“Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” (Jn.1:29).  Here we must understand the Scriptural concept of a lamb that takes away sin.  We can find reference to this in Leviticus 4:32.  A lamb is used as an offering to the Lord.  To symbolically call Christ a “Lamb” is to force the reader to interpret symbolically (allegorically).  But to do so would not be to spiritualize or to be caught in the act of recension.

For this next example, I would like to take us to The Gospel of Matthew, by Arno Gaebelein.  In his opening paragraph of Matthew chapter 14, he states that,

“…the right key to understand[ing] the events described here, is to look upon all dispensationally.”

By his own admittance, a plain reading of the Scriptures with a plain understanding of the English words (or Greek for that matter) would not be sufficient to bring you into a proper understanding of “the events described.”  In order to do so, you must place on your “dispensational glasses.”

“No one can possibly have a clear perception of Scripture as a whole, or of bible prophecy in particular, who does not discern the distinction between two of the things that differ, namely, Israel and the Church.”

What more can be said about interpretation methods as pertains to this argument?  Those inside dispensational quarters will always “find” Scripture to support their view through the art of recension.  But nowhere in god’s Word can one find support or sanction for doing so.

Stated briefly, Amillennialists believe that the first advent of Christ is the beginning of the millennium.  Of course, the first objection to this would be that the 1,000 year reign of Christ is to be a literal reign of a physically manifested kingdom.

If we accept the axiom that the 1,000 year reign of Christ is a reign that begins when Christ first came, then the date of the cross would seem to be a good starting point for measuring this reign of Christ.  However, we see that almost 2,000 years have elapsed: so how can this be?  It could not be possible if the actual reign is a literal one, but as we shall prove by Biblical exegesis, this is not the case.

The key to understanding this concept that the millennial reign began at the cross, is found in the comprehension of the term “one thousand year reign of Christ”.  This comes primarily from Revelation 20:1-6.  In verse six we read,

“….and shall reign with him a thousand years.”

Well, we should begin first to attempt to ascertain who it is that “shall reign with him.”  Revelation 20:6 says that

“…they shall be priests of God and of Christ.”

And in 1 Peter 2:9 we read of the Church that they,

“…are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood.”

Also, note in Isaiah 66:21:

“I shall take of them [Gentiles] for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD.”

In Romans 8:17 we see that if we are a child of God, then we are

“…heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.”

I believe that it is safe to say that those in view in Rev 20:1-6 are believers in Christ.

Next, we determine the validity of referring to the 1,000 years as literal or symbolic.  To do this, we need to examine other passages which use the word “thousand.”  When we look at the case of the numbering of the children and tribes of Israel, we can see that the use and the intention of the word “thousand” is to convey an accurate, and hence, a literal count of the people.  But in many instances, the word thousand is used to express an uncountable or incomprehensible number.  For example, we see in Deut. 1:11:

“The LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are, and bless you, as he hath promised you!”

This phrase “a thousand times so many as ye are” is simply an allegorical (metaphorical) phrase intending to show that God’s blessings are continual and are manifested in the continual generations of the people of Israel.

Likewise in Deut. 7:9 where we read that God keeps,

“…covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.”

We, ourselves, represent one generation.  During our lives we witness several generations within one family.  Perhaps we may see up to five generations alive at one time – Grandfather, father, son, grandson, great-grandson.  But to comprehend the thought of 1,000 generations is unattainable, not to mention a measly five generations.  If we think of one generation as being 20 years, and God keeping covenant with me for a thousand generations, that would mean that somewhere in my thirty-ninth generation of living in the hereafter (about 29,000 years), God would break His covenant with me.  This, of course, is absurd.  As we read in Ps. 105:8, God has,

“…remembered his covenant forever, the [very] word which he commanded to a thousand generations.”

As we read in Ps. 50:10,

“For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.”

If we interpret this literally, then God cannot own the cattle on the 1,001th hill.  Or, how about the cattle in the valley?  No.  The sense of the verse demands that God owns EVERYTHING: “For every beast…is mine.”

Besides all of the preceding, we have the question as to whether Christ shall rule forever, or just 1,000 years.  When we turn to Daniel chapter 2 and his interpretation of the king’s dream, we read that the rock (which is Christ) “shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever” (v.44) not for 1,000 years, but “forever.”  (see also 1 Cor. 15:24).

Just at the sounding of the seventh trumpet heralding the beginning of the end of God’s wrath, we read of the angel proclaiming that,

“…the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever!”

Not just for 1,000 years, but “forever and ever.”  This verse correlates exactly with Daniel 2:44.  Accordingly, I maintain the position that all Biblical data concerning the 1,000 year reign of Christ must be interpreted in light of this Biblical, contextual understanding.  The millennial reign is not, and cannot be, a literal 1,000 year period of time.

HISTORICAL POSITIONS

To conclude this section on the millennium, I would like to examine one more area, namely the historicity of the pre-millennial position.  I’ve included this topic in my research because both sides (“pre” or “a”) would love to state that their position is the oldest position.  They would then conclude that if the early Church Fathers held to a specific view, then logic would state that it must be the correct view, as the Church Fathers most likely obtained that view from the apostles.

What I have found are three things:

Both sides claim that the early Church held to THEIR view

The premillennial view tended to wrench quotations of the early Church Fathers out of context to prove their position

Neither side can prove conclusively that theirs is the historical position, however the evidence (in my opinion) lends to a post-tribulational rapture position without specific evidence to a millennial position.

Notice that Charles Feinberg says,

Until comparatively recent times the consensus of opinion of those writing on the millennial question was that the Early Church was premillennial with but few exceptions.

What is incredible is that in light of this statement, he begins to quote NOT the Early Church Fathers, but rather, his contemporaries, to prove that the sheer number of learned men hold to his position, ergo, he must be right!  Even more incredible is after a little criticism of Amillennial writers, he concludes by stating that Premillennialism “is in line with apostolic teaching.”  And all of this is said without once quoting an Early Church Father!

The best work on the historicity of the tribulational/millennial positions that I have found is that from George Eldon Ladd in his book, The Blessed Hope.  Chapter one of his book is devoted strictly to the historicity of the Hope of the Church.  He writes of the imminency of Christ’s return:

“The expectation of the coming of Christ included the events which would attend and precede His coming.”

In other words, he was stating that the Church Fathers held to an imminent return coupled with the expectancy of entering into the tribulation.  He concludes that “this is not the same as an any-moment coming of Christ.”

The scope of my research does not allow for proper inclusion of the quoting of all of this material, but suffice it to say that the general consensus was that the Early Church Fathers held to an expectancy that the Church would go through the tribulation.  For instance, the Didache, one of the earliest pieces of Christian literature after the New Testament (circa 120 AD), states that there “shall appear the deceiver of the world as a Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders and the earth shall be given over into his hands and he shall commit iniquities which have never been since the world began.” The writer goes on to exhibit his post-tribulational bias by stating:

“Then shall the creation of mankind come to the fiery trial and many shall be offended and lost, but they who endure in their faith shall be saved by the curse itself.  And then shall appear the signs of the ttruth.  First the sign spread out in Heaven, then the sign of the trumpet, and thirdly the resurrection of the dead: but not of all the dead, but as it was said, The Lord shall come and all his saints with him.  Then shall the world see the Lord coming on the clouds of Heaven.”

This post-tribulational view is not compatible with the dispensational understanding of the pre-millennial kingdom.  And yet we find as Ladd goes on to quote Barnabas (circa 200AD), The Shepherd of Hermas (circa 150 AD), Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Hippolytus, and others on up through the Reformation, that all of these testify of a post-tribulational view-point regarding the rapture.

To be fair, it must be noted that the writings do not exhibit an established, reasoned doctrine of the millennial kingdom.  However, this does not lend weight to either side on the question of the millennial kingdom.  But the post-tribulational doctrine is overwhelmingly evident and thus I would tend to side with the Amillennial position, as this is closely aligned with a post-tribulational view point of the rapture.

?THE RAPTURE QUESTION?

The position to which I hold to (post-tribulation rapture) is distinct from pre-tribulationism by some specific points.  These points originate from a difference in the methods of interpretation.Since I have already dealt with interpretation methods elsewhere, I will not again borach the subject except in passing, or to clarify a position.  The specific points of contention that I will address in this section of my research are:

1. Church vs. Israel – How is the Church a Mystery?
2. The Doctrine of Imminency
3. The “SECRET” Rapture
4. Distinctions Between the Rapture and the Second Advent Or Revelation
5. Tribulation vs. Wrath

CHURCH VS. ISRAEL – HOW IS THE CHURCH A MYSTERY?

When approaching the question of the rapture and the two main opposing views (pre- or post-), the major consideration are two-fold:

1. The method of interpretation, and;
2. How you view the relationship between Israel and the Church.

As I have already dealt with the first major consideration, let us move on to the next.

WHO IS THE SEED?

In investigating this question, another question needs to be answered in order to gain proper understanding of this relationship between the Church and Israel: “Who is the Seed of Abraham?”  J. Dwight Pentecost, in answer to this question, writes:

“It would seem obvious to all who are not deliberately trying to pervert the plain teaching of Scripture [anyone not a Dispensationalist] that the seed of Abraham, of necessity, is the term applied to the physical descendants of Abraham.”

Alas, there is but one passage which is quoted by Pentecost to prove such a contentious point, and that is done through Walvoord in quoting his book, Millennial Series,”  The passage quoted is Gen. 17:19,

“I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant and with his seed after him.”

In quoting this passage, Walvoord asks another question:  “How did Abraham understand the term “seed” here?”, and he proceeds to answer for Abraham:

“Obviously, it had reference to the physical seed, Isaac, and his physical descendants.”

“Obviously” is a word that means, “easily seen or understood; clearly evident.”  Unfortunately, this is obvious only to Dispensationalists such as Walvoord and Pentecost, and this only because of an a priori investigation.  They are reading this verse in the context of their Dispensational bias.  If we agree with them that thtis verse is speaking of physical descendants, does that “prove” their argument?  No.  Let us go further in our analysis.

First, let us look at Genesis 3:15:

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

Every Bible expositor that I have read on this verse, clearly allegorizes this “seed” that has a bruised heel to be Christ.  While Christ is a physical descendant, we can see clearly that the enmity “between thy seed and her seed” is to be understood on a spiritual level.  That is the thrust of this verse.  Next, let’s turn to Genesis 12:7.

“And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land.”

This verse here seems to specifically refer to his physical seed.

Next, Genesis 15:5.

“And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.”

Again, this seems to specifically refer to the physical seed of Abraham.  Next, Psalm 22:23.

“Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.”

Again, the physical seed is mentioned.  In light of all of this, it would seem that there could be no confusion as to who the seed of Abraham is.  Can there be?  Well, we still have Genesis 3:15 to consider; does seed mean one or many?  Let’s look at a couple of more.  It is critically important to allow Scripture to interpret “seed” for us, and not the other way around.  Isaiah 1:4, talking of Israel says,

“Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers…”

Here, “seed” is obviously not in reference to the physical descendants of a race of people, but to a spiritual decendance – that of the Devil.  That is why Jesus said to the Jews:

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.”

It is clear that these men to whom Jesus was talking to were Jews with a physical lineage to Abraham, but Christ was exposing their real origin, their REAL seed, their true spiritual lineage to the Devil.

One of the striking differences between the Old and New Testaments is the mystery hid of the Old Testament compared to the mystery revealed in the New Testament.  In order for a mystery to be revealed, it must have been hid at one time.  There were many things which were revealed to the prophets of Old, but they were in mystery form (compare 1 Peter 1:10-12), hidden from their full understanding.

This same principle can be seen to be worked out in the question of the “seed.”  When we come to the New Testament, many things of the Old Testament have need of clarification in order that the New Testament believer might fully understand and appreciate his standing in the Lord.  When we look at the Old Testament Scriptures concerning the “seed”, the full understanding is not given.

We don’t even know of a fuller understanding concerning this until we come to the New
Testament in Galatians chapter three.  This is where context becomes hyper-critical to our understanding of “seed.”  Context, not just of the verse and the chapter in which this “new” concept of the word “seed” is illustrated but, of the greater context of the WHOLE Bible.  If we take only select verses that support the view of a literal seed, without considering the greater context of the whole Bible, we end up in error.  To say that “the seed of Abraham, of necessity, is the term applied [only] to the physical descendants of Abraham” is to call God a liar.  Witness Galatians 3:6,8:

“Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.  Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham [a clear reference to the “seed”].  And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham [Genesis 17:19], saying, In thee [in thy seed] shall all the nations be blessed.”

We are finally beginning to see out of a window that before was darkened with soot.  Here, we learn that anyone who has faith in Christ Jesus is a descendant of Abraham.  This fulfillment of the “promise” cannot be restricted solely to the physical seed of Abraham.  And we can see this from Paul’s other writings.  Paul had already given us glimpses of ths “mystery” in his book to the Romans, where he said that Abraham was,

“…the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.  For the promise, that he should be heir of the world [through his seed – compare Gen. 12:2; 13; 15; 15:5], was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law [that is, through the flesh] but through [the seed of] righteousness of faith.”

Here we see that believers, both Jew and Gentile, circumcised and uncircumcised, are descendants of Abraham.  The only requirement is that the lineage would be “through [the seed] of righteousness of faith.”  The promise given in the O.T. may have seemed to refer to a literal seed, but the mystery is revealed to us here, and elsewhere in the Scriptures.  Although there was a definite promise to a definite seed, Paul reveals to us the substance of the shadow.

Now there is a very specific reason that the promises could not be fulfilled in his literal descendants, and that is shown here:

”For if they which are of the law [the physical seed] be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise [is] made of none effect:  Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is there is no transgression.  Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end [that] the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; wo is the father of us all [notice that Paul is talking to all Christians] – of the circumcision and of the uncircumcision.”

To me, as a Calvinist, this fits perfectly.  If a Jew could say that he was saved and gained his inheritance merely by his descendance from a physical lineage to Abraham, then it would not be by God’s sovereign choice; it would instead involve the flesh of man.  “Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end [that] the promise might be sure to all the seed,” or in other words, “to all the elect of God.”  And not to those elect only “which is of the law [the physical children of the law being physical descendants – the “seed”], but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham.”  This is that “other flock to which Christ refers to in John 10:16.

The confusion that is seen here in this regard to “Who is the seed of Abraham?” is the same issue that Paul had to address to the Galatians.  That is why he said,

“O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you…[did] you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?  Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

The Jews were so haughty in their belief that salvation was by physical lineage only, that they were causing the Gentile Christian converts to undergo circumcision, to become, in effect, a Jew.  But Paul was refuting them for this practice and went on to state that true salvation, in the O.T. and in the N.T. was by faith; just as Abraham was justified, so too all of Christianity.  All people, in all ages, are saved by salvation through Christ only, and the means is by grace through faith.

Not only does Paul clarify our understanding in this area, but he also takes the liberty to clarify for us what it was that God promised when He made those promises to Abraham and his seed.  Paul says,

“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.  He [God] saith not, And to seeds [plural] as of many; but as of one [singular], And to thy seed, which is Christ.”

Here we have it then.  God’s Word conclusively states,

“Let God be true, but every man a liar.”

We cannot come to any other conclusion but to deduce that the promises, literal and spiritual, which were made to Abraham, were not made according to the law, but according to righteousness.  Only those who are born in Christ Jesus are heirs according to the promises.  The promise was made singularly TO CHRIST, to be appropriated liberally by all who believe unto righteousness.

Allow me here to help Mr. Pentecost by re-wording (the art of recension) his statement:

It would seem obvious to all who are not deliberately trying to pervert the plain teaching of Scripture dispensationalists that the seed of Abraham, of necessity, is the term applied to the physical descendants of Abraham.  But the Bible does not state this.”

If this offends your sensibilities, then I have accomplished my goal: not to discredit the standing of a man in relation to other men; but to discredit the standing of a man in relation to the Word of God.  Oh, how important it is to “Rightly divide the Word of Truth” carefully, as we are commanded as ministers of the gospel:

“Therefore seeing we have this ministry [of the New Testament, IICor.3:6], as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully.”

Regardless of our position, whether Pre- or A-, we must use extreme caution when making statements of what God is saying.

One of the most prevalent and erroneous practices alive today in the secular and religious societies, is the belief that one needs to refer all matters of higher logic to those with the earned doctorates.  This is why the State is in such dire straits: because they defer to these “experts”.  This is a dangerous practice, and one that is not to be followed by Christianity, no matter where you should hear this.  We must do as the Bible COMMANDS us, and to be as the Bereans, and search “the scriptures daily, whether those things were so”.

Each man is personally responsible to the gospel, not only for salvation, but for growth and understanding in the Christian doctrines.

Back to the argument at hand, I conclude that

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor femal: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise…Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?”

THE CHURCH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

In Renald E. Showers book, There Really is a Difference, Showers states emphatically that,

“The Old Testament said nothing concerning a relationship of the Church to the New Covenant…[and that]…the Old Testament contained no information concerning the Church.”

He also backs this up by stating that,

“Paul indicated that no revelation concerning the Church was given before the time of the apostles and the New Testament Prophets. (Eph. 3:2-9)”

Notice that Showers cites Ephesians 3:2-9 to prove himself.  He makes the same mistake as others by misinterpreting vs.5 which states:

“Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.”

The a priori interpretation of Showers is the assumption that the Church is not even mentioned in veiled form.  But this is not true.  Many things in the O.T. were a mystery, but in the N.T. through “great plainness of speech” we are able to understand more fully those mysteries.  The O.T. believers had their minds blinded to these truths, for even now,

“…until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.  But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.”

Again, this suits my Calvinistic blood, in that it is specifically through the work of God that the “vail” of misunderstanding can be taken away.  There is nothing within man that can enable him to comprehend the truths that are contained within this spiritual gospel.

Many men believe that because they are Christians that they are not prone to this inability to understand Scripture.  But this is not the case.  Witness the blindness that Peter had to this concept of allowing Gentiles into a “Jewish” Church.  It took a special revelation beyond his own abilities as a Christian to understand this concept.

Let’s see what God’s Word has, whether in veiled form or not in the O.T.  To begin with, both Amos 9 and Isaiah 66 indicate that the prophecies of the Church were clearly given in O.T. times.  Paul even reflects upon this by giving the reason why he should need a special revelation to understand this mystery of the Church as being because,

“…in other ages [it] was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.”

The key phrase here is: “as it is now revealed.”  In O.T. times it was revealed in forms of parables, or behind a “vail”; but not it is revealed in a manner that is sufficiently different to effect a difference in the minds of the hearers and readers of the Word.  “It is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” in a way that is manifestly different.  It is only the Spirit that can give wisdom of a spiritual nature.

Let’s consider what Charles Scofield has to say on this matter:

“That Gentiles were to be saved was no mystery (Rom. 9:24-33;10:19-21).  The mystery “hidden in God” was the divine purpose to make of Jew and Gentil a wholly new thing – “the Church, which is his [Christ’s’ body,” formed by the baptism with the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12:12-13) and in which the earthly distinction of Jew and Gentile disappears (Eph. 2:14-+15; Col. 3:10-11).  The revelation of this “mystery” of the Church was foretold but not explained by Christ (Matt.16:18).  The details concerning the doctrine, position, walk, ad destiny of the Church were committed to Paul and his fellow “apostles and prophets by the Spirit (Eph. 3:5).”

The rest of Chapter 10 (and, indeed, the rest of Showers’ book), is hereafter built upon a false assumption that “the O.T. said nothing concerning a relationship of the Church to the New Covenant.”  (Even though the writer of Hebrews specifically connects the Church with the New Covenant by quoting Jer. 31:31-34).

Dr. Showers even admits that, somehow,

“…the New Testament seems to indicate that the Church is related somehow to it.”

The “it” here refers to the New Covenant.  Dr. Showers cannot reconcile this apparent “disagreement” in Scripture and so he says,

“It seems apparent that although the O.T. promised the New Covenant specifically to the literal nation of Israel, the Church also has a relationship to that covenant.”

He honestly cannot see the relationship between Israel and the Gentiles as Paul has spelled out in Ephesians, so he naturally sees a “sticky” problem here because “the New Testament seems to indicate that the Church is related somehow to it.”

Later, Showers even “admits” that “Church believers experience regeneration and forgiveness of sins, are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and possess the new nature.”  These are the very particulars that he earlier had declared were specific evidence that these promises had been given only to literal Israel, and were not intended for any others.

So, how does he reconcile this apparent discrepancy?  First, he states that the,

“…promises of that covenant [the New Covenant] are not being fulfilled with the Church.”

This is declared despite the fact that he has just finished stating that the,

“Gentile Church [is experiencing] regeneration and forgiveness of sin, [and] are [being] indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and possess the new nature.”

According to Showers, these were the promises which were made exclusively “with the literal people of Israel.”  Are you confused?  I am!  He continues with this non sequitor by stating that,

“The Apostle Paul declared that the nation of Israel would experience the fulfillment of the New Covenant when Messiah came in His Second Coming (Romans 11:25-29)”

However, examination of his choice in Scripture reveals that Israel will continue in her unbelief until all Gentiles are gathered into the Church.  This occurs at the rapture (according to dispensational theology), not at Christ’s 2nd advent.  Again, we defer to the preeminent dispensationalist, Scofield:

“The “fullness of the Gentiles” is the completion of the purpose of God in this age, i.e. the outcalling from among the Gentiles of a people for Christ’s name, “the Church which is His body” (Eph. 1:22-23)…It must be distinguished from “the times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24).”

Dr. Showers also attempts to show how and when the Church started.  While he covers virtually every passage that the epistles of Paul touch on the subject of the Church, he never once touched on Eph. 2:1,2 where Paul clearly indicates how in times past, we were,

“Gentiles in the flesh” (v.11), and “that at that time [the time that we were Gentiles in the world without salvation] ye were without Christ.”

Now before I go on, I need to point out a slight distinction of these words.  Paul writes that we were “Gentiles.”  The word “Gentile” is a Jewish word which means “all people but themselves.”  The reason I point this out is because pre-tribulational dispensationalists always think of the Jew as coming into the “Gentile” Church.  But Paul was clearly teaching the opposite: that the Gentile was entering into the assembly of the Israeli congregation, of which the primary percentage was Jewish.

Now Paul states in vs. 12 how in times past, we were “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.”  As I said earlier, Dr. Showers, throughout his whole dissertation of the contrast of the Church and Israel, disregarded this one phrase of Scripture.  I contend that the reason for this is that he could not reconcile the fact that before I came to Christ, I was an alien to “the commonwealth of Israel,” and that now, because of God’s love I am,

“…made nigh by the blood of Christ.  For He is our peace who hath made both [both Jew and Gentile] one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having taken away in his flesh the enmity…for to make in Himself of two [Jew and Gentile] one new man [the Church]…”

Paul then concludes,

“Now therefore, ye [Gentiles] are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.”

There are a couple of points I would like to address regarding this verse.  First, as Paul has noted, we are no longer “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel” (vs.12), but are now “fellow-citizens” (vs.19).  This clearly indicates that we (Gentiles) have entered into the spiritual nation of Israel, being “made nigh by the blood of Christ”, not the other way around; it isn’t the Jews who are entering into the Church, but rather Gentiles who have been sown God’s grace and glory through th blood of Jesus Christ.

Romans 9:4, 8 clearly shows that it is only the Israelites “to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.”  This is probably where Showers develops his difficulty in understanding how it is that the Church gets to partake in the promises of the New Covenant.  The progression of the Bible naturally brings one to a right understanding of the nature of the true Israel in the O.T. and how it is that the Church can identify herself with the O.T. promises, just as Paul did in calling the Church the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16).

There are two things that Dr. Showers clearly agrees on:

1. The covenants and promises given to Israel in O.T. times are still functional today for the people of Israel who are alive today (modern day Jewry).  “Peter’s use of the present tense (“are the sons”) indicates his conviction that these Jews were still sons of the covenant and that the covenant [of O.T. times] was still in effect with them.”
2. “God intended to establish the new Covenant with the literal people of Israel.”  Showers is only reflecting truth from God’s Word which clearly indicates that Israel (as a worshipping body) became what is known today as the Church (the present-day worshipping body).  Ephesians 2:11-22 clearly shows this out by also displaying the same two truths which were previously stated by Showers.  These are:

1. The covenants and promises given to Israel in O.T. times are still functional today for true, or spiritual, Israel (Eph.2:12).  In O.T. times, we, as Gentiles, were considered illegal “aliens” to the nation of Israel.  But now, we are brought into the nation of Israel (v.12, 13, 19), NOT ISRAEL BROUGHT INTO THE CHURCH, but the nation Israel became manifested as the Church (vss.20-22).
2. God intended to establish the New Covenant with the literal people of Israel.”  This truth is also clearly shown in Eph. 2:11-22.  In verse 16, God reconciled the nation Israel to the Gentiles, thereby making “one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.”  This one body, or “new man (v.15) is what Scofield calls “not the individual believer, but the Church, considered as the body of Christ…”  If we (Gentiles) are no longer considered aliens to the nation of Israel, but are actually “fellow-citizens with the saints (these “saints” are obviously O.T. saints, as the NT was just being written),” then we are entering into Israel, not Israel entering into the Church (vs. 19), as is commonly portrayed by Dispensationalists.  If before we were “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise;” (vs.12), then it stands to reason that if now that we are made “fellow-citizens” that we are also now “grafted in among them and with them partakes of the root and fatness of the olive tree” (Romans 11:17).  We are therefore part of the literal tree of Israel.  God’s Word clearly indicates contrary to men’s theories.

It’s obvious that the context of Ephesians 2 is clearly indicating how Christ destroyed the enmity between the Jew and Gentile to create a new “body”.  Paul then goes on to state how this “one body [is] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (vs.20).  This is the Church built upon the foundation of the “apostles” (New Testament Church), and the “prophets” (Old Testament Church).  Christ built the Church on the work of the O.T. prophets, and the N.T. apostles.  We “together [Jew and Gentile] growth unto an holy temple in the Lord.”

Paul continues on in chapter three by reminding the Ephesians how “the Gentles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body.”  Upon more reminders of his own mission for Christ 9 vss.7-13), and how that they should perceive the great love of Christ toward them (14-21), Paul again broaches the same subject in Chapter four.  Here he exhorts them (Jew and Gentile) to endeavor “to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.  There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope” (vss. 3,4).  And as we work together with the gifts and callings and offices which God has given the Church, we see that the purpose is to strive “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith…”  This perfect unity, as we know, will not happen until Christ returns.

Is there other Biblical evidence to support what I have outlined above, and also something that shows that Israel’s name is associated with the Church?  In Isaiah 66:18 we see God extending His glory to the Gentiles (“all nations and tongues”).  This is an obvious reference to God beginning His preparatory work of building the Church.  And we can confirm this in vs. 19:

“And I will set a sign among them…”

What is this sign?  In Luke 2:34 we find Simeon prophesying of Jesus in this manner:

“And [Simeon] said unto Mary his Mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against.”

And that Christ is this same sign, we can be assured by the very context of Isaiah.  Other New Testament passages give clear reference to Christ being set as a sign, and as being the One who would fulfill all of the O.T. Promises.  Even though the Scribes and the Pharisees were looking for a sign (Matt.12:38; 16:1; Mark 8:11; Luke 11:16; John 6:30; 1 Cor. 1:22), but they were looking in the wrong places.  But Romans 15:8,9 states that it was Christ who came to be

“…a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the father: and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.”

In Acts 15, we find James expounding on another prophecy by another Simeon.  He says,

“Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name.”

See, God had declared that the Gentiles would be able to enter into a relationship with Him.  In His promise to the Gentiles, did He revoke all the promises which He had previously given to Israel?  Of course not, because that would seriously undermine any past or future promises which God had/would make to anyone.

“I say then, Hath God cast away His people?  God forbid.  For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.  God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. (Romans 11:1-2)

THE NAME OF GOD

Instead, what God had determined to do was to bring the Gentiles into the “Church” of Israel and give them His name.  What is His name?  The same name that the Jews went by – “Israel”.  God even declared in Isaiah 6:22 that “your seed and your name [shall] remain.”  Further, in Amos 9:11,12 we see that God is raising up Christ to “possess the remnant of Edom”. God declares that these “heathen…are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.”

Whenever a question like this surfaces, lines of division are quickly drawn.  On one side we have those who maintain that the Church and Israel are separate entities with separate programs governing their futures, and the other says that both are related directly, and spiritually, and that the prophecies given will ultimately be fulfilled in the Church.  Both of these positions are more than willing to accept the axiom that the O.T. is a book for Christianity, but those who would deny the Scriptural position that the Church is Israel revealed, would begin to deny the O.T. as being applicable to Christianity.

In Matthew 2:15, we see how Joseph was instructed to take Mary and the baby and to go into Egypt.  The family stayed in Egypt

“…until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.”

Matthew was quoting Hosea 11:1, yet what we read there is this:

“Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.  And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft in his quiver hath he hid me; And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”

Are the Old Testament books of the Bible for all of Christianity?

Certainly, the books of the Bible in their entirety, must be considered Christian.

“Peter says that they understood that the natural realms of their day were a parable for the spiritual people who would come afterward.  He wrote, “Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are reported unto you.” (I Peter 1:12)….Imagine the humility, and perhaps sorrow, of the Old Testament prophets as they spoke of the glory that would come on God’s people, knowing it wasn’t for themselves, but for God’s people in the Church Age!”

“Undoubtedly at least some Old Testament Scriptures will be fulfilled in the Church.  Paul applies Isaiah 54:1 directly to the Church (Gal.4:26-27).  Peter applies Joel 2:23-32 directly to the Church Age (Acts 2:16-21).  In Acts 15:15-18, James applies Amos 9:11-12 directly to the Church.  In Ephesians 5:18-19, Paul tells us to sing the Psalms, which means we should also obey them.  Otherwise, we would be saying one thing with our mouth but, in reality, living something entirely different.  Therefore, with one simple statement Paul makes the Psalms a part of the New Testament!”

“What are we saying?  Should we return to animal sacrifices?  Obviously not.  On the other hand, Paul tells us in Col. 2:16-17 that all of the rituals and details of the law of Moses are “a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”  Note that they are a “shadow” of things that were coming, not a shadow of things that would cease to exist!”

In conclusion, I believe that the Bible is its own witness, testifying to the fact that God’s promises will be fulfilled I the Church, and that the Church is an extension of the Old Testament body of believers known as Israel.

IMMINENCY

In this section, I shall discuss the so-called doctrine of Imminency.  In reference to this teaching, John F. Walvoord states:

“The question of whether the return of Christ is imminent in the sense of an any-moment coming has become increasingly acute in contemporary discussion of posttribulationism.  While some, like J. Barton Payne, maintain posttribulationism and hold that Christ could come at any moment, most contemporary posttribulationists hold that Christ could not come any day and that as a matter of fact, there must be to some extent a literal fulfillment of end-time events preceding the Second Coming.  This is in contrast to the point of view of the Protestant Reformers, such as John Calvin and Martin Luther, who found in contemporary events of their day the fulfillment of the Great Tribulation and could, therefore, hold to an imminent return of Christ.”

One of the unique things that I have noticed of Walvoord, Feinberg, et al, is that they enjoy quoting everyone else and examining how all the others on the “other side” interpret things.  This is usually done in rapid fire succession.  When all is said and done, some of the points have been refuted, but the actual Biblical texts have not been heartily examined.

It is important for us to read others, and as best as possible, to understand their quirks, and their method of interpretations, but in my opinion, of utmost importance is not what any man has said, but what God’s Word has stated.  This cannot be done if the majority of time is spent ridiculing others’ positions.

HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE REFORMERS

Looking back at the previous quotation of Walvoord, I must come to the defense of the Reformers.  The statement made about them was made in such a way as to intimate that the Reformers were in error to believe in an imminent, any-moment return of Christ (while Walvoord himself believes in this very thing?)  Let me say that, if I were alive during that time period, given the knowledge that they had at that time of eschatological events, I too would think that the great tribulation was upon us, and as Luther did, I would proclaim the pope to be the anti-Christ.  Certainly, if you were to live under those conditions, the imminency of the return of Christ is very real.

In any event, what Luther, Calvin, and the rest of the Reformers did was, and is no worse than what pre-tribulationists do in our age: they tend to interpret contemporary events in light of those contemporary events.  For instance, at the birth of the European Economic Community in 1956, the pre-tribulationists saw the Roman confederation, as pre-figured by the ten toes on the image in Daniel Chapter two.  (By the way, nowhere does the Bible literally state that this image has ten toes.)  Only time will tell for certain if these are indeed the events that are prophesied by God.  Meanwhile, the “ten toes,” HAVE INCREASED TO A TWENTY-EIGHT-TOE MONSTROSITY, with 28 member nations standing in agreement.  Perhaps this is a birth defect?

THE HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE EARLY CHURCH

Historically speaking, this is the same way that those in the early Church viewed the coming time of wrath – as imminent – mostly because they saw in the persecution of the Church the very Tribulation itself.  Certainly, if the Great Tribulation were there at that time, they could say with certainty that Christ’s return was imminent but only in that context; that certain events that were prophesied had come to pass.  (Notice the earlier quotation of the Didache, written circa 120 AD.)

Barnabas is a Christian book which is titled The Epistle of Barnabas, the writer of which is unknown.  Ladd quotes this verse and follows with a comment.  The believers,

“…are to shun fellowship with sinners and wicked men, for “the final stumblingblock is at hand of which it was written, as Enoch says, ‘For to this end the Lord has cut short the times and days, that his beloved should make haste and come to his inheritance.’” (4:4).  This means that the Anti-christ is at hand, but the Lord will cut short the time of the Tribulation that His Beloved – the Lord Jesus – might make haste and return to His people.  According to this, Barnabas expected the Church to go through the Tribulation and Christ to return only at his termination.”

We find the same expectancy (of the imminent return coupled with the Church going through the tribulation0 in many of the other early writers of the early Church.

Another point when considering the viability of the doctrine of modern-day imminency is Peter’s death.  Jesus explained that Peter would grow old and die – BEFORE the second coming.

“When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth they hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.  This spake he, signifying by what death he would glorify God.”

Perhaps Peter was jealous, we don’t know for sure.  But after Jesus said this to him, the Bible says that,

“Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following.” (vs.20)

We are also reminded by the text that this disciple is the same disciple

“…which also leaned on his breast at supper” (vs.20)

We know further from this narration that this is John.  When Peter saw John following close to Jesus, he asked Jesus, that if he (Peter) would not live during His return, would John be alive at His coming?  Jesus answered:

“If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me” (vs.22).

And even John himself did not expect to be alive at Christ’s return, because he immediately refutes this idea in vs. 23:

“Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die [till Christ returned]” (vs.23).

Notice what John says next in vs. 23:

“Yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”

THE IMPORTANCE OF IMMINENCY

The doctrine of imminence is vital to a pre-tribulational doctrine.  Walvoord states that,

“For the most part, scriptural evidence for imminency today is equivalent to proof of the pretribulation viewpoint.”

In other words, without proof of the doctrine of imminency, there is no proof for the doctrine of a pre-tribulational rapture.  This is why it I defended so vehemently.  It is portrayed as “A Ground for Comfort” for the Christian in this life, and “A Basis for Exhortation.”  When in fact what should be in view as our blessed hope (Titus 2:13) is not the rapture, but the resurrection.

There is a little booklet titled, The Secret Rapture, Is it Scriptural, written by Ralph Edward Woodrow.  In it, he examines 2 Thessalonians, and the pre-tribulational concept that Paul was refuting post-tribulationism.  Woodrow writes,

“Being “troubled” with “persecution and tribulations,” the believers at Thessalonica wondered if the day of Christ was not right “at hand” (2Thessalonians I, 2).  If Paul had believed in the any moment position, here was his perfect opportunity to encourage them with the teaching that Jesus was coming soon – at any moment…Instead, he explained there would be a falling away, and the man of sin would be revealed, before the Day of Christ!  There can be no mistake that “the day of Christ” refers to the rapture, for it is used in reference to “our gathering together unto him” (2 Thess.2).”

THE SEVEN CHURCHES

Another area of difficulty when attempting to reconcile the doctrine of imminency with Scripture is the general interpretation accepted by most Bible scholars concerning the seven churches of Asia Minor.  Virtually all scholars hold to a dual interpretation, stating that while each of the churches was a literal local church that each church also represents seven phases of church history.  This is the generally accepted view of those who hold to the pre-tribulational position.

However, this view of seven phases of church history naturally involves great expanses of time, and this presents a great difficulty for proponents of imminency doctrine.  The question can legitimately be asked, “Could Christ have come before this last phase, as represented by the church at Laodicea?”

THE SECRET RAPTURE

What do I mean by the “Secret Rapture”?  Well, the secret rapture position is one which is held today by all pre-tribulationists – whether they know it or not.  The concept comes from the idea that when Christ comes for His saints that no one in the world will witness His coming.  The reason for this recension of Scripture is because the Word quite clearly indicates that the Lord will come as a “thief in the night,” to steal away His people.

You’ve seen the bumper stickers: “In case of Rapture, this vehicle will be unmanned” – or some such thing.

You’ve heard the sermons: “Thousands of Christians will be raptured; baby’s will disappear; planes with Christian pilots will crash; Christian truck drivers are swept away while their rigs fly over a bridge railing.

You’ve see the charts and diagrams: “Church is raptured here – 7 years before the millennium begins.”  By the way, have you ever wondered why there is such a proliferation of charts mapping out eschatological events?  I believe it is because, in the pre-tribulational plan of events, there are so many judgments and raptures to keep track of, it is much easier to outline them.

Speaking of multiple raptures – this is part of the scheme of the secret rapture.  If Christ comes for His saints at the beginning of the tribulation, what will happen to all of those who profess Christ during the tribulation, and then die?  Do they just die?  Do they go to hell?  I mean, the rapture already happened.  Now, even though there is absolutely not one Scripture verse to explain more than one rapture, the dispensationalist must “invent” one in order to keep his theory afloat.  Therefore we have two raptures – one before the tribulation, and one after.

During my days at Elohim Bible Institute, the notes handed out in one of my class’s states:

“Contrast of the two aspects [of the rapture]:

1. The rapture is imminent, quick, unnoticed by the world”

Pentecost, as with virtually all pre-tribulationists, has a section titled, “Distinction between the rapture and the second advent”.

In Pentecost’s book; in these school notes; in Walvoord’s book, The Rapture Question; Feinberg’s book, Premillennialism or Amillennialism; etc., each of these books devotes a section which discusses the “Contrasts” or “Distinctions” of the two aspects of Christ’s 2nd coming.  None of these works can show how the Bible (not the aforementioned men) distinguishes between these two aspects of the 2nd advent.  Besides a personal bias and a pair of dispensational glasses, how can one accurately know (with a fair amount of certainty) that one is separate from the other?  The answer is: They cannot because the Scriptural support is not there for such a theory.

LACK OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF

What can be said regarding the foundational basis for the idea of a Secret Rapture?  The long and the short of it is simple: There is a conspicuous lack of proof texts.  Pentecost in his voluminous work with literally hundreds, if not thousands of portions of Scripture cited as proof, comes up with one pair of texts in support of one contrast (out of 17!) between the 1st and 2nd aspect of the 2nd coming.  This is mind-boggling, to say the least.

Jesse F. Silver writes,

“Quickly and INVISIBLY, unperceived by the world, the Lord will come as a thief in the night and catch away His waiting saints.”

Hal Lindsey writes,

“In the Rapture, only the Christians see him – it’s a mystery, a SECRET.”

After quoting these sources, Ralph E. Woodrow states,

“In all respect to fine Christian people who believe this way, to us this is a strange doctrine.  The very text on which the catching up (or rapture) is based implies just the opposite!”

He then quotes 1 Thess.4:16-17 which speaks of the Lord descending “from heaven with a SHOUT, with the VOICE of the archangel, and with the TRUMP of God.”  He concludes that,

“To us, this text indicates anything but a quiet, secret rapture.”

Witness also what Scripture says in 2 Peter 3:10:

“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night.”

This is most certainly talking about when the Day of the Lord begins.  Regardless of your view of how long the day of the Lord is, there is a surety that it will come, or begin, as a thief in the night.  “Very well,” the pre-tribulationist answers, “just as I told you so: quietly, secretly, millions are gone, no one knows what happened to them.”  But let us read the complete verse in its context:

“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a fervent heat; the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”

George Murray’s comments on this verse are interesting:

“Peter teaches that “the day of the Lord” will find some saints here on earth.  The day of vengeance found Lot in Sodom, but he was taken out of the overthrow to a place of safety as the fire began to fall.  Let it be remembered that there was no revival in Sodom after Lot was taken out.  No one was saved after that.  No one was saved after Noah went into the ark and the flood came.  Our Lord Himself, Who in His preincarnation form watched those conflagrations, has significantly stated that it shall be so at the coming of the Son of man.”

Destruction follows the rapture, not tribulation!!

IS THE RAPTURE THE REVELATION?

If Christ’s 2nd coming is not imminent (as described as any-moment with no prophecy necessary to preclude it), then this obviously opens the door for a post-tribulational rapture.

However, one of the difficulties opposed to a post-tribulational view is the belief that the appearing of Christ at the rapture (secret) and His appearing at the end of the 7 years is differentiated by the Greek words which are used in Scripture.

Dr. I.M.Haldeman of The Gospel Hour states that,

“The coming of the Lord for the Church is not only imminent, it is secret…The coming of the Lord secretly for His Church and His appearing with the Church are two distinct parts of one great event.  In the first He comes as a thief, in the night…In the second He comes in the brightness of day and the glory of its shining…In the first the world does not see Him come…In the second every eye shall behold Him.”

This kind of language (“secret”, “world does not see Him”, etc.), is born out of incorrect theology, based on an inference, or an assumption of the Scriptures.  From this assumption, the whole house is built upon the sand of imposing an a priori belief upon the Scriptures.  To substantiate the idea of a secret rapture, one needs to have Scripture references to back oneself up.  But alas, none are offered.  That is because the pre-tribulational rapture position has become so haughty in its own prominence, that it is assumed that everyone should already “know” the truth.

Before we examine these Greek words, and the history of the development of this doctrine, let us first turn to 1 Thess.4:14 and following.  We read there that,

“If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.”

So a doctrine is established clearly in one verse, to wit, a belief in the resurrection of Jesus should give an assurance to every believer that when Jesus returns at the rapture (this is after all the major consentual agreement among Bible scholars – that this is referring to the rapture), that those who have died in Christ Jesus, God will have raised immediately prior to that coming, as Jesus will “bring with him” all of those whom God has raised.  We can deduce all of this from a careful exegesis WITHOUT even reading any other verses.  However, the following verses only confirm this exegesis:

“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord [this isn’t Paul’s interpretation], that we which are alive and remain unto the coming [parousia] of the Lord shall no prevent them which are asleep.”

This is God’s declaration of doctrine.  We can rest assured that Paul is relating a truth expressly from the mouth of our Lord.  What is this divine revelation?  That we who are alive at the rapture (parousia), we will not precede (prevent) those who have already died.  Why is that?  Because God already raised them; Christ will bring those with Him when we are to be raptured.  How long have these “dead in Christ” been raised before the other believers?  Read on.

A little more explanation comes as to what causes the “trigger” of this “rapture gun” to be pulled – the Lord, Himself,

“…shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first” (vs.16)

It is the Lord who triggers the whole process: He “descends from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God.”  How noisy an event for a secret rapture.  But notice the specifics as to when the dead in Christ shall rise – those whom “God will bring with Him.”  Immediately before us.  How can He bring those with Him?  He obviously brings them to Himself somewhere in the heavens an continues on toward us to complete the process of the rapture, thereby fulfilling his blessed promise in John 14:1-3:

“…then [after He raptures those “dead in Christ,” He continues downward, and] we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.  Wherefore comfort [exhort] one another with these words” (vss.17,18)

The truths and promises just keep flowing.  One verse after another.  Here we see that after the rapture is complete we “shall…ever be with the Lord.”  And the command is when one of us should be downhearted or depressed that we should build up “one another with these words.”  Amen!

So comes the end of the chapter.  But not so with the discussion of the rapture.  This chapter division was an unfortunate choice as the discussion is most certain not ended.  We still need to read on to be assured of the timing of this blessed event and other exciting promises.

“But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.” (5:1)

The times and seasons of what?  The “But” is a conjunction that is indicating a continuation of the conversation hich has gone on before, so obviously we are continuing to discuss the rapture.  It is “the times and the seasons [of the rapture that] ye have no need that I write unto you.”  Why is that, Paul?

“For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.” (5:2)

Paul can’t tell them specifically when that day of the parousia is going to come.  The phrase, “ye have no need” is indicating that “it is useless that I attempt to write, I don’t know when it will happen – the day of the Lord (parousia) comes as a thief in the night”.  Note the inter-changeableness of the parousia and the day of the Lord.

Is the coming day of the Lord imminent then?  No, for two reasons:

1. The full context of the Bible and other verses dealing with the 2nd coming will not allow for imminency in so far as it could mean “any moment”.
2. The full context of this passage teaches otherwise.  Notice 5:3:

“For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”

As I asked briefly a moment ago, doesn’t this teach imminency?  The answer again is “No”…..and “Yes”.  Huh?  Well, it’s “no” for believers, but “yes” for un-believers.  The Lord certainly does come as a thief, and His coming certainly will “come upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and THEY SHALL NOT ESCAPE!”  For the non-believer, it is imminent!

Perhaps you may have heard about the woman who is extremely overweight.  She has a bad case of indigestion and she tries resting and taking some kind of stomach medication, but nothing seems to help.  It gets so bad that she decides to go to the emergency room where later on that day she delivers a baby!  Incredible, but true.  It happens more often than we care to imagine.

These unbelievers are very much like this overweight woman, the overweightness representing the darkness of their understanding.  These unbelievers are in labor, the end is coming, and they don’t even know it.

“For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh…as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”

Their darkness is so extreme that they cannot see the end coming.  There are obvious signs all around for the world to know the times by:

“O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?”  (Matt. 16:3)

“But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief” (I Thess.5:4)

There is no need to “read” into or do a mighty work of recension here.  “That” day is the same day that Paul has been talking about since 4:13.  “That” day is the parousia!  It is impossible for a believer to “miss” the rapture.

“Ye are all children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.  Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober” (IThess.5:5,6)

Why the exhortation to watch if the coming is imminent and un-preceded by any other event?

“Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7)

And so,

“Let us watch and be sober.  For they that sleep, sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night” (I Thess.5:6,7)

This verse is talking of “they that sleep.” This is not talking of those who “sleep in Jesus” (I Thess.4:14), but rather, this is referring to those who are “of darkness” (5:5): the unbeliever.  The first “sleep” could be translated as thus:

“For they that are in darkness sleep in the night.”

And also, we can see that “they that be drunken” are those that “are in darkness.”  The implication from Scripture is that those who do evil deeds; those who ignorantly live as the world does: do them under cover of darkness (see Rom. 13:12-13; I John 1:5-6).  It is this walk in darkness (I John 1:8-9) that keeps a man in blindness, unaware of the impending judgment,

“…and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes” (I John 2:11).

But not to worry; we are of the day and of the light:

“But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breast plate of faith and love; and fo an helmet, the hope of salvation” (5:8; compare also Rom. 8:24-25).

So, how can we be sober (watchful)?  By putting on the armor of God.  One does not put on armor unless he is expecting to go through some serious trouble (tribulation) during his watch.  But even with that serious battle ahead we do not have to worry,

“For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Thess.5:9).

How can I quote this verse and yet still say that the church will go through the tribulation?  Because I don’t believe that the tribulation is God’s wrath.  But I will address that later.

G.Campbell Morgan (once a Dispensationalist), when asked if he believed in the two-staged view which called for a secret rapture, had this to say:

“Emphatically not!  I know this very well.  In the earlier years of my ministry I taught it and incorporated it in one of my books (God’s Method With Man).  But further study so convinced me of the error of this teaching that I actually went to the expense of buying the plates from the publishers and destroying them.  The idea of a separate and secret coming of Christ is a vagary of prophetic interpretation without any Biblical basis whatsoever.”

HISTORY OF DOCTRINE OF REVELATION

Now let us attempt an examination of the Greek words, and the history of this doctrine.  Richard R. Reiter, who wrote the chapter titled, A History of the Development of the Rapture Positions, for the book The Rapture, Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational?, states that,

“Prior to the mid 1940’s, pretribulationists generally viewed the Greek words parousia (“coming”), epiphaneia (“appearing”), and apokalupsis (“revelation”) as technical terms specifying distinct phases of the return.”

A short examination of these words and their contextual uses quickly exposes this false assumption and puts to rest any notion of a pre-tribulation rapture.  Unfortunately, once these views were presented they were virtually impossible to retract: and this theory is still considered viable by various people who hold to a pre-tribulational position.  This is despite the fact that,

“Feinberg in 1936 and Walvoord in 1944 refused to justify the distinction between the Rapture and the return to earth on the basis of technical terms.”

I maintain and set forth that the reason these men did not answer this challenge to their theory is two-fold:

1. It would direct attention to the difficulties in answering such a challenge, and;
2. It is unanswerable.

Well then, how did they (how could they) continue to support the theory of a two-staged 2nd coming of Christ?  Not by the plain reading of Scripture and a proper exegesis of the word, but rather,

“…based on the nature of the Church (contrasted with Israel) and other exegetical and theological consideration.”

In other words, they employed the dispensational method of interpretation over and above the plain understanding of Greek and Hebrew definitions and their translation.  So then, let’s examine these words.

As I mentioned earlier, many pre-tribulational scholars have sections in their books detailing the “contrast” or “distinctions” of the alleged two aspects of the 2nd coming.  Even if they do not state or admit that they consider the differences in the technical terms of “coming”, “appearing”, and “revelation” as proper terms to uphold their theories, they belie their thoughts in their writings elsewhere.

However, even this (the examination of their “lists” of “contrasts” and “distinctions”) can be a monumental task for the same reason as I have presented earlier: they (pre-tribulationists) make a distinction but offer no Scriptural texts as proof for their statements.  For an examination of this, I will use John Walvoord’s book, The Rapture Question.  However, Pentecost (among many, many others) follows the same pattern (statement of contrast and distinctions with no Scripture proof-texts).  On Walvoord’s chapter, The Translation and The Second Coming Contrasted, I will reproduce his list of contrasts as follows:

Translation	2nd Coming
Saints meet Lord in the air	Christ returns to Mt. of Olives, sets feet on ground Zech.14:1-5 (this is the only Scripture proof-text used by Walvoord in this table)
Living Saints translated	No living Saints translated
Christ returns w/Saints to heaven	Christ remains on earth and reigns as King
Earth is not judged – sin continues	Sin is judged and righteousness fills the earth
Translation is before the day of Revelation.  Follows the Great wrath – (“day of wrath” = 7-YEAR Tribulation and judgment ad tribulation) translation is imminent	Culminates in millennial kingdom
Translation is only for saved of this dispensational age	2nd coming is for saved and un-saved (of all dispensations?)
Translation deals only with those who are “in Christ”	Un-saved and saved are dealt with as well as Satan’s hosts

Now, if we somehow had some Scripture texts to examine, we could tackle them post-haste!  But this is not to be so, because it is recognized by Walvoord, Pentecost, et al, that it is unanswerable.  However, one can always find a brave pre-tribulationist among the bunch who is willing to admit the implausibility of arguing from Scripture.

Let’s turn to Paul Feinberg to see how he handles it.  The following is my opinion regarding Feinberg’s writing style.  Basically, I find that the style of writing employed by Feinberg is to build a presentation on what he honestly believes to be true, but then to baffle the reader with unsupported rhetoric to confuse them sufficiently that they will not properly comprehend the issue, and perhaps they will make deference to an “expert.”  I’ll let you be the final judge on the matter.

Feinberg opens this chapter, appropriately titled The Rapture and the Revelation, by stating that,

“Amillennialists are at one in seeing no distinction between the coming of Christ for His saints and His coming with His saints, commonly spoken of as the Rapture and the Revelation.”

Paul Feinberg displays no aversion to the use of the word “revelation” as Walvoord does in his handling of this theory.  However, even though Reiter (whom I quoted earlier) quotes sources to show Charles Feinberg and Walvoord as distancing themselves from a consideration of defense according to the definition of the technical terms of Rapture, Revelation, and Parousia, we find his son, Paul, doing that very thing here – which actually turns out to be very damaging to the defense of their theory.

Paul Feinberg first begins by attempting to state an explanation of not defending by technical terms.

“Millennarians [pre-millennialists] are said to distinguish between the Rapture, the Revelation, and the Parousia.  The first precedes the second by seven years, and the second anticipates the third by a thousand years.  That this presentation of the premillennial view is not strictly correct we shall show….”

Notice the use of the word “strictly”.  Strange.  If it is not strictly correct, then perhaps it is not “marginally correct”; or perhaps we can say it is “marginally wrong”, or “strictly questionable”.  Let’s face it, there is no such thing as a “half-truth”, though we have heard it used many times and possibly have even employed it ourselves (Lord knows that I have).

Next, he states that,

“…premillennialists distinguish between the coming of the Lord for His saints and His coming with His saints…Upon what basis or ground do the Premillennialists make any distinction at all between the Rapture and the Revelation?  Many do so from the Greek words parousia and apokalupsis, making the former refer to the Rapture and the latter to the Revelation.”

Then, he asks the question, “Do the passages in question bear this theory out?” and this is how he answers himself:

“WE THINK NOT.”

He then goes on to do a scholarly post-tribulational argument against this view!

So then, here is my question: if the pre-tribulationists make several contrasts or distinctions (such as the previous table) between the rapture and the revelation, and there are absolutely no Scripture proof-texts which illustrate the contrasts by themselves, then by what Scriptural evidence do they do so???  Pentecost offers no Scriptural contrast in his book, Things to Come; Feinberg offers none in his book, Premillennialism or Amillennialism; Walvoord offers none in his work, The Rapture Question; and the list goes on and on.  So how can this theory be upheld without Scriptural proof-texts?!  Enter dispensational interpretation.

Dispensational interpretation involves the non-authoritative use of inferences from Scripture.  Now, this isn’t to say that one cannot make inferences from Scripture.  But it is to say that you cannot build a concept, or theory, or doctrine entirely from inference.

One key concept that is held by Premillennialists is the assumption that the Church will not enter into the tribulation; this concept is built entirely from inference, an is in turn bound by the assumption that the whole of the 7 years of tribulation equals God’s wrath (no Scripture proof-texts, once again – just inferences from the Scriptures): this inference is in turn coupled with the assumption that the Church and Israel have two distinct and separate programs governing their futures (more inference); and the assumptions and inferences go on and on and on.  Notice how one doctrine leavens the next.  This is why Christ admonished men to “beware the leaven of the Pharisees” (Matt. 16:6).

As I have pointed out previously, the argument against the premillennial claim based on technical terms really is unanswerable.  The reason for this is really very simple.  If you examine a verse that uses the word apokalupsis, you might come to the conclusion that this is referring to Christ’s coming in glory at the end of the 7 year tribulation.  But then you could find a verse that uses the word parousia and it seems to be talking of His coming at the beginning of the 7 years.

And then on top of that, you could easily find that there is Biblical information that causes you to conclude that both of these verses are talking about the same coming, at the exact same time.  What do you do?  Feinberg’s logic states that,

“Both pretribulationists and midtribulationists have pointed out differences between the Rapture and the Second Coming. The central passages dealing with each event reveal these differences.  By central passages I mean John 14:1-4; I Corinthians 15:51-58; and I Thessalonians 4:13-18 for the Rapture, and Zechariah 14:1-21; Matthew 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-27; and Revelation 19 for the Second Coming.”

Recall that Feinberg abandoned the technical approach (1944), but here, his son (1984) utilizes it.  This is a result of semantics.  The underlying claim seems to be that Paul Feinberg does not utilize the “technical terms argument.”  However, his use of these verses in this manner (citing one for the rapture and the other for the 2nd coming) betray his actual position.  These verses, among many others, need to be put into a contextual whole, which Feinberg, et al, wont do.  And besides, these are the very words which are differentiated not by man’s choice, but by the choice of the Holy Spirit.  How else is the Holy Spirit supposed to enlighten us but through His divine Word?

Before we examine some verses that clearly illustrate the truths of the choice of the Holy Spirit’s words, let us note the dispensationalists’ further claim,

“There is no clear, indisputable reference to the Rapture in any Second Advent Passage. [Pre-, Mid-,] an post-tribulationism are agreed that Scripture teaches clearly a coming of Christ after the Tribulation (e.g., Zech.14:1-31; Mattt.24:4-31), but in neither of these passages is there any clear statement of a catching away of believers at that time.”

Feinberg’s point of contention in citing Walvoord here is that,

“…in passages like Matthew 24:29-31 and Revelation 19:11-21, which deal in such detail with the Second Advent, it is surprising that there is no indisputable reference to the Rapture.”

But just because the Holy Spirit would seem fit to keep these references separated, does this in itself prove to be inconclusive evidence for their theory?  Certainly not.  And definitely not when the whole of the Bible is considered together.  A good rule of hermeneutics is spelled out by no other than Feinberg:

“There are several well-defined laws for the interpretation of prophecy. Scripture itself lays down the first and most essential of all…that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation…” By this it is not meant that no private individual can interpret prophecy.  The idea intended by the apostle is that no prophecy of the Word is to be interpreted solely with reference to itself (idias epiluseous ou ginetai), but all other portions of the prophetic revelation are to be taken into account and considered.”,

The thrust of the preceding statement is that when interpreting Scripture, one cannot do so independent from, and in complete disregard for other portions of Scripture.  Especially those that deal in the same area of prophecy.  Questions need to be asked and answered: Does this passage relate in any way to the other?  They both speak of Christ coming – are they the same coming?  Do the very words used by the Holy Spirit indicate, in any way possible, a connection in time between these two events?  And if so, how far apart are these events separated in the dimension of time?  Is it possible that any other verses could connect this passage of the 2nd coming with this passage of the rapture?

Pretribulationism does not adequately seek to answer these questions because they are antagonistic to the thought of a general rapture and judgment.  However, when we examine Feinberg’s “central passages” (given earlier) and begin comparing these technical terms with other like passages, and we keep in mind that “all other portions of the prophetic revelation are to be taken into account and considered”, then we begin to shed much needed light on this erroneous view of a pre-tribulational rapture.

EXAMPLE 1

Notice his choice of 1 Thess.4:13-18.  Here we have the use of the word “coming” (parousia) that is equated with the rapture of the Church.  This is that “aspect” of Christ’s 2nd coming which is “SECRET”.  But a quick perusal of the use of the word shows it to be anything but a secret rapture, such as when Paul spoke of his own “coming [parousia]” to Philippi (Phil. 1:26), or the “coming [parousia]” of Titus (2Cor.7:6), or the “coming [parousia]” of Stephanas (1 Cor.16:17).  The manner in which Paul uses this word here could not possibly be used to prove a separate event from the Lord’s coming at the end of the tribulation because he uses the exact SAME WORD in connection with the “day of the Lord” passage in 2Thess.2.  In that passage, Paul puts the “coming [parousia]” AFTER the reign of the man of sin.  A little further on in this chapter, Paul says that “the Lord shall [destroy]…with the brightness of his parousia” (2 Thes.2:8).

The other prominent apostle in eschatological matters is Peter.  He also spoke of the Lord’s coming [parousia]”.  The context of that coming was when “the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements with fervent heat”.  Certainly no secret rapture here.

When Christ told us tat the “days of the son of man” would be the same as the days of Noah and Lot, was He referring to the 1st or the 2nd aspect of the 2nd advent?  I guess that depends on which passage you choose.  Jesus said:

“But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming [parousia] of the son of man be.”

But notice how Luke’s account reads:

“As it was in the days of Noah…even thus shall it be in the day when the son of man is revealed [apokalupsis]”.

Feinberg may find fault with the “technical” defense because of its un-answerableness; he may try to ignore it, but it cannot be done.  The reason I state this is because the Bible that he uses contains these technical terms that the Holy Spirit uses to differentiate in their meanings.  It is the use of “technical” terms such as “words”, that make up language and which gives us the ability to communicate ideas.  The proper selection of words is a process whereby one individual (the Holy Spirit) seeks to convey thoughts and ideas to another individual (the eschatological initiate).  Does Feinberg feel that the Holy Spirit’s choice of words is inappropriate?

“Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?...For who hath stood in the counsel of the LORD, and hath perceived and heard his word? Who hath marked his word, and heard it?”

Allow me to illustrate the seeming confliction of the same passage of Noah between Matthew and Luke.  Let’s imagine Matthew and Luke to both be witnesses of the Pilgrim’s landing at Plymouth Rock and the subsequent first historic Thanksgiving Day Dinner.  Matthew, writing of the gloriousness of the landing and the subsequent birth of a new age and nation, talks of the “coming” of the Pilgrims.  Luke, on the other hand, thinking only of the resulting destruction of the Indian nations that will follow, refers to the “appearing” of the Pilgrims.

Both of these terms are correct and appropriate.  Neither of them write out and convey the full circumstances and results, but each by themselves, by the specific choice of words (technical terms), conveys their own perspective of the ensuing events.

EXAMPLE 2

In Matthew 24:44 we read of Christ’s admonition:

“Therefore, be ye also ready; for in such an hour as you think not the son of man cometh [erchomai].”

Erchomai is “the act of coming, to come from one place to another.”

“Occupy till I erchomai”

So far we can see that parousia, apokalupsis, and erchomai are all used interchangeably to reference the same event.  Woodrow does an excellent scholarly job in presenting this argument and I highly recommend it to everyone.  As Woodrow concludes,

“When Jesus ascended into heaven and his disciples stood watching, two angels said: “You men of Galilee, why stand gazing up into heaven?  This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).  The fact that they did not see him go into heaven in two ascensions, strongly suggests his return will not be in two stages.”

While I am on this subject of “technical terms”, let me conclude this section with a discussion of the word “meet.”  The argument by pre-tribulationists on this word goes something like this: When Christ comes at the end of the tribulation,

“His saints (the Church) shall come with Him (1 Thess.3:13; Jude 14).”

If the Lord will come “with” His saints, then there must be a time in the past that the Lord had come “for” the saints and taken them to heaven, or so the pre-tribulational argument goes.  This, of course, is an assumption which is unwarranted, as there are absolutely no verses attesting to the fact that when the rapture occurs, the saints go to heaven.

When we examine the passages that unequivocally deal with the rapture, we find that the Bible does not use the expression “coming for the saints.”  The Bible never says that believers will be going to heaven at the rapture.  What it does say is that we will be “caught up…in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess.4:16-17).

It is obvious that the text does not explain where they go after they are “caught up”, but the pre-tribulationist would insist that it is up to heaven, in support of their pre-suppositions.

A closer look at the words (“technical terms”) reveals a fuller meaning.  We read in 1 Thess. 417 that we will be “caught up…in the clouds, to me the Lord in the air.” The Greek word for “meet” is apantesis.  This word is only used in three other places in the New Testament.  One place is in the parable of the virgins.  They were waiting for the bridegroom, and when the cry went forth, “Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him” (Matt.25:6), they went to meet him, and immediately upon meeting him, they “went in with him to the marriage” (Matt.25:10).  They didn’t meet him and return to where he began his journey.  They turned around at the place that they met him, and continued on in the direction that he was traveling in and “went in with him to the marriage.”

This same view of “meet” can be seen in Acts 28:15,16 when Paul went to visit Rome and the brethren “came to meet” Paul and those in his party.

After a closer, reasoned examination of those passages that contain the word apantesis, Oswald J. Smith commented:

“I learned, too, that the word for ‘meet’ in I Thess.4…meant ‘returning with’ and not ‘remaining at’ the place of meeting.  When the brethren from Rome met Paul, they immediately returned to th city with him. When the virgins met the bridegroom they accompanied him back to th wedding.  When the saints meet Christ in the air…they will return with him…There is no secret rapture.  That theory must be deliberately read into the passage.”

IS THE TRIBULATION THE SAME AS GOD’S WRATH?

The pre-tribulational argument for the Church being raptured out of the world before the tribulation is based on an inference developed from a defective, deductive, dispensational interpretation of 1 Thess.5:9 which says,

“For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Let us examine this verse a little more closely.  A good Calvinistic rendition of this verse can be seen in that God has chosen us as “a vessel unto honour” (2Tim.2:21).  If He has “appointed [purposed, chosen]” some to wrath as “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” (Romans 9:22), then the opposite must be true of all believers.  We do not stumble on that “rock of offence…whereunto also [the wicked] were appointed [purposed, chosen]” (1Peter 2:8).  We were “appointed…to obtain salvation.”

So is 1Thess.5:9 talking about the rapture? Not so much as it is referring to all those “who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2Thess.1:9).  The verse is an assurance; an exhortation to “comfort one another with”; a promise that for us, the believer, that “we should live together with him” (1 Thess.5:10).

The a priori thought which is developed by the pre-tribulationist is that the whole of the 7-year period is a time of God’s wrath. This is despite the fact that

1. nowhere in the Bible is there a verse that explicitly states that the tribulation is seven years in duration. (Yes, there may be a tribulation period, but where does the Bible indicate that there will be 7 years of tribulation?  Christ did say that “then shall be great tribulation…and except those days be shortened…” (Matt.24:21).  But this certainly does not tell us how long t time was before or after this “shortening”.  And;
2. There is not one verse in the Bible to indicate that the tribulation is the out-pouring of God’s wrath.

The “time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jer.30:7), does not indicate God’s wrath on the world.  Pentecost quotes Mal.4:4-6 as proof of God’s wrath and His purpose in the tribulation as being,

“…to bring about the conversion of a multitude of Jews, who will enter into the blessings of the kingdom and experience the fulfillment of all Israel’s covenants.”

However, this passage does not indicate a proof-positive connection of the tribulation with God’s wrath.  He also quotes Rev.3:10 claiming that the “hour of temptation” is a specific reference to the wrath of God.  Again, there is nothing to warrant a connection of the tribulation with God’s wrath in this verse either.

Quoting verses such as Jer. 25:32-33; Is.26:21; 2Thess.2:12 are also unfruitful in this attempt.  These verses clearly talk of the judgment of “the inhabitants of the earth,” but how does one find the tribulation of seven years in these verses?

Daniel 9:27 is also cited in support.  But the period of time mentioned here is not in any way connected to a seven year tribulation period.

I therefore conclude that the pre-tribulationists take great liberty at deducing from Scripture something that is not there, much the same as what they proclaim to be anathema – spiritualizing the Scriptures.

As I have shown there is no Scriptural basis for stating that the tribulation period is a time of God’s wrath.  So when we examine 1Thess.5:9 we must keep that in mind.  In 1Thess. Paul introduces two choices to man.  One is salvation, the other is wrath.  But if the “wrath” mentioned here in 1THess.5:9 is referring to the whole of the tribulation (and the pre-tribulationists say so), then a legitimate question would be: “Is it reasonable to say that if a person does not obtain salvation, he will face the other option presented in this verse, the seven year tribulation?  If the “wrath” mentioned here is referring to the seven year tribulation period, then every person in history who did not obtain salvation must return to earth to face the tribulation, because, accordingly, this verse gives us only those two options (speaking strictly from a pre-tribulationist’ perspective).

We know that this idea is not logical, so we must conclude that “wrath” here is something other than the Tribulation wrath that pre-tribulationists speak of.

In light of this understanding, when we read 1Thess.1:9,10 where Paul tells the believes “to wait for his (God’s) Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus which delivered us from the wrath to come”, we can see that these Christians obviously were not delivered from the Great Tribulation, but rather from hell itself, god’s eternal wrath.

General Bibliography

1. Boll, R.H., The Revelation, The Word and Work Publishers, Louisville, KY, 1947
2. Byers, Marvin, The Final Victory: The Year 2000, Companion Press, Shippensburg, PA, 1991
3. Camping, Harold, When is the Rapture?, Family Stations, Inc., Oakland, CA 1979
4. Clouse, Robert G., The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views; with contributions by George E. Ladd, Herman A. Hoyt, Loraine Boettner, Anthony A. Hoekema, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill, 1977
5. Feinberg, Charles L., Premillennialism Or Amillennialism?, American Board of Missions to the Jews, Inc., NY, NY, 1961
6. Gaebelein, Arno C., The Acts of the Apostles, Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune, NJ, 1912
7. Greene, Oliver B., What Time Is It?, The Gospel Hour, Inc., Greenville, SC.
8. Haldeman, I.M.,

The Branches of the Olive Tree, The Gospel Hour, Inc., Greenville, SC, 1967

How to Study the Bible, Fleming H. Revell Co., London, 1904

9. Harrison, William K., Hope Triumphant, Studies on the Rapture of the Church, Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1966
10. Howe, Ralph R., End Times, Bible Lighthouse Press, 1977
11. Ladd, George E., The Blessed Hope, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1956
12. Larkin, Clarence, Dispensational Truth, Rev. Clarence Larkin Est., Philadelphia, PA, 1918
13. Lindsey, Hal, The Late Great Planet Earth, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, 1970
14. MacArthur, John F. Jr., The Gospel According to Jesus, Academie Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1988
15. McKeever, Jim, Christians Will Go Through The Tribulation, and how to prepare for it, Omega Publications, Medford, OR, 1978
16. MacPherson, Dave, The Incredible Cover-Up, Exposing the Origins of Rapture Theories, Omega Publications, Medford, OR, 1975
17. Malgo, Wim, 50 Questions Most Frequently Asked About the Second Coming, Midnight Call, Inc.l, Hamilton, OH, 1972
18. Murray, George L., Millennial studies…A Search for Truth, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1948
19. Pentecost, J. Dwight, Things to Come, Dunham Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, 1958
20. Phillips, John, Exploring Revelation, Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune, NJ, 1974
21. Ramm, Bernard, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1970
22. Reiter, Richard R., The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational?, with contributions by Paul D. Feinberg, Gleason L. Archer, Douglas J. Moo, Academie Books, Grand Rapids, MI 1984
23. Rosenthal, Marvin J., The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1990
24. Scofield, Charles I., Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, Scripture Truth Book Co., Fincastle, VA
25. Stevenson, R.L., Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, Eternal Life Fellowship, 1966
26. Torrey, R.A.,

The Fundamentals, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 1958

The Importance and Value of Proper…BIBLE STUDY, Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1921

27. Walvoord, John F.,

The Rapture Question, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, 1979

The Return of the Lord, Dunham Publishing, Findlay, OH, 1955

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, The Moody Bible Inst., 1966

28. Woodrow, Ralph E., The Secret Rapture, Is It Scriptural?, Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Assoc., Riverside, CA 1989