Chapter Ten
THE POSTTRIBULATION RAPTURE THEORY
It
is never a pleasant task to refute favored beliefs held by those who are
brethren in Christ, particularly men of like precious faith not only respecting
the person and work of Christ but also concerning the fact and certainty of His
premillennial return. While it is
possible to fill a book with differences of opinion over the relation of the
rapture to the Tribulation, it would not be difficult to fill many such with
points of agreement as to the importance, certainty, and blessing of Christ’s
return, the anticipation of rewarding and reigning, the task of the Church
prior to the rapture, and the many other important features of our mutual premillennial
faith.
The
points of disagreement are small indeed when compared with the widely divergent
views of amillennialism, and premillennialists would do well to remember the
basic unity which exists in spite of their differences. Nevertheless, it must also be remembered
that the Bible does not teach two different systems of prophecy, nor three, nor
four, and with vital issues at stake such as the hope and comfort of the
Church, the intelligent believer will seek to learn “what saith the Lord” on
these issues. The interpretation of an
amazingly large segment of Scripture depends directly upon whether one accepts
or rejects pretribulationalism.
Much
of the first seven chapters has been given over to the defense of that
viewpoint, or to the analysis of problems kindred to both the midtribulational
and the posttribulational positions. In
this chapter, several of the claims and problems peculiar to
posttribulationalism will be discussed, with particular attention given to the
viewpoint of its leading advocate.
I. Posttribulational Attitudes and Methods
A. Offensive Attitudes
In
any investigation where there is a sharp cleavage of opinion, there are always
those who resort to unwise and intemperate language. Such has been the case with the issue at hand. However, anyone who reads widely in the
literature of the four viewpoints involved will be forced to conclude that much
of the harsh language and offensive attitudes stem from the posttribulational
camp. Some of those who argue so
strenuously that they must go through the Tribulation reflect in their writings
an attitude of bravado, mingled with contempt for those who, either from
ignorance or cowardice, do not share that conviction. Fromow, for instance, puts it this way: “We would lovingly ask, is there not a strain of weak-kneed,
invertebrate, spineless sentiment in this idea of escaping tribulation?” To Reese, pretribulationalists are
“Darbyites,” who follow “the Rapture craze, fathered by theorists,” and whose
views are held to be “supreme rubbish.” Scruby, in his writings, seems not to give
even the common courtesies of debate, but speaks (all on one page) of carrying
“the war into the enemy’s country (Beard the lion in his den, so to speak) ...
bring my guns to bear ... on these deceptive doctrines ... rank absurdities ...
helpful in the fight against this latter-day delusion.” Certainly, this is not the way to convince
the brethren of their love, and fortunately, all posttribulationalists are not
as picric.
The
book which has come to the fore as the most outspoken attack upon the
pretribulational position is a large volume by Alexander Reese entitled The
Approaching Advent of Christ. The title
is somewhat misleading, for instead of giving a well-ordered, helpful analysis
of the doctrine of the second advent, it is a sharp and unveiled attack upon
the writings of Darby and the dispensational school, concerning itself
primarily with the supposed merits of posttribulationalism over
pretribulationalism. Lest the convictions
of the present writer be thought to dominate at this point, here is a part of
the analysis of Hogg and Vine, conservative British commentators:
The book, issued by Marshall, Morgan &
Scott, London, 1937, owes its bulk not to the variety or abundance of its
matter, nor to the necessities of its argument. If its attacks upon the character and competence of teachers, all
of them God-fearing men, who sought to live honestly and to write sincerely,
and many of whom were at least as competent and as well furnished as Mr. Reese
himself, were eliminated, the size of the volume would have been considerably
reduced and its general atmosphere sweetened.
Erudite-seeming, lengthy, and irrelevant quotations could have been
omitted with the same advantage.... He
gives large space to modern translations of the New Testament.... The paraphrasists become not translators but
interpreters of Scripture. Their
readers should always bear this in mind.
Wade, for example, p. 128, paraphrases Tit. 2:13 thus: “Looking forward
to the hope (so fraught with happiness) of witnessing the Manifestation.” Mr. Reese calls this a “translation,” which
it assuredly is not. It may be
“idiomatic,” but it is not what Paul said.
The Christian does not look forward to being a spectator of “the appearing
of the glory,” but to being a sharer in it, according to Rom. 8:19, 29 and Col.
3:3, 4.
This introduces something
of the type of argument used in the book, but of the objectionable attitude
which prevails throughout, Hogg and Vine continue:
I have just been reading, in a secular Review,
of “the courtesies of debate” observed in the world, but these have escaped the
notice of Mr. Reese.... Mr. Reese does
not seem to have made up his mind whether those whom he attacks so trenchantly
are fools, or only knaves; his language, indeed, frequently suggests that they
are both! Here are some things he says
about them, taken at random as the pages are turned: They are guilty of
“aggressive sophistry and fantastic exegesis,” and of “paltry reasoning.” They prefer “any rubbish to the true and
obvious explanation” of a passage, and they “wrest the Scriptures.” Their preference for the line of teaching
they favor is “no longer a question of exegesis.... It is simply a question of ethics.... Have we the right moral disposition toward the truth, or will we
still cling to error ... shall we act against the truth or for the truth?” (This, on p. 244, causes the balance to dip
rather toward the knave theory!) They
are not God-fearing readers of the Bible, but “theorists,” “showing little
acquaintance with great exegesis.”
Their teaching is “consistent and ludicrous” in its “absurdity.” Its effect is to blight “Bible study and
Christian fellowship all over the world.”
“It has cursed the (Brethren) movement from the beginning.” “They wrote their errors on their broad
phylacteries.” (For the significance of
this grave judgment reference must be made to Matt. 23:5 and its context.) They “are misguided and misleading
teachers.” ... The list is not
exhausted, but let this suffice.
Reese
follows the objectional practice of attacking, not ideas, nor conclusions, but
individuals, characterizing the men of God with whom he cannot agree as
Sadducees and Darbyists! In one
section, he says:
I must leave to another place William Kelly’s
contortions of exegesis on the nature of the Great Tribulation, put forth with
studied offensiveness in his two books on the Second Coming. His statement, as miserable as it is
inexact. ...
But even if the Apostle had mentioned a
Rapture at 2 Thess. i. 7, Darbyists would arrange three shifts to get rid of
it. This is not cruel or churlish, but
the plain fact.
The
reader will have to judge if these statements are “cruel or churlish,” or if
Reese, in his denunciations, manifests the fruit of the Spirit which is (to
quote Reese’s favorite translator, Moffatt) “good temper, kindliness,
generosity” (Gal. 5:22). Indeed, if in
dealing with his fellow brethren, a man fails to manifest such fruit of the
Spirit, including as it does love, longsuffering, gentleness, and self-control,
is he to be trusted as one who is Spirit-taught in the understanding of things
to come? (John 16:13). It is one thing to rebuke false
doctrine. It is entirely another to
whip the brethren.
B. Questionable Methods
Many
undesirable methods could be mentioned, but three or four will suffice. One of these is to imply that those who expect
a pretribulation rapture are unqualified to judge, are of inferior intellect,
and are unacquainted with the truly great literature in the field. Those of posttribulational persuasion,
however, are among the greatest of exegetes!
Reese expresses an attitude of mock humility when he says: “I have refrained from giving a
bibliography; a long list of learned works is apt to convey the impression that
the author is a scholar or a theologian; as I am neither I have omitted it.” He then goes on to spoil all this by
speaking with all the dogmatism of a pope, and by concluding the book with page
after page of authors and publications either referred to or quoted. Some of the authors examined reveal that for
them, posttribulationalism became a lifetime hobby, conducted along the line of
a proselyting campaign – making converts, and always insisting that leading
pretribulationalists saw the light just before they died. Scruby obviously spent the better part of
his time making converts for posttribulationalism. Reese speaks in his Preface of a friend who maintained an interest
in the venture of his own book for over twenty years prior to publication. Of Cameron, Newell writes:
Robert Cameron, of Watchword and Truth,
whose later life was largely a proselyting campaign for post-tribulationalism,
used to claim that Dr. Brookes, of St. Louis, had given up this hope “before he
died, in an interview with him!” But
both the last books and the later associates of Dr. Brookes deny this. Others claimed that Prof. W. G. Moorehead
gave it up, etc., etc. Someone told me
that R. A. Torrey weakened. I
challenged him. He could produce no
proof whatever! Mrs. Torrey, when told
that a Canadian magazine had claimed that her husband had given up the hope of
Christ’s coming for the whole Church, was much distressed, and wrote the
editor to publish her denial of such a false report.
Much capital has been made of the fact that
the revered George Muller of Bristol, misled by the mistranslation above alluded
to [“day of Christ” in 2 Thess. 2:2, instead of “day of the Lord”] declared his
belief that the Church would go through the Great Tribulation. He is quoted by Mr. Scruby as one of his
witnesses [as also by Reese, Cameron, Fraser, et al.]. What was the result of this unfortunate
mistake of beloved George Muller? I
speak now from personal knowledge. The
truth of the coming of the Lord was tabooed at Bethesda, where I was brought
up, and was for many years a member and most regular attendant at the
services. But I never once heard Mr.
Muller or any other preacher say that they believed the Church would go through
the Great Tribulation. And what is
more, long after I had left Bristol Mr. Muller at the last conference at which
he spoke said plainly that he believed the Lord might come at any moment.... Mr. Muller evidently changed his opinion a
second time, which he would do, for he “could do nothing knowingly against the
Truth.”
C. H. Spurgeon is another of Mr. Scruby’s [and
Reese’s, etc.] supposed supporters.
That mighty man of valor was not ashamed to confess publicly that he
once believed the Lord would not return till the world was converted, but that
he came to see that this could not be done in “an eternity and a half.” Mr. Spurgeon did not then believe the Lord
would come before the Tribulation, but I heard Mr. Spurgeon at the Tabernacle
not long before he died. It was at a conference
on the coming of the Lord. Other
speakers were Dr. Alexander Maclaren and Dr. John McNeill, and the impression
left on my mind in the absence of any statement to the contrary was that all
the speakers believed in the imminent coming of the Lord without any
premonitary signs or the revelation of Antichrist. These facts show how futile it is to rest our faith on what great
men may have believed. The greater the
man the more ready he will be to revise his conclusions if he receives fresh
light from the Word of God.
This
latter quotation comes from the pen of F. W. Pitt, who indicates that he was
taught the posttribulation rapture position from my youth up,” but who said,
after carefully examining the Scriptures for himself: “When I saw these things
I did not have to give up ‘Post-Tribulation Rapturism,’ it melted away.” Yet posttribulationalists often argue that
those who believe the pretribulational doctrine do so only because they are
taught it, and that most of the “great men” finally see the light.
More
objectional than this is the method resorted to of bending facts to suit the
posttribulational fancy. Miles writes
of Reese’s book:
I ... opened the book in a spirit of
expectancy. The first hundred pages or
so filled me with astonishment. It is
almost incredible that any considerable number of Christians could believe in
the fantastic and grotesque theories dealt with. They seemed to me to be so many ‘Aunt Sallies’ set up to be skittled
down. ...
The writer is so thorough that it comes as a
shock to find him confusing things that differ and bending things to suit his
case while engaged in criticizing others for doing the same, which certainly
many have done.
Pollock,
who gives this citation, goes on to say: “We think it is a pity to have raked
up so many silly fantastic opinions of this writer and that. It appears to us very like the trick of the
lawyer with a bad case, who, to make up his deficiency, resorts to abusing the
other side.”
Such
inconsistencies abound in the book.
Everywhere, pretribulationalism is criticized as something new
and novel, but when it comes to the pretribulational view on the
twenty-four elders, “The old interpretation is abandoned, except by
those who need it as a prop to an edifice reared on insecure foundations.” Extreme positions are dismissed, and
preference is given to Darby, with his own peculiar views, on the one hand, or
to Bullinger, who muddies the waters with hyper-dispensationalism and “two
church” theories, on the other. Yet
when exigencies arise, both Darby and Bullinger (attacked so vigorously on
other issues) may be appealed to when they can be used to prove a point.
On
page 71, Reese writes of “the wild dispensational theories of Dr. Bullinger,”
yet, when it comes to the elders: “Bullinger, also, I believe, gives the true
interpretation ... from his commentary on the Apocalypse.” On page 123, “happily, it is only an odd
expositor like Bullinger who deprives Christians of the Epistle to the
Hebrews,” yet on pages 59, 295, etc., Bullinger again becomes the authority, or
else the views of Moffatt, who is a liberal.
Dalman, also, who sees Christ on earth as “merely a man,”
is cited with approval. Of this
business of attacking extreme views and citing “off brand” authors, Pitt writes
in the Advent Witness:
We find that Mr. Reese not only sets one side
against the other but chooses the authors who shall engage in the controversy,
and selects from their writings such passages as suits his purpose. Torn thus from their context the Darbyists
are made to say what Mr. Reese wants them to say and no more or less, while the
anti-Darbyists without regard to the subject in question are called upon to
express their views on the different side issues which shore up the main proposition.
This is like playing a game of chess with
yourself. IF you are white you move
black into positions where you know you can beat him.
Certainly the large number of authorities that
Mr. Reese quotes is astonishing. One
would rather that he had expounded Scripture in such a clear way as to carry
conviction of the truth. To come to an
understanding of what Scripture says by depending on what others say is rather
a weak way of arriving at the truth, and certainly beset with peril.
One
more objectional method should be noted before passing on to more constructive
matters. Reese makes the statement: “Darbyist
advocates ... smooth over a thousand difficulties in their programme of the
prophetic future by judiciously keeping silent on inconvenient texts, and
hoping for the best.” Reese rather notoriously falls into the same
condemnation, picking and choosing what is convenient and letting the rest go
by. For example, he admits that John
14:3 is one of the three leading texts on the rapture, but where in his
voluminous treatment of other matters does he give the verse anything more than
a passing mention? Certainly, the fact
that when Christ comes He will take His own to be with Himself, where many
mansions are being prepared, does not forward the argument of those who say
that the rapture is only an incident in the downward sweep of a returning and
wrathful King.
Similar
is the tendency to attack the non-representative positions, all the while
dismissing main issues. An illustration
of this is the adoption of Darby’s position on the coming and the appearing
and on the Day of the Lord as the norm for pretribulationalism, while
completely dismissing the more acceptable interpretation of other Brethren
leaders, Hogg and Vine, whose position on these matters completely avoids both
the attack and the conclusions drawn by Reese.
For
one who would study Reese’s volume, it is important that these methods be kept
in mind, for to do so goes a long way toward answering his arguments and takes
the sting out of many of his rebukes.
To note the approach and method a man uses is particularly important
when his work is voluminous, for it is manifestly impossible to answer all
arguments point for point and line for line without making the rebuttal as
lengthy as the original document.
II. The
Historical Problem
Chief
among posttribulational arguments is the contention that anything else is new
and novel, and that pretribulationalism in particular did not come into
existence until about the year 1830.
Although embodying the doubtful value of an “argument from silence,” the
charge is thought to be an unanswerable one and is pressed to the limit. Pretribulationalism has been variously
attributed to the writings of Edward Irving, to the utterances of a
woman-prophet in a trance, to the writings of Darby and his associates, to a
godly clergyman named Tweedy, and ultimately to the Devil himself! The following quotations illustrate the
general tenor of posttribulational claims:
These views, which began to be propagated a
little over one hundred years ago in the separatist movements of Edward Irving
and J. N. Darby, have spread to the remotest corners of the earth.
About 1830, however, a new school arose within
the fold of Pre-millennialism that sought to overthrow what, since the Apostolic
Age, have been considered by all pre-millennialists as established results, and
to institute in their place a series of doctrines that have never been heard of
before. The school I refer to is that
of “The Brethren” or “Plymouth Brethren,” founded by J. N. Darby.
Darby, the author of a new programme of
the End – a secret, pre-tribulation Parousia, followed by the rise of
Antichrist. ...
Darby ... sponsored a doctrine of a
secret, pre-tribulation Rapture, brought from the West Indies by a godly
clergyman. [Mr. Reese has difficulty
making up his mind who authored the doctrine, and in which hemisphere!]
I am not aware that there was any definite
teaching that there would be a secret rapture of the Church at a secret coming,
until this was given forth as an “utterance” in Mr. Irving’s Church.
The theory that “the great tribulation comes
after the rapture,” is not taught in the Bible. It is traceable to the Irvingites and the Plymouth Brethren, with
whom it is quite definitely shown to have originated about the year 1830. It is said to have been first suggested by
Mary McDonald, an Irvingite woman, supposed to be speaking in an “unknown
tongue,” which was interpreted that: “The Church will not go through the tribulation.”
It remained for a nineteenth-century
“Irvingite” woman to introduce the flesh-pleasing doctrine, and that at a time
when Irvingism admittedly had begun to corrupt. And the “weak” “flesh” causes the vast majority of
Pre-Millennialists to hold that doctrine today, although they reject almost all
else that the Irvingites taught.
Indeed, no one, in all Christian History
from the Apostles to Edward Irving, ever heard any other view (i.e., than
that the true Church has no hope of the Lord’s Coming at any moment, but must
remain on earth during the time of the Great Tribulation). Such a thing is not even hinted at as a
possibility until the women-prophets of Irving’s assembly gave it out in
those awful days of demoniac delusion.
[Italics in the original citation.]
Here
then is the alleged origin of pretribulationalism: either Darby, or Irving, or
Tweedy, or Margaret McDonald, or Satan.
It originated in both Great Britain and the West Indies. It was produced because of craven cowardice,
to please the flesh, and ultimately, because of demonic delusion. Reese concludes that “the secret,
pre-tribulation Rapture is a Gentile conceit of the nineteenth century,”
but even he is outdone by another who speaks extravagantly of “the Scripture
wresting, God insulting, Christ dishonoring, saint-deceiving doctrine of
Pre-Tribulation Rapturism.” Nor is this the worse example of
posttribulational bitterness, but let it suffice. The point is that pretribulationalism is looked upon as a new and
novel doctrine, with “no hint of such a belief ... from Polycarp down ... never
taught by a Father or Doctor of the Church in the past ... without a friend,
even ... amongst the orthodox teachers or the heretical sects of Christendom –
such a fatherless and motherless doctrine ...” What, then, is there to say in answer to
such claims?
(1)
At the very best, all of this is an argument from silence,
the absence of a record never proving the absence of a belief. There have been times in history when even
the most cardinal doctrines of Christianity have been obscured by ignorance or
ecclesiasticism. Were the great
reformation doctrines recovered by Luther and Calvin, such as justification by
faith alone, “new and novel,” just because they had for centuries been in obscurity?
(2)
As it is has been demonstrated in chapter 6, the
early church lived in expectation of the imminent return of Christ. They viewed his coming as a momentary
possibility – so much so that some had left their work, and all had to be
exhorted to patience. They were
disturbed by the false report that the Day of the Lord had already come, hardly
the attitude of men who view the Tribulation as the prelude to Christ’s
coming. In a word, the soon coming of
Christ was the hope and expectation of the early church, which would never have
been the case if they first expected the Tribulation and Antichrist, if not the
certainty of a martyr’s death. In this
connection, Anderson writes:
It is a fact of great significance that the
Coming of the Lord is never mentioned in the Epistles of the New Testament save
in an incidental manner – never once as a doctrine that needed to be expounded,
but only and always as a truth with which every Christian was supposed to be
familiar.... The fact is clear then,
that in Apostolic times the converts were taught to expect the Lord’s return.
(3)
It can likewise be demonstrated that, although the
advanced details of a pretribulational theology are not found in the ancient
church Fathers, belief in an imminent return was widely held, and if imminent,
then pretribulational. Belief in the
soon coming of the Lord Jesus Christ was standard doctrine in the Church
throughout the first three centuries.
Almost any church historian will grant that “the early Fathers lived in
expectation of our Lord’s speedy return,”
although there is not too much clear reference in the writing of the Fathers to
the Tribulation itself.
According to Moffatt [Expositor’s Greek
Testament, on Rev. 3:10], “Rabbinic piety ... expected exemption from the
tribulation of the latter days only for those who were absorbed in good works
and in sacred studies.” Thus there was
a Jewish background for the expectation that some men would not pass through
the Tribulation. When we come to the
early Fathers we find an almost total silence as to the Tribulation
period. They abundantly testify to the
fact of tribulations, but they say little about the future period called by preeminence
The Tribulation. This fact should cause
us no perplexity. These writers lived
during the second and third centuries, and we all know that those were the
centuries of the great Roman persecutions.
The Church was passing through sore trials, and it did not much concern
itself with the question of the Tribulation yet to come.... Silver says concerning the Apostolic
Fathers, that “they expected the return of the Lord in their day.... By tradition they knew the faith of the
Apostles. They taught the doctrine of
the imminent and premillennial return of the Lord.”
It
is not necessary to enter into a detailed analysis of the belief of the early
church Fathers pertaining to the coming of Christ. There is an abundant literature to prove that they were almost
without exception premillennial, down to the end of the third century. There is also sufficient evidence to prove
that many of them held the coming of Christ to be an imminent event, as seen in
the following quotations.
Clement
of Rome, undoubtedly a fellow-laborer with Paul as indicated by Philippians
4:3, wrote in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (about 95 a.d.):
Ye see how in a little while the fruit of the
trees come to maturity. Of a truth,
soon and suddenly shall His will be accomplished, as the Scriptures also bear
witness, saying, “Speedily will He come, and will not tarry”; and “The Lord
shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Holy One, for whom ye look.”
Again, in his Second
Epistle:
If therefore we shall do what is just in the
sight of God, we shall enter into His kingdom, and shall receive the promises,
which neither eye hath seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of
man. Wherefore, let us every hour expect
the kingdom of God in love and righteousness, because we know not the day of
the Lord’s appearing.
We
read in the Didache, dated about 100 a.d.:
Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your
loins unloosed; but be ye ready, for ye know not the hour in which our Lord
cometh. [The post-communion prayer in the Didache
ends with “Maranatha – The Lord Cometh.”]
Of
special interest is a passage taken from The Shepherd of Hermas, written
about 100-120 a.d., and thought
by many to be the person mentioned by Paul in Romans 16:14. In a vision, Hermas was told:
You have escaped from the great tribulation on
account of your faith, and because you did not doubt in the presence of the
beast.... Go, therefore, and tell the
elect of the Lord His might deeds, and say to them that this beast is a type of
the great tribulation that is coming.
If ye then prepare yourselves, and repent with all your heart, and turn
to the Lord, it will be possible for you to escape it, if your heart be pure
and spotless, and ye spend the rest of your lives serving the Lord blamelessly.
Lest
it be asserted that all the passage teaches is the hope of preservation in
Tribulation, let it be noted that according to the dialogue only the
“double-minded” enter the Tribulation that they might be purified. Hermas, who “opened (his) heart to the Lord,
believing that salvation can be found through nothing save through the great
and glorious name,” completely escaped the beast and “passed it by.” The Greek word used throughout (ekphugo,
to escape) is very explicit, as a careful comparison with its New Testament
usage will confirm. It does not speak
of patient endurance in tribulation, but of complete exemption from the
judgment of God (Luke 21:36; Rom. 2:3; Heb. 2:3; I Thess. 5:3). Moreover, the maiden of the vision herself
typifies the Church, as expressly stated.
She is “adorned as if coming forth from the bridal chamber,” hardly the
description of one locked in dread encounter with the beast!
While
pretribulationalists get their doctrine directly from the Bible and not from
early Christian writers such as Hermas, this passage direct from the turn of
the first century completely voids the argument that the concept of escaping
the Tribulation is something “new and novel,” originating with Darby and
Tweedy, etc.
Cyprian,
Bishop of Carthage, who flourished as a writer 220-250 a.d., declared:
It were a self-contradictory and incompatible
thing for us, who pray that the kingdom of God may quickly come, to be looking
for a long life here below.... Let us
ever in anxiety and cautiousness be waiting the second coming of the Lord, for
as those things which were foretold are come to pass, so those things will
follow which are yet promised; the Lord Himself giving assurance and saying,
“When you see all these things come to pass, know that the kingdom of God is
nigh at hand.
Similar
passages might readily be cited form other writers of this period. Although the fathers were not always
consistent in their views, it is apparent that not a few of them looked upon
the return of Christ as imminent, expressing a definite conviction that the
Church may escape the Great Tribulation.
As for the testimony of the apostles themselves, their belief in the imminency
of Christ’s coming shines forth from nearly every book of the New
Testament. To reiterate, a belief in
imminency implies a belief that the rapture will precede the Tribulation; this
fact is further attested by the bitter attack which posttribulationalism has
launched upon the very idea of an imminent return. In the light of such evidence from the early church and from
representative Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers, it can hardly be sustained
that pretribulational beliefs “are new and novel, and have never been heard of
in the whole history of the Christian Church since the Apostolic Age.”
(4)
Cameron himself suggests a logical solution why the
doctrine of a pretribulational return apparently started about the year
1830. While he claims that no mention
of this doctrine is found “from the first century until a.d. 1830,”
he notes a little later that “the doctrine of the Lord’s Coming was recovered
about ninety years ago.” Now, ninety years before the publication of
Cameron’s book in 1922 takes us right back to the date he sets for the first mention
of posttribulationalism. In other
words, up until the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the entire doctrine
of the Lord’s return had been obscure, if not almost lost to the Church. The Brethren and other godly men of that
period were used of the Lord to restore to the Church the whole truth of the
second coming of Christ, and when that truth was restored it was pretribulational! For centuries, prophetic study had been in
disrepute. During the time of Roman
ascendancy even justification by faith was almost lost and had to be
recovered. The Reformers, occupied as
they were with the cardinal issues of the gospel, largely carried over a Romish
amillennial eschatology, and when the doctrine of the second coming was finally
restored, pretribulational distinctions shared in the restoration.
(5)
One more important fact must be noted, for it helps
to explain the resurgence of interest in prophecy which has marked the course
of the last century. Early centuries
were occupied primarily with Bibliology and Theology Proper: the problems of
inspiration and canonicity, the deity of Christ and the relationship of His two
natures, and kindred problems. Later centuries
debated Angelology. At the time of the
Reformation, the primary issue was Soteriology. Then followed the rise of the great denominations, the chief
issues of which fell largely in the area of Ecclesiology.
During
these past nineteen centuries, there has been a progressive refinement of the
details of Christian theology, but not until the last one hundred years has
Eschatology come to the front to receive the major attention and scrutiny of
foremost Bible scholars. It is not that
the doctrine of Christ’s coming, or any of its special features, is new or
novel, but that the doctrine has finally come into the place of prominence it
rightfully deserves. With that
prominence there has become a greater discernment of prophetic detail. A distant mountain range, upon closer inspection
may turn out to be two distinct ranges with a great valley lying between. Even so, a general view of the second coming
may reveal one united event, but upon closer scrutiny, two separate aspects may
be seen. This progressive attention to
and refinement of Christian doctrine satisfactorily explains the lack of emphasis
prior to the nineteenth century upon anything but the most obvious outline of
prophecy. James Orr, in his Progress
of Dogma, may well be quoted to sustain this thesis:
Has it ever struck you ... what a singular parallel
there is between the historical course of dogma, on the one hand, and the scientific
order of the text-books on systematic theology on the other? The history of dogma, as you speedily
discover is simply the system of theology spread out through the centuries –
theology as Plato would say, “writ large” – and this not only as regards its
general subject-matter, but even as respects the definite succession of its
parts.... If now, planting yourself at
the close of the Apostolic Age, you cast your eye down the course of the
succeeding centuries, you find, taking as an easy guide the great historical
controversies of the Church, that what you have is simply the projection of
this logical system on a vast temporal screen.... One thing, I think, it shows unmistakably, viz., that neither
arrangement is arbitrary – that there is law and reason underlying it; and another
thing which forces itself upon us is, that the law of these two developments –
the logical and the historical – is the same.
. . . Using, then, the controversies which
impelled the Church in the formation of its creed as a guiding clue, mark, in a
rapid survey, the exactitude of the parallel.
The second century in the history of the Church – what was that? The age of Apologetics and of the vindication
of the fundamental ideas of all religion – of the Christian especially
– in conflict with Paganism and with the Gnostics.
. . . We pass to the next stage in the
development, and what do we find there?
Just what comes next in the theological system – Theology Proper
– the Christian doctrine of God, and specially the doctrine of the
Trinity. This period is covered by the Monarchian,
Arian, and Macedonian controversies of the third and fourth centuries.
. . . What comes next? As in the logical system theology is
succeeded by Anthropology, so in the history of dogma the controversies
I have named are followed in the beginning of the fifth century by the Augustinian
and Pelagian controversies, in which ... the centre of interest shifts
from God to man.
. . . From the time of Augustine’s death we
see the Church entering on that long and distracting series of controversies
known as Christological – Nestorian, Eutychian, Monophysite, Monthelite
– which kept it in continual ferment, and rent it with the most un-Christlike
passions during the fifth and sixth, on even till near the end of the seventh,
centuries.
. . . Theology, Anthropology, Christology had
each had its day – in the order of the theological system, which the history
still carefully follows, it was now the turn of Soteriology ... the next step,
that taken by the Reformers in the development of the doctrine of the Application
of Redemption. This, as we saw, is
the next great division in the theological system. ...
What now shall I say of the remaining branch
of the theological system, the Eschatological? An Eschatology, indeed, there was in the early Church, but it was
not theologically conceived; and a Mythical Eschatology there was in the
Mediaeval Church – an Eschatology of Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory ... but the
Reformation swept this away, and, with its sharply contrasted states of bliss
and woe, can hardly be said [note] to have put anything in its place, or even
to have faced very distinctly the difficulties of the problem.... Probably I am not mistaken in thinking that,
besides the necessary revision of the theological system as a whole, which
could not properly be undertaken till the historical development I have
sketched had run its course, the modern mind has given itself with special
earnestness to eschatological questions, moved thereto, perhaps, by the solemn
impression that on it the ends of the world have come, and that some great
crisis in the history of human affairs is approaching.
. . . I am very far from disputing that there
is still room for fresh developments in theology.... I do not question, therefore, that there are still sides and
aspects of divine truth to which full justice has not be accorded.... All I am contending for is, that such a development
shall be a development within Christianity and not away from it.
Posttribulationalists
should have seen this progress in doctrinal study as the logical solution to
the problem they have raised, even though they missed the concept of imminency
in the early church and the writings of the Fathers. Even Reese admits: “Darby had his place in causing fresh light to
break forth from God’s Word.... And the
great work goes on: fresh light always breaking from God’s Word, in all
sections of the Church.”
If
God used Darby and his associates to restore to the Church doctrines long
obscure and neglected, his name should be remembered with gratitude and not
profaned as the originator of a twentieth century heresy. In this whole matter concerning the history
of the imminent, pretribulational return of Jesus Christ, there is little by
way of factual support or by way of attitudes taken to commend the writers from
the posttribulational school.
III. The
Resurrection of the Saints
The
argument against a pretribulation rapture based on texts pertaining to the
resurrection of dead receives little attention from most posttribulationalist
writers, and is evidently thought of little consequence. In the hands of Reese, however, the issue is
blown up to giant proportions and made the number one argument, both from
emphasis and from position given to it in his treatment. Of this argument, a disciple of Reese says
in summary:
The argument based on the time of the first
resurrection throws much light on this theory of the double coming of
Christ. Alexander Reese in his study, The
Approaching Advent of Christ, has devoted sixty pages to elaborating this
argument which seems well-nigh unanswerable.
He presents evidence from the Old Testament, the Gospels, the Pauline
epistles, and the Apocalypse. The argument
in brief is this.
Clearly the resurrection of the holy dead
takes place at the Rapture of the Church (I Thess. 4:16). Therefore, ‘wheresoever the resurrection is,
there will the Rapture be also.” Upon
examining passages that speak of the resurrection of the holy dead, which is
the first resurrection (Rev. 20:5-6), we find that this first resurrection is
associated with the coming of the Lord (Isa. 26:19), the conversion of Israel
(Rom. 11:15), the inauguration of the Kingdom (Luke 14:14-15; Rev. 20:4-6), the
giving of rewards (Rev. 11:15-18), the Great Tribulation coming before it (Dan.
12:1-3).
Here, the main line of argument is suggested,
together with the more important Scriptures used by Reese in his lengthy treatment
– all of which is labeled “well-nigh unanswerable.” It is not the purpose here to engage in a point by point analysis
and refutation of the argument (although the writer is confident that this
could be done), but to expose the erroneous premises upon which the argument is
built, leaving the application of the same to the reader who pursues these
pages and those of Reese. When David
arose against Goliath of Gath, he chose five smooth stones out of the brook,
any one of which was sufficient to fell the giant. Even so will lengthy argumentation fall, without examination of
all its detail, by the proper application of a few well-placed, fundamental
truths from Scripture and from logic.
In
his examination of “The resurrection of the saints in the Old Testament,”
Reese’s argument takes on the form of a syllogism, the major premise being (1)
that the Old Testament Scriptures prove that the resurrection of Old Testament
saints is at the revelation of Christ, just prior to the millennial kingdom;
the minor premise being (2) that all Darbyists agree that the resurrection of
the Church synchronizes with the resurrection of Israel; hence, the conclusion
is drawn that (3) the resurrection of the Church sets the time of the rapture
as posttribulational. To put the argument
in the words of our author:
But a blind man can see that the exact
contrary is the truth. The resurrection
follows the tribulation. The
angel tells Daniel that at that time Israel would be delivered – that is,
delivered from the time of trouble just mentioned [Dan. 12:2]. Then it is that the sleepers in the dust
awake to inherit eternal life and the glory of the resurrection. ...
Now the termination of the week is
characterized by two events, among others – first, the destruction of
Antichrist, and, secondly, the deliverance of Daniel’s people.... Nothing can be surer than that here we are
at the close of the tribulation. What
happened then? The resurrection of the
saints. ...
The minor premise is expressed in several
different ways:
Darbyist writers themselves asset that if we
can fix the epoch of this resurrection, we can know the time of the resurrection
of the Church, since the two synchronize.
I must again remind the reader that we are not
looking for the resurrection of the Church in this passage. We are concerned only with the question
whether the text teaches the resurrection of the holy dead of Daniel’s people,
the Jews.... It will be sufficient if
we can prove that the righteous dead in Israel are raised, for it is these
writers [Darby, Kelly, etc.] who tell us that the Church will be raised at the
same time.
Putting together these premises, Reese
concludes that the resurrection of the Church, and hence, the rapture, is
posttribulational:
These conclusions are fatal to the new
theories of the Second Advent, because it is a fundamental point in those
theories that the sleeping saints of Israel will rise some years before the
destruction of Antichrist, the deliverance of Israel, and the Coming of Jehovah
and His Kingdom.
In
this chapter, Reese insists upon the literal interpretation of the Old
Testament resurrection passages, which is highly commendable. But as for his main line of reasoning, he
incorporates a false premise and of necessity arrives at a false
conclusion. Darby and his associates,
to whom we owe so much, were not always right.
When they insisted that the resurrection of Israel’s dead occurs at the
beginning of the Tribulation, that is, at the same time as that of Church
saints, they were very probably in error, Reese adducing material proof from
the Scripture that Israel’s resurrection follows the Tribulation. The syllogism should more correctly follow
this order: (1) The Old Testament saints are raised after the Tribulation; (2)
Darby says that Israel’s resurrection occurs before the Tribulation with the
resurrection of the Church saints; (3) therefore, Darby was wrong in respect to
the time of Israel’s resurrection. Such
a conclusion is all that this chapter by Reese warrants, yet it suits his
theory to adopt an erroneous premise in order to arrive at the conclusion
posttribulationalism demands.
A
similar cycle of argumentation is found in Reese’s discussion of “The resurrection
of the saints in the Gospels.” His
first premise that the Day of the Lord is a definite point in time, the last
day of this age and immediately prior to the Millennium. This has been stated in several different
ways:
In addition to this we were able to locate
with relative exactness the time of that resurrection. It is to take place at the Day of the Lord,
when Antichrist is destroyed, Israel converted, and the Messianic Age
introduced by the Coming of the Lord....
The “resurrection of the just” ... in every case ... takes place “at the
last day.” Here is a very definite
point of time.... And having regard to
His [Christ’s] fundamental ideas on Eschatology there can be no doubt that “the
last day” is the closing day of the Age that precedes the Messianic Kingdom of
glory.
Proof
cited to identify “the last day” in the Gospels with the day preceding the
Messianic Kingdom follows along the line that it was a fundamental idea of
Hebrew eschatology that time falls into two ages, “the Messianic Age,” and that
which preceded it; and it was adopted by our Lord and His Apostles.... The Apostle Paul, like Christ, continues to
employ the usual expressions of Hebrew eschatology – “this age” and “the age to
come.”
At
this point, it might be well to ask: When did the ideas of Hebrew eschatology
ever become the norm for determining the eschatology of the Church,
particularly since the Church is an entirely separate body from Israel,
differing from Israel in a score of ways, and nowhere seen in the prophecy of
the Old Testament? Pretribulationalists
believe that when the expression “last days” is used, and the Church is in
view, that these are the last days for the Church, and that when Israel is in
view, that these are the last days for Israel.
This is the normal, unstrained interpretation of the phrase. To further substantiate his point, Reese
cites Bullinger – of whom he says in the following chapter: “Into the wild
dispensational theories of Dr. Bullinger it is not my intention to enter; one
must draw the line somewhere in investigating the labyrinth of prophetic fads
and theories.” But that is in chapter 4; here in chapter 3,
Bullinger is the authority as Reese records:
The true sense of the phrase “the last day” is
also given by Bullinger in his Apocalypse: “Martha expressed her belief in the
resurrection ‘at the last day’ (John xi.24); i.e., the last day, at the end of
the present age, and immediately before the introduction of the new age of the
thousand years.”
The
second premise of the argument is quickly drawn, that “all Darbyists agree”
that the resurrection of Church saints will be “years or decades” before the
Day of the Lord:
In other words, does it indicate that the
resurrection of the saints is to occur several years or decades before the Day
of the Lord, as Darbyists insist? ... On his theory the resurrection belongs in
time to “this present age,” a decade or a generation before the Day of
the Lord begins.
Therefore, it is concluded,
“Darbyists” are in error when they speak of a resurrection of Church saints
prior to the Day of the Lord.
If we adhere to the simple terminology of our
Lord and Paul about “the last day,” “the present Age,” and “the coming Age,”
all will be plain, and we shall be saved at the very outset from the danger of
getting lost in a labyrinth of dispensational traditions, which lose nothing by
comparison with the refinements of the Rabbis.
Once
again, a fallacy is introduced into the argument by taking all the views of
Darby and the earlier Brethren as the absolute norm for pretribulationalism. It has been demonstrated in chapter 4 of
this investigation that the Day of the Lord is not the final day of the age,
but a period which incorporates the Tribulation and, very probably, the Millennial
age also. Reese has seen this, for he
says:
Some may object that the expression “last day”
refers not to a literal day, but to the last period of God’s dealings with me
in time; that is, to the age of the kingdom, which follows this present age,
and will extend to the Last Judgment, when the rest of the dead are
raised. Something might be said in
favour of this, for Peter has a saying that one day with the Lord is as a thousand
years; and the Day of the Lord in the O. and N. Testaments sometimes refers,
not only to the day when Messiah comes in glory, but also to the period of His
Reign. But even this admission does not
help the objector, for on his theory the resurrection belongs in time to “this
present age,” a decade or a generation before the Day of the Lord begins.
So
he dismisses the Day of the Lord as a period of time solely on the grounds of
Darby’s position, that the Day of the Lord is the day of the revelation of
Christ. But the Day of the Lord, seen
as a period including the Tribulation, makes unwarranted the claim that
a decade comes between it and the rapture.
As
in the previous argument, the second premise is taken for granted, just because
Reese and Darby happen to agree at that point.
The logical conclusion of the argument is not that there is no prior
resurrection of the Church, but merely that Darby – like Reese – was wrong in
making the Day of the Lord a single day, thus necessitating an interval between
it and the rapture. In fact, in this
particular argument, Reese’s major and minor premises are both in error, making
the chance of drawing any accurate and acceptable conclusions very slim indeed.
Before
proceeding further with Reese’s argument on the resurrection, some wise words
from the conclusion of his own book may be considered with profit:
Careless readers and others who believe what
pleases their fancy, are misled by specious reasoning, since they do not stop
to examine it and test its validity. In
one of the greatest controversial masterpieces of our language ... a great
theologian and mathematician expresses himself thus on the art of presenting a
bad case:
“It is a common rhetorical artifice with a man
who has to command a false conclusion deduced from a syllogism of which one premise
is true, and the other false, to spend an immensity of time in proving the premise
which nobody denies. If he devotes a
sufficient amount of argument and declamation to this topic, the chances are
that his hearers will never ask for proof of the other premise” [Provost
Salmon, Infallibility of the Church, p. 63].
. . . By brilliant argument and declamation
the major premise, which no one disputed, was easily demonstrated; the minor
premise was dismissed with a wave of the hand and a casual remark that its
truth was “self-evident”; the conclusion was then pressed home with easy success,
for most people are easily persuaded into believing what they want to believe.
All of this, Reese goes on
to apply to pretribulational argument, particularly as it concerns escaping the
Tribulation:
But, even at the risk of seeming irksome or
slow-witted, we wish to remind them of something that has escaped their notice. Why not give some attention to the minor
premise, and prove to us that the Great Tribulation is the wrath of God? This, however, is the last thing that
Darbyists can be brought to do. Scores
of tracts pass it by. And naturally,
because that part of their syllogism which they adroitly hurry over is
completely false. It is a blunder that
the Great Tribulation consists in God’s wrath; their conclusion, therefore,
that the Church will escape the Great Tribulation, is false, since if
falsity attaches to one of the premises, it attaches to the conclusion.
Reese may well have
pondered this truth of his own writing!
It
is most doubtful if pretribulationalists so studiously avoid proving that the
Great Tribulation consists of God’s wrath.
The Scriptures are all on their side, as has been demonstrated in some
detail in chapter 2. Nevertheless,
false reasoning is an error into which any author may slip, particularly one
overly zealous to prove his case, and Reese is no exception. He assumes that the Day of the Lord is a
point in time. He assumes that it is
equivalent to the day of Christ’s revealing.
He assumes that the Old Testament saints are raised with the Church, particularly
since Darby said so. And “if falsity
attaches to one of the premises, it attaches to the conclusion.” With this we agree.
Readers
of Reese will be stimulated to make a fresh study of the Scriptures,
particularly if they have accepted pretribulational positions solely on the
basis of the research of others rather than from their own labors. Such a study and re-evaluation can be
immensely profitable. However, this
word of caution must be added to those who may unwittingly channel their
thoughts after the pattern of Reese’s argument. Watch for false premises!
Often they appear on the very first page or two of a chapter, and if
lightly accepted, the reader runs the risk of being led whithersoever the author
will.
After
arguing from “the last day” of John 6, Reese turns his attention to three other
passages, all from the synoptics and all largely Jewish in content. For instance, the context of Luke 14:14, 15 finds Jesus answering Jewish
lawyers and Pharisees, and the subject under discussion is that of healing on
the Sabbath, and that in its relationship to Mosaic law. Hardly the setting for Church truth, unless
the assumption is granted that Israel and the Church are identical and are
raised on the same day! As to Matthew
13:43, it is sufficient to note that the kingdom in its mystery form is that
which it takes during the absence of the King.
It goes on through the Tribulation and includes, but is not coextensive
with, this present age of the Church.
Passing
on to Reese’s discussion of “The resurrection of the saints in St. Paul’s
epistles,” the argument is pressed from four chief Scriptures: Romans 11:15; I
Corinthians 15:50-54; I Thessalonians 4:13-18; and I Corinthians 15:21-26. Since the second and third of these passages
are cardinal, and also receive the most attention by Reese, the discussion will
be limited to these. The gist of the
argument from the Corinthian passage is as follows:
Paul not only describes the resurrection and
transfiguration of the saints: he emphatically indicates the time for the fulfillment
of these wonderful events. Here are his
words: “So when this corruptible
shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the
saying that is written, ‘Death is swallowed up in victory’” (v. 54).
Nothing could be clearer than the Apostle’s
argument here. The resurrection and
transfiguration of the faithful dead will take place in fulfillment of an O. T.
prophecy. This occurs in Isaiah
xxv.8.... The resurrection of the
saints, and the victory over death, synchronise with the inauguration of the
Theocratic Kingdom, the Coming of Jehovah, and the conversion of living Israel.
Paul
is obviously writing of the Church in I Corinthians 15; he then cites an Old
Testament passage to emphasize that resurrection brings victory over the enemy,
Death; this passage in Isaiah has for its context entrance into the kingdom
age. To Reese, it is transparently
clear that Paul “emphatically indicates the time for the fulfillment of these
wonderful events.” However, there are
weak links in this chain of thought. So
much is made to depend on the demonstrative verb then (τότε). Primarily an adverb of time, it may also be
used in the sense of the Hebrew waw consecutive, thus simply continuing
the narrative. Even when used in the
temporal sense, it does not necessarily mean “at that moment,” or “without
intervening events,” as in John 8:28, “When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then
shall ye know that I am he.” Rather
than the apostle’s using this Old Testament quotation to set the time of the
resurrection in its relationship to the kingdom, it would seem that he is
merely setting forth the simple and obvious relationship between the future
resurrection and the present reign of Death.
Since the victory of Christ over death at His resurrection, Death has
been a defeated enemy, although still having a sting until that time when the
Christian puts on his resurrection body.
Then, when this occurs and not before, Death will lose its
sting. The relationship of this event
to the time of the kingdom is hardly in view. If it were, and if it is as obvious as Reese seems to think, the
fact that so many of the finest commentators overlooked the entire matter is
surely a cause for wonder.
It
is always precarious in prophetic Scriptures to assume that two events, seen
side by side, of necessity occur together.
If Isaiah 25:8 proves from its context that resurrection is associated
with the bringing in of the kingdom, then on the same basis, and much more
clearly, is it possible to prove that the resurrection of Isaiah 26:19-21 precedes
the Tribulation, for after saying to Israel: “Thy dead shall live,” the
prophet continues: “Hide thyself ... until the indignation be overpast, For,
behold, he Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth
for their iniquity.” All of these
difficulties argue against Reese’s conclusion, but there are yet three others:
(1)
Revelation 21:4 cites the same Old Testament prophecy,
but the setting now is past the kingdom age, entering into the eternal
state after the creation of a new heaven and a new earth. If there is any temporal significance to the
allusion to resurrection in Isaiah 25:8, at what time does the resurrection occur
in the light of Revelation 21:4?
(2)
It is manifestly impossible to date Church events by
Old Testament Scripture. Final victory
over death may be seen, but the Church herself, as also the manner of her
resurrection and rapture, are mysteries not revealed until the New Testament.
(3)
It is highly disputed if I Corinthians 15:54 alludes
to Isaiah 25:8 at all; most commentators find this to be an allusion to Hosea
13:14, which is a closer parallel – and where the difficulty raised by Reese is
avoided. Yet Reese chooses to make the
teaching of these two passages in question a “grave discrepancy” with “the new
scheme of the End,” continuing: “So far as I am aware, no Darbyist writer has
ever honestly faced the question.” Perhaps it was not the argument was
considered unanswerable, but that it was not considered necessary to answer an
argument that reveals so many difficulties.
The
second main argument from the Pauline Epistles concerns the familiar passage, I
Thessalonians 4:13-18. Reese says that
the passage furnishes no evidence for the time of the rapture, although, having
made so much of the order of events in the context of Isaiah 25:8, he should
have noted that the context here in I Thessalonians 4 is “study to be quiet”
(v. 11) before the passage (hardly a Tribulational setting) and “the day of the
Lord so cometh as a thief” after the passage – a perfect
pretribulational order of events. But
hear our author’s reason for introducing this passage:
Darbyists themselves furnish us with reasons
that smash their central position. They
all admit, in the first place, that this resurrection in I Thess. iv. includes
the resurrection of all the righteous dead since Abel; this is a fundamental
point in the scheme.
Here
is the false premise, the same in substance with that previously introduced in
the study of the resurrection in the Old Testament. Pretribulationalists do not particularly relish being called so
constantly “Darbyists” (elsewhere, Darbyists and Sadducees), but in good humor
may overlook the intended stigma. But
they will not, for the most part, “admit” that all of the righteous dead since
Abel are raised at the rapture. Far be
this from being a fundamental point of pretribulationalism; it is considered by
many to be inconsistent with the Scriptures and is therefore rejected.
Daniel
12:1, 2 is outstanding among Old Testament passages on the subject of
resurrection, and here the unprecedented time of Tribulation sorrow precedes
the awakening and resurrection of Israel’s dead from the dust of the
earth. Similarly, in verse thirteen of
Daniel 12, the prophet’s own resurrection is identified with the end days of
the Tribulation following the unmasking of Antichrist and the abomination of
his rule. In Isaiah 25:8, when death
will be swallowed up in victory, then the Lord God will wipe away tears from
off all faces. The implication seems
plain that Israel’s resurrection is associated with the glory and comfort of
Christ’s appearing, for it would hardly follow that all tears shall be wiped
away before “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jer. 30:7). Rather than synchronize the resurrection of
Israel’s righteous dead with the rapture of the Church, an entirely different
group with a separate eschatology, it would seem far more in keeping with the
prophetic Word to synchronize it with the sound of the trumpet which shall
gather the elect of God from the four winds and from one end of heaven to the
other (Matt. 24:31), and this occurs “after the tribulation of those days.”
Again,
Revelation 11:18 and its immediate context is best explained if it is seen that
“the time of the dead” when saints and prophets shall be judged and rewarded
refers to Israel’s resurrection at the end of the Tribulation and not to some
small and unidentified remnant of the end time. It is not without reason that many pretribulationalists must part
company with Darby on this particular point of the time of Israel’s
resurrection, and it is most foolish for one to make Darby’s view not only the
norm, but also the touchstone for all pretribulationalism. However, Reese builds his entire case at this
point upon Darby’s view:
Very well then, this means that I Thess. iv.
synchronises with the resurrection in Isaiah xxv. 8, xxvi. 19, Dan. xii. 1-3,
12-13 [etc.]. And we have already
proved that these passages clearly locate the resurrection of the saints in
Israel at the commencement of the Messianic Kingdom when Antichrist is
destroyed, and Israel is converted by the appearing of Jehovah.
Nor is this second premise
without its difficulties, but we press on to the conclusion of the argument:
The whole Darbyist case collapses, therefore,
before their admission that I Thess. iv. includes the raising of the O. T.
saints.
Once
more a false conclusion has arisen from a false premise. The true conclusion should be that Darby was
wrong in respect to the time of Israel’s resurrection – that, and nothing
more. Yet Darby was right about so many
other things, even his case does not collapse over one or two inconsistencies,
and even though it did, normal pretribulationalism which makes no such
concession is not weakened in the least.
By the failure of the pretribulationalist to agree with Darby at this
particular point, it is the argument of the opposition which undergoes
collapse.
Reese
concludes his sixty page argument concerning the time of the resurrection with
a discussion of “The resurrection of the saints in the Apocalypse,” the
discussion revolving around the two disputed and difficult chapters, the
eleventh and the twentieth.
The
first passage considered is Revelation 11:15-18, bringing up the familiar matter
of the seventh trumpet. Immediately,
there is an uncertain premise:
And here in Rev. xi. 15, we have these very
events under the seventh or last trumpet, which also blows at the Day of the
Lord. The conclusion is inevitable,
therefore, that the Last Trumpet of John are one and the same. We are right, therefore, in inferring the
resurrection from Rev. xi. 15-18.
Reese attempts to bolster
his argument a little, but avoids the fact that the seventh trumpet cannot fall
on what he calls the Day of the Lord because it is followed by yet seven vials
of wrath upon the earth before the Tribulation period is terminated. There is great difficulty resident in any
view which lumps together in one day the Day of the Lord, the Day of Christ,
the revelation of the Son of God, and other events which Scripture takes pains
to separate. Yet the seventh trumpet
“finishes the mystery of God, and heralds the introduction of the Kingdom of
Christ and of God, the resurrection, judgment, and rewarding of the saints, and
the Coming of the Lord.” Included also is the marriage of the Lamb
and the Marriage Supper, and all on one day!
Other difficulties with identifying the seventh trumpet and the “last
trump” have been discussed in the last chapter (where with equal determination,
it was argued that the seventh trumpet marks the exact midpoint of the week)
and so need not detain us here.
Next
follows Reese’s attack upon the view that the Church is represented in
Revelation 4 by the twenty-four elders.
This also has been discussed under the consideration of the midtribulation
rapture view. Reese does point out the
inconsistency of Kelly and others, who held that the elders represent the Old
Testament saints as well as the Church, but such a difficulty is obviated when
it is seen that the elders represent the Church alone. Were the Old Testament saints to be raised
together with the Church, then the elders might represent both, but it is here
contended that Israel is raised at the end of the Tribulation, thus avoiding
their inclusion with the elders and also explaining the rewarding of certain
saints in Revelation 11:18. The terminology,
“thy servants the prophets,” is likewise more suitable for Israel than for the
Church, for the Church is seen at the time of these events as the glorious
bride of Christ. Reese states: “Inasmuch,
therefore, as Rev. xi. 18 depicts the giving of rewards to the whole company of
the redeemed, we may be sure that this also is the time of resurrection of the
just.” Were he speaking of Israel alone, we would
agree, but as he includes the Church, we can not. There is not contradiction in Revelation 11 to the view which
sees the Church raptured and rewarded before the Tribulation and Old Testament
saints raised and rewarded at its close.
Both here and elsewhere, difficulties occur only when Israel and her
prophetic program is confused with the Church and her own distinct eschatology.
A
more pressing problem arises with the consideration of Revelation 20:4-6. Reese wisely limits the discussion, accepting
two literal resurrections according to the normal premillennial pattern, and
counting it unnecessary to enter into the millenarian controversy which has
raged over the passage. He sets the
stage for the present disputation in the following manner.
What conclusion can we draw from the vision in
Rev. xx. 1-6? Just this, that here we
have the clearest refutation possible of the Darbyist system; for, according to
those theories, the first resurrection is to take place at least seven years
before the Day of the Lord and the millennium: some time even before the rise
of Antichrist: according to this vision of the Apocalypse, the first
resurrection takes place in immediate association with the destruction
of Antichrist, and the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom. Thus we have exactly the same teaching as in
all the earlier Scriptures.
It
is the position of pretribulationalism that the resurrection of the saints
occurs at a point earlier than the vision here recorded in Revelation 20. To this, Reese has two objections, namely,
that John records no earlier resurrection, nor could there be a resurrection
prior to that which is called the first.
In his own language:
Not a word is said by John in the whole of
Revelation of any such resurrection.
Nothing can be found of an earlier one, either here or in any other part
of the Word of God. If such a prior
resurrection was known to John – as the theory presupposes – then how is it conceivable
that he would call this resurrection the first? ... But that he wrote first
resurrection will be proof to all candid readers that he knew of none before
it.
Since
this is the heart of Reese’s argument, and since he makes this “the clearest
refutation possible of the Darbyist system,” it should suffice to answer him on
these two points. The first objection,
that John records no earlier resurrection, is easy to refute. Reese is depending upon the familiar and
untrustworthy argument from silence.
Unless there is something with which to back up an argument drawn from
silence, it is better to argue from what the text does say rather than from it
fails to say. The most extended and
complete passage in all the gospels on the subject of the Tribulation and the
return of Christ to earth is that of Matthew 24. Yet, in his consideration of the resurrection of the saints in
the gospels, Reese chooses to allude to other passages. Can the reason be that Matthew 24 maintains
silence as to any resurrection, and that Reese insists that where the resurrection
is, there will the rapture be? IF the
argument from silence is valid, this absence of resurrection in Matthew 24 is
most striking. As to John’s failure to
mention the resurrection of the dead in Christ, such mention is hardly to be expected
in a book which foresees the Church in glory and deals with God’s judgment upon
the earth, and not primarily with His mercy toward saints already in
heaven. As to the notion that “not a
word is said by John” of any prior resurrection, what then of the resurrection
of the two witnesses in 11:11, 12, and what of the great multitude from all
nations, clothed in white and standing before the throne, in 7:9-17? These are resurrected saints and are
identified as “they which have come out of great tribulation.” Pretribulationalists believe that the rapture
occurs, chronologically, in 4:1. What
then of the twenty-four elders, representative of the Church and seen in glory
far in advance of Revelation 20? Are
not these suggestive of a prior resurrection?
This,
however, anticipates the answer to Reese’s second objection, that there can be
no prior resurrection because that of Revelation 20:5 is termed “the
first.” Is an earlier resurrection as
impossible as Reese presumes?
All
Premillenarians are agreed that there are two resurrections, the first being the
resurrection of the righteous dead before the millennial kingdom, and the
second being the resurrection of the wicked dead one thousand years later at
the great white throne judgment (Rev. 20:11-15). The first resurrection is that of the just; the second that of
the unjust. All who have part in the
first resurrection are saved; all who are raised to stand before the
great white throne are lost. Two
resurrections are in view – and two classes of men.
This
alone indicates that the important distinguishing feature between the two is
the kind of resurrection, rather than the time of
resurrection. Pretribulationalists
believe that the term “first resurrection” indicates that those raised are the first
in kind, and that such a distinction is far more important than the time
factor involved. They believe that the
first resurrection speaks, not necessarily of an event, but rather of an
order of resurrection. It may occur
in several successive stages, but all the saved are in the resurrection
designated first in distinction from those in the second, who are
lost. Nor is this concept without
Scriptural warrant:
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive. But every man
in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at
his coming (I Cor. 15:22, 23).
Even as the gathering of
the firstfruits becomes the token and assurance of the completed harvest, so
Christ was first raised and forms the pattern for the resurrection of those who
believe in Him. As He lives, so shall
we live in His presence; as His body was raised incorruptible, so shall we also
be raised incorruptible. “As we have
borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” (I
Cor. 15:49). The resurrection of Christ
is the seal and the assurance of the resurrection of those that are His.
But if there be no resurrection of the dead,
then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching
vain, and your faith is also vain ... ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in
Christ are perished. If in this life
only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable (I Cor.
15:13-19).
Here, then is an order of
harvest: Christ the firstfruits, and after Him, “every man in his own
order.” Christ had part in the “first
resurrection,” and indicates that other “orders” are to make up the completed
harvest. What may some of these other
orders be?
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent
in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks
rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept
arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the
holy city, and appeared unto many (Matt. 27:51-53).
For the Lord himself shall descent 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 (I Thess. 4:16).
After this I beheld, and lo, a great
multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people,
and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white
robes, and palms in their hands.... And
he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have
washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7:9,
14).
And they of the people and kindreds and
tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and
shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.... And after three days and an half the spirit
of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great
fear fell upon them which saw them. And
they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud;
and their enemies beheld them (Rev. 11:9, 11, 12).
There shall be at a time of trouble, such as
never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy
people shall be delivered every one that shall be found written in the
book. And many of them that sleep in
the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life.... (Dan. 12:1, 2).
It is most apparent that here are different
orders of harvest: Christ, the firstfruits; the saints who were raised after
His resurrection, probably taken to heaven when Christ ascended to His Father;
the dead in Christ at the rapture, before the Tribulation; the martyred saints
of the Tribulation period; the two witnesses; and the Old Testament saints at
the close of the Tribulation. None of
these are in the resurrection of the unjust; therefore, all of them must have
part in the resurrection of the righteous, which is termed “the first
resurrection.” Each is raised, but in
his own order. The word translated
“order” is a military term meaning a band, brigade, or division of an
army. Christ catches home the army of
the redeemed of all ages, but they arrive in different bands. Yet all are in the one resurrection of the
redeemed. There is no difficulty here,
except for those who gloss over every indication of resurrection prior to
Revelation 20 in order to protect the theory that there can be no rapture prior
to the Tribulation.
Admittedly,
there is no clear indication of various stages of resurrection in the words,
“This is the first resurrection,” but a doctrine is never built upon one verse
of Scripture when there are others on the same subject which call for
consideration. It is also quite
characteristic of prophetic Scriptures that the time element involved is not
always clearly stated. In some cases,
events placed side by side in prophecy actually find their fulfillment hundreds
of years apart. A familiar example is
found in Isaiah 61:1, 2, in which both advents of Christ are seen side by
side. When the Lord read these verses
in the synagogue at Nazareth, He “closed the book” in the middle of the second
verse of Isaiah 61, saying: “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears”
(Luke 4:16-21). The rest of the verse,
concerning “the day of vengeance of our God,” will not reach its fulfillment
until the second advent, yet Isaiah sees both advents in one view and records
them side by side in a single verse.
John 5:28, 29 may be cited as another illustration of the same
principle:
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in
the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come
forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that
have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
In this passage, there is
not the slightest hint that the resurrection of life will differ in point of
time from the resurrection of damnation.
Other Scriptures make it obvious that the entire kingdom age of one
thousand years intervenes between the two, but the passage in John deals with
the fact of thee resurrections and not with the time element
involved. Who could foresee, without
searching other Scriptures, that “the hour” of which John speaks actually
includes an interval of one thousand years?
Fallacy arises when it is assumed that two events mentioned side by side
must of necessity fall together. On
that basis, on might gather that Christmas falls on December 31 from statements
linking Christmas and New Year together, or connecting both with the end of the
year.
Moreover,
in Revelation 20:14 is recorded: “And
death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death,” but in Revelation 19:20, speaking of
Antichrist and his false prophet, John records: “These both were cast alive
into a lake of fire. ...” Yet, the
former is after the millennium, the latter, preceding it. If the “second death” embraces two judgments
separated by a thousand years, who can rightfully deny successive stages in the
“first resurrection”? The terminology
of 20:14 is exactly the same as that of 20:5: “This is the second
death,” “This is the first resurrection.”
Reese
remarks that on pretribulational grounds “John ought to have written: ‘this is
the second resurrection: blessed and holy is he that hath part in the
second resurrection.” With the same line of reasoning, John should
have written: “This is the third death,” but of course he did not. McPherson writes that having a “first”
before a “first” is a riddle, and that to include earlier resurrections in the
first resurrection is a “mathematical nightmare.” However, the “riddle” is readily answered
when it is seen that “first” is an order of resurrection referring to
all the redeemed, and this in harmony with other Scriptures where the fact, and
not the time, of an event is being stressed.
Posttribulationalists have yet to explain the fact of previous resurrections,
if Revelation 20:5 were actually first in point of time.
Reese’s
further arguments from the resurrection of the saints in the Apocalypse are of
little consequence and need not detain us long. He touches upon the seventh trumpet, and goes into some detail as
to whom the twenty-four elders are not, but these matters have been
adequately discussed in the previous chapter.
He argues that the twenty-four thrones of Revelation 4 were empty, on
the basis of 20:4, where it says: “I saw thrones, and they sat upon them.” To Reese, this proves that John sees them as
“a company in the very act of sitting down on their thrones,”
but this is slender evidence upon which to build a doctrine. He asks: “If the Twenty-four Elders
represent the raptured saints in heaven before the Seventieth Week, why do we
not see the saints themselves instead of twenty-four symbols?” Aside from the fact that the elders are
individuals rather than symbols, it is just as reasonable to ask why Christ is
seen throughout as a Lamb. It is
argued: “If no mention is made in the Apocalypse of the Rapture, surely it is
the part of a careful student to enquire whether the Christian hope is not
portrayed under different imagery and expressions.” That being an acceptable principle, there is
everything to favor the Church being seen in heaven prior to the Tribulation
under the imagery of the elders. Yet
Reese fails to deal with the principle evidence which determines the identity
of the elders, seems to be unaware of the textual support for the old reading
for the song of the elders, calls them “angelic lords” despite the fact that
they are always differentiated from angels, and takes comfort in the fact that
Bullinger agrees with him as to their identity!
The
chapter presents no ordered principle for interpreting the book of Revelation,
and mere criticism of the views of others is an empty shell without something
genuine and conclusive to offer in their place. The problem of the resurrection is Reese’s main emphasis and argument,
and one leaves it with an awareness that he has not substantiated his position,
that he has left much unsaid, and that much of what has been said by way of
ridicule was entirely unnecessary.
IV. Additional
Posttribulational Arguments
Since
every chapter previous to this (with the possible exception of chapter 8)
contributes one or more answers to some phase of the posttribulational
argument, it is not necessary here to give additional space to the same
consideration. In the words of another:
“One must draw the line somewhere in investigating the labyrinth of prophetic
fads and theories.” Yet, lest it be
said that many posttribulational arguments were omitted in a chapter given over
to an examination of that theory, other leading points of posttribulationalism
should at least be stated and the chapters mentioned where a fuller discussion
may be found.
A. The Wheat and the Tares
The
argument is that the parables of Matthew 13 describe the mystery form of the
kingdom of God, setting forth the course of this present age. Just as the wheat and the tares grow side by
side until the harvest, so Christians and unbelievers exist together until the
“end time,” identified by Matthew 24:31 as at the revelation of Christ. Therefore, Christians are on earth until the
final judgment, and the rapture is said to be posttribulational.
In
answer, the chapter describes the mystery form of the kingdom of heaven – the
form the kingdom is to assume during the absence of the King – which period
includes both the Church Age and the Tribulation. The opposing argument is beside the point since Matthew 13 and
the Church Age are entirely co-extensive; the mystery form continues after the
Church is removed. The parable of the
wheat and the tares simply illustrates the presence of the righteous and the
unrighteous, side by side upon the earth.
God is patient in His dealings with unregenerate men, but nevertheless,
the tares are steadily ripening for the harvest and certain judgment. To make the parable a proof for posttribulationalism
is unwarranted, for, even according to this view, at the revelation of Christ,
He will first take out His Church – while the parable insists “first the
tares.” Nor do angels gather the Church
at the rapture, but Christ Himself. Nor
is it entirely certain that the parable has the Church in view at all, for in
Matthew 8:1-13, it is Israel that is called “children of the kingdom.” Moreover, there is no resurrection in the
parable. Instead of straining to find
therein proof for the time of the rapture, is it not reasonable to limit its
teaching to that which is more obvious, even God’s present patience with the
unrighteous and their certain ripening toward judgment?
B. The Parousia of Christ
It
is the position of Reese that the parousia of Christ (discussed in
chapter 1) “far from being a prolonged period, is a single crisis breaking with
the utmost suddenness.” He insists that the proper translation of
the word is “arrival,” rather than “presence,” and speaks of it as a “kingly
word.” Thus, he seeks to make parousia
a technical word for a kingly visit, characterized as a sudden crisis, for in
so doing, his theory of the rapture is strengthened. However, parousia is quite an ordinary word for coming,
used for instance of the coming of Stephanas (I Cor. 16:17; cf. II Cor. 7:6)
and in a very unkingly sense in II Corinthians 10:10: “his bodily presence
is weak, and his speech contemptible.”
This last verse, together with Philippians 1:26, 2:12, and many others,
illustrates the use of parousia in the sense of presence. In II Corinthians 7:6, 7, it was not merely
the arrival of Titus which comforted Paul, but rather his continued presence
with him subsequent to that arrival.
Even o, the importance of Christ’s parousia lies not so much in
the sudden splendor of His appearings as it does in the fact that the Christian
shall be with Him where He is.
There
is an excellent summary of the verses where parousia is used, together
with the doctrinal implications thereof, in The Church and the Tribulation,
by Hogg and Vine. C. F. Hoff has concluded
his discussion by saying:
But enough of the word, which, as Mr. Reese recognises, is a key
to the understanding of the end times.
Let that be my apology for devoting so much space to it. I think it may be claimed that his
witnesses, under cross-examination, fail to support him in his contention that
“the humblest in the first century knew that the word meant the triumphant
arrival of Messiah to put down all authority, and then to reign.” And Mr. Reese himself makes no better
showing. He seeks to impress his
uncritical readers with a mass of undigested quotations, many of the from
doubtful sources, calculated to confuse the mind of those who are not in a
position to estimate the true value of the formidable array of “authorities”
who, for the most part, have only opinions to offer, not facts.
C. The Church Promised Tribulation
Through
much tribulation, believers must enter into the kingdom of God. To shirk suffering for Christ is a sign of
degeneracy in the Christian life.
Pretribulationalists accept their doctrine through cowardice, or an
obsessive desire for worldly ease – these are the postulates of
posttribulationalism. The true nature
of Christians suffering, the distinction between persecution and wrath, the nature
and source of the Tribulation to come, the fact that Revelation 6-19 is all
characterized as wrath, and some of the express promises of the Word
that the Church will be spared the wrath to come – these, and kindred themes,
are found in chapter 2 of this investigation.
D. Do Christ and Paul Agree?
Matthew
24:29 places the coming of Christ “after the tribulation of those days.” It is argued that if the rapture of I Thessalonians
4 is before the Tribulation, then Paul is made to disagree with Christ. But this is to assume that there is no
rapture separate from the appearing, which is the fallacy of arguing in a circle. Chapter 3 sets forth some of the basic
distinctions between Christianity and Judaism and proves that
posttribulationalism is largely founded upon Scriptures given directly to
Israel. A comparison of Matthew 24 with
I Thessalonians 4 reveals some similarities, but primarily it yields striking
and convincing contrasts.
E. The Day of the Lord
According
to Reese, “that day,” “the Day of the Lord,” and “the Day of Christ” are all
synonymous expressions for the day of the parousia, which closes the
present age and ushers in the age to come.
Posttribulationalists make some headway showing the inconsistencies of
Darby’s position on the Day of the Lord, but when this Day is seen as a period
including the Tribulation, as demonstrated in chapter 4, their argument falls
to pieces.
F. The Restrainer of II Thessalonians 2
Reese
identifies the restrainer as the Roman Empire, a magnificent system of law and
justice, surviving in the Papacy, “the ghost of the deceased Roman
Empire”! Other posttribulationalists
are divided in their opinion, one accepting the identification of the Holy
Spirit, another identifying the restrainer with Satan. While pretribulationalism does not hinge
upon identifying the restrainer as the Spirit, chapter 5 presents reasons why
this is thought to be the most reasonable and acceptable view. If this thesis can be sustained, it gives a
devastating blow to the posttribulation rapture theory.
G. The Doctrine of Imminency
Posttribulationalists
are the violent opponents of the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ, for
they deny that the Christian attitude is to be that of momentarily expecting
God’s Son from heaven. Their argument
is drawn from certain New Testament predictions as they are applied to the
first century Church, which objections are answered in chapter 6. Early Christians were obviously looking for
the return of the Saviour and were encouraged to do so, and the normal
Christian attitude has ever been to watch and to wait for His coming. Posttribulationalism robs the Church of a
doctrine which has long been a primary source of blessing and comfort, as well
as one of her chief incentives to holiness and service. Newell writes:
Who have been the teachers and preachers of Christ’s imminent
coming? We have such men as John Darby,
who was probably the greatest interpreter of Scripture since Paul, with such
early Brethren as C. H. Mackintosh, J. G. Bellett, Wm. Kelly, and the rest, a
marvelous coterie. Then you have C. H.
Spurgeon. It is idle to claim that he
was not looking for Christ’s coming.
He split no hairs such as the posttribulationalists do, but boldly and
constantly proclaimed the second coming of Christ as an actual and a daily
possibility. D. L. Moody was a
wonderful witness to any truth God revealed to him; and his sermon on “The
Second Coming of Christ” is a classic.
H was looking for the Lord’s coming.
George C. Needham, beloved Irishman; Wm. E. Blackstone, whose life has
been to look for his Lord; James H. Brookes, a mighty warrior, now with
the Lord; A. B. Simpson, of whom Moody said, “Everything he says reaches my
heart.” All these were looking for
Christ’s appearing. It was the hope
of their lives. H. M. Parsons, of
Toronto, and Dr. Weston ... faithful witnesses alike. Grand old I. M. Haldeman, of New York, as well as J. Wilbur
Chapman, now with Christ. A. T.
Pierson, of wonderful penetration in the meaning of Scripture; A. J. Gordon;
George E. Guille ... devoted, gentle, sane, yet a contender for Christ’s
imminent coming; our Brother Ironside, whose praise is among the real
churches of Christ; Lewis Sperry Chafer at Dallas; A. C. Gaebelein, of New
York, editor of Our Hope, perhaps the most persistent, faithful witness
for over fifty years to the imminent return of our Lord ... James M. Gray, late
President of the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago ... a host of faithful
witnesses to Christ’s imminent coming, in Great Britain, Scandinavia,
the mission fields, and Australia.
H. The Rapture and the Revelation
Posttribulationalists
argue that “to meet the Lord in the air” means to meet the Lord and quickly
return with Him to the earth, all in a single crisis. They claim further that the rapture cannot be separated in point
of time from the revelation of Christ and that the rapture is but an
insignificant detail in the downward sweep of the Lord to earth at His glorious
appearing. For all of these contentions
there is clear proof to the contrary.
Some of this evidence has already been given, while the following chapter
will take up in particular the distinctions between the rapture of the Church
and the revelation of the Lord to the earth.
It hardly needs to be said, that if rapture and revelation can be distinguished
the one from the other, on that ground alone the posttribulational argument is
lost.
V. A
Word in Conclusion
It
is never a welcome responsibility to oppose the views of men who are brethren
in Christ, particularly concerning issues over which even premillennial men are
divided. While there is wisdom in the
words of Bishop Butler: “A truth being established, objections are nothing; the
one is founded upon our knowledge, the other upon our ignorance,”
yet the establishment of a doctrine is not complete until at least basic tenets
of the opposing views have been dealt with.
Particularly is this true when one of the opponents argues as
voluminously and as vociferously as does Reese – such a voice cannot be ignored. In the words of another, who writes of
Reese’s book: “If there were a little more good will, less argument, and more
chastened enquiry, how much we might learn together!”
It
is the belief of this investigator that by the close of the following chapter
the main views and the chief objections of the posttribulational system will
have been fully and fairly met. To
touch upon all the details would be to prolong the analysis to a tedious
length, for it is more or less irksome to be overly persuaded on points
concerning which there is very little doubt in the first place.
Posttribulationalism
has been met and answered on its own ground, particularly on the three issues
which are often called unanswerable:
the argument that pretribulationalism is new and novel, the argument as
to the time of the resurrection, and the argument against the possibility of
Christ’s return being imminent. Among
the leading weaknesses of posttribulationalism, aside from the intolerant
attitude of many of its advocates, is the tendency to depart from the fundamental
principle of literal interpretation, the failure to comprehend that the
Tribulation is essentially a time of divine retribution, the tendency to take
ordinary words of Scripture and force them into the mold of technical usage,
the refusal to recognize the truth and appreciate the value of an imminent
return, a steadfast refusal to accept Paul as the primary revelator to the
Church of God, and a lingering legalism combined with a failure to grasp the
real character and scope of divine grace.
