Triumph Through
Tribulation
A Frank Appraisal Of Twenty
Arguments That The Church Will Not Pass
Through The Tribulation
Dr. Norman Spurgeon MacPherson(1)
In a
day when a stronger
welding together of all of God’s own is much to be desired, the writer
would
not care to divide the brethren by dealing with a subject about which
equally
good men differ. However, one who is familiar with the great variety of
prophetic views could hardly hope to add to the division that already
exists.
If the writer succeeds in challenging his readers to an earnest and
prayerful
re-examination of the fully authoritative Word of God he believes his
purpose
will have been achieved. Such is the best course open to those who
would
discover the unifying mind of the Lord.
We can
do no
better than to sincerely seek to heed the apostolic injunction in 1
Cor. 1:10
“Now 1 beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye all
speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but
that ye be
perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”
After
sitting
through a portion of the New York Congress on Prophecy in 1942, the
writer was
conscious of the effort that had been made to achieve a unity of
testimony. In spite of this, however, there emerged a
considerable
diversity of opinion. For example, some speakers said the Church is not
to look
for signs. On the other hand, one affirmed that the wars and social
upheavals
of the present are significant signs.
Some
problems upon
which some of us desired light were either largely sidestepped or
dismissed
with some glib generalization. For example, one speaker said that some
of his
friends believe that the Church will pass through the Great Tribulation
but he
believed the Tribulation to be not a “blessed hope” but a “black
horror.”
Where is the person who believes that the Tribulation is a “blessed
hope”?
It
hardly
compliments one’s friends to attribute to them a position that neither
they nor
any sane person holds. Setting up a dummy for the fun of knocking it
down is a
common dialectic device but it deserves no place in the armory of the
sincere
Christian. So far from the Tribulation being a “blessed hope,” I am
convinced
the hope of the coming Deliverer will shine with more luster then than
it does
now in the hearts of millions of believers who know little of suffering.
It is
fair to ask:
“Why do so many preach the Church will not go into the Great
Tribulation?” No
doubt they are quite sincere in their belief. However, I am convinced
there are
a number of factors, apart from exegetical, that have made a subtle
contribution to their faith and testimony. Allow me to mention four.
First
of all, I am
convinced that in many a case a minister has found little time in the
midst of
a busy ministry for the detailed study of prophetic truth. Consequently
he has
taught what is to be found in the prophetic literature at hand.
A
second reason
why many have taught the Church will not pass through the Tribulation
is an
excessive desire to meet a popular demand for the most comforting type
of
teaching. For example Dr. H. C. Thiessen closes his book, Will
the
Third--and
I
hesitate to say this although I believe it is true--I am convinced
there
are
some who are being led to question what they have taught about the
Tribulation
for years but who hesitate to make any admission they have been wrong,
in the
false belief it would weaken the faith of people in them as
authoritative
teachers and thus restrict their ministry. It is not often that one
finds so
refreshing a confession as is to be found in the late James M. Gray’s Christian
Workers’ Commentary, where he deals with the question of the
identity of
the man on the white horse of Rev. 6:2. He says: “The rider on the
white horse
was identified with Christ in Synthetic Bible Studies, but the
author
now considers it more consistent to identify him with ‘the man of sin.’”
Finally,
there can
be no question that some men are characterized by an inordinate lust
for
novelty of interpretation whether it has any solid Biblical basis or
not. For
example, at the above-mentioned prophetic congress some, perhaps most,
of the
speakers referred to the coming of Christ for His Church as the second
coming
of Christ. One speaker, however, apparently echoing C. F. Hogg,
affirmed that
the coming of Christ for the Church is not the second coming of Christ
at all,
because He does not quite come to the earth. He said the second coming
of
Christ is His coming in glory and power to establish His Kingdom. Dr.
D. G.
Barnhouse, in an article in Revelation, Nov. 1942, says that
neither of
these positions is correct. The correct position, he affirms, is that
the
second coming of Christ is not an event at all but rather “a series of
events”
distributed through “an indeterminate period of years.”
Surely
one can
sympathize with the lament of C.H.M. (CHARLES H. MCINTOSH). in his
Papers on
the Lord’s Coming, p. 33: “It is wonderful how speedily the human mind
wanders
away into the wildest and grossest confusion and error.”
The
present writer
comes to this study with the deepest sense of unworthiness, making no
profession of being either a scholar or theologian. His preparation for
the
task may be epitomized by saying that after receiving degrees from
It has
not been
easy for him to come to his present position inasmuch as he has for
years
accepted without question the popular view that the Church will escape
the
Tribulation by being raptured to heaven. It was during preparation for
a series
of addresses on the Apocalypse that the light began to dawn. While
reading over
6300 pages of comments on the Book of Revelation he was disturbed by
finding
such a diversity of Opinion amongst trusted premillennialists. While
differences of view concerning many of the minor details is of such a
book are
hardly to be wondered at, the dogmatism with which many of these
opinions were
expressed considerably distressed the writer and drove him more than
ever to
the Word itself. For example, one writer makes what appears an
artificial
and arbitrary distinction and then adds: “We must not confound things
which God
in His infinite wisdom has made to differ!” When men claim for their
opinions
“the infinite wisdom of God,” it is not surprising that many of their
readers,
not wishing to oppose the “infinite wisdom of God,” swallow everything
propounded, hook, line, and sinker.
This
writer,
however, finally lost faith in the ipse dixit of many a Bible
teacher
and re-examined the prophetic Word, with the result that many of his
long
cherished views had to be jettisoned. He has come to believe that the
view that
the Church will not pass into or through the Great Tribulation is based
largely
upon arbitrary interpretations of obscure passages. And it has been of
some
encouragement to know that the writer finds himself in essential
agreement with
many of the greatest premillennial teachers of all time.
We are
indebted to
Bishop Handley Moule for reminding us that Paul wanted his converts,
under the
Spirit’s guidance, to think for themselves. “Brethren, be not children
in
understanding,” wrote Paul to the Corinthians. Again, he tells the
Ephesians
that the five-fold gift of Christ to His Church (apostles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors, and teachers) has a five-fold purpose. It is for
the
perfecting of the saints (literally “the repairing of the saints!”),
for the
work of the ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ, that all
may come
in unity of faith and knowledge to a perfect man, and that we no longer
as
children be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of
doctrine,
but speaking the truth in love, may grow up.
While
the author
may appear rather straight-forward and severe in some of the things he
will
say, he does not want to be known as a theological iconoclast but one
who sincerely
desires to help others
into the light he now enjoys.
The
plan is very
simple. First, an examination of what the New Testament has to say in
the
passages in which are found the words which are the English equivalents
of the
Greek word that is rendered tribulation. Second, a brief view of the
most
familiar Old Testament passages that are referred to the Great
Tribulation. And
finally, an attempted evaluation of the commonest arguments in favor of
the
proposition that the Church will not pass through the period of trial.
The
arguments for the positive side will be brought out in the examination
of the
arguments for the negative position.
The
word
tribulation translates a Greek word, thlibo (verb) or thlipsis
(noun). This Greek word occurs fifty-five times in the New Testament.
Thayer
translates the verb “to press” (as grapes), “to press hard upon,” from
which we
have the thought of oppression, distress, affliction, and
tribulation.
Eight
different
words are used in the Authorized Version to translate this Greek word
in its
fifty-five occurrences. They are: tribulation, anguish, burdened,
narrow,
persecution, throng, trouble, and affliction. We shall do well to
examine
each passage to discover whether the word has reference to the present
pressure
to which the Church is subjected or whether the reference is to the
unexampled
period of suffering yet to take place which is called the Great
Tribulation, or
whether the suffering is the divine retribution to be visited upon an
ungodly
world after Christ returns in glory.
Of the
fifty-five
instances we find that in twenty-two the word is rendered tribulation.
Let us first of all look at these.
Matt.
13:21 “Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for
when tribulation or persecution
ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.”
This
reference in
the parable of the soils is to the trouble that comes to one who
receives God’s
Word. The affliction has its source in the enemies of God and of His
Word.
There is no reference to a future Great Tribulation
Matt.
21.21 For then shall
be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world
to this
time, no, nor ever shall be.’’
Clearly
this
points to the Great Tribulation, a period of unprecedented suffering in
the
future. From the immediate context we learn that it will take place
when the
abomination spoken of by Daniel stands in the holy place, or, to be
more
accurate, the appearing of this abomination will be the signal that the
Great
Tribulation is soon to break upon the scene. Those living in Palestine
at that
time, who have any familiarity with this prophecy, will see in the
abomination
a warning to flee to the mountains before the fury--very likely of a
military
character-- is let loose.
This
period of
suffering will be shortened for the purpose of manifesting to the elect
what
may be called survival grace. There is nothing here to indicate
who the
elect are, although there is every likelihood the term refers to the
Church,
inasmuch as of the fifteen other occurrences of the word elect
in the
New Testament, one refers to Christ, another to certain angels, and
there is no
sound reason for supposing the other thirteen do not refer to the
Church, or
individual members of the Church.
This
obviously
refers to the same Great Tribulation and fixes the time of it as
immediately
before the coming of Christ in power and glory, or, more accurately,
immediately before the cosmic signs that herald the early arrival of
Christ.
From this context we learn that at least one purpose of His coming is
to gather
His elect. The elect here are the same as the ones for whom the
Tribulation
will be shortened. The most natural reference is to the Church. Just as
in the
description of the gathering of the elect in 1 Thes. 4, there is the
sounding
of a trumpet.
In
this passage in
Matthew our Lord goes on to show what should be the two-fold attitude
of His
followers (the “ye” of v. 42). It should be one of watchfulness (v. 42)
and
readiness (v. 44). The watchfulness undoubtedly refers to “these
things”
of v. 33, that is, the signs of Christ’s coming. The readiness speaks
of the
heart attitude and faithfulness that characterize those who “love His
appearing.” Watchfulness helps to produce the readiness. There is thus
both an
intellectual and a moral preparation for His coming.
This
refers to the
suffering which is the lot of all who are identified with Him who was
the Man
of Sorrows. There is nothing here to indicate that the suffering Church
will
not go on into the Great Tribulation. Christ’s followers are to be of
good
cheer, not because He will come and remove them from a sphere of
suffering but
because He will enable them to be overcomers in the midst of it,
inasmuch as He
has already overcome the evil world system. This promise is
particularly
illuminating as we look at it in the light of the much-debated Rev. 3:
10,
following which is the promise to the overcomer which promise
obviously
can have no meaning if one is previously removed from the sphere of
trial.
The
late Dan
Crawford of Africa has distinguished between the poets and the Bible.
The poet
says: “Cheer up! The best is yet to be!” The Bible says: “Cheer up! The
worst
is yet to come!” There is cheer for believers because our Lord has
already
overcome the world which is the source of our sorrows.
“Much
tribulation”
here should be “many tribulations.” These words epitomize the message
of Paul
in the very city of
If we read thus in the light of its context, particularly verses 5--8, 16 it will be clear that Paul is referring to the divine judgment that will fall upon the ungodly in the “day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” This day cannot be held to refer to the Great Tribulation but, as Canon Moule has well said, to “the definite time of the Lord’s appearing” to raise the dead and judge the world. This is confirmed in 2 Thes. 1:6--9 where Paul affirms that Christ’s coming in flaming fire introduces the day of wrath against all who have been against God and Christ.
In the
following
verses the reference is so clearly to the sufferings of the present
that I
shall be content to merely enumerate the verses: Rom. 5:3; 8:35; 12:12;
2 Cor.
1:4; 7:4; Eph. 3:13; 1 Thes. 3:4; 2 Thes. 1:4,6; Rev. 1:9; 2:9.
Rev. 2:10 “Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.”
This
promise of
suffering for ten days has been thought to refer to the ten major
persecutions
of the Church in early times. There is no clear reference to the Great
Tribulation. Even if some should think there is, the principle of a
Church
removed from a sphere of suffering is not illustrated here but the very
opposite, and a reward is promised to the overcomers.
Rev. 2:22 “Behold, I will cast her into a bed and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.”
There
is no clear
reference here to the Great Tribulation. If any of the pre-Tribulation
Rev. 7:14 “ These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”
Here
is the only
New Testament passage in which the definite article is used, in the
original,
before Great Tribulation, and therefore there is no doubt of
the meaning
here. It is a picture of a great company of people who have come out of
the
Great Tribulation. They have been drawn from all nations and tribes and
stand
before the heavenly throne cleansed by the blood of Christ. God Himself
wipes
away the tears of tribulation. No clearer picture in the Bible can be
found of
the
Now
that we have
examined the passages in which thlibo, thlipsis is translated tribulation,
we shall briefly notice those in which it is translated by the seven
other
words already referred to. On twenty-one occasions it is rendered
affliction or
one of its derivatives. In but one of these is the reference clearly to
the
future Great Tribulation, namely in Mark 13:19, and this corresponds to
Matt. 24:21
upon which we have already commented.
Seven times the word is rendered trouble or one of its derivatives. In no instance is there any reference to the Great Tribulation. Thlipsis is rendered but once in each of the following anguish, burdened. narrow, persecution, and throng. In each instance there is no clear connection with the Great Tribulation. The interpretation is so obvious that I omit the references, which, if one cares to examine them, can readily be found in an analytical concordance.
Summary
Of the fifty-five occurrences of the word thlibo, thlipsis, there are but three passages that clearly refer to the Great Tribulation, namely Matt. 24:21 (Mark 13:19), Matt. 24:29 (Mark 13:24), and Rev. 7:14. Most of the other passages relate to the sufferings of the Church in this present age.
This
Great
Tribulation is described as a time of unprecedented suffering to come
upon the
world. It will begin soon after the abomination, predicted by Daniel,
stands in
the holy place of the restored Jewish temple. It will be followed by
the
glorious appearing of Christ who comes for the purpose of gathering out
of the
world His elect. This period will be shortened as a manifestation of
His grace.
To prepare the elect for Christ’s coming, certain signs of His near
advent will
be given. The elect are to watch for the signs and be ready for the
coming.
After the Great Tribulation is past, a great multitude of blood-washed
from all
the nations and tribes appears before the throne of God who wipes away
the
tears occasioned by their tribulation.
In
each of these
three passages that speak clearly of the Great Tribulation, there are
indications that point to the Church passing through the period.
In Matt.
24:21 we find the period shortened for the elect, a term that in the
New
Testament always refers to the Church or individual Christians, except
in two
instances where the reference is to Christ and to certain angels. In
Matt. 21:29 we learn that the Great Tribulation is just before Christ
returns for the purpose of
gathering His elect. In Rev. 7:14 we see a great blood-washed throng
before the
throne, the description of which fits the Church perfectly.
Therefore
it would
seem that the conclusion is inevitable that, so far as these three
clear
passages are concerned, we are fully justified in believing the Church
will
pass through the Great Tribulation. At least, there is nothing in these
passages that teaches the contrary and much that argues for it.
WITHOUT
attempting
an exhaustive survey of Old Testament passages that speak of the Great
Tribulation, I would mention a few that are said to refer to it.
It is said that this is the first clear delineation of the coming Great Tribulation to be found in the Old Testament. The words, “in the latter days,” serve to identify it.
Jer. 30:7 “Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he shall be saved out of it.”
Many
have
identified this passage with the Great Tribulation and with good
reason, for
the unparalleled degree of suffering ties in with our Lord’s
description of the
Tribulation as a time when suffering will be at its zenith. It is
instructive
to note in v. 24 that “in the latter days” the suffering of the Jews
will
provoke deep thought.
It would seem that at the end of the age there will be an unequaled attempt to exterminate the Jews but, as Jeremiah says, it will prove abortive, for Israel will be saved out of this time of trouble. God will preserve a remnant that will come through the fire unscathed, even as the three Hebrews went through the fiery trial of Nebuchadnezzar. We find confirmation of this in Rev. 7:1--8 where we are told that destructive forces are to be held in check until God has sealed 144,000 (very likely a symbolical number) from the twelve tribes of Israel. Dr. Harry Ironside in his Not Wrath But Rapture says in this connection that this period is the time of Jacob’s trouble, not the time of the Church’s trouble. He says the Church is having its time of trouble now. But, let us ask, what is there to hinder both the Church and Israel being in trouble at the same time? If Jacob is not having trouble now, as we think of the millions of Jews in Europe that are being slowly or suddenly exterminated, who knows what trouble is?
Dan. 12:1 “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be 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.”
The
unprecedented
character of the trial here set forth clearly identifies this with the
Great
Tribulation. As in Jer. 30:7 it is said that Israel will be saved or
delivered
out of it.
Dr.
Ironside
mentions Isa. 13:6-13 as a passage that refers to the Great
Tribulation. The
events in that passage are said to take place at the Day of the Lord,
which I
believe can be proved to be not the Tribulation at all but rather the
time of
the manifestation of divine wrath at the coming of Christ. This passage
speaks
of certain cosmic signs in sun, moon, and stars, and if one reads this
in the
light of Matt. 24:29 which says that these take place “immediately
after the
tribulation,” one will not be likely to confound Isa. 13:6-13 with the
Great
Tribulation. Scofield confirms this by referring to Rev. 19:11--21 as a
parallel
passage.
1. Not a syllable of Scripture affirms the Church will enter or pass through the Tribulation.
SUCH
is the claim
of Dr. C. I. Scofield in a special pamphlet on the subject. He says
that in the
“new promise” of John 14:1--3 there is no hint of such a thing. Not a
sign is
given, he says, in contrast to the signs given to Israel in the Olivet
Discourse. He affirms that in that discourse all the signs except the
cosmic
ones precede the Tribulation and “are markedly Jewish in character.”
While
the argument
from the silences of Scripture may sometimes be permissible, it needs
to be
used with great caution. Because our Lord had no desire to mention
signs in
John 14 does not imply that He is describing an entirely different
event from
that of Matthew 24. It is passing strange that anyone would infer that
the few
words concerning our Lord’s coming in John 14 were intended to
constitute a
detailed and complete description of the Second Coming in all its
prophetic
relations!
Some of the signs in Matthew 24 are obviously Jewish in character. Still it is far from true to affirm that all of them are “markedly Jewish in character.” One of the signs is that of wars and rumors of wars. Anyone who would say that such a sign is distinctively Jewish is not only unfamiliar with the stormy history of the Gentile nations but lays himself open to the charge of anti-Semitic bias. Of course no one who knew Dr. Scofield would say for a moment that such a picture of ignorance and racial bias characterized him, but such could be a logical implication of his broad statement concerning the signs of Matthew 24.
As I shall hope to point out later, there is no justification for
limiting the
message of Matthew to the Jews any more than we are justified in saying
that
the Great Commission and promise of Christ’s presence of Matthew
28:18--20 are
not for the Church. It is strange that, if Jesus was addressing the
disciples
in the upper room as representatives of His Church that would soon be
baptized
into existence, a few hours later on the other side of the Kidron He
would be
addressing them exclusively as representatives of the Jewish nation! I
do not
say that He could not have done so but the burden of proof is with
those who
would make such a distinction.
The only passage that clearly sets forth the time-relation of the Tribulation to the coming of Christ is in Matt. 24:29 where we are told the coming of Christ will be “immediately after the Tribulation.” If there is another coming of Christ before the Tribulation, why is there not somewhere in the Scriptures an equally unambiguous statement to that effect? Why is it necessary to defend the position by elaborate reasonings based upon obscure passages?
2. The character of God as a God of grace demands that the Church not go through the Tribulation
This is another of the arguments of Dr. Scofield and others. “Is the Great Tribulation a kind of purgatory?” he asks. Allowing the Church to pass through the Tribulation no more reflects on the character of God as a God of grace than the suffering of believers all through the present age is a reflection on God. The present Christian course is described in the Scriptures as a “straight and narrow way,” and that word narrow means literally tribulatory. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Church will suffer any more during the Tribulation than it has suffered on many occasions since the day of Pentecost.
W. R.
Newell in
his commentary on the Apocalypse, p. 382, argues that since the great
majority of
the Church already has escaped the Tribulation period by dying and
going to
heaven, why suppose that a relatively small segment of the Church at
the end
will be subjected to a trial the others escaped? Would this not be a
reflection
on the character of God?
To
this I would
reply that the Church is not the object of divine wrath during the
Tribulation
nor any other time, but only the object of Satanic wrath, and we do not
know
how severe that will be. Certainly we have no assurance it will be
worse than much
of the suffering already experienced. Furthermore, who are we to judge
God by
saying He should see to it that no Christian suffers more than another?
We know
that in the present some Christians have far more of suffering than do
others
and this is all within the inscrutable and all-wise and loving purpose
of God.
Our confidence in Him as a God of justice and mercy is not thereby
impaired if
we are men of genuine faith in God.
If
Newell would
condemn God unless every Christian’s suffering is equated to that of
every
other’s, may we not argue: why should present-day Christians escape
martyrdom
since thousands have had to face it in bygone ages?
Alexander
Reese in
The Approaching Advent of Christ, makes some weighty remarks in
this
connection. He says that men argue: “‘The Church is a heavenly people
in union
with Christ; how horrible and unfitting, therefore, that she should be
exposed
to the dreadful hour of trial under the Devil.’
“Yes,
‘how
horrible and unfitting’ that the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Head of
the
Body, should have been spat upon, nailed to the gibbet as a malefactor,
and
have suffered at the hands of the Devil! . . . Moreover, all the
objections
that Darbyists urge as necessitating the exemption of the Church from
the Great
Tribulation apply with equal force to securing the exemption of the
saints of
Rev. 7:9--17 from the same trial. They are a heavenly people, an
election of
Jews and Gentiles out of all tribes and nations, redeemed by the blood
of
Christ, and saved by grace; they, too, are precious to the
Saviour. If it
is too horrible to think of the Church in the last crisis, then why is
it not
too horrible to conceive of the multitude of Rev. 7:9--17 in the same
trial? Why
cannot theorists spare some pity for the martyrs of the End-time, and
free them
also from affliction?
“Again,
did not
the Lord have a tender regard for His Church? If there was some
compelling
reason why His people should be exempt from the last fiery trial, why
did not
He convey some indication of it? Instead, in a long discourse to the
Apostles
on the consummation of this evil Age He used language that not only
presupposed
that His beloved saints would be in that trial, but He actually gave
them
instructions concerning their conduct in it. He even promised the
Church His
spiritual presence until the End of the Age of which the Great
Tribulation is a
consummation (Matt. 28:20). Yet it is this very teaching that is cast
off as
‘Jewish’ and ‘unsuitable’ for the Church. Darbyists, I am very sure,
would not
knowingly say one word derogatory to Christ, yet their devotion to a
theory
often leads them to say unwittingly things that are terribly
irreverent.”
And so we must admit that God is still a God of grace when He permits His Church to enter the Tribulation. God has no favorites amongst His saints but is gracious to them all.
3. The nature of the Great Tribulation is such as to rule out the possibility of the Church being on the earth at that time
The
Great
Tribulation is defined as a time of unprecedented suffering which is
the result
of an outpouring of divine wrath, and this wrath has Israel in
particular as
its object.
While
this
definition contains some truth, we do well to look into the question of
the source
of the wrath, for it is at just this point that some misapprehensions
have
arisen. Scofield and others rightly point to the apocalyptic vials as
divine
judgments. Some forget that some of the suffering of that period stems
from
wicked men. Many of the trials of God’s people in that period arise
from the
blasphemous claims and demand of the Beast that his image be worshiped
and his
mark be inscribed.
In
trying to prove
that the Church will not be on earth during the Tribulation, Dr.
Pettingill
draws a false antithesis. He says the source now of the Church’s
sufferings is
the enemies of God. But the source of suffering in the Tribulation is
God and
the suffering falls upon the enemies of God. Because the enemies of God
suffer
during the Tribulation, therefore the Church will not be on earth.
Which of
course is very obviously a non sequitur. He seems to overlook the fact
that God
has a people on earth during the Tribulation, Satanic wrath is
manifested
against them.
While I would not draw upon Old Testament analogies for proof, we at least find the principle illustrated by Israel during the Egyptian plagues. God’s wrath was manifested against His enemies, the Egyptians, but God’s earthly people were not removed entirely from the sphere of suffering. Therefore we must conclude that the question as to whether the Church will be in the Tribulation or not is not affected by the question of the source of the wrath to he manifested at that time. Why cannot it be consistent with the divine purpose for the Church to go through the Tribulation without being compelled to feel the full force of it, even as the Israelites went through the plague-period in Egypt? Surely the Church has been permitted to pass through many other periods of suffering and anguish so acute that if those who went through them should have to go through the Tribulation, they would not feel they had missed anything during their first period of trial.
To be
sure it may
be said that while God is the ultimate source of all the wrath
manifested in
the Tribulation He may channel some of it through evil men as He has
done down
through the years. But the moment we make that admission, the
force of
Pettingill’s distinction is destroyed. To-day evil men are permitted of
God to
both punish themselves and chasten believers.
We would conclude then that all questions of the source, purpose, and channel of the wrath manifested during the Tribulation have nothing to do with the question whether the Church will be on earth at that time. If the Church is here, we may possess an unwavering confidence that God will deal with His own in absolute wisdom and grace, whether they suffer to greater or less degree or are kept unscathed through the period.
My
personal
conviction is that the Church will be here and will suffer to some
extent “for
a testimony.” Still we are permitted to recall the comforting principle
enunciated in 1 Cor. 10:13 (which of course is not limited in its
application
to God’s people now) that God will not permit His own to be tested
above that
they are able but will with the testing open some way of escape. The
way of
escape will not necessarily be a rapture out of the world but may very
well be
a divine preservation through the period of trial. Paul indicates that
the
purpose of the way to escape is “that ye may be able to bear it.” If we
were
removed from the scene we would not be bearing the testing.
Furthermore,
Paul
says the way to escape is with the testing. The way to escape might
take the
form of a partial exemption from suffering, or a leading of believers
into a
more complete appropriation of their resources in Christ, the faithful
and
sympathetic High Priest and coming Deliverer. If the principles in 1
Cor. 10:13 are applicable to-day, we may be sure they will be to-morrow.
It is
commonly
argued that since Scripture plainly teaches that believers will not
come into
judgment (John 5:24 ) , therefore the Church will not enter
Tribulation. The
error in that conclusion is found in the assumption (drawn upon only
for the
sake of this argument) that the only wrath the death of Christ exempts
the
believer from is the wrath that is manifested during the Tribulation
Period.
But the Word of God is very clear that there are at least two other
periods
when divine wrath will be manifested. There is the wrath that will be
poured
out after the Tribulation when Christ returns in glory, as is
abundantly clear
in Rev. 6:15--17 and 2 Thes. 1:8. There is also the everlasting wrath
that will
be experienced in hell.
Alford
rightly
points out the importance of distinguishing between the trials of the
people of
God and the judgments upon an unbelieving world. In his comments on
Rev. 7:1--8
he makes it clear that the 144,000 are sealed for purposes of exempting
them
from the judgments that are to fall upon unbelievers. To be sure,
in this
particular case, the reference is to a certain body of Jews. But the
same
principle naturally applies to all of God’s own. Every
believer has
a divine seal guaranteeing that he will not come into divine
wrath. But
thus is not to say that he will not witness the manifestation of divine
wrath
upon an unbelieving world during the Tribulation. We must be quite
certain of
one thing. Deliverance from divine wrath does not necessarily imply
deliverance
from the sphere of that wrath. The sealed ones of Rev. 9:4 are not
delivered
from the sphere of wrath but the locusts are forbidden to touch those
with the
seal of God in their forehead.
We
have yet to
consider the third portion of the definition of the Tribulation,
namely, the
claim that Israel is the particular object of the divine wrath to be
manifested
then. While it is true that in Jer. 30:7 this period is called “the
time of
Jacob’s trouble,” this is not to say that unbelieving Jews in that
period will
be any more the objects of the wrath of God than unbelieving Gentiles.
We
cannot agree with one who says that the Great Tribulation is a
distinctly
national and Jewish calamity, in the light of the universal terms used
in the
book of Revelation to describe those who must suffer. For example:
“them that
dwell on the earth,” “all, both small and great,” “the kings of the
earth,” and
“the hour of temptation which shall come on all the world.”
At the
same the we
shall not overlook the possibility that the Jew will be the storm
center by
reason of the abomination that maketh desolate being in the restored
Jewish
temple in
Dr. J.
H. Cohn in
his booklet, Will the Church Escape the Tribulation? says: “The
Word of
God refers to this period specifically as the ‘time of Jacob’s
trouble.’
Therefore how incongruous and inconsistent it is to inject the Church
into it.”
By the same reasoning we could conclude that there will be no unsaved
Gentiles
in the world at that time. If the Church is permitted to remain in the
world
to-day while Jewry is undergoing a terrible tribulation in Europe and
elsewhere, why is there any incongruity in the thought of the Church
being in
the world during the Tribulation when Israel will suffer again?
It is
interesting
to observe the frequent emphasis men lay upon the first portion of Jer.
30:7,
“the time of Jacob’s trouble,” while the latter part of the verse is
frequently
soft-pedaled, “but he shall be saved out of it.” If a Jewish rabbi took
the
liberties with this verse that many a prophetic student takes with Rev.
3:10,
insisting that it can only mean deliverance by rapture, these Christian
prophetic students would disagree with him. And to prove their belief
that the
Jew will not be raptured away from the Tribulation, they would point to
Jer.
30:11 where we learn that Israel, so far from being removed by rapture
before
the Tribulation, will be saved out of it in the sense of being left in
it to be
preserved by the Lord from complete destruction. The purpose is
expressed in
the words, “Yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct
thee in
measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.” And they would
confirm
this by referring to the sealed of Israel in Rev. 7, and rightly so.
But when
it comes to the Church, they somehow believe that God would not let it
suffer
to any degree, in spite of the fact that He has permitted it all down
the
centuries.
A
further thought
concerning the promise of deliverance in Jer. 30:7. Israel’s
deliverance will
be two-fold. She will be saved from this hour in the sense of being
preserved
from annihilation. She will also be saved at the end of the period by
the
appearance of her heavenly Deliverer. As Paul says: “And so all Israel
shall be saved, As it is written, There shall come out of
An
excellent
illustration of this is seen in the experience of the three Hebrews in
the
fiery furnace of Nebuchadnezzar. They said to the king: “Our God whom
we serve
is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will
deliver us
out of thine hand, O king.” However, they went into the furnace and
were
preserved through it and delivered from it in the sense of not being
annihilated. They came out alive, and the king, after it was over, made
a
significant admission: “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abednego,
who hath sent His angel, and delivered His servants that trusted in
Him.”
The
issue was
whether they would worship an image set up by this heathen king or
remain true
to God. Will not this be the issue in the day of Tribulation when the
Antichrist demands the worship of an image? Perhaps these three Hebrews
of old
are intended to be a comfort to the faithful remnant of Israel that
remains
true through the Tribulation as well as to all of God’s faithful ones
in that
day!
That
there will be
people of God in the Tribulation disproves the argument of J. H.
Cohn’s, Will
the Church Escape the Tribulation?, p. 14, that the Church will not
go into
the Tribulation because “full corruption cannot set in until all the
salt has
been removed.” There is nothing to indicate that “full corruption” will
characterize life on the earth in the Great Tribulation, for there will
be the
elect on earth at that time. The great multitude of the redeemed of
Rev. 7:9
who emerge from the Great Tribulation hardly permits the thought of a
fullness
of corruption.
It would seem, therefore, that a careful examination of the testimony of Scripture concerning the nature of the Tribulation does not give any warrant for the supposition that the Church must of necessity be excluded from that period.
4. The nature of the Church forbids the thought of its going through the Tribulation
In Dr.
H. A.
Ironside’s Introduction to Dr. H. C. Thiessen’s Will the Church
Pass Through
the Tribulation?, we read: “Through infinite grace, we who belong
to the
Body of Christ are not earth-dwellers, but our citizenship is in
heaven.
Consequently, we have no part in the wrath that is to be poured out
upon
apostate Christendom and Judaism.”
While
there is, of
course, the fullest recognition of the blessed truth of the Church’s
heavenly
citizenship and character as the Body of Christ, we need to use great
care lest
we draw from this affirmation some unwarranted inferences. What is
meant by “We
. . . are not earth-dwellers?” I realize that some interpreters of the
book of
Revelation have given the term “earth-dwellers” a technical meaning
which it
may or may not bear. Whatever one’s attitude on this question, we must
face the
sober reality that the Church does actually dwell on the earth now, and
that
her heavenly citizenship which is a present fact confers upon her no
immunity
from suffering to-day. Why should it to-morrow? Immunity from divine
wrath in
the Tribulation confers no immunity from Satanic wrath.
Since
the Church
is a heavenly people in possession of a heavenly hope, it does not
follow that
the Church’s hope consists primarily in the desire to escape suffering
on
earth. I know of no passage in Scripture that encourages believers to
hope they
may escape the horrors of the Tribulation. On the contrary, with many a
passage
that speaks of the Christian’s hope we find linked the thought of
patient
endurance. In Rom. 5:3--4 we read:
Our
heavenly
citizenship does not absolve us from civic responsibility to-day, we
are to “Render
unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”, nor will it immunize us
from the
sorrows of to-morrow.
An argument that is hardly worth noticing is that of Sir Robert Anderson. He says that the Church, the mystical Body of Christ, has no corporate existence on the earth. Therefore it cannot as such pass through the Tribulation. I say this is hardly worth noticing because nobody contends that the Church that passes through the Tribulation is the final, complete, corporate entity which has no existence until the last person is added to it that God has called. To claim that one cannot properly speak of the “Church” except in the final corporate sense is an absurd quibbling over terms. When people speak of the Church passing through the Tribulation they naturally mean that part of the Church which is living on earth at that time.
5. The doctrine of the mission of the Holy Spirit is said to provide an argument that the Church will not go through the Tribulation
Although
it is
generally admitted that the Holy Spirit was in the world before
Pentecost and
will be in the world after the Rapture of the Church, it is maintained
that the
Holy Spirit is now in the world in a peculiar sense and is the
influence
referred to by Paul in 2 Thes. 2:6--7 which restrains the manifestation
of the
Man of Sin. We are told that the taking away of this hindering
influence is at
the alleged pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Spirit indwelt Church.
In the first place it is well to issue a warning concerning the peril of building a doctrine on such an obscure passage. It is far from a general consensus of opinion that the influence Paul refers to is that of the Holy Spirit. Dr. Ironside has no uncertainty about it and thinks that every Christian, in reading 2 Thes. 2:6, would say:
“There
is only one
answer possible and that is, of course, the Holy Spirit.” (Not Wrath
But
Rapture--p. 27.) C.H.M. (CHARLES H. MCINTOSH). on the other hand
is not so
dogmatic and says: “Some have considered that the hinderer or hindrance
was the Roman Empire; others that it is the Holy Ghost in the
Church. To this
latter we have inclined for many years; though it may be there is a
measure of
truth in the former.” (Papers on the Lord’s Coming, p. 49, footnote.)
He adds
that his conviction is that other Scriptures sufficiently establish the
pre-Tribulation rapture, even if this one does not.
Some
have believed
that the hindering influence is that of law and order as embodied in
the Roman Empire. It is argued, and with considerable cogency, that
Paul was purposely
enigmatic and merely reminded the Thessalonians that they knew very
well, from
previous instruction he had given them, just what the restraining
influence was
in their day, namely, the Roman Empire. Paul naturally refrained from
being
specific on paper because he did not wish to endanger the Christian
movement by
laying it open to charges of sedition through teaching that the system
of Roman
law and order would some day break down.
Some might ask: “What of the fact that Christ did not return and destroy Antichrist when the Roman Empire disintegrated? Does this not empty this theory of any value?” Not necessarily, for it is true that Roman law lives on as the foundation of modern European jurisprudence which has served as a great bulwark against lawlessness. It is not difficult to believe that in the light of present-day world chaos the day may soon come when war and apostasy will unite in destroying the last vestiges of Roman law and order and thus ripen the world for an antichristian world federation under the Man of Sin.
6. “The typical analogies are violated by the notion that the Church will go through the Great Tribulation.” (C. I. Scofield)
Dr.
Scofield cites
two of these as of “special significance,” namely, the translation of
Enoch
before the judgment of the Flood, and the deliverance of Lot before the
destruction of
One
can easily
find other analogies to prove the Church will be preserved through the
Tribulation. For example, the Israelites in their marvelous
preservation
through the plagues of Egypt, and the three Hebrews who were brought
unscathed
through Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace.
The fact is that it is purely arbitrary to try to prove anything by such analogies. One imagines he can easily prove to his own satisfaction anything one wishes to. When will men cease carrying their little trays through the cafeteria of Scripture, picking and choosing whatever strikes their fancy? The chief value of such comparisons lies in the revelation of the variety of ways in which God works and cares for His own. God refuses to be forced into a groove.
7. The doctrine of the Church escaping the Tribulation is proved by the alleged fact of the double coming of Christ
If
frequent
reiteration of an unproved theory soon transforms it into an unshakable
conviction, then we can understand the huge vogue that the theory of
the double
coming of Christ now enjoys in premillennial circles. It is commonly
taught
that Christ’s coming is in two phases. First He comes secretly for His
Church
before the Tribulation, and a number of years later, perhaps seven, He
comes
publicly for purposes of judgment and the establishment of His Kingdom.
I once held to this theory myself until I painstakingly examined the Scriptural basis for it. Now I am convinced it has no solid Scriptural foundation whatever.
Let us look at a number of instances that illustrate how men unwittingly twist Scripture in order to get proof texts for their theory. A favorite proof text is Acts 1:11
Let us
see what
C.H.M. (CHARLES H. MCINTOSH)., for example, gets out of this verse in
his Papers
on the Lord’s Coming, pp. 16, 17, 23. He claims that the as and so
imply
that, as Jesus was last seen only by His own followers, so He will next
return
to be seen by His own followers alone. “All this, blessed be God, is
wrapped up
in the two little words as and so.”
How
anyone can
possibly see more in these words than a description of the manner of
Christ’s
return is a striking illustration of what false doctrine does to one’s
mental
and spiritual discernment. It would almost seem that the angelic
spokesmen had
a premonition that the day would come when men would fail to see that
as and so
are only words of manner and so they added the words “in like manner”
that
there might be no misunderstanding! This passage has nothing whatever
to say
about the spectators at Christ’s return. If it does have anything to do
with
the spectators, then perhaps we should be consistent and say that as
Christ
left from the presence of His eleven disciples, so we may expect that
only
those eleven disciples will witness His return.
Apparently
such treatment of
Scripture as is here exemplified by C.H.M. (CHARLES H. MCINTOSH). can
hardly be
called exegesis but rather eisegesis. While we may have no exegetical
proof
that the curse of Rev. 22:18 applies to more than the book of
Revelation, or to
other than those who with deliberation add to Holy Writ, the desire to
be led
by Him who is the Spirit of Truth should lead one to treat the Word of
God with
more consideration.
Another
example of
eisegesis is to be found in the treatment accorded 1 Cor. 15:51--52 by
Rev.
Albert Lindsey at the New York Prophetic Congress of 1942, as recorded
in the
book of addresses, The Sure Word of Prophecy, p. 269. He claims
that the
secrecy of Christ’s coming for His Church is proved by the words “in
the
twinkling of an eye.” If one reads the passage unhampered by any
preconceived
notions, one will clearly see that it says nothing whatever about the
alleged
secrecy of Christ’s advent. Paul is not discussing the speed or
suddenness or
secrecy of Christ’s coming. He is simply saying that the transformation
of all
saints from a corruptible to an incorruptible state at Christ’s coming
will be
practically instantaneous. “We shall all be changed in a moment.” This
has
nothing whatever to do with the question concerning the publicity of
His
coming--the question whether the unbelieving world will see Christ come
for His
Church. We know from Rev. 1:7 that “Every eye shall see Him,”
and we
have no Scriptural warrant for saying that that refers to a second
phase of His
coming. Furthermore, if the coming in 1 Cor. 15 is the first phase of
the
Second Coming, how account for the phrase, “the last trump”? Should it
not be
“the next to the last trump”?
Another
proof of a
secret coming of Christ that Mr. Lindsey adduces is 1 Thes. 5:2 “For
yourselves
know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the
night.”
It is strange that he would choose a passage that practically all of
those who
distinguish two second comings of Christ apply to the second phase, in
seeking
proof that His coming in the first phase for the Church will be in
secret! He
adds: “Just as a thief does not warn you as to the hour of his coming,
neither
will the Lord Jesus.”
But
let us ask:
“Is Paul teaching that Christ’s coming will be as a thief, so far as
believers
are concerned?” No, he is emphasizing the very opposite. He clearly
states: “But
ye, brethren, are not in darkness that that day should overtake you as
a
thief!” Could language be more explicit? The reason believers are
not in
darkness is because they have been given the light of the prophetic
Word. Not
for nothing has God given them a revelation concerning the harbingers
of the
coming of His Son.
It is
interesting
to note that Dr. L. S. Bauman in his Light from Bible Prophecy,
p. 139,
sees a different significance in the coming of Christ as a thief. He
sees
Christ coming in the role of a kidnapper who will quietly spirit away
the
Church, unseen by the ungodly world. Otherwise he finds this passage
hard to
reconcile with the words, “Every eye shall see Him” of Rev. 1:7.
It would seem that Paul’s crystal clear words, “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness . . . ,“ would forever shut out this interpretation that makes the coming of Christ as a thief or kidnapper apply to the Church! Analogies like illustrations should not be forced to go on all fours. Perhaps before long someone will come out with another novelty of interpretation emphasizing the fact that thieves usually come in disguise and will give this some spiritual application.
Another
so-called
proof of the double coming of Christ is found in the passages that
describe our
Lord’s activities when He returns, activities that concern both the
Church and
the unbelieving world. It is thought that His gracious receiving of His
Church
and His treading the winepress of divine wrath in relation to His
enemies are
so incompatible that one must assume they set forth two different
comings. Such
a theory, however, is not only wholly unnecessary but it introduces
untold
confusion into the study of eschatology. The principle of God acting in
grace
and in judgment at practically the same time is illustrated in the
story of Lot. We find that judgment fell the same day that Lot was
graciously delivered from the
doomed city. Why cannot Christ gather up His own when He appears in the
clouds
and return with no great delay “with all His saints” in judgment upon a
world
that has rejected Him? I am not unmindful of the argument that there
are said
to be a number of events that must take place between Christ’s taking
up the
Church and His return in judgment and that these imply a considerable
lapse of
time. It is my intention to consider this argument in another place.
There
are those
who tell us that Jesus in Matthew 24 and Paul in 1 Thes. 4 are “in
hopeless
contradiction” unless we assume two distinct comings of Christ, one
before and
the other after the Tribulation. If one, whose mind has not been
twisted by
this contradiction-theory, makes a simple study of each passage, one
will be
impressed by the factors that they have in common--the appearing of
Christ in
clouds, the sounding of a trumpet, the gathering of the elect. The
passage in
Matthew differs mainly in giving the relation of this event to other
prophetic
events, indicating that the Rapture of the elect takes place after the
Tribulation. Because there is no reference to the Tribulation or other
related
events in I Thes. 4 in no sense sets up a contradiction between the two
passages.
We are often told that Christ comes the first time for His saints and the second time with His saints. For example, they point to such differing passages as 1 Thes. 4:17 that speaks of His coming for His saints, and 1 Thes. 3:13 that speaks of His coming with them. Why cannot men see that both can occur at the same coming?
Is it
not probable
that when Paul speaks of His coming with His saints, he means that all
the
saints who have died and gone on to heaven will come hack with Him in a
disembodied state in order to enter their bodies at the resurrection
which takes
place before the living are transfigured? If this is so, then we can
fit 1 Thes
3:13 into the picture in 1 Thes. 4, for does it not say in 4:14 that
those who sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him? We must not press the
literalness of the all
of 1 Thes. 3:13, as if it presupposes a prior rapture to heaven of all
saints,
because Paul in that verse makes the coming of Christ with all His
saints the terminus
ad quem for a practical exhortation to increase their love toward
all men.
Their love is to increase until the very moment when Christ returns
with all
His saints. Very obviously, those whose love is increasing are not part
of the
all saints who return. The all can only refer to the disembodied saints
who
return with Christ. Therefore there is here no ground whatever for
affirming a
second coming of Christ as two distinct events.
Another
argument
advanced by Dr. Scofield is that the epistles reveal a coming day of
which the
Old Testament and the four Gospels say nothing. That day, he says, is
called “the
day of Christ” (Phil. 1:10; 2:16) and “the day of our Lord Jesus
Christ” (1
Cor. 1:8). “This new day is the end of the pilgrim pathway. No place
for such a
day can be found in or after the Great Tribulation.”
In
this connection
it is of interest to observe that Dr. Scofield is not in agreement with
all of
those who hold to his general position regarding the relation of the
Church to
the Tribulation. For example, C.H.M. (CHARLES H. MCINTOSH). (CHARLES H.
MCINTOSH). in Papers on the Lord’s Coming, p. 47, says that
“the day of
our Lord Jesus Christ” of 1 Cor. 1:8 refers to “the Day of the Lord,”
that is,
the second phase of Christ’s coming. He would distinguish the two
comings by
saying that the term “coming” refers to the first phase when He returns
to take
up His Church, whereas the terms “appearing” and “day” refer to the
second
phase.
All of
which
emphasizes the arbitrariness of men who have a bent for distinction
without a
difference. Why limit God in His statements concerning an event, which
admittedly has many aspects, by certain rigid rhetorical formulas? It
indicates
a very dangerous tendency in wrongly
“dividing the Word of
truth.” In fact, it is of similar stripe to the habit of
destructive
critics who would divide the Pentateuch into several documents on the
basis of
the use of different names for God, on the assumption that there must
have been
a multiple authorship of the Pentateuch since no man would be likely to
think
of God having more than one name. And yet most of those critics
themselves bear
three names!
Those
who teach a
double coming of Christ and that the Church must be raptured to heaven
before
the Tribulation are forced into weird exegetical vagaries as they seek
to
explain many passages. For example, J. H. Cohn, in The Sure Word of
Prophecy,
p. 218, attempts to explain the meaning of Rom. 11:26--27. He affirms
that when
Paul says “All Israel shall be saved” Paul does not mean anything more
than the
mere preservation from physical annihilation at the hands of the
Antichrist.
How can one possibly handle the Word of God in this fashion, for the
passage
contains two expressions that compel one to see a spiritual
transformation is
involved? (“Turn away ungodliness” and “Take away their sins.”)
Another
exegetical
trap into which men fall is illustrated by a statement by Dr. B. B.
Sutcliffe
in The Sure Word of Prophecy, p. 92, where he says: “The hope
of the
Church is the coming of the Lord, or the ‘blessed hope’; the second
coming of
Christ is the ‘glorious appearing’ of our Savior.” He makes it clear
that the
Church is not to look for the second coming or “glorious appearing” but
only
for the first “coming.” The amazing fact is that both of these terms,
the
“blessed hope” and the “glorious appearing,” between which it
distinguishes,
appear in one verse of Scripture, Titus 2:13, where they are very
obviously
synonymous. And as a further embarrassment, whether they are synonymous
or not,
they both follow the expression “Looking for!”
Another
reason why
a double coming of Christ appears so unlikely is that in passage after
passage,
practical exhortations to Christian faithfulness are connected with
passages
which are said to refer to the second stage of the Second Coming. One
would
hardly think that if the Church will be in heaven for at least seven
years
before the glorious advent, these exhortations would be connected with
that
advent.
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 (1 Thes.
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).
While
it is
logically urged against this view by the late Charles G. Trumbull in
The
Advent Herald, July 15, 1938, that it is not necessarily true that
because
two events are mentioned together they therefore occur simultaneously
or in
close proximity (as the two resurrections in Dan. 12:2 are 1000 years
apart),
nevertheless there are so many passages of Scripture that associate the
first
resurrection with the events that are connected with Christ’s glorious
advent
to set up His Kingdom, that it would seem more than strange, if there
is a
“first” resurrection at least seven years before the “first
resurrection” of
Scripture, that God did not give us a clear revelation to that effect.
How
there can be a “first” before the “first” is a riddle which finds a
ready
solution in the mathematical nightmare of some that the “first
resurrection”
began with that of Lazarus, included Christ’s resurrection, and
includes the
resurrection of the just when Christ returns!
Those
who hold to
the double coming of Christ have long associated the term parousia
with
the coming of Christ for His Church. This Greek word is translated
“coming” in
1 Thes. 4:15 which all agree refers to the Rapture of the Church.
Much
light has been
thrown on the meaning of this word by the archeologists. Deissmann in
his Light
from the Ancient East says that the word has been found in scores
of papyri
documents, and it is “a technical expression for the arrival or the
visit of
the king or the emperor.”
Furthermore,
the
word translated shout in 1 Thes. 4:16 occurs only at this point in the
New
Testament and means, according to the Greek scholar, A. T. Robertson, a
military command. “Christ will come as conqueror,” he adds. Therefore
this
passage in 1 Thes. 4, which has been regarded as a proof of a secret
rapture of
the Church before Christ comes as King to set up His Kingdom, is a
description
of the very same event that will occur after the Tribulation when
Christ comes
in power and great glory like a conquering general. How can one expect
the
triumph of the Antichrist to follow this glorious coming?
It is
enlightening
to note that the term parousia is used in Matt. 24:3, although
quite
inconsistently the advocates of the pre-Tribulation rapture assure us
that the
coming in Matt. 24 is not for the Church. The same term is used in 2
Thes. 2:8
of the coming of Christ in power and glory to destroy the power of the
Antichrist or Lawless One “with the brightness of His coming”
(parousia!) -
Furthermore, John in 1 John 2:28 associates the parousia with
the public
manifestation of Christ. Alexander Reese in The Approaching Advent
of Christ
has a very helpful chapter on the significance of this term.
Another
line of
proof that there will not be a double coming of Christ revolves about
the
meaning of the word “end” as used in the New Testament. In my judgment,
Charles
G. Trumbull’s review of the hook by Reese, The Approaching Advent
of Christ,
which appeared in The Advent Herald of July 15, 1938, is unfair
when it says: “The word ‘end’ does not always have the technical
meaning which Reese
ascribes to it.” And he gives five references in which the word is used
when
the end of the age is not in question (e. g. Malt. 26:58). The natural
inference is that Reese ascribes to the word an unvarying technical
sense. What
Reese actually says is: “There is another word used in the Gospels for
the end;
it is telos, which, when used of the Last Things, means simply
the End
or close of the present world-period; the Day of the appearing of the
Son of
Man, our Lord and Savior.”
Reese proceeds to cite a number of passages which show that the end when used in the eschatological sense is associated with the Church’s hope of Christ’s coming. For example, 1 Cor. 1:7--8; Heb. 3:6, 14; 6:11; Rev. 2:25--26. In the light of these passages, we may fairly conclude that the end in Matt. 24:14 is the same end. If this is so, we shall believe that this preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom in all the world is proclaimed by the Church and not merely by a Jewish Tribulation remnant.
8. It is claimed that the epistles that were written for the special enlightenment of the Church make no mention of the Tribulation
Here
we encounter again
the dangerous argument based on the silences of Scripture. Since “all
scripture
is given by inspiration of God and is profitable,” and since portions
other
than the “Church epistles” seem to be clear in their testimony to the
presence
of the Church in the Tribulation, this argument appears to have a very
slender
foundation.
W. R.
Newell is
one exponent of this argument and he says in his commentary on the book
of
Revelation, p. 389: “The Great Tribulation is not once mentioned by
Paul in his
epistles which govern the churches (Romans to Philemon), nor in
Hebrews; nor
are the saints warned of it.”
To say
that Paul
does not once mention the Tribulation when he does deal in some detail
with the
chief figure of the Tribulation, the Antichrist, in 2 Thes. 2, is to
make a
statement that is not quite true. Furthermore, would W. R. Newell
affirm that
because certain “Church epistles” fail to teach the virgin birth of
Christ
therefore it is no part of the Christian faith? God evidently knew what
He was
doing when He failed to incorporate in the “Church epistles” detailed
information about the Tribulation, for we find this in other portions
of the
Word which are intended to deal with matters of prophecy such as
Daniel,
Revelation, and Matthew 24. God wastes no words in needless repetition.
It is also not quite accurate to affirm that the saints are not warned of a coming Tribulation, for we find many a passage in these epistles written for the express purpose of preparing the saints for times of great suffering. To be sure, suffering has been their lot through the ages, but there is nothing to indicate the saints will be exempt from the last great trial. We must not suppose that the revelation concerning the Antichrist in 2 Thes. 2 was incorporated in a “Church epistle” merely to satisfy intellectual curiosity. The whole setting reveals a practical purpose to encourage believers, and in 2 Thes. 3:5 we find the apostle praying that the Lord may direct their hearts into a patient waiting for Christ.
9. Since the Church did not exist during the 69 weeks of Daniel, there is no reason for supposing it will be on earth during the 70th
Dr.
Thiessen in Will the Church
Pass Through the Tribulation?, pp. 18--19, writing of the 70 weeks
(Dan.
9:24-27), says: “The entire period has to do with Daniel’s people and
Daniel’s
holy city … the Church is not at all in view in that prophecy… Between
the 69th
and 70th weeks there is a long interval… The seventieth week is still
future.
If the Church did not exist during the weeks that are past, how can we
suppose
it to be on earth during the week that is yet to come? We must always
remember
that all these weeks are Jewish in nature.”
Granting
that
Daniel’s seventieth week comprehends the Great Tribulation, why must we
suppose
that Dan. 9:24-27 is an exhaustive description of that period? Dr.
Thiessen’s
statement carries that implication. He assumes that because the Church
is not
mentioned in this passage, it cannot be present in this period. True,
there is
no mention of the Church in Dan. 9 nor is it the clear subject of
revelation at
all in the Old Testament.
The
argument from
silence can easily be used to prove anything one wishes. If Thiessen
argues
that the Church will not be on earth because not mentioned in Dan.
9:24-27, and
since he says that “all these weeks are Jewish in nature,” what right
have we
to believe that there will be any but Jews on earth during the Great
Tribulation? If the Church will not be on earth then because not
mentioned in
so many words, why may we suppose there will be Gentiles on the earth
in that
day? This simply indicates the reductio ad absurdum to which
the
argument from the silences of Scripture passages leads.
It is
not at all
difficult to imagine how the Church can be on earth during the 70th
week although
it was not on earth during the 69 weeks. For, according to Thiessen
himself,
the Church came into existence in the interval preceding the 70th week,
and it
should not be difficult to account for its existence on earth during
the 70th
week, inasmuch as there is absolutely no clear Scriptural proof that it
will be
removed before the 70th week.
Furthermore,
it
should not be overlooked that in other descriptions of the Tribulation
not
found in Daniel, it is explicitly said that there will be elect on
earth during
the Tribulation and, as I have already pointed out, there is no reason
for
denying that these elect are the
10. For the Church to go through the Tribulation is contrary to the plain order of events in the Apocalypse
Such
is the claim
of Dr. C. I. Scofield. While it is true that there is much in the book
of
Revelation that is clear, the order of events in the book is not so
“plain” as
Scofield claims. For example, take the supposedly elementary question
as to how
much of that book is represented by the Great Tribulation. Scofield
says the
Tribulation comprises chapters 11-18 (p. 1337, Scofield Bible).
W.
R. Newell (p. 403, Exposition of Revelation) says it begins at
chap. 13.
While Thiessen in his book on the Tribulation, p. 20 claims the period
comprises chapters 6-19.
It is
commonly
taught that the command to John the seer to “Come up hither” (Rev. 4:1)
refers
to the catching up of the Church at the Rapture. Nothing could be more
arbitrary than to read the Rapture of the Church into the simple
statement that
John was caught up to heaven for the specific purpose of being given a
revelation of the heavenly scene.
Even if we recognize that the words “After this” should be translated “After these things,” there is absolutely no proof that these words point to more than the sequence in which John received these revelations. After the revelations concerning the seven churches God gave him a revelation of the heavenly scene.
It is
claimed by
Scofield and others that the twenty-four elders of Rev. 4--S represent
the
Church in heaven which presupposes a prior rapture of the Church to
heaven.
Scofield sees “five inerrant marks” identifying them as representatives
of the
Church. He says that of all the redeemed, only the Church is said to be
a
priesthood, although he refers to the interesting parallel between
these 24
elders and the 24 courses of the Levitical priesthood. If the elders
represent
any group at all, it would seem more logical to have them represent the
Levitical priesthood.
Another
of the
“inerrant marks” is their testimony in Rev. 5:9--10. This helps his
argument
only if we accept the first person pronouns. But these are changed to
the third
person in the more correct Revised Version, and therefore his “inerrant
mark”
becomes considerably errant, for this testimony becomes simply a
general
ascription of praise to Christ the Lamb of God as the One who alone is
worthy
to open the seven-sealed book.
Thiessen
and
others believe the twenty-four elders are representative not alone of
the
Church but of the Church plus the saints of the Old Testament period.
Even if
it could be proved that the 24 elders are to be regarded in a
representative
capacity--which it cannot--why is it necessary to suppose that, if they
represent
the Church, they represent more than the saints who through death have
gone on
to be with the Lord? Why is it necessary to suppose the entire
corporate Church
must be represented? Furthermore, why must one assume that a
resurrection has
taken place? Visibility in John’s vision is not at all dependent on
spirits
being clothed with bodies, else how could he have seen angels?
Finally, there is no evidence to prove that they are human beings at all. Many of the greatest exegetes hold that they are angelic beings who lead in the praise and worship of heaven.
11. Since the coming of Christ is imminent, in the sense that no predicted event is first to take place, therefore the Tribulation will not take place before Christ comes and the Church will not pass through the period of trial
If
there is any
one argument that is regarded as sufficient in itself to prove, to the
satisfaction of many, that the Church will have no experience of the
Tribulation trials, this is the one. It is practically taken for
granted that the
Scriptures teach the imminent, any-moment return of Christ.
For
example, let
us look at two testimonies in recent literature on the subject.
Thiessen in his
book on the Tribulation, p. 40, says of the term “imminency”: “This
term does
not mean of a certainty that He will come at once, (of course not!) but
merely
constant expectation of Him, on the ground that there is no revealed
event that
must precede His return.” Again, W. M. Robertson in The Sure Word
of
Prophecy, p. 257, says: “When we turn to the Pauline epistles we
find the
apostle urging the saints to look for the Lord Jesus the Savior without
any
signs preceding His coming.” All of which is quite in line with the
remark by
the older commentator, Joseph Seiss, that the Second Coming is “pledged
to no
moment, possible at any.”
In
spite of the
popularity of this view, I do not think it is the teaching of
Scripture, and I
propose to demonstrate this by the thirteen considerations that follow.
A. IMPLICATIONS OF THE GREAT COMMISSION
The commission to “teach all nations” and to witness to Christ “unto the uttermost parts of the earth” of necessity implies a very considerable lapse of time, nor does this implication hinge on the unscriptural notion held by many that the Church is commanded to convert the world. Thiessen reminds us that according to Col. 1:6, 23 Paul claims the Gospel had been preached in all the world in his day. However, according to Bishop H. C. G. Moule in The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Paul is using a perfectly natural hyperbole to say that wherever the Gospel had gone it had always proved its proper power. “The readers would well understand that Paul meant not that the Gospel had reached every spot of Europe, Asia, and Africa.”
Not only does the Great Commission imply a long period of time for its accomplishment, but the promise of the continuing presence of Christ is valid, not until the Tribulation but “even unto the consummation of the age” which takes place when Christ comes in glory to establish His Kingdom, as Matt. 24:3 implies. Therefore we shall have to conclude that a proper understanding of the historic fulfillment of the Great Commission gives scant justification for the imminent, any-moment theory of the Second Coming.
B. THE PARABLES OF MATTHEW 13
Here again we find the implication of a very considerable passage of time. The growth of seeds to maturity suggests a time-consuming process. In the parable of the tares, it is particularly significant that the harvest takes place at the end of the age when true believers and unsaved professors will be separated, the true believers shining forth in the Kingdom. Apparently the Rapture of believers takes place at the time of the setting up of the Kingdom, not seven years before.
Furthermore, the Antichrist can hardly he thought of as exercising his power after the harvest, after the end of the age, and therefore his power will be manifested before the end of the age and the gathering of the wheat. Since this is so, obviously Christ’s coming hinges upon the prior manifestation of the Antichrist and therefore is not “imminent.”
C. PAUL’S EXPECTATION OF EXECUTION
According to 2 Tim. 4:6-8 Paul came to believe that not the second coming of Christ but death was the event he should anticipate. True, he said in 1 Thes. 4:17 “We which are alive and remain shall be caught up,” but this “we” does not necessarily imply that he felt sure he himself would be alive at the Second Advent. He was simply referring to the portion of the Christian Church, of which he was a member, that would be alive at that time. However, I would not expect this argument to carry a disproportionate amount of weight.
D. JESUS’ PREDICTION OF PETER’S MARTYRDOM
In
John 21:18-19
Jesus predicted that when Peter became old another would gird him and
carry him
whither he would not. How can one say, then, that Peter believed in the
imminent, any-moment view of the return of Christ? Dr. Thiessen faces
this
problem, pp. 40-41, and gives a two-fold reply. First he says: “It is
not certain
that Peter understood this saying. It was many years after Peter’s
execution
when John made this statement and applied it to Peter’s method of exit
from
this life.”
In
reply to Dr.
Thiessen, I would remind the reader that Godet and others have not
entertained
so low a view of Peter’s mentality, fully believing he understood what
Jesus
said. But whether Peter understood the nature of what would happen to
him is
quite beside the point. Peter must have been bright enough to know that
when
Jesus said “when thou shalt be old” Jesus meant that Peter would live
to old
age. Peter evidently was not already old and therefore had many years
yet to
live. How could he have held the imminent theory of Christ’s return?
Next,
Dr.
Thiessen, apparently sensing the flimsy basis for his argument, seeks
in
apparent desperation for some passage that would seem to teach that
Peter
taught the coming of Christ as imminent, and he chooses, of all
passages, Acts
3:19-21, a citation that proves the very opposite of what he wants it
to prove.
Says he: “However it may be as to Peter’s understanding of the Master’s
word to
him, we find that he preached the return of Christ as an imminent
possibility
right after the day of Pentecost.”
A
number of
considerations will show that Thiessen is even more involved in error
now.
First, let me ask, which of the alleged two comings of Christ do
Premillennialists hold to be imminent? The Rapture, of course, for that
is said
to be the next event on the prophetic calendar. But which coming of
Christ is
Peter referring to in this passage? Certainly not the Rapture.
Gaebelein says
that so far from this being the Rapture, Peter at that time was wholly
ignorant
that there was to be a Rapture of the Church. This coming, then, says
Gaebelein, is the glorious advent of Christ to establish His Kingdom.
And
Gaebelein is obviously right, for Peter goes on to say that this advent
was
predicted “by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world
began.” And
you cannot find a Premillennialist who teaches the Rapture of the
Church is in
Old Testament prophecy. Obviously then Peter was not teaching the
imminent
coming of Christ here.
Another matter of interest in this connection is that Acts 3:21 which speaks of heaven receiving Christ until the restitution of all things absolutely forbids the thought of His leaving heaven for earth until that time. In other words, there is no room whatever for a coming of Christ at least seven years before His leaving heaven to restore all things!
E. THE SINGLE OBJECT OF THE BELIEVER’S EXPECTATION
Dr.
Thiessen, p.
39, says that when Paul in Ti. 2:13 urges us to look for the “blessed
hope,” he
did not ask us to look for the Tribulation and the Antichrist. Of
course one
might mention any number of doctrines that Paul did not refer to in any
particular verse or passage. That Paul said nothing in Ti. 2:13 of the
Marriage
Supper of the Lamb in no way invalidates that truth which remains as a
part of
the hope of believers in spite of the fact that other predicted events
constituting part of the expectation of believers will transpire first.
Thiessen asks: “How can we wait for One who cannot come until several
other
momentous things have taken place?” Why we cannot anticipate the coming
of
events that serve as signs of Christ’s advent as well as anticipate
Christ’s
advent I cannot understand. Many could profit by meditating on the
implications
of the words in Matt. 24:33, “when ye shall see all these things.” In
this
connection should be read Luke 21:28, “And when these things begin to
come to
pass, then look up! . . .“ “These things” include the signs of Christ’s
advent
that He has just mentioned, including the Tribulation.
Jesus
would not
have told His followers of the signs of His advent if He had believed
our
mental outlook could hold but one anticipation of a future event! So
far as the
expectation of passing through a period of trial before Christ returns
weakening our hold on the “blessed hope” and watering it down to a
vague
general expectation, as Thiessen intimates, it would serve the very
opposite
purpose of strengthening our desire to welcome Him whose presence alone
will
banish the sorrows of the present.
If
looking for the
signs of Christ’s coming would tend to divert the gaze from the
“blessed hope,”
and if, as Thiessen claims, “Such signs as Scripture lists all have to
do with
the Revelation and not with the Rapture” (p. 45), then the very
arguments
against the substitution of signs for the hope of Christ’s coming would
apply
with equal force to the Tribulation saints. Is it likely that the
saints of the
Tribulation time will become so engrossed in looking for the cosmic
signs of
the returning Christ (the darkened sun and moon, etc.) that they will
lose
sight of Christ’s coming which those signs will quickly introduce?
Surely not.
The
charge that
signs only serve to divert attention from our Lord’s coming or cool our
ardor
for it bears very serious implications concerning our Lord’s wisdom in
having
given any revelation concerning signs. Tregelles, as quoted by Reese,
p. 229,
well says: “He who looks for promised events as indications of the
Lord’s
advent, will not rest for a moment in the events themselves; their
value is
that they lead on the thoughts and affections to Him for whom the
Church is
called to watch and wait, and who has Himself promised these signs to
His
expecting people.”
Surely few of the pre-Tribulation Rapturists would allow themselves to go so far as Dr. A. C. Gaebelein who charges that those who look for signs are to be likened to the drunken servant of the parable in Matt. 24:45-51. A cursory examination of this parable will reveal that it was not the view that his Lord would delay his coming but the uses to which he put his time that merited rebuke and proved he deserved the sad end of the hypocrite. Surely it is far from true and charitable to classify with that evil servant the many sincere and mighty men of God who have looked for signs. Dr. Gaebelein would do well to recall that W. J. Erdman, one of God’s spiritual giants, did not believe in the imminent, any-moment view of Christ’s coming, and, so far from being in the class of the evil servant of Matt. 24, served along with Dr. Gaebelein himself as a consulting editor of the Scofield Reference Bible.
F. THE SCRIPTURES INDICATE A CONSIDERABLE INTERVAL BETWEEN JESUS’ ASCENSION AND HIS RETURN
Drs.
Ironside and
Thiessen and others who have dealt with the question of the Church in
the
Tribulation recognize these scriptures as a real difficulty that their
imminent-theory must face. For example, Dr. Ironside in his Not
Wrath but
Rapture, p. 17, truly states: “In Luke 21 it is evident that
considerable
time must elapse between the overthrow of
Dr.
Thiessen in
his brochure, p. 43, refers to the parable of the nobleman who went
into a “far
country” as an illustration of the difficulty facing his any-moment
theory. He
says: “There is no need to think that the disciples understood the Lord
to
speak of any long interval.”
True, the particular length of the interval is of no significance. Whether the interval be relatively long or short, one cannot say that those to whom was given this parabolic message were led to believe in an any-moment return of Christ. The fact of there being an interval at all rules out the imminency of His return for a time.
G. THE PREDICTIONS OF APOSTASY
Those familiar with historical processes know that it takes time for apostasy to develop. Both Peter and Paul predicted the professing Church would be characterized in the last days by a marked falling away from the faith. As Dr. Charles R. Erdman says in his Pastoral Epistles, p. 76: “Paul never affirms that the event is near. In his earliest letters he specifically taught that an apostasy would first develop and a ‘man of sin’ appear. 2 Thes. 2:3. How long the delay may be is never foretold.” This fact of a developing apostasy hardly comports with the imminent, any-moment theory of Christ’s coming.
H. PARABLES OF THE VIRGINS AND THE TALENTS
Both
of these
parables in Matt. 25 are concerned to show how believers are to use the
intervening time before the return of Christ. In v. 5 we are told the
Bridegroom tarried. How long He would tarry is beside the point. The
teaching
is that an interval between the Lord’s departure and return would take
place.
In the parable of the talents we find in v. 19 the significant words:
“After a
long time the lord of those servants cometh.” They are so significant
that C.H.M.
(CHARLES H. MCINTOSH). in his exposition of this
parable
that occupies ten pages in his Papers on the Lord’s Coming completely
ignores
them!
Thiessen, however, does not sidestep the issue but says, p. 19: “This, too, does not imply more than the lifetime of the apostles, although we now know that the time is much longer.” If imminency may be so defined that it does not necessarily mean an any-moment return but sometime within one’s lifetime, one can readily subscribe to that, for the fulfillment of the signs of Christ’s coming could easily take place within the lifetime of all people except the most advanced in age. But this is quite a different position from what Thiessen elsewhere seems to teach.
I. PAUL IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES MAKES PROVISION FOR THE PERMANENT ORGANIZATION AND CONTINUING MINISTRY OF THE CHURCH
This point is emphasized by Dr. Charles R. Erdman in his Pastoral Epistles, p. 113. He reminds us that Paul did not consider Christ’s coming as imminent. In 2 Tim. 2:2 Paul encourages Timothy to arrange to educate other men in the faith so that they will be able to pass on the good news. All this, of course, involves time.
J. PAUL EXPLICITLY TEACHES CHRIST’S COMING IS NOT IMMINENT, IN 2 THES. 2:1--3 AND HE PROCEEDS TO PROVE IT
Paul urges that we should let no man deceive us by any means. Why? There must transpire two events before Christ comes, namely, the apostasy and the manifestation of the Man of Sin. I realize that “the day of Christ” here is translated “the Day of the Lord” in the Revised Version. But if we should grant that “the Day of the Lord” represents the second phase of Christ’s coming which has nothing to do with the blessed hope of the Church, why should Paul be so greatly concerned that no man deceive the Church concerning an event that allegedly has nothing to do with the Church? Surely the theory that would divide the Lord’s coming into two distinct events separated by a period of at least seven years is a man-made notion that has caused infinite confusion of thought. Paul elsewhere is greatly concerned lest men be drawn away from the simplicity that is in Christ.
K. THE MESSAGES TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES
It is a widely accepted view that the messages to the seven churches of Revelation are a prophetic fore view of the seven phases of the spiritual history of the Church from A.D. 96 to the end of the age. Such a view involves quite a considerable lapse of time. It is obviously utterly impossible to reconcile this historical view of the seven churches with the imminent, any-moment view of Christ’s return.
L. EXHORTATIONS TO CONSTANT EXPECTATION AND WATCHFULNESS
This
is one of the
strongest proofs, says Dr. Thiessen, p. 38, that the Rapture of the
Church will
take place before the Tribulation. I would remind the reader that the
very
chapter in which these exhortations are so prominent, Matt. 24, tells
of the
coming of Christ, not for the Church but in judgment and glory to set
up His
Kingdom. At least, this is the claim of the pre-Tribulation Rapturists.
And yet
following that picture of Christ’s coming we find the exhortations to
watch and
be ready. If Thiessen and his school would be consistent, they would
tell us
that these exhortations have no relevancy for the Church, since it is
not the
Church’s hope to which these exhortations are tied. But Thiessen
inconsistently
claims, p. 38: “They belong to the Church as well as to Israel.” It is
true that they do but very unbecoming for him to make such a claim.
Thiessen
says we
know they are also intended for the Church because they are repeated in
the
Epistles. And he gives 1 Thes. 5:6 as an illustration, again proving
his
inconsistency, for Paul in that chapter has just predicted the coming
“Day of
the Lord” which we are told is the second stage of the Lord’s coming,
the stage
in relation to which Christians, according to Thiessen’s theory, need
not be
watchful!
A
second passage
he cites is Rev. 3:3 “If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on
thee as
a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.” But
suppose
we do watch? What then? Surely the conclusion is warranted: “You will
know what
hour I will come!” That is to say, not literally the hour, of course,
but as
the signs appear the conviction will deepen that Christ’s coming is
near. And
let me emphasize at this point that watchfulness is something more than
a
vague, sentimental longing for Christ. It implies watching for the
God-given
signs of His appearing. Thank God! We need not be in darkness so that
the day
of Christ’s coming will overtake us as a thief!
We
are
told by Dr.
Scofield that the personal coming of Christ in fulfillment of the upper
chamber
promise is made the ground of many exhortations to holy living. The
believer is
deprived of that motive, he says, if the coming of the Lord is so
related to
other prophetic events as to deprive the believer of a personal
expectation.
Among other passages Scofield cites 1 Pet. 1:13. Here the word describing the Second Advent is “revelation,” a word which Dr. Scofield, in his Bible Correspondence Course, p. 619, says always refers to the second stage of Christ’s Second Advent, when He comes, not to catch up the Church, but to establish His Kingdom. If the Second Advent is to be distinguished as two events, as Scofield maintains, and the first part of the advent is the Church’s hope, why does not Peter tie his practical exhortation to the first phase and not to the second? The answer is very simple. Peter knows of no double coming of Christ. And so we are forced to conclude that the post-tribulation rapture doctrine, so far from depriving the believer of a personal expectation, preserves the force of the practical exhortations based upon the promises of Christ’s coming to establish His Kingdom, saving them from being rendered nugatory by a false theory of our Lord’s advent.
M. THE MORAL VALUE OF THE IMMINENT HOPE
We
are
told that
the any-moment doctrine of Christ’s coming tends to keep the believer
on moral
and spiritual tip-toe. I would not care to deny the psychological value
of this
teaching. However, the question of value has no place in a discussion
of
whether a theory is true or not, and I beg leave to introduce it merely
because
those with whom I disagree do so.
Surely
no sincere
Christian would think for a moment of seeking to improve on God’s
methods of
awakening love for the appearing of Christ. Furthermore, no instructed
believer
doubts for a moment that our Lord’s eye is continually upon us, that
nothing
escapes Him, and that our sense of shame at being found doing anything
out of
keeping with His will should be quite as sharp the moment the
conviction is
wrought in our hearts by His Spirit as it would be by the thought of
Christ
returning at any moment.
Then
too, however
young or healthy we may be, we never know when death may overtake us,
and that
thought can serve quite as effectively as a psychological check, if
such we
need. And certainly no honest Christian would cling to a doctrine that
is not
clearly taught in the Word simply because he fancies it may have a good
effect
upon people, any more than he would be willing from a noble motive to
tell a
child a “white lie.”
Reese, in this connection, well says, p. 231: “Certain it is, therefore, that the Lord Jesus did not think that the moral influence of His coming was in any way impaired by the instruction that He Himself gave concerning events that would intervene; for He, in answer to the question of the apostles, taught that such events would intervene before He returned.”
12. The last state of the Church on earth is not one of suffering and persecution
They
tell us that
the last state of the Church will be one of lukewarmness and ease and
declension. While this is a true statement, we need to keep in mind
that the
question at issue is not whether the professing Church will pass
through the
Tribulation but whether the true Body of Christ will pass through it.
The true
But
even if the true Church is rather
lukewarm in the last days, in the message to the
Again,
we find in
Rev. 3:21 a promise to the overcomer, which of course implies exposure
to some
trial or testing. The way to warm a lukewarm church and stir into fresh
loyalty
those within its ranks who truly belong to Christ may be to subject it
to some
sharp test of its faith.
Furthermore, most expositors who make the claim that we have just noticed regard the epistles to the Seven Churches as not only a fore view of the historic development of the Church through the centuries but as a picture of seven types of churches that can be found in any age. If this is true, it is hardly consistent to base an argument for the exemption of the Church from the Tribulation Period on but one of the seven types of churches that will be found in the last days.
13. Two predicted events must take place between Christ’s coming for the Church and His coming in judgment--the marriage supper of the Lamb, and the judgment of the believer’s works for rewards. These must occupy a considerable period of time, thus disproving the belief Christ’s coming is a single undivided event.
As we have already seen, the belief that Christ’s coming consists of two events separated by a period of years is not susceptible of proof in the Scriptures.
Furthermore,
let
us look at the only passage that speaks of the marriage supper of the
Lamb,
Rev. 19:7-9, to see if we can discover when it will take place. It is
after the
heavenly beings rejoice that divine justice has disposed of
Now as to the judgment of the believer’s works, we know that this takes place at the coming of Christ. The works will be revealed by fire (1 Cor. 3:15) and subjected to a test to discover which works will abide. This takes place at the resurrection of the just according to Rev. 11: 15--18 at which time Christ sets up His Kingdom. There is no indication of the amount of time required. Certainly the whole process could be accomplished in a moment of time. Who would care to limit our infinite God? Sad indeed is the anthropomorphism that argues that such an enormous task as that of giving rewards to the righteous must occupy a very considerable amount of time!
14. The completion of the Church coincides with the completion of the fullness of the Gentiles. The fullness of the Gentiles is followed by the fullness of Israel. In this sequence is a proof the Church will be exempt from the Tribulation.
This
is another
argument that presupposes a double coming of Christ. Let us ask: When
does the
fullness of Israel take place? According to Rom. 11:26 it takes place
at the
coming of Christ as the Deliverer and at that time “all Israel shall be
saved.” This is confirmed in Zech. 12 which says the Jews will look
upon
Christ whom they have pierced and their hearts will be overwhelmed with
mourning, and a fountain will be opened to them for sin and uncleanness
(13:1). This coming of Christ is, to those who hold to the double
coming
of Christ, the second aspect of His advent when He comes to destroy the
Gentile
nations that are massed about
This is the very time, however, when the first resurrection takes place and the Rapture of the Church happens, so that we must conclude that the completion of the Church takes place at the same crisis as the conversion and fullness of Israel. Therefore there is here no argument for a rapture of the Church before the Tribulation.
15. The “Son of Man” is a title used of our Lord in relation to Israel, the earthly people. Therefore wherever it is used in connection with the coming of Christ, it can have no reference to the Church, as in Matt. 24:30. Therefore the coming for the Church is a separate event from Christ’s glorious coming to Israel and to set up His Kingdom.
From a
careful
study of the Word of God we learn that the title “Son of Man” is not
always
used of Christ in relation to Israel and therefore the line of
reasoning that
ends in the conclusion that there is a coming of Christ before His
coming to Israel is invalid.
The
question of
why Jesus used the title “Son of Man” has perplexed the greatest
thinkers in
the theological world. In an article in the International Standard
Bible
Encyclopedia on the subject, Dr. James Stalker gives his opinion
that while
the term, as used in such passages as Dan. 7:13--14; Matt. 24:30;
26:64,
is
especially frequent in passages referring to His future coming in
judgment, the
term finds its greatest significance as an expression of Christ’s
connection
with all men in sympathy, fortunes, and destiny. “He felt Himself to be
identified with all as their brother, their fellow-sufferer, their
representative. and champion, and, in some respects, the deepest word
He ever
spake was ‘For the Son of Man also came not to be ministered unto, but
to
minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.’” (Mark 10:45.)
From this we can hardly conclude that the title has reference only to Israel. In fact, in a passage that clearly refers to the Church, the term is used, namely, in Rev. 1 where the “Son of Man” is seen standing in the midst of the seven candlesticks which are representative of the Churches.
16. The terms “elect” and “saints” when applied to people in the Tribulation cannot refer to the Church but must be applied to the Jewish remnant
Apparently
sins of
terminology are not confined to the Modernists who have often been
guilty of
emptying evangelical terms of their traditional, evangelical content!
We are
confidently
told that the coming of Christ as described in Matthew 24 is not for
the
Church. And yet our Lord plainly says in vv. 22, 24, 31 that the
Tribulation
will be shortened for the sake of the elect, the elect will almost be
deceived
by false prophets, and Christ comes in glory to gather His elect. As it
is well
known, the term elect is used of the Church. But the theory of a
pre-Tribulation rapture must be saved at all costs and therefore this
term
elect is given a meaning which it nowhere else bears in the New
Testament, and
is made to refer to a Jewish elect.
W. S.
Hooton in The
Life of Faith (London), June 14, 1939, well says: “The view that
there are
two aspects of the Second Coming, not two stages, avoids the necessity
for
special pleading, in attributing to the word ‘elect’ in Matt. 24:22,
24, 31 a
different meaning from that which it ordinarily bears.”
Of the
sixteen
occurrences of the term elect in the New Testament, one refers
to
certain angels, another refers to Christ, and the other fourteen very
obviously
refer to the Church or Christians. To make the term refer to any others
requires “special pleading,” as Hooton points out.
One of
the special
pleaders is Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse who in an article in Revelation,
Nov. 1942, says: “Any attempt to make the phrase ‘the elect’ in Matthew
24
refer to the Church in the present age leads to a confusion that is
simply
chaotic. Words no longer have meaning in Bible study.
Who,
let us ask,
introduces confusion, who empties words of their meaning? The one who
allows
the word to retain its usual meaning in the New Testament, or the one
who
arbitrarily assigns it a meaning that is nowhere else found in the New
Testament?
When
we ask Dr.
Barnhouse who the elect of Matthew 24 are, if they are not the Church,
we find
his answer in the above-mentioned article. He says these elect are the
same as
“the great multitude which no man could number” of Rev. 7:9. But let us
ask,
how did they hear the truth that saved them? Through the preaching of
the
144,000 Jews, mentioned earlier in that chapter. “These all go out
preaching
the Gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ,” says Barnhouse.
But let
us ask, how were the 144,000 saved? He says they were saved as a result
of the
preaching of Moses and Elijah whom Barnhouse may be right in
identifying with
the two witnesses of Rev. 11.
If the
reader will
take the time to read Rev. 11:3---12 and Rev. 7 he will very likely
conclude
that Dr. Barnhouse has taken very great liberties with the actual
Scripture
record, but quite unintentionally of course. In the first place, he
will find
that there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the message of the
two
witnesses was a gospel of salvation. So far from words of grace
proceeding from
their mouths, fire will proceed from their mouths if any dare hurt
them.
Furthermore, they will be given power to smite the earth with plagues.
While it
is true we are not told they exercise that power, still it hardly reads
like
preparation for an evangelistic in gathering!
Then
too, the
careful reader will note that the passage, so far from indicating that
even one
person was saved as a result of their preaching, indicates that their
message
antagonized the people who heard it to such an extent that “they that
dwell
upon the earth” rejoice and make merry when they learn of the death of
the two
witnesses! Again, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the
salvation of
the great multitude of Rev. 7:9 is to be attributed to the preaching of
the
144,000. The fact is, it nowhere says the 144,000 preached the Gospel,
or
preached anything for that matter! Surely the Word of God deserves
better
treatment in the house of its friends!
And
finally Dr.
Barnhouse closes this article, which is a masterpiece of confused
thinking and
quite unworthy of his extraordinary endowments, by assuming the term
“great” as
applied to the Tribulation can be interpreted only in a qualitative
sense as
referring to the intensity of the suffering when a simple reading of
the few
passages that speak of a Great Tribulation points to an emphasis on the
quantitative sense. It is to affect the whole world. The great saved
multitude
of Rev. 7:14 that comes out of Great Tribulation is said to come out of
“all
nations and kindreds and peoples and tongues.” Nor will the suffering
be of
such severity as to prevent the period of Tribulation being a time of
salvation. While I have no desire to minimize the severity of the
sufferings of
that period, it is to be remembered that the vials of divine wrath
affect only
the unsaved, whether Jews or Gentiles, while it is true that the saved
who
refuse allegiance to the Antichrist will be subject to persecution and
some
will be martyred.
Therefore
it is
quite unfair for Dr. Barnhouse to close his article with the words: “If
the
Church is to pass through the Tribulation, then farewell blessed hope,
then
welcome the coffin, then thrice welcome the undertaker!” The book of
Revelation, after describing the trials of the last Tribulation, closes
with the
appeal, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus!”--words that will unquestionably be
on every
redeemed lip in that day. Then the blessed hope will shine with new
luster,
will awaken a lyric joy in the breast of every born-again soul! It will
not be
“Farewell, blessed hope!” but “Welcome, blessed hope!”
We have still to consider another term that is applied to sufferers in the Tribulation which is also applicable to the Church--the term saints, as found in the book of Revelation. In Rev. 8:3-4 we read of the prayers of the saints. In 13:7 the beast makes war against the saints. In 13:10 the saints patiently await the time of divine retribution against their enemies. The same is found in 14:12. Some of the saints are martyred in 16:6; 17:6, and 18:24. The saints are rewarded at the last trumpet in 11:18. Who are all these saints? We know that saints is the common New Testament term for the Church or members of the Body of Christ. If these are not the Church saints, then surely John would have plainly said so, for he very well knew that to use the term without qualification would be tantamount to saying it is the Church of Christ to which he was referring.
17.
Luke 21:36 “Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be
accounted
worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand
before
the Son of
We are
told that
this verse teaches the Church will escape the trials of the Tribulation
by
means of a prior rapture to heaven. Reese, p. 213, calls the use of
this text
for such a purpose a “mockery of consistency, I had almost said, of
honesty. A
moment ago they were all affirming that ‘the Son of Man’ was a title
never used
when Christ’s relation to the Church was in view; it was a finger-post
to tell
us that Israel or the world was under consideration. Yet here they are
with
their short memories demanding that this time we should see the Church
here. We
will oblige them: the Church is in view here, but not in the sense, nor
at the
time, the theorists wish. They who ‘stand before the Son of Man’ are
the
raptured saints, the Elect, gathered on the Day of the Son of Man, as
Matt.
24:31, 41 and Luke 17:30--36 conclusively prove.”
As to
the verb
escape, we are told by Dr. A. T. Robertson in his Word Studies
that the
verb means to escape out.
Therefore we may say that it refers to those
who are
Christ’s own who will at the end of the Tribulation escape out of that
scene by
being raptured up to meet Christ in the air while the others remain to
be
engulfed in the judgment that the soon returning Son of Man will
inaugurate.
Dr Thiessen, p. 6, takes the extraordinary view that the “these things that shall come to pass” is synonymous with the words “that day” of v. 34. In other words, “that day” of v. 34 refers to the Great Tribulation. The context clearly shows the day referred to is that of the Lord’s return, mentioned in v. 27. Scofield rightly confirms this in his paragraph heading in his reference Bible, “Warnings in view of the Lord’s return.” It is described as a day that will come without warning and as a snare or trap to those who are not prepared. This clearly points to the aspect of our Lord’s coming as a thief, and Scofield rightly refers, in the margin of his Bible, to 1 Thes. 5:2 in confirmation of this. Nowhere does the Bible speak of the coming of the Tribulation as a sudden surprise, nor does it enjoin watchfulness and prayer and preparation for the Tribulation.
18. Rev. 3:10 “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation which shall come upon all the world to try them that dwell upon the earth.”
This
is the proof
text that is quoted most frequently in support of the contention that
the
Church will be raptured away before the Tribulation. We shall want to
look at
it with considerable attention.
Much
hinges on the
meaning of the preposition from (Greek ek). Alford is a
grammatical authority often quoted at this point. He says the word
means” ‘out
of the midst of’: but whether by immunity from, or by being brought
safe
through, the preposition does not clearly define.”
Another
argument
relates to the meaning of the phrase “them that dwell upon the earth”
or
“earth-dwellers.” It is claimed that this is a technical expression for
those
who are not believers, who settle down in this world, in contrast to
those
whose citizenship is in heaven. Thiessen reminds us of Thayer’s opinion
that
the word “dwell” in the original is a specially strong word, having the
idea of
permanence. And Thiessen adds, p. 22: “Thus the judgment referred to in
Rev. 3:10
is directed against the earth-dwellers of that day, against those who
have
settled down in the earth as their real home, who have identified
themselves
with the earth’s commerce and religion.”
Even
if we grant
this technical meaning of the word, it does not follow that everyone
living on
the earth at that time will be an “earth-dweller” any more than it is
true
to-day. Those who say the Church will go through the Tribulation do not
claim
the Church will be the object of the divine wrath that will be poured
out on
the “earth-dwellers.” Furthermore, it is rather dangerous to base an
argument
on an alleged specialized meaning of a word, for we may easily prove
too much!
Dr. Thiessen conveniently fails to mention that the same Greek word for
“dwell”
is used of our Lord dwelling in
Let us look beyond the grammar of this verse, which admittedly is inconclusive, and examine the context. “Behold, I come quickly” is the word of encouragement that immediately follows the reference to the hour of trial. What greater encouragement to a Church that is being severely tested?
Furthermore,
we
must not overlook the significance of the words, “Him that overcometh,”
in v.
12. Do they not imply that God’s people will be subjected to some kind
of
severe test, even the tribulatory test that was mentioned but two
verses
before? It is a Christian Church that is being addressed in these
verses and it
is in the Church that the overcomers appear.
Reese, p. 200, well says that it is a mere assumption that the only way God can preserve His Church from the Great Tribulation is by rapturing her to heaven above. He says: “As a matter of fact, the Rapture is not so much as mentioned or hinted at; so long, therefore, as another possible means of preservation out of the hour of Tribulation exists, it is a mere assumption that the Church must be raptured away in order to fulfill this promise of Christ. This very book of Revelation reveals the possibility and certainty of a people in relationship with God being thus preserved from the Great Tribulation. We are told that the Sun-clad Woman flees to the wilderness, and is there protected by God from precisely the hour of the last Great Tribulation--’a thousand and two hundred and three-score days’ (12:6, 14). Not all the power of the dragon can avail to reach or touch her. Not a word is said about her being raptured out of the world, yet the Woman is untouched by the final persecution under Antichrist.”
19. 1 Thes. 1:10 “And to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come”
This verse is another alleged proof of a rapture of the Church before the Tribulation. First, let us ask what Paul means by the words, “the wrath to come?” We know that “wrath” may be used in any one of three senses. It may refer to the divine wrath manifested during the Tribulation; it may refer to the divine wrath against the ungodly at Christ’s coming in glory; or it may refer to the unending wrath of God as known in hell.
Which is the meaning in Paul’s mind in this verse? Very obviously it is the wrath that is manifested at the coming of Christ, for His coming has just been mentioned in this verse! Therefore, the wrath referred to has nothing whatever to do with tribulational judgments but rather with the coming of Him who will tread the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of almighty God. From this latter wrath the Church will of course be exempt.
20. 1 Thes. 5:1-9 “But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.”
This
passage is
often invoked to prove the Church will not come into the wrath that
will be
manifested during the Tribulation. Much confusion has been caused by
the wholly
unjustified assumption that Paul is dealing in this chapter with a
different
subject from that discussed in chapter four. We are told that in
chapter four
he was dealing with the Rapture of the Church, but in chapter five he
is
speaking, not of believers, but of unbelievers, not of the Rapture of
the
Church but of the glorious coming of Christ in judgment upon an
unbelieving
world.
This
confusion is
due partly to the unfortunate chapter division. In chapter four Paul
has just
described the “blessed hope” of the Church, the gathering of the saints
by the
Lord at His coming. A natural question arises in the minds of His
readers:
“When will this take place?” And so he proceeds, without the slightest
change
in the subject, to answer the question “when?” The words of v. 1, “But
of the
times and seasons,” clearly link the two chapters. Paul says they had
no need
of his elaborating on the question of the time because he had already
told them
Christ “so cometh as a thief.” The “so” is a term indicating manner. It
clearly
speaks of the unexpectedness of His coming. It does not refer to the
thief’s
purpose to destroy, as Newell and others affirm. It simply means His
coming is
without warning.
However, he makes it plain
that that aspect of His coming is true only
for
those who are in spiritual darkness, as we indicated earlier in this
book. “But
ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as
a
thief!” He does not say that that day will not overtake the brethren.
He merely
says it will not overtake them as a thief. Those who anticipate His
coming will
not be caught napping!
Then
Paul gives an
earnest exhortation to watchfulness and sobriety which would be utterly
without
meaning if Paul intended to say that the Church to which this
exhortation was
addressed will have been out of the world several years before the
coming of
this Day.
Therefore,
in view
of this Day which is surely coming to believers as well as to
unbelievers, the
Lord’s own should “be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and
love; and
for an helmet, the hope of salvation.” The salvation here referred to
is not
salvation from the penalty of sin, for they already were “children of
light.”
It is the salvation that consists of the final redemption of the body,
the
deliverance from the very presence of sin which is assured the believer
at
Christ’s return. In the Day of the Lord the believer is not the object
of
divine wrath but experiences the finishing touches of God’s salvation.
Therefore we shall not misunderstand v. 9, “For God hath not appointed
us to
wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.” It does not
say the
Church will be raptured away before that Day, but the very opposite is
implied.
The Church will be here and “obtain salvation”--in the final and
complete sense.
If
there is a
secret rapture of the Church some years before the Day of the Lord, we
should
not find Christians looking for that Day, nor should we find practical
exhortations given to Christians in view of the coming Day of the Lord.
But
since we do find believers looking for that Day and that they are given
moral
and spiritual advice in view of the coming of that Day, we may be sure
they
will be on earth when that Day comes.
Therefore, we do well to read
God’s Word with discernment and with the
continual prayer on our lips that we may be so filled with His love and
so
faithful in His service that that Day will not overtake us as a thief.
One
day I was
meditating on Rev. 22 and apparently the words, “Behold, I come
quickly!”, had
been especially fastened in my consciousness. Some time during the
following
night I heard our baby boy crying apparently in great terror as he
awoke from a
nightmare. As I, half awake, leaped from bed and drew on my slippers I
found
myself saying audibly, “Behold, I come quickly!” A few moments later,
when
fully conscious, I recalled the exclamation that had been uttered in my
haste
to hurry to the little one and comfort him. In this experience I find a
parable. When our Lord hears His Church crying to Him in great
distress, “Even
so, come, Lord Jesus!”, will He not reply, “Behold, I come quickly!”?
The
answer may not be in an audible voice but in a deepening consciousness
that the
shadows of earth’s darkest night will soon give way to the dawning of
the
morning.
My
final plea to
the reader is that he not rest his convictions upon anything in this
book that
is of human authorship, and therefore subject to error, but that like
the
Bereans of old he will search the Scriptures daily to see whether these
things
are so. Dr. R. C. McQuilkin well says in the introduction to one of his
booklets on the parables: “Second-hand Bible study is the bane of many
earnest
Christians to-day and leaves them dependent on some human teacher whose
interpretations come to have for them the authority of infallible
truth.”
I can do no better than to close with a quotation from Nathaniel West who has been called the most learned of American students of unfulfilled prophecy. “. . . The utterly unscriptural, any-moment theory of our Lord’s second coming: a theory which makes of Christ and His apostles self contradictory teachers, and of the Scriptures wholly unreliable oracles. No delusion more pleasing and sweet on the one hand, or more wild, groundless, and injurious to truth and faith, on the other, has ever captivated the minds of men, than this one of an any-moment, unseen, secret advent, resurrection, and rapture, a delusion condemned and exposed on almost every page of the Word of God. An unconditional, immediate, impending, any-moment imminency of an event, detached from all the signs that herald its approach, and which has lasted 1800 years, is an imminency that may last for 1800 years more. Such is not the believer’s hope! To watch ourselves, to watch against the snares, subterfuges, sins and temptations that beset us, to watch lest our garments be taken from us, to watch for the improvement of our talents, to watch that our vessels have oil in them--and in view of an account when the Lord comes, to watch the signs of the times, the events which are the footsteps of the coming Lord, the spread of the Gospel, the rise of lawlessness, the increase of apostasy, the interest in Israel, the attitude of the nations, our souls ever directed to the realization of His blessed hope, is to watch for the coming of the Lord, and to wait for His appearing. . . . The question is no longer a question of exegesis with such clear light before us. It is simply a question of ethics with every believer. Have we the right moral disposition toward the truth, or will we still cling to error because we have unfortunately defended it too long; shall we act against the Truth or for the Truth? ‘Unto the upright there ariseth light in darkness.’” (Quoted by A. Reese, p. 244)
IN
ALL THESE THINGS
Romans 8:37
God’s promise is not freedom
From trials in the race;
But power to transcend them
Through His sufficing grace.
Not rest instead of labour,
But in the labour rest;
Not calm instead of tempest,
But calm when sore distressed.
Not light instead of darkness,
Not joy instead of grief;
But brightness in the midnight,
And in the woe relief.
Not gain instead of losses,
Not ease instead of pain;
But balm upon the anguish
And losses bringing gain.
Not strength instead of weakness,
Not smile instead of tears;
Not peace instead of conflict,
Not song instead of fears.
But weakness filled with power,
And tears with radiance spread;
And peace amid the battle
And song e’er fears are fled.
NORMAN F. DOUTY
“The
Conqueror,” Jan. 1941
(1) Copyright 1944, Dr. Norman Spurgeon MacPherson, and is posted on this website with the kind permission of his son Dave MacPherson.
(2) Dr. MacPherson later published some notes to further clarify his
position "More Thoughts
From A
Posttribulationist Author (PDF)".
Formatted for the internet by www.theologue.org