Dispensationalism and the Rapture: A Theological Analysis
Dr. Paul Feinberg
Therationale for a chapter on the rapture in a book on dispensationalism is that dispensationalistshave been predominantly pretribulationists. Dispensationalists by and largehave been interested in eschatology, and have made the coming of our Lord animportant focus of their theology and ministry. Thus, in this chapter I shallexamine three theological concerns related to the rapture. The three issuesare: dispensational ecclesiology and the rapture; the incompatibility of premillennialismand a posttribulational rapture; the Olivet Discourse and the rapture.
Ithink it will help to state more precisely the purpose of this chapter. As canbe seen from the topic to be discussed, the intention is not to give a carefulexegesis of certain passages to find out if they favor or are at leastcompatible with dispensationalism and pretribulationalism. At the same time atheological analysis does not exclude or ignore sound exegesis. Rather, theconcerns to be examined are broad, overarching and structural issues. Thisshould not surprise us as theology is a synthetic discipline. By that I mean itseeks to systematize and harmonized information or data from a variety of sourcesand texts.
Dispensational Ecclesiology and theRapture
As mentioned before,dispensationalist have commonly been pretribulationists. For many a belief inthe former was taken as determinative in favor of the latter. However, morerecently the relationship between dispensationalism and pretribulationalism hasbeen challenged most thoroughly by Robert H. Gundry.[1]I would like to set out his arguments, and then evaluate them.
Hebegins with the thesis that if there is an absolute silence in the OT about theChurch, a complete discontinuity between God's program for Israel and theChurch, and sharp breaks between dispensations, this would favorpretribulationism. On the other hand, if there is a partial revelation of thispresent age in the OT, some relationship short of identification between Israeland the Church, and dispensations that changed gradually, having transitionalperiod, then the door to the presence of the Church in the tribulation would beopen. [2]
Gundryargues for the latter group of relationships. First, he points out that thedispensational argument that the Church is a mystery in the OT is used to setit sharply apart from Israel. However, he cautions those who take this argumentas decisive against the Church's presence in the tribulation. All agree thatthere are a large number of Gentile saints who will be alive on the earthduring the tribulation period (e. g., Rev. 7:9-17). For the moment, bracket thequestion as to whether they belong to the Church or not. There are no OT passageswhich mention these saints. Therefore, OT silence does not preclude a presencein the tribulation. [3]
However,one might argue that mysteries that are distinctive of the Church such as theequality of Jews and Gentiles, the Church as the bride of Christ, are nowherespecifically used of these tribulation saints. This, Gundry argues, issignificant only if posttribulationist bear the responsibility or burden ofproof to show that these Gentiles are members of the Church. If not, then it isnot necessary to state everywhere what is true of them. That is, whatever issaid of members of the Church elsewhere in the NT will be true of these Gentilesaints if they belong to the Church whether stated explicitly or not. Thus,this argument ends in a stand off.[4]
Moreover,there are a number of mysteries that are not revealed until the NT that willculminate in the tribulation. Some examples which Gundry cites are "themystery of lawlessness" (2 Thes. 2:7), "the mystery of God"(Rev. 10:7) and "the mystery of the harlot BABYLON" (Rev. l7:5-7).
Second,there are, to Gundry's way of thinking, OT prophecies that specifically mentionand imply the present age. Our Lord's present session at the right hand of theFather in heaven is predicted in Psa. 110:1 and is presently being fulfilled(Acts 2:34-5). The Church occupies a period of time foretold and related toIsrael, namely the nation's worldwide dispersion (Deu. 28:25, 64, 65; 30:1-4).From this it follows that if the Church can be present during the time ofIsrael's dispersion, she can also be present during the time of her trial.Furthermore, most dispensationalists see an interval between week sixty-nineand seventy in Daniel 9:24-27. The Church exists during this period though itis not mentioned, and the destruction of the Jerusalem is predicted though itoccurs in the Church age. Gundry concludes that this demonstrates that thispresent age is not unforeseen in the preceding, and is not unrelated to thefuture of Israel as predicted in the CT. [7]
Gundrysays that the CT not only predicts the present age, but the NT applies OTprophecy to the Church. Examples he cites are as follows: Acts 2:16-21 is afulfillment of Joel 2:28-32; Galatians 3:16 quotes Genesis 13:15 and 17:8,applying the promise of the land of Palestine to Abraham's spiritual seed;Paul's mission to the Gentiles in Acts 13:46, 47 is based upon Isaiah's OTprediction that salvation would come to them (49:6); Paul's statement in Romans15:7-13 that Jewish and Gentile Christians have a duty to receive one anotheris based on what he finds in four different CT prophecies: 2 Sam. 22:50,parallel Ps. 18:49; Deut. 32:43; Ps. 117:1; Isa. 11:10; Peter's teaching thatthe prophets predicted that grace would come to the Gentiles (1 Pet. 1:10-12);and the new covenant of Jer. 31:31-34 is applied to the Church in Hebrews8:8-13; 10:15_17.[8]
Third,Gundry argues that without the belittlement of the importance of the day ofPentecost and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the dispensational change fromIsrael to the Church took place in a period of time beginning early in Jesus'ministry and ending sometime after Pentecost. For instance, Jesus defends hisdisciples against the Pharisaic charge that they do not fast by saying that theold dispensation is passing away and that a new is coming in (Mk. 2:21, 22). Jesusteaches that the "prophets and the Law" ceased with John the Baptist(Mt. 11:13 Cf. Lk 16:16), and that "grace and truth were realized throughJesus Christ (Jn. 1:17)." This last statement is a reference to the wholepublic ministry of Jesus, so that grace and truth began before Pentecost. Jesusmade all foods clean (Mk. 7:18, 19) before his crucifixion, resurrection andascension, as well as the giving of the Spirit. He gave instructions to hisdisciples about the future Church, its establishment (Mt. 16:18) and discipline(Mt. 18:15-18). The teachings of Jesus, obviously given before Pentecost, aresaid in the NT to the foundation of the Church (1 Cor. 7:10, 12, 25; 1 Tim 6:3;Heb. 2:3). Even with the Church's existence after the day of Pentecost, the baptismof the Spirit moves to the Gentiles over a period of time, the preaching of thegospel goes first to a predominantly Jewish audience (Acts 3:12) and finallythroughout the Gentile world in Paul's mission. The destruction of the templein 70 A. D. forcibly brings an end to animal sacrifices. Thus, Gundry argues,if there is a transitional period at the beginning of the Church age, it is notunreasonable to think that there will be one at the end.[9]
Fourth,while the Church is unique in many ways, Gundry points to the essential unityof all saints and the things that they have in common. The latter are morefundamental and lasting. Abraham is the father of all who believe although heis an CT saint (Rom. 4:11; cf. vv. 12, 16), and those who believe are calledthe seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16). All believers receive Christ's imputedrighteousness. Gentile believers are grafted into the wild olive tree of Israel(Rom. ll:l6ff.). Gentiles who were far from God, are now brought near by theblood of Christ (Eph. 2:11-13). The perfection and completion of CT saintsrequires NT saints (Heb. 11:40). In the New Jerusalem the gates bear the namesof the twelve tribes of Israel, and the foundations have the names of thetwelve apostles inscribed on them (Rev. 21:12, 14).[10]
Finally,if both the Church and Israel are to go though the tribulation, then God willwork through two covenant people at the same time. Such a possibility is notbeyond God's ability. Dispensationalists who are also premillennialist holdthat during the millennium the Church will rule the earth with Christ (1 Cor.6:2; Rev. 5:10) and all other saints--CT and tribulation. In addition to thedifferent groups of saints who will reign, there will be those who still havetheir natural bodies as well as those who have received their glorified bodies.Presently, with the return of the Jews to Palestine from dispersion, we have ahint of God's simultaneous dealings with the Church and Israel, just as was thecase during the era of the Church's beginning.
Gundryrealizes that the issue is not merely that God is dealing with groups of peopleat the same time, but that there are two groups of redeemed people andwitnesses. They will coexist, possibly live by different regulations andconceivably preach variations of the gospel. These are legitimate questions,but they do not "preclude the possibility of the presence of the Church inthe tribulation."[11] One way inwhich this might be resolved is that there would only be one group of redeemedpeople in the tribulation, the Church. Jews who had accepted Jesus as Messiahwould be part of the Church as presently is the case (Rom. 11:5), and would be rapturedat the posttribulational coming of Christ. Jews who are not converted andsurvive to the end of the tribulation (Rev. 7:1-4) will repent, believe and besaved as they look on their descending Messiah. They will have missed therapture, but will enter the millennial kingdom in their natural bodies assubjects of the restored Davidic Kingdom.[12]
Moreover,the Jewish cast to Daniel's seventieth week does not preclude the possibilityof the Church's presence any more than it does a large host of Gentile saintsaccording to Gundry. While the Church did not figure in the first sixty-nineweeks, neither did a large group of Gentile saints such as will be part of theseventieth week. Thus, the seventieth week is considerably different in thisrespect from the first sixty-nine. As a matter of fact, God is not just dealingwith Israel, but is cleansing, converting and imparting righteousness to her(Dan. 9:24). These goals do not prevent God from dealing with the Church at thesame time. The desecration and destruction of the temple in A. D. 70 is relatedto the abomination of desolation by the Antichrist (Dan. 9:27). The former waswithin the Church age, and it is more natural that the latter should be aswell. [13]
Ina posttribulational understanding of the tribulation, God's sole witnessingbody will be the Church, which consists of saved Jews and Gentiles. Only at themillennium will Israel be reinstituted as God's witness. This is morereasonable than the pretribulational position since Israel is experiencingfinal and bitter chastisement.[14]
Anobjection might be that this1out of keeping with the fact that the world willbe evangelized by l44,000 Jews. Gundry responds that there is not a singlestatement in Scripture that supports that common claim. It is Jesus who says thatthe gospel will be preached in the whole world (Mat. 24:14), but he does notidentify who will be the preachers. The two passages which speak of the 144,000(Rev. 7:1-8; 14:1-5) say nothing about evangelistic activity. They are called"servants" in 7:3 without further explanation. In the other passagethere follows a vision of an angel with the everlasting gospel (14:6, 7), butthere is nothing that links the 144,000 with the preaching of that gospel. Sometry to relate Isaiah 43:10 where it says, "You are my witnesses" toRevelation in support of the view that they are preachers. However, Gundryrejects this view, holding that the context shows that the word should beunderstood as "spectators" of God's mighty works, not "preachers"of the gospel.[15]
Gundryis to be commended for his helpful and thorough treatment of the relationshipbetween dispensationalism and a pretribulational rapture. There are a number ofthings on which I am in agreement with him. He is correct in showing thatdispensationalism is not a monolithic theological position. There are those whowould see the discontinuities between Israel and the Church in more radicalterm, and others who would not make these differences in such contrasting ways.He is right that the more one emphasizes the distinctions between Israel andthe Church, the more that distinction favors a pretribulational rapture of theChurch.
Ithink that he is also right in arguing that those who do not make the strictestcontrast may hold to dispensationalism, a moderate or measured form as he callsit, and come to a view of the rapture other than pretribulational. I think thathis argument shows that there is a certain independence between one's views onthe relationship of Israel and the Church and the rapture. Not alldispensationalists must come to a pretribulational rapture position.
Havingsaid that, I think dispensationalism of all forms best accords with apretribulational rapture. By that I mean that I would not take as laissez fairean approach to the relationship between dispensationalism and a position on therapture. It seems to me that the pretribulation rapture is most dependent ontwo premises.[16] The firstis that the Church is a distinct body from Israel and saints other ages. Thisis not to deny that there are similarities among all the saints, but to seethat the Church is not identical with any of them. The second is that there isa future period of unprecedented judgment, divine wrath. This period has avariety of purposes, but none of them related to the Church. Therefore, itshould not surprise us that the Church is removed before this period begins. Ifthese premises are true, and I think that they are though I have not defendedthem here, then I think that dispensationalism best harmonizes withpretribulationism.
The Incompatibility of Premillennialism anda Posttribulational Rapture
Tounderstand the importance of this argument, it is helpful to have some ideaabout the character or nature of arguments.
Thecharacter or nature of arguments.--Arguments are generally classified in twoways. First, 'there are conclusive arguments. The two most common forms of thiskind of argument are arguments where the premises are known to be true and theconclusion follows necessarily from those premises, and arguments where theassumptions of a position are taken as the premises of the argument and thesepremises are shown to generate a contradiction--this latter argument is calleda reductio ad absurdum argument. Conclusive arguments are decisive for oragainst a position. They leave no question about the truth of a view. Theproblem with this type of argument is that it is impossible to find one forevery issue. It is difficult to find premises that opponents agree are true,and often the conclusion of an argument does not follow necessarily from itspremises. For this reason, a second sort of argument is needed. Second, otherarguments are reliable arguments. These kinds of arguments are more common thanthe former type. The conclusion of a reliable argument rests on good, adequateor appropriate evidence. Arguments of this sort do not rule out the possibilityof all alternative positions. Rather, they show that their conclusion has goodor adequate justification.
NowI am ready to apply this distinction to the argument that I am about to give.First, this argument is directed at those who are both premillennialists andposttribulationists. The problem does not arise for amillennialists, since thedifficulty is related to an earthly reign of Christ. Second, the argument is ofthe first sort. If it is correct, it shows that the two views, premillennialismand posttribulationism, are incompatible. That is, there are conditions inScripture that these two views cannot meet.
Theargument. The argument is thatthere must be an interval between the rapture of the Church and the secondcoming of Christ so that there can be those who are saved and enter into themillennium in nonglorified, physical bodies. Because of the importance of thisargument, let me develop it in some detail.
First,we need to see the necessity for saints with nonglorified bodies. Scripture teachesthat the millennium will see a dramatic curbing of evil and the flourishing ofrighteousness. However, sin will still exist (e. g., there are sacrifices, Isa.19:21; Eze. 43:13-27, and there will be a rebellion that closes the reign ofChrist on this earth, Rev. 20:7-10). Moreover, there will be sickness and death(Isa. 65:20). Houses will be built, and vineyards will be planted (Isa.65:21-22). None of these things are usually thought of as a part of theglorified state, particularly sinning.
Itmay now be asked how this causes difficulties for apremillennial-posttribulational eschatology? The problem centers in the factthat on this view the rapture and the second coming are simply parts of asingle complex event. Believers will be glorified as they are caught up to meetthe Lord in the air, and they will immediately return to this earth with Christ.to set up his kingdom and to rule and reign with him. All the righteous will begloried at Christ's coming either through translation or resurrection (1 Cor.15:51-52; 1 Thes. 4:13-18). All the righteous will enter the kingdom inglorified bodies.
Accordingto pretribulationist and midtribulationist at least, all the wicked will beexcluded or prevented from entering the kingdom or millennial age, the wickedamong the Gentiles at the sheep and goat judgment (Mat. 25:31-46) and among theJews when the Messiah causes them to pass under the rod (Eze. 20:37). Theproblem for the posttribulationist now can be stated in two ways. First, weredo the sheep come from in the sheep and goat judgment? Or, second, if all whoenter the kingdom are both righteous and glorified, and there are no wicked,how can they sin in the millennium? There clearly is a need for some righteous,nonglorified saints. Only then will it be possible for them to sin, and forthem to have children who will sin and some who take part in the rebellionagainst God at the end of the millennium.[17]
Notall premil-posttribulationist have seen the problem, but many have and havetried to offer a variety of solutions to this problem. One of the most commonis to identify the righteous with Jews who believe in Jesus as their Messiah ashe returns to the earth after the rapture. They will be saved and will enterthe kingdom in nonglorified bodies (Zec. 12:10-13:1; Rom. 11:26). Gundry has avariation of this proposal. He thinks that the 144,000 may comprise the Jewishremnant who will be physically preserved through the tribulation.
Iam unconvinced that this solution is the answer to the problem. First, there isgood evidence that the repentance precedes the return of Christ (Hos. 5:15-6:3;Mat. 23:29). The sight of the Messiah is the cause of intense mourning over theyears of rejection (Zec. 12:11-14). The return of Christ is signaled byIsrael's acceptance of their Messiah rather than the occasion for theacceptance of salvation.[20]Second, there are numerous passages that teach that Gentiles will populate themillennial earth in nonglorified bodies (e. g.', Isa. 19:18-25; 60:1-3; Zec.14:16-21). This solution would only permit Jews into the kingdom in physicalbodies.
Asecond suggestion is to deny that all the wicked die at Christ's return to thisearth.[21]To have all the righteous raptured and all the wicked slaughtered would resultin a dramatic depopulation the earth. This is not required by Scripture. Allthat it teaches is that the actively rebellious unbelievers will be destroyedin fulfillment of Revelation 19:15- 18 and Jeremiah 25:31. Thus, many, even themajority, will be slain but not all.[22]
Bellis right when he says that not all the wicked will be destroyed at Christ'sreturn. However, the complete elimination of the wicked from entrance into thekingdom is not simply the result of those who die at Christ's return, but alsothe separation of the wicked from the righteous in the judgments mentionedabove (Eze. 20:37 and Mat. 25:31-46). So while it is true that not all thewicked will be slain at the return of Christ, those who survive will beseparated in the judgments and prevented from entering the kingdom.
Athird approach to the problem is just to affirm that the wicked will enter intokingdom as required by the fact that there are a number of passages that teachthat wicked live in the kingdom (e. g., Isa. 37:32; 66:15-20; Joel 3:7, 8; Zec.14:16-19; Rev 20:7-9). This, however, is no solution at all. Nopremillennialist disagrees that evil will exist in the millennium. But this dependson the entrance of wicked into the millennial age, and if there are passagesthat teach that they will not enter the kingdom, then to say that the wicked doenter is to contradict Scripture. What passages teach that they will enter?
Byfar the most common solution offered to this problem is to argue that there aretwo resurrections but only one general judgment. There is a premillennialresurrection of all the righteous, but only one judgment including bothrighteous and wicked postmillennially. All the righteous will enter thekingdom, and enjoy its blessings. But not all wicked will be eliminated. Manywill die in the judgments that precede the second coming, but not all will bedestroyed. The judgment of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46 occurs afterthe millennium, not before. Thus, there will be unrighteous individuals, thougha greatly reduced number, who enter the kingdom. This is Gundry's view.
Thekey question for this view is whether the judgment in Matthew 25 can beharmonized with and is identical to the one in Revelation 20. Gundry thinksthey can. Where there are differences like the presence of good and evilpersons in Matthew and only wicked in Revelation, they are harmonizable.Rewards given at Christ's coming need not be done at a formal judgment. Therewards and punishments, eternal life and everlasting punishment, betterprecede the eternal state than the millennial kingdom.[25]
Whilesome of Gundry's arguments are weightier than others, it is noteworthy that hedoes not deal with the setting of the judgment scene: "But when the Son ofMan comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on Hisglorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him" (vv.31-32a). This seems clearly to set this chronologically at the time of Christ'sreturn in Matthew 24:30 after the tribulation.
Therestill remains the question as to why the reward is eternal life and thepunishment everlasting punishment. I have argued elsewhere the reward andpunishment do not constitute a good reason for identifying the judgment inMatthew with the one in Revelation. First, Matthew 25:31 unmistakably sets thisjudgment at the time of Christ's second advent before the millennium in a premillennialscheme. Second, Isaiah 24:21-22 teaches that there is a period of confinementbefore final consignment to Hell. Luke 16:19-31 teaches that between death andresurrection the wicked are punished. It is a time of torment, and justifiablycalled eternal punishment, although it is the first phase. Third, since themillennial kingdom is the first phase of the eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:21-28),eternal life is not an inappropriate name for the reward of the righteous.Jesus told his disciples that they had eternal life as he spoke. Furthermore, allthe righteous will be resurrected and receive glorified bodies by the beginningof the millennium, making it correct to say that they have received eternallife. Finally, even if the reward and punishment could be shown to bereferences to the final or eternal state, that would not close the matter. Itis not uncommon in prophetic literature to have two events foreshortened ortelescoped, so that they might appear to be temporally successive, but inreality separated by many years (e. g., Isa. 61:1-2 where both advents of ourLord are treated though separated by at least two thousand years; Dan. 12:1-2and Jo. 5:29 teach two resurrection which are to be separated by a thousandyears).
Asignificant variation on this last approach is offered in the writings ofDouglas M. Moo.[26] He beginsby saying that this argument is the most difficult for his position to handle.The difficulty is related not just to the argument itself, but also to the factthat the evidence is both sparse and complex.[27]He then goes on to offer a number of suggestions. First, he says that thepresence of evil, natural processes and ultimately rebellion against God areproblems for all forms of premillennialism in that these conditions seem to bemore appropriate during this present age rather than in a millennium. However,he acknowledges that it is claimed that the need for people in natural bodiesis a special problem for the posttribulationist.[28]
Second,he thinks that there is not a lot of evidence for saints with natural bodiesand the existence of evil. However, he does say that these conditions aretaught in Scripture, and therefore the problem cannot be avoided by aposttribulational premullennialist.[29]
Third,Moo thinks that there are two suggestions that serve as possible solutions tothis problem. The first is that it is entirely possible that some unbelieverswill enter the kingdom in nonglorified bodies. He bases this on the fact thatwhile some texts teach the universality of judgment on unbelievers at Christ'sreturn, they do not clearly specify that this is at the beginning of themillennium. Moreover, he suggests that the universality of judgment may involvethe telescoping of events that are premillennial and postmillennial. This, hethinks, is the reason that Matthew 24:31 says the judgment will bepremillennial and the rewards and punishment seem to point to a postmillennialjudgment. "Thus passages that describe a universal judgment along withChrist's return have as their purpose to specify the ultimately universal effectsof Christ's victory; they do not require that all are judged at the same time .. ."[30]And Revelation 19 does not require that all the wicked will be destroyed at thereturn of Christ so there will be unbelievers to enter the kingdom.
Letme evaluate Moo's proposal, discussing issues in an order different from theone he set out. First, the matter over whether the conversion of Jews at thetime of Messiah's return precedes or coincides with his coming, and thus do notparticipate in the rapture, is of minor significance. The reason that I saythis is that, even if true, it only would account for Jews in natural bodies inthe millennium, not Gentiles.
Second,I think that it is questionable whether this argument rests on sparse evidence.But again even if that were true, that would not justify the dismissal of thisproblem. In fairness to Moo I do not think that this is his point. He says thatthe problem cannot be avoided.
Third,I think that the key issue involves Matthew 25:31-46 and the telescoping ofevents in prophetic literature. I obviously do not disagree with the generalpoint because it is one I have made as well, citing examples of cases that Ithink exhibit this characteristic. Clearly, then, the question is whetherMatthew 25 is a case of telescoping. Moo does not say much about how apremillennial and postmillennial judgment might be blended in a single text. Ican think of at least three. The universality of judgment might take placetwice, once premillennially for those in the tribulation and once for every onepostmillennially. Or, the universality of the judgment might be a reference tothe combined events before and after the millennium. Or, again, theuniversality of judgment might be understood as a premillennial judgment of therighteous and a postmillennial judgment of the wicked.
Regardlessof which one of these approaches to telescoping one takes, I fail to see thatit solves the problem. If two universal judgments, one premillennial and onepostmillennial, are telescoped into one verse, this is probably more a case ofmultiple fulfillment of a text. However, this has not relieved the problemsince you have the universal exclusion of the wicked from the kingdom at thebeginning of the millennium and from eternal blessedness at the end. Infairness to Moo, I doubt that this is what he means.
Itis more likely that Moo thinks that the universality of judgment is either theresult of both the premillennial and postmillennial judgments, or that therighteous are universally judged premillennially and the wickedpostmillennially. I think that this is why he cites the Daniel 12:1-2 and John5:29 as examples of telescoping.
Itis clear that there are many ways in which such a telescoping could be done.However, there are two reason that I think any approach will fail. First, a postmillennialjudgment in Matthew 25 places the event outside the temporal framework of thedisciple's question in 24:3. Second, there are a number of passages that teachthat the wicked do not enter the kingdom, and that those who do enter themillennial age have been converted. The following passages teach eitherdirectly or indirectly that the wicked do not enter the kingdom. The rebels inIsrael will be rooted out before the establishment of the kingdom (Eze. 20:37,38). In Matthew it is only to the sheep that Jesus says, "Come, ye blessedof the Father, inherit the kingdom" (25:34). He never says to the wickedpremillennially or postmillennially, enter my kingdom. Rather, his words are,"Depart from me" (25:41). Moreover, the Scriptures testify that onlythose who have been converted will enter the kingdom (Isa. 16:5; 18:7;19:19-21, 25; 23:18; 55:5-6; 56:6-8; 60:3-5; 61:8-9; Jer. 3:17; 16:19-21;31:33-34; Amos 9:12; Obad. 17-21; Zec. 13:9).
Toescape the incompatibility between posttribulationism and premillennialismwicked Gentiles have to be permitted into the kingdom, and it seems to me thatthe witness of Scripture is overwhelming against this.
The Rapture and the Olivet Discourse
Athird important theological consideration is the Olivet Discourse and itsrelation to the rapture. It is our Lord's longest prophetic discourse, and itcomes as he looks forward to the cross. It is recorded in each of the synopticgospels: Matthew 24-25; Mark 13; Luke 21:5-38. There are three issues thatrequire attention. First, are the disciples representatives of the believingremnant in Israel or the Church? Second, is the time of the fulfillment of thediscourse at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. or is it eschatological? Third,is the rapture in the Olivet Discourse? While I have separated these threequestions for ease and clarity of discussion, it will become clear that theyare interrelated.
Whomdo the disciples represent?--One of the questions that must be answered iswhether the disciples are representatives of the believing remnant in Israel oras the foundation of the Church. The importance of answering this question canbe seen in the fact that the discourse comes as the result of the disciples'question. Moreover, the word "you" occurs repeatedly throughout thediscourse, often in the emphatic position.
Gundrygives one of the most complete discussions of this issue. He points out thatthe disciples are a transition group be1ono the believing remnant in Israel andthe Church. To deny the possibility that they might represent the Churchbecause the discourse is in the synoptic gospels fails to account for the factsof the matter. Jesus gives instructions to the Church in Matthew 16:18 and 18:15-18.He promises the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:26). The teaching of the apostles was firstgiven to them by Christ himself (Ac. 2:42 Cf. Mt. 28:20). The longest accountof the Olivet Discourse is in Matthew which is the particularly Jewish Gospel.However, it is the only Gospel where there is a direct reference to the Church,and the discourse is also found in the two non Jewish Gospels of Mark and Luke.
Whilethe discourse has a decidedly Jewish imprint on it, Gundry cautions againstdeciding against its teaching is not for the Church. He thinks that the keyelement is to be found in the fact that the nation of Israel has passed out ofdivine favor by Matthew 24-25 because of their rejection of Jesus as theirMessiah. On Palm Sunday Jesus rode into the city of Jerusalem to the hosannasof the pilgrims from Galilee. The leaders of the nation, however, reject him.By Tuesday they challenged Jesus' authority, and he responds with threeparables of judgment. This marks their final rejection of him and his setting asideof the nation. The second parable ends with "the kingdom of God will betaken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it"(Mt. 21:43). By Matthew 23:37-39 he gives his sorrowful farewell to the nationitself. Thus, it is best, Gundry thinks, to see contextually that Jesus isturning from the Jews, and preparing the disciples for his death and hisoutline for the future.[34]
Gundrythinks that the Jewish elements in the discourse can be met if those Jews areethnic, not religious Jews. That is, they are nationally related to the nationof Israel, but they are religiously a part of the Church. Thus, thedescriptions and instruction with a Jewish character are given to JewishChristians of the future. We should no more deny the books of Hebrews and Jamesa place in the Christian canon because of their Jewish flavor than to demandthat the disciples represent Israel and not the Church. Even the Sabbathregulation have a plausible explanation. Jesus is not telling these JewishChristians to follow them, but he simply recognize that if their flight came onthe Sabbath in a Jewish society that practiced the Sabbath regulations, therewould be reduced service to travelers.[35]
Supportfor the contention that the disciples represent the Church can also be foundoutside the Olivet Discourse. Previous to receiving the discourse, they hadbeen given instruction on Church discipline (Mt. 18:15-18). Two days after thisdiscourse, they received the Upper Room Discourse and participated in theinstitution of the Lord's Supper, a rite given to the Church. Some weeks laterthey were baptized in the Holy Spirit and formed the nucleus of the firstchurch in Jerusalem. They are the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20), and soon.[36]
Muchof what Gundry says I can agree with. He is right in seeing that the discipleare a transitional group, one time representing Israel and another the Church.He is correct in reminding us that the Gospel are no devoid of teaching for theChurch, even the Gospel written to the Jews, Matthew. We can agree that theOlivet Discourse comes at a time when the leaders of Israel have officiallyrejected Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, and Jesus is now preparing for the crossand the establish of the Church which includes both Jew and Gentile. However,that is not the end of the matter. At least as good a case can be made for thedisciples as representatives of the remnant in Israel in the Olivet Discourse.
First,if the disciples stand at one time for the remnant in Israel and another forthe Church, it is not unreasonable for them to have dual interests. When theleaders of the Jews reject Jesus, we would expect Jesus to begin to giveinstructions to the disciples in preparation for its founding (e. g., Mt.18:15-18; the Upper Room Discourse, Jn. 14). However, it should not surprise usthat would also be interested in what had become of the Jews and in' particularthe promises given to them in the OT. This is supported by the question of thedisciples to Jews at the 37 ascension about restoring the kingdom to Israel(Ac. 1:6).[37] Therefore,Jesus gives the Olivet Discourse with all its Jewish elements to answer thisquestion. This seems to be supported by its connection with Matthew 23 andJesus pronouncement of doom on Israel, and the disciples' question provoked byhis statement about the destruction of the temple (Mt. 24:3).
GleasonL. Archer offers a different reason that the disciples must be representativesof the Church rather than of converted Israel. He says that deny that representthe Church is to deny one of the most basic principles of evangelicalhermeneutics, the perspicuity or clarity of Scripture. He thinks that thedisciples, though Jews, are true representatives of the Christian church sinceJewish believers wrote all but one of the books of the NT, for the first fiveyears of the Church there was scarcely a non-Jew and all the other exhortationsand warnings were for them personally and were fulfilled in the subsequentcareers. If this is so, this would mean that the only exception would be theOlivet Discourse! It would require that Jesus would be saying look for thesesigns but you will never see them. If his remarks are really addressed to afuture nonexistent group of people, then what Jesus said in the OlivetDiscourse comes down to this. I am giving you signs to look for, but I reallydo not mean you but a generation hundred, even thousands of year, future.Though I am telling you to look for them, you really are not to look for them,because you will not survive long enough to see them. Archer concludes:"This kind of interpretation adds up to a serious violation of theperspicuity of Scripture.[38]
Onefinds this kind of objection most perplexing. First, God alone knows the timeof the fulfillment of prophecies which predict the future. We can now see thatthe fulfillment has not yet come, but it could have. If we apply this principleto all prediction or promises in the Bible, then the perspicuity of Scriptureis violated repeatedly. I think that regardless of one's eschatology, aBible-believing Christian would agree that we are commanded to look forChrist's return. But that too has not occurred. This generation or one in thefuture will see it. Does this violate the clarity of Scripture? I think not. Ifso, neither does what has been about the Olivet Discourse, although it might bewrong to understand its teaching that way.
Thisobjection, however, hides what is a more fundamental principle about predictiveprophecy which deserves comment. It is the widely held assumption that everyprophecy of the future must have some near or immediate fulfillment or it canhave no meaning or value to those to whom it is given. Let me just make up anexample of what I mean. Suppose that we have a prophecy of some future rulerwho is going to bring righteousness and prosperity to the people of Israel.Some argue that this must have a fulfillment or prefiliment in some king, evenif it ultimately is fulfilled in the Messiah. If it does not, then it has nomeaning or value to those who hear it. I simply think that principle is false,though there may be cases where is a near fulfillment. Certainly, there is noproblem in understanding the meaning of what the prophet says, "a ruler iscoming." But does it have value to those who hear it? I think so. IfIsrael is beset by enemies all around her and decaying within because of kingswho lead the people in the worship of idols, is it not comforting to know thatthere is a day coming when God will install a king who will love the Lord andprotect his people from their enemies? I may not see that, I am even desire tosee that day very much, but clearly that prediction does not violate theclarity of Scripture nor is it valueless to one in trouble.
DouglasMoo also thinks that the disciples represent the Church in the OlivetDiscourse. His arguments are different from those already cited. First, heargues that in most contexts in the Gospels the disciples stand for theChristians of all ages. If this were not the case, then it is difficult tounderstand why they would take Jesus' teaching as instruction for us.Therefore, there must be a clear reason in the context for narrowing theaudience from that of all Christians. Such are lacking, he contends, in theOlivet Discourse. As a matter of fact, he set out a number of similaritiesbetween this discourse and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12.Second, the use of the term "elect" of those on the earth at the timeof the fulfillment shows that the discourse is directed to the Church. Third,the nature of the exhortations addressed to the disciples at the end of thediscourse confirms that it is directed to the Church. These exhortationparallel admonitions given in Luke 12:39-46 and 19:11-27, where the disciplesclearly stand for the Church.[39]
Ithink that each of Moo's points is open to question. First, do the disciplesinvariably stand for the Church in the Gospels? The answer is surely yes if theChurch includes all believers of all times. However, if the Church begins onthe day of Pentecost, then that claim is not so clear. However, if they do not,does that not call into question the use of Jesus' teaching for the Church? Notat all. Such a claim overlooks the distinction between those addressed andthose to whom the teaching may be applied. The teachings of Jesus may beaddressed to a believing remnant in the Israel but have application tobelievers of all ages, the Church age included. There are indication discussedabove, the Jewish elements in the discourse, that require that those addressedbe Jews. Moreover, the parallel that Moo cites between the Olivet Discourse andthe Thessalonian epistles may be accounted for on two grounds. The first isthat the same event is discussed as in the discourse and 2 Thessalonians. Thesecond is that, though the events are different, they have similarities. Thisis my position on the parallels between the Olivet Discourse and 1Thessalonians 4:13-18.[40]
Second,does the term "elect" invariably refer to the Church? It probablydoes if that term is used only of the Church in Scripture. But even that is notthe case. There are at least elect angels. For a dispensationalist there areelect in Israel as well as the Church. However, might one not argue that theoverwhelming use of the term is in reference to the Church in the NT so that weshould need a very good reason for deciding that it is different here? Such anargument has a good deal of initial appeal, but in the end I think that it iswrong. What one needs to ask is, "Whom would the hearers of Jesus, in thecase the disciples, have identified with this term?" I think that it wouldhave been the believing remnant in Israel.
Finally,do not the similarities between exhortation found elsewhere in the Gospels andthe NT show that the disciples represent the Church? Let us assume uncriticallythat this is true, although in other place in the Gospels they may representthe remnant. That still would not settle the case. The similarities might beaccounted for because of their general character and the parallels between therapture and the second coming.
Whenis the Olivet Discourse fulfilled?--If the disciples represent the believingremnant in Israel, the time of the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse becomesa important issue. The reason is that those who hold that position on thedisciples are divided among those who think that the fulfillment of at least alarge part of the discourse transpired with the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D.70. Some go so far as to argue that Matthew 24:29-31 and Mark 13:24-27 are notreference to the coming of Christ, but are rather symbolic descriptions of thedestruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. This position has often been called thepreterist view because it sees so much of the discourse already fulfilledhistorically.
Iwould like to give the arguments for this position as set out in a recent workby David J. Palm.[41] Palm's thesis deals primarily with thediscourse in Mark, and he argues that verses 5-31 have to do with the fall ofJerusalem. His reasons are as follows. First, Jesus say that that generationwould not pass away without all these things being fulfilled. This referred tothe disciples' generation, not some future nonexistent generation.
Athorough discussion of these arguments goes beyond the scope of this chapter.However, I would like to respond to the preterist view, taking a futuristposition. First, the decisive argument for Palm comes from Matthew 24:34and"13:30. The break between the historical and the eschatological mustcome after, not before the passage that is usually associated with Christ'scoming because the generation to whom this discourse is addressed will see thefulfillment of the things prophesied. The only way this can be true if onetakes these words in their normal sense, is that they were fulfilled in thedestruction of Jerusalem.
Itdoes seem to me that Palm, along with others, has put his finger on a problemif you partition each of the accounts in the Gospels into historical andeschatological. Then, it seems that the you has to refer to the disciples, andthey have to see the fulfillment of these things. However, I think that thesituation is different. The question of the disciples in Matthew 24:3 doescontain both a historical and eschatological element. However, it is myjudgment that only the Lukean account treats the historical element (Lk.21:20-24), and it omits the problematic verse. Both Matthew and Mark have thestatement but neither of them describes the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D.70, at least not directly. If Jesus only teaches about eschatological eventsand they are to occur in a seven year period, then the generation and the useof "you" is a reference to that future time. Note that Jesus is notanswering a different question in the different synoptics. He, however, doesanswer different parts of that question, and this explains at least some of thedifferences in the accounts.
Second,there are elements in the historical section, as Palm sees it, that must beeschatological. There is the reference to the "abomination ofdesolation" from Daniel in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14. In Mark amasculine participle is used after the neuter "abomination" showingthat Jesus is thinking of a person, the Antichrist of 2 Thessalonians 2.
Third,it is very unlikely that what is unusually as a description of Christ's comingis in fact a symbolic representation of the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D.The first reason for rejecting the symbolic interpretation is that associationof Jesus' coming with the clouds allay has reference to the second advent inthe NT. Second, the judgments in Matthew 24:4-28, Mark 13:1-23 and Luke 21:5-24and the cosmic signs in Matthew 24:29, 30, Mark 13:24-25 and Luke 21:25-27 beara striking similarity to those described by the author of Revelation in chapter6. He holds these to be future, and he is presumably writing after A. D. 7O.
Isthe rapture in the Olivet Discourse? While it is the case that the rapturecould be posttribulational even if it were not in the Olivet Discourse, itwould be a decisive argument for a position if it could be shown to be thereand its time determined. Archer, a defender of a mid-seventieth week rapture,thinks that rapture is there, though he thinks that it is hard to pick out anypoint in the discourse where it occurs. Suggest some possibilities. Perhaps itis in Matthew 24:14 in "then the end shall come." Maybe it is to befound in verse 27 where the word "coming" is used. However, thisseems to be at the end of the tribulation. But in the end he concludes that ... "the precise timing of the Rapture cannot be clearly ascertained fromthe text of the Olivet Discourse . . ."[51]
Onecannot help but agree with Archer. He may be right about where the rapture isgoing to occur in the Olivet Discourse, but there little clear evidence for hisconclusions.
Gundryand Moo take essentially the same position.[52] They see the rapture in two places inthe Olivet Discourse, Matthew 24:31 and 24:40-41. The placing of the rapture in24:31 is particularly important in that verse 29 make it clear that whatfollows is "immediately after the tribulation of those days." Theidentification of this verse with rapture rests on two grounds. First, Jesusdescribes a "gathering" that takes place at the sound of a greattrumpet, a figure which is found in both 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 and 1Thessalonians 4:16-17. The verb "to gather together" (episunago) is usedhere, and its noun form (episunagoge) is used in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 of therapture. Though both the verb and noun occur only nine times in the NT, it isreason, so the argument goes, to identify the two on the verbal similarity andother parallels.[53] Second, the use of the term"elect" show that it is the Church that is in view.
Ihave already dealt with the question of whether "elect" is always areference to the Church in the NT. Let me turn here to the use of the verb"to gather together" in connection with a trumpet. The trumpet is acommon eschatological symbol. It has a number of uses. There are seven trumpetjudgments in the book of Revelation. There are trumpets that gather the elect.There is a similarity, but the use of trumpets in prophetic literature is not confinedto a posttribulational rapture. The noun and verb "gather together"are found only nine times in the NT as Moo admits. Only three of the nine haveeschatological significance: Matthew 24:31; its synoptic parallel, Mark 13:27;and 2 Thessalonians 2:1. The other six occurrences are of a non- theological,general character. This term is not a technical term for a posttribulationalcoining. The eschatological occurrence are so few that little can be said aboutthe term.
Mightnot the parallels between Matthew and the Thessalonian epistles suggest averbal contact? While there are similarities, I think that the difference aremore numerous and more significant. Matthew has the elect gathered by theangels, while 1 Thessalonians teaches that the Lord himself will do it. Matthewhas the great trumpet call the elect from the four winds; 1 Thessalonians itannounces the descent of our Lord. Matthew makes no mention of either aresurrection or the translation of living saint; Rapture passages do, and theseare important features in those passages. In Matthew the gathering seems to beon the earth, while in 1 Thessalonians it is in the air. 1 Thessalonians omitsany reference to heavenly changes; this an important element in Matthew 24. In1 Thessalonians an order of ascent is given; it is not clear that there is anyascent at all in Matthew 24. The dissimilarities in detail and the paucity ofoccurrences of "gather together" make the identification of rapturein 24:31 rest on the slimmest of evidence.
Asecond possibility for the rapture is Matthew 24:40-41 and its parallel in Luke17:34-35 where one is "taken" and one is "left." The verb"to take" is used of the rapture in John 14:1-3. It is possible,however, that the one taken here goes to judgment. However, Moo thinks that itsignificant that the verb for "take" is different here from the onein verse 39.[55]
Moogives enough reasons in his discussion of this text to question hisidentification. He admits that the one taken in verses 40, 41 may go tojudgment, not the kingdom. This seems clearly to be the case from the parallelin Luke 17:34-35. Moreover, the verb "taken" is used in a variety ofways, and is not technical term of a posttribulational return of Christ. As amatter of fact, it is quite a common word with many general uses.
Conclusion
Thischapter has not established the pretribulation rapture of the Church. That wasnot its purpose.[57] Rather Ihave tried to treat three issues at the interface of dispensationalism and therapture, and to show that they do not preclude the possibility of apretribulational rapture. I have tried to show that though there is a certainindependence between dispensationalism and a pretribulation rapture. The formeris most compatible with the latter. I have argued that there is anincompatibility between posttribulationism and premillennialism because of theneed for nonglorified saints in the millennium. And finally, I have examinedthe Olivet Discourse to see if requires that the Church is a part of aposttribulational rapture. My conclusion are that the disciples are notrepresentative of the Church, and, though the discourse is eschatological,there is no mention of the rapture in it, a conclusion quite in keeping with apretribulationism.
[1] RobertH. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), pp.12-28.
[2] . Ibid., p. 12.
[3] Ibid., pp. 12-3.
[4] Ibid., p. 13.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., p. 14.
[7] Ibid., pp. 14-5.
[8] Ibid., 15-18.
[9] Ibid. pp. 19-21.
[10] Ibid., pp. 21-23.
[11] Ibid., p. 23.
[12] Ibid., pp. 23-4.
[13] Ibid., p. 26.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid., pp. 26-7.
[16] For much fuller defense of this claim see John F. Walvoord,"The Coming of Christ for His Church," Bib Sac 123 (1966) 3-14.
[17] John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question (Findlay,Ohio:
Dunham, 1957), pp.92-95; John F. Walvoord, The Blessed Hope and
the Tribulation (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 53; Allen Beechick, The Pretribulation Rapture(Denver: Accent Books, 1980), pp. 39-57; Gleason F. Archer,"Mid-Seventieth-Week Rapture" in The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, orPost-Tribulational? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), pp. 120-22.
[18] William E. Bell, A Critical Evaluation of thePretribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology (Ph. D. dissertation,NYU, 1967), pp. 247-48. See also E. Michael Rusten, A Critical Evaluation ofDispensational Interpretations of the Book of Revelation (Ann Arbor, Mich.:University Microfilms International, 1977), 2 vols.
[19] Gundry, p. 82.
[20] For a fuller discussion of this point see Paul D.Feinberg, "Pretribulation Rapture" in The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, orPosttribulational? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), p. 73.
[21] Bell, pp. 247-8.
[22] Ibid.
[23] For a fuller discussion of this matter see Feinberg,Pretribulation, pp. 74-76.
[24] Gundry, chap. 14.
[25] Ibid., p. 166.
[26] Douglas J. Moo, "Response: Douglas J. Moo"in The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Posttribulational? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1984), pp. 161-65.
[27] Ibid., p. 161.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid., p. 162.
[30] Ibid., p. 163.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid., pp. 163-4.
[33] Gundry, pp. 129-31.
[34] Ibid., pp. 131-32.
[35] Ibid., pp. 132-33.
[36] Ibid., p. 134.
[37] Gordon R. Lewis, "Biblical Evidence forPretribulationism," Bib Sac 124 (1968), 220.
[38] Archer, pp. 123-4.
[39] Moo, pp. 192-95.
[40] I have argued this point in more detail in Feinberg,pp. 80-86; 229-30.
[41] David J. Palm, "The Signs of His Coming: AnExamination of the Olivet Discourse from a Preterist Perspective" (M. A.Thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, June, 1993).
[42] Ibid., p. 11.
[43] Ibid., p. 12.
[44] Ibid., pp. 12-13.
[45] Ibid., pp. 13-14.
[46] Ibid., pp. 14-15.
[47] Ibid., pp. 15-18.
[48] Ibid., ch. 3.
[49] Moo, p. 191.
[50] Ibid., pp. 191-2.
[51] Archer, p. 123. For the more extended discussion ofthis point by Archer see pp. 122-23.
[52] Gundry, pp. 134-39 and Moo, pp. 195-96.
[53] Gundry, p. 135 and Moo, p. 195.
[54] Gundry, p. 135 and Moo, p. 194.
[55] Moo, p. 196. See also Gundry, pp 137-39.
[56] For fuller discussion of this point see John F.Walvoord, "Is a Posttribulational Rapture Revealed in Matthew 24?"GTJ 6 (1985) 262-66.
[57] I have tried to give a case for a pretribulationalrapture in Feinberg, pp. 47-86. Even there not everything that could or shouldbe said for the position was said.