This goes right along with the thread of my first blog post.
Enjoy.
Why Do Some Teach that the Church will Endure the Tribulation?
From TRIUMPHANT RETURN
by Grant R. Jeffrey
Several incorrect premises have caused some to reject the pretribulation Rapture and accept the position called the "postribulation Rapture." The first premise is an emotional contention that it would be unfair for the modern Church to escape to heaven scot free to escape the martyrdom that other believers have experienced. While it is easy to understand such an emotion, it would be wrong to deny the doctrine of the pretribulation Rapture on this basis alone. The reality is that while many Christians have endured tremendous persecutions and tribulations, untold millions of believers have lived out their lives in times of peace. Furthermore, all of those Christians who died in either peace or persecution throughout history have already escaped the Great Tribulation.
An underlying attitude of many critics is their inorrect and unscriptural belief that the Church will somehow be purified by enduring the wrath of the Antichrist. However, the Scriptures declare that we are purified solely by the completed work of Christ on the Cross. If the Lord delays His return much longer, the rising tide of persecution of Christians affect the Church across the world. However, this will not constitute the Tribulation period which will be characterized by the wrath of God poured out from heaven on the unrepentant sinners during the final seven years of this age. Some critics have claimed that those who teach the hope of the pretribulation rapture are leaving Christians unprepared for the possibility of the coming persecution of the Tribulation period. However, in thirty-five years of teaching Bible prophecy, I have not witnessed pretribulation Rapture teachers instructing Christians that they are immune from end-time persecution. The prophecy teachers, myself included, who believe God promises that Christians will escape "wrath of God" in the Tribulation often warn believers that persecution is coming, even in North America, if the Lord tarries much longer. However, the postribulation Rapture position can rob the Church of her blessed hope. Jesus promised, "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" (Revelation 3:10).
The second and more important reason why some are teaching that the Church will be present during this terrible time is the failure to distinguish between God's plan for Israel and His plan for the Church, especially in the prophecy revealed by Christ in Matthew 24. They often acknowledge that there is strong biblical evidence for a pretribulation Rapture; however, they inevitably come back to their interpretation of Matthew 24, which seems to indicate that the Rapture follows the events of the Great Tribulation.
In the passage in Matthew 24, Christ is on the Temple Mount explaining to His Jewish disciples the events that will occur in Israel and in other nations that will lead to the return of Christ as their Jewish Messiah. The disciples' question that Jesus was answering concerned the coming of Israel's long-promised Kingdom, not the coming of Christ for His Church (which they did not even know about). It is easy to forget that, at this point, before the crucifixion of our Lord and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, there was no such thing as a Christian Church. If you had told one of the disciples during the week before Christ's crucifixion that someday there would be an organization based on Christ's teachings, called the Church, and that 99 percent of its members would be uncircumcised Gentiles who would follow neither Jewish law nor offer Temple sacrifices, he would probably have fallen off his chair in shock and disbelief. One of the classic mistakes in interpretation is to take this conversation between Christ and His Jewish disciples concerning the messianic kingdom and read back into it the reality of the Christian Church which did not come into existence until the Jews rejected Christ and God breathed life into His Body of believers.
Since Christ does not mention the Church to His disciples in this conversation, the plain interpretation is that Israel is the primary focus of the Prophecy of Matthew 24. Matthew 24 speaks of the Great Tribulation, and beginning at verse 15, Christ states that the Antichrist will set up the "abomination of desolation" (a supernatural statue of the Antichrist) to be worshiped in the Temple. In verses 40 and 41, Jesus says, "Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left." A vital question for students of the Bible is the identity of these people who "shall be taken." Does this prophecy refer to the Church or does it reveal God's plans for the Tribulation saint who become believers after the Rapture?
This chapter tells us that at the end of the Great Tribulation, God will send His angels and "they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (verse 31). These "elect" are the people who become believers during the Great Tribulation of three and one-half years. This gathering together is not the Rapture. This gathering of Tribulation believers takes place at the end of the Tribulation, whereas the Rapture of the Church occurs sometime prior to the beginning of the Great Tribulation when Antichrist sets himself up as "God" in the Temple. Notice that the angels "gather the elect" (verse 31), whereas, at the time of the Rapture, "The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first" (1 Thessalonians 4:16--17). This gathering of the "elect" Tribulation saints will occur at the conclusion of three and one-half years --- a period of time for which there are the most detailed prophecies found in the Bible.
The Bible describes many Tribulation events that must occur prior to the "gathering" of the Tribulation saints and thus, it cannot be correctly described as "imminent." These facts have caused many scholars to believe that this "gathering" is, therefore, a different event than the "Rapture" of the Church. However, when we turn our attention to the coming of Christ for His Church, we find that there are no warnings or signals given to indicate the time of the Rapture. The Rapture can literally occur at any time.
The third reason postribulationist writers have attacked the pretribulation Rapture doctrine by claiming that it cannot be true because no Church writer or Reformer ever taught this doctrine until approximately 170 years ago until it was introduced by John Darby, a Plymouth Brethren. Their argument that no one ever saw this "truth" throughout eighteen hundred years of Church history has been very effective, causing many Christians to abandon their belief in the pretribulation Rapture. The only problem is that their assertion that no one in the early Church taught the pretribulation Rapture has been found to be incorrect.
Obviously the truth about the time of the Rapture can be found only in Scripture. The Protestant Reformation was based essentially on this return to the authority of the Bible. The Latin phrase sola Scriptura, meaning "Scripture alone" became the rallying cry of the Reformers who ignored centuries of tradition and church councils in their insistence that truth could only be discovered in the Word of God. While the resolution of this issue must be based on our interpretation of Scripture, it is important to answer the errors of our opponents, who disparage "the blessed hope" of the Rapture with misinformation about the modern rediscovery of the truth about the pretribulation Rapture.
A Discovery that the Pretribulation Rapture Was Taught in the Early Church
During the summer of 1994, after more than a decade of searching, I discovered several fascinating manuscripts that contain clear evidence of the teaching of the pre-tribulation rapture in the early church.
Ephraem's Teaching on the Pretribulation Rapture
For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins. (On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World, by Ephraem the Syrian, A.D. 373)
The early Christian writer and poet, Ephraem the Syrian, (A.D. 306 - 373) was a major theologian of the early Byzantine Eastern Church. He was born near Nisbis, in the Roman province of Syria, near present-day Edessa, Turkey. Ephraem's fascinating teaching on the Antichrist has never been published in English until I wrote FINAL WARNING in 1995. Some scholars suggested that this manuscript was written several centuries later (5th or 6th century) but definitely before the birth of Islam in 622. However William Bousset, one of the greatest scholars on ancient eschatology, concluded in his book The Antichrist Legend that it was written by Ephraem the Syrian before A.D. 373.1 Andrew R. Anderson wrote in his book Alexander's Gate that he accepted the early date as being valid.2
This critically important prophecy manuscript from the fourth century of the Church era reveals a very clear statement about the pretribulational return of Christ to take His elect saints home to heaven to escape the coming Tribulation. For additional details read the article Examining an ancient Pre-tribulation Rapture statement on this web site.
1. William Bousset, The Antichrist Legend, trans. A. H. Keane (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1896)
2. Andrew R. Anderson, Alexander's Gate: Gog and Magog and the Enclosed Nations. Monographs of the Mediaeval Academy of America, no. 5. (Cambridge, MA.: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1932)
*The above is an excerpt taken from Grant Jeffrey's fascinating new release,
Triumphant Return
5 comments:
May I ask if you have ever gone over to Googleland and typed in "Famous Rapture Watchers," "Pretrib Rapture Desperados," or "Deceiving and Being Deceived"? You will be in for a treat and not a trick. Great reading! Irv
(BTW, the greatest work I've run into on the history of the rapture views (especially pretrib)is "The Rapture Plot" which Armageddon Books carries.)
Have you ever gone Googling and turned up "Famous Rapture Watchers," "Pretrib Rapture Desperados," or "Deceiving and Being Deceived"? You will never be the same after reading them; in fact, they might turn you inside out! All penned by the author of the bestselling book "The Rapture Plot" (see Armageddon Books online). Irv
A tell tail comment that lets
the cat out of the bag about how
ignorant one is about the end times,
.....is when they try to say the Rapture idea was invented somewhere
about 1830 etc. etc.
Recently, pre-wrath advocate Marvin Rosenthal wrote that the pre-trib rapture was of Satanic origin and unheard of before 1830. "To thwart the Lord's warning to His children, in 1830," proclaims Rosenthal, "Satan, the 'father of lies,' gave to a fifteen-year-old girl named Margaret McDonald a lengthy vision."1 Rosenthal gives no documentation, he merely asserts that this is true. However, he is wrong. He is undoubtedly relying upon the questionable work of Dave MacPherson.
Another thing amazing about Rosenthal's declaration is that a few paragraphs later in the article he characterizes his opposition as those who "did not deal with the issues, misrepresented the facts, or attempted character assassination."2 This description is exactly what he has done in his characterization of pre-trib rapture origins. Why would Rosenthal make such outlandish and unsubstantiated charges about the pre-trib rapture?
THE BIG LIE
One of the things that facilitated the Nazi rise to power in Germany earlier this century was their propaganda approach called "The Big Lie." If you told a big enough lie often enough then the people would come to believe it. This the Nazis did well. This is what anti-pretribulationists like John Bray3 and Dave MacPherson4 have done over the last 25 years. Apparently the big lie about the origins of the pre-trib rapture has penetrated the thinking of Robert Van Kampen5 and Marvin Rosenthal to the extent that they have adopted such a falsehood as true. This is amazing in light of the fact that their own pre-wrath viewpoint is not much more than fifteen years old itself. Rosenthal must have changed his mind about pre-trib origins between the time he wrote his book The Pre-wrath Rapture of the Church (1990) and the recent article (Dec. 1994) since, in the former, he says that the pre-trib rapture "can be traced back to John Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the year 1830."6 Rosenthal goes on to say, "Some scholars, seeking to prove error by association, have attempted (perhaps unfairly) to trace its origin back two years earlier to a charismatic, visionary woman named Margaret MacDonald."7 Even this statement is in error, since the Margaret Macdonald claim has always been related to 1830, not 1828. However, Rosenthal is correct in his original assessment that these charges are "unfair" and probably spring out of a motive to "prove error by association," known as the ad hominem argument.
Pretribulationists have sought to defend against "The Big Lie" through direct interaction against the charges.8 In a rebuttal to these charges I made in 1990, I gave two major reasons why "The Big Lie" is not true. First, it is doubtful that Margaret Macdonald's "prophecy" contains any elements related to the pre-trib rapture.9 Second, no one has ever demonstrated from actual facts of history that Darby was influenced by Macdonald's "prophecy" even if it had (which it did not) contained pre-trib elements.10 John Walvoord has said,
The whole controversy as aroused by Dave MacPherson's claims has so little supporting evidence, despite his careful research, that one wonders how he can write his book with a straight face. Pretribulationalists should be indebted to Dave MacPherson for exposing the facts, namely, that there is no proof that MacDonald or Irving originated the pretribulation rapture teaching.11
There is a third reason why MacPherson's theory is wrong, Darby clearly held to an early form of the pre-trib rapture by January 1827. This is a full three years before MacPherson's claim of 1830.
DARBY AND THE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE
Brethren writer, Roy A. Huebner claims and documents his belief that J.N. Darby first began to believe in the pre-trib rapture and develop his dispensational thinking while convalescing from a riding accident during December 1826 and January 1827.12 If this is true, then all of the origin-of-the-rapture-conspiracy-theories fall to the ground in a heap of speculative rubble. Darby would have at least a three-year jump on any who would have supposedly influenced his thought, making it impossible for all the "influence" theories to have any credibility.
Huebner provides clarification and evidence that Darby was not influenced by a fifteen-yea-old girl (Margaret Macdonald), Lacunza, Edward Irving, or the Irvingites. These are all said by the detractors of Darby and the pre-trib rapture to be bridges which led to Darby's thought. Instead, he demonstrates that Darby's understanding of the pre-trib rapture was the product of the development of his personal interactive thought with the text of Scripture as he, his friends, and dispensationalists have long contended.
Darby's pre-trib and dispensational thoughts, says Huebner, were developed from the following factors: 1) "he saw from Isaiah 32 that there was a different dispensation coming . . . that Israel and the Church were distinct."13 2) "During his convalescence JND learned that he ought daily to expect his Lord's return."14 3) "In 1827 JND understood the fall of the church. . . 'the ruin of the Church.'"15 4) Darby also was beginning to see a gap of time between the rapture and the second coming by 1827.16 5) Darby, himself, said in 1857 that he first started understanding things relating to the pre-trib Rapture "thirty years ago." "With that fixed point of reference, Jan. 31, 1827," declares Huebner, we can see that Darby "had already understood those truths upon which the pre-tribulation rapture hinges."17
German author Max S. Weremchuk has produced a major new biography on Darby entitled John Nelson Darby: A Biography.18 He agrees with Huebner's conclusions concerning the matter. "Having read MacPherson's book . . ." says Weremchuk, "I find it impossible to make a just comparison between what Miss MacDonald 'prophesied' and what Darby taught. It appears that the wish was the father of the idea."19
When reading Darby's earliest published essay on biblical prophecy (1829), it is clear that while it still has elements of historicism, it also reflects the fact that for Darby, the rapture was to be the church's focus and hope.20 Even in this earliest of essays, Darby expounds upon the rapture as the church's hope.21
SCHOLARS DO NOT ACCEPT THE BIG LIE
The various "rapture origin" theories espoused by opponents of pre-tribulationsm are not accepted as historically valid by scholars who have examined the evidence. The only ones who appear to have accepted these theories are those who already are opposed to the pre-trib rapture. A look at various scholars and historians reveals that they think, in varying degrees, that MacPherson has not proven his point. Most, if not all who are quoted below do not hold to the pre-trib rapture teaching. Ernest R. Sandeen declares,
This seems to be a groundless and pernicious charge. Neither Irving nor any member of the Albury group advocated any doctrine resembling the secret rapture. . . . Since the clear intention of this charge is to discredit the doctrine by attributing its origin to fanaticism rather than Scripture, there seems little ground for giving it any credence.22
Historian Timothy P. Weber's evaluation is a follows:
The pretribulation rapture was a neat solution to a thorny problem and historians are still trying to determine how or where Darby got it. . . .
A newer though still not totally convincing view contends that the doctrine initially appeared in a prophetic vision of Margaret Macdonald, . . .
Possibly, we may have to settle for Darby's own explanation. He claimed that the doctrine virtually jumped out of the pages of Scripture once he accepted and consistently maintained the distinction between Israel and the church.23
American historian Richard R. Reiter informs us that,
[Robert] Cameron probably traced this important but apparently erroneous view back to S. P. Tregelles, . . . Recently more detailed study on this view as the origin of pretribulationism appeared in works by Dave McPherson, . . . historian Ian S. Rennie . . . regarded McPherson's case as interesting but not conclusive.24
Posttribulationist William E. Bell asserts that,
It seems only fair, however, in the absence of eyewitnesses to settle the argument conclusively, that the benefit of the doubt should be given to Darby, and that the charge made by Tregelles be regarded as a possibility but with insufficient support to merit its acceptance. . . . On the whole, however, it seems that Darby is perhaps the most likely choice--with help from Tweedy. This conclusion is greatly strengthened by Darby's own claim to have arrived at the doctrine through his study of II Thessalonians 2:1-2.25
Pre-trib rapture opponent John Bray does not accept the MacPherson thesis either.
He [Darby] rejected those practices, and he already had his new view of the Lord coming FOR THE SAINTS (as contrasted to the later coming to the earth) which he had believed since 1827, . . . It was the coupling of this "70th week of Daniel" prophecy and its futuristic interpretation, with the teaching of the "secret rapture," that gave to us the completed "Pre-tribulation Secret Rapture" teaching as it has now been taught for many years. . . . makes it impossible for me to believe that Darby got his Pre-Tribulation Rapture teaching from Margaret MacDonald's vision in 1830. He was already a believer in it since 1827, as he plainly said.26
Huebner considers MacPherson's charges as "using slander that J. N. Darby took the (truth of the) pretribulation rapture from those very opposing, demon-inspired utterances."27 He goes on to conclude that MacPherson
did not profit by reading the utterances allegedly by Miss M. M. Instead of apprehending the plain import of her statements, as given by R. Norton, which has some affinity to the post-tribulation scheme and no real resemblance to the pretribulation rapture and dispensational truth, he has read into it what he appears so anxious to find.28
CONCLUSION
F. F. Bruce, who was part of the Brethren movement his entire life, but one who did not agree with the pre-trib rapture said the following when commenting on the validity of MacPherson's thesis:
Where did he [Darby] get it? The reviewer's answer would be that it was in the air in the 1820s and 1830s among eager students of unfulfilled prophecy, . . . direct dependence by Darby on Margaret Macdonald is unlikely.29
John Walvoord's assessment is likely close to the truth:
any careful student of Darby soon discovers that he did not get his eschatological views from men, but rather from his doctrine of the church as the body of Christ, a concept no one claims was revealed supernaturally to Irving or Macdonald. Darby's views undoubtedly were gradually formed, but they were theologically and biblically based rather than derived from Irving's pre-Pentecostal group.30
I challenge opponents of the pre-trib rapture to stick to a discussion of this matter based upon the Scriptures. While some have done this, many have not been so honest. To call the pre-trib position Satanic, as Rosenthal has done, does not help anyone in this discussion. Such rhetoric will only serve to cause greater polarization of the two views. However, when pre-trib opponents make false charges about the history of the pre-trib view we must respond. And respond we will in our next issue where we will present a clear pre-trib rapture statement from the fourth or fifth century. This pre-trib rapture statement ante-dates 1830 by almost 1,500 years and will certainly lead to at least a revision of those propagating The Big Lie.
Your lengthy leaning on "Dr." Tommy Ice is predictable (you've joined the club). For further light on him, Google "Thomas Ice (Bloopers)," "Thomas Ice (Hired Gun)," and "Pretrib Rapture Diehards" (the last part). Since his listed PH.D's are from unaccredited schools, does his degree stand for "Pretrib History Distorter"? Just wondering. Irv
Post-tribulationists must show that the biblical passages which speak about the Rapture and the ones about the Second Advent are so similar in what they are saying, that they are really talking about the exact same time and the exact same event. If the post-tribulationists can do this, then they have proved that the Rapture must occur at the Second Advent and it will occur after the Tribulation.
But I believe that a careful study of the biblical passages will show that there are some significant differences between the clear Rapture passages and the clear Second Advent passages, thus demonstrating that there are two different events happening at two different times.
For example, 1 Thessalonians 4, joined with John 14, teaches that when the Rapture takes place, believers will be removed from the earth in blessing to meet the Lord in the air and then taken by Jesus to the Father’s house in Heaven. Believers are removed from the earth and unbelievers are left behind. On the other hand, when you go to Matthew 24, which describes the Second Coming of Christ following the Tribulation, you have just the reverse order taught. Namely, at the Second Coming of Christ, the unbelievers are the ones removed from the earth in judgment and the believers are the ones left behind alive on the earth, who go into the Millennial Kingdom. This same order is taught in Matthew 13, 29 and 30.
Second, at the Rapture, believers are caught up to meet Christ in the air; Christ does not come all the way down to earth. But, according to Zechariah 14:4, there will be a time (the Second Coming of Christ) when His feet shall touch down upon the Mount of Olives.
Third, according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16, it is the Lord Himself who descends from Heaven and gathers believers to Himself, not the angels; whereas, in Matthew 13:49,50, Jesus plainly states, "the angels shall come forth, and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Fourth, the Rapture is an imminent event, that is, it could happen at any moment; whereas, the Second Coming of Christ is not imminent but preceded by the Tribulation period, the "Abomination of Desolation" at the three and a half year point of Daniel’s Seventieth Week, and great cosmological signs which take place (according to Matthew 24:29) just before Christ visibly descends to planet Earth.
If the Rapture and the Second Coming are not two different events, then how could 1 Thessalonians 1:10 be true? There Paul said about the Thessalonian Christians, "…they had turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is, Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come." They were waiting expectantly for Christ to come at any moment. In 1 Corinthians 16:22, Paul interjected the expression, "Maranatha," which means, "Our Lord, Come."
Post-tribulationists should ask, Why was Paul petitioning the Lord to come if He couldn’t come until after the Tribulation? According to James 5:9, Christians should be careful not to complain against each other, because "Jesus the judge is standing right at the door" and could come at any moment. These and other passages reveal that Paul, the other apostles, and the early Christians all believed that Christ could come back at any moment. This shows that the Rapture must be a separate event from the Second Coming of Christ, which has definite signs that must take place before it can occur.
Now other biblical truths also apply to end-time events, and these also must be explained by those who hold to a pre-tribulation rapture, a mid-tribulation rapture, or a post-tribulation rapture view.
One such biblical truth that needs to be addressed is how human beings go into the Millennial Kingdom in non-glorified bodies. Let me explain. In Revelation 20:1–10, the Thousand-Year Reign of Christ on earth is described. In verses 7 through 10, Satan is released at the end of that Millennial Kingdom; he’s been bound for a thousand years. At that time he goes out and deceives a number of people and leads them in one last rebellion against God.
But we need to ask, "Where did Satan get anybody to follow him?" According to 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15, at the rapture the dead in Christ are raised and Christians who are living on earth are transformed, that is, given glorified bodies, and caught up to meet the Lord with whom they remain forever.
This presents a real problem for some of the positions. Revelation 20 says there are going to be some sinners at the end of the Millennial Kingdom. These people had to come from human parents who entered the Millennial Kingdom in natural, physical bodies, just like yours and mine, so that they could have children. Where did these people come from?
The pre-tribulation rapture view holds that the Church is raptured before Daniel’s Seventieth Week—that is, before the Tribulation; yet the gospel will still be proclaimed throughout the seven years of the Tribulation and many people will respond to Christ and be saved. Some of them are going to lose their lives during that seven-year period, but others will make it through that time. Those who make it all the way through the Tribulation period will enter the Millennial Kingdom in their non-glorified, natural, physical bodies. There is also evidence from passages such as Zechariah 12:10 that when the Lord returns at the Second Advent, there will be a large number of Jewish people who will turn to Jesus Christ as personal Savior. They, too, will go into the Kingdom in natural bodies. They will have children who will then have other children who may not accept Christ as personal Savior and could be the ones available to follow Satan at the end of the Millennial Kingdom.
Post a Comment