111

CHAPTER 5

THE DESTINY OF THE CHURCH

This chapter ends not only Part VI of the Framework series but also the Framework itself. In this chapter we come to the grand destiny of the Church and with it the inauguration of the Kingdom of God in history. We finally see how the Church as the Body of Christ reigns throughout all creation and provides the authority required for the long-anticipated Millennial Reign of Jesus Christ. The diverse elements of God’s plan—the angels, the Gentile nations, Israel, and the Church—merge at last into the Kingdom of God.

Necessarily, we must deal with the doctrine of “last things” or eschatology. As we noted in the previous chapter, eschatology has been the doctrinal area under development since the Reformation period. We observed in Chapter Four that as in previous periods of Church history the Holy Spirit has again stimulated the Church to grow deeper in the Word of God by tests of adversity. Since the Reformation, believers have had to face assaults of a kind not seen since the days of Egyptian and Babylonian grandeur. They have had to cope with life in the modern secular nation-state with its heretical dreams of establishing a Kingdom of Man on earth. First, it was the Divine Right of Kings, then the French Revolution with its New Republic, then Communism with its Soviet Empire, and Fascism with its Third Reich. Now the Church faces a growing globalism that seductively masks its logical end of a pagan world-state.

As in previous periods of Church history, the Scripture as God’s revelation is sufficient to discern the will of God and to trust Him to supply all the necessary enablement for living by faith (II Tim. 3:16). In this chapter, therefore, we turn to the Scriptures to learn of our destiny. For only as we know our destiny, our end goal, can we have perspective on our present situation.

We will examine the New Testament passages that reveal to the Church its final days. And in light of the many diverse views of eschatology, we will also study how the New Testament revelation to the Church fits with the Old Testament revelation to Israel.

Readers are once again advised strongly to review Part IV of this series, Chapter Four and the Appendix, before continuing with the text below.

THE CHURCH “COMPLETED”

To grasp the significance of the Church’s destiny, we have to understand how the Church’s historical existence differs from that of Israel. Then we must see what features “measure” the “progress” of the Church so that its end point can be understood.

HISTORICAL EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH

The differences between Israel and the Church regarding historical existence fall into two broad categories: Calendar-based Existence vs. Non-calendar-based

Existence and Earthly-Enemies vs. Heavenly-Enemies.

Calendar-based Progress. Unlike Israel that is regulated as a nation by the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Palestinian, Davidic, and New Covenants, the Church is directly regulated as a world-wide body of believers linked to the ascended and seated Lord Jesus Christ through NT revelation. Whereas Israel received news of its destiny in terms of calendar time, the Church’s destiny isn’t related to calendar time. Israel, for example, was told the length of its sojourn before the Exodus (Gen. 15:13), the length of its exile in Babylon (Jer. 25:11-12; 29:10), and the length of its awaiting the Messiah and the final Kingdom of God on earth (Dan. 9:24-27). Nowhere, however, in the New Testament is the Church given any such “calendar” notices. It would have been foolhardy, anyway, since believers during the Church age live in many cultures that have no divinely-authorized calendar like that of Israel. The Church is not a nation with an official historical clock like Israel (although both Roman Catholic Church-State and certain Protestant state-churches made valiant attempts to become virtual nations).[1]

Earthly-Enemies vs. Heavenly-Enemies. Israel constantly struggled against surrounding nations, e.g., Egypt, Moab, Syria, Assyria, etc. Although the OT believers were aware of angelic powers behind earthly political rulers (e.g., I Kings 22:19-23; Isa. 14:12), the emphasis of OT prophecies was against specific, named-nations (note the “oracles” of Isaiah 18 and 19 as typical). The Psalms address nations (e.g., messianic psalm like Psalm 2 and the enthronement psalms like Psalm 96). The great question for Israel concerned her occupation of the Promised land. Israel could not be Israel in permanent exile. There had to be a restoration to. . .the land!

NT passages speaking to the Church, however, lack any such emphasis. No nations are named as enemies. The enemies of the church are not “flesh and blood” but the angelic spirits (Eph. 6:12). Even where the NT names individual human enemies, the text doesn’t identify them in terms of particular nations (e.g., Alexander in I Tim. 1:20 and Demas in II Tim. 4:10). The struggle of the Church doesn’t concern the Promised Land because the Church is located elsewhere, that is, “in the heavenly places, in Christ” (Eph. 2:6), not in the land of Palestine. Rather than hoping for a time when all nations will submit to an earthly Temple in its midst, the Church looks forward to crushing Satan under its feet (Rom. 16:20) and judging angels (I Cor. 6:3). Clearly, there is a distinct difference between how Israel and the Church function under God in history. The challenge of eschatology is to respect this difference, these two dispensations of God’s working, while showing how both fit into the one single sovereign plan of God. Each has its own “end” or destiny under God’s comprehensive design for history. Each is related to the Lord Jesus Christ. Each receives the gracious benefits of the substitutionary atonement. Yet each differ fundamentally from the other.

MEASURES OF PROGRESS FOR ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH

What can be said of the accomplishments of Israel and the Church throughout historical time?

Israel’s Progress. Israel’s history was clearly outlined from her beginning just after the Exodus. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, 30, 32 provide the basic details that were known in that day. So clearly is Israel’s history outlined in these texts that unbelieving Bible critics have tried various “reconstructions” of the OT literature to “explain” how history was so accurately foreknown.[2]

Under the Mosaic Treaty or Contract with Yahweh, Israel would have to submit to His reign. Obedience would yield blessing; disobedience would yield cursing. Blessing would involve supernatural climate, political expansion, military victories, peaceful security, and economic prosperity. Cursing, however, would involve the mirror image: climatic adversity, political collapse, military defeat, insecurity, and economic deprivation. Ultimately, cursing would involve exile from the Promised Land (Lev. 26:33-34; Deut. 28:64-68).

So important is this Mosaic Covenant in controlling Israel’s historical experience that we must spend time understanding how it worked. It, and its foundation in the Abrahamic Covenant, provides the context for interpreting key prophetic terminology such as “tribulation”, “Day of the Lord”, and the associated geophysical cataclysmic judgments. Table Eight compares four Mosaic texts’ depiction of Israel’s future history. Notice that

Israel’s Historical Existence	Leviticus 26	Deuteronomy 28	Deuteronomy 30	Deuteronomy 32
origin	----	----	----	32:7-14
discipline & exile (includes both Babylonian & Roman conquests)	26:14-39	28:15-68		32:15-35
judgment (of nations) / salvation (of Israel)	26:40-45	-----	30:1-7	32:36-43
ultimate enjoyment of blessings in the land	26:1-13	28:1-14	30:8-10	-----

Table 8. Divine outline of Israel’s historical existence. God’s covenants control how Israel’s experience is to be interpreted.

details of future history do not appear, only a general framework. It is not obvious from any of these passages that there would be a “minor” exile in 586 BC and a “major” exile in AD 70 and corresponding “minor” restoration in 516 BC and a “major” one yet to come. Details of the future millennial kingdom do not appear, although the dynamics behind it are clear enough (repentance by the nation in order to enjoy the blessings fully). A clear pattern of God’s working in history, however, has been revealed by this time of Moses.

In the centuries following Moses the OT prophets guided by the Holy Spirit expanded upon this outline. By possessing the “word of Yahweh” they provided detailed interpretation of Israel’s existence, prophet after prophet, within this Mosaic frame of reference. The pattern described by Moses would recur several times in Israel’s history, each time adding more details that point to the ultimate, final fulfillment. We can trace progressive revelation of this pattern by surveying the prophets’ vocabulary and observing how it carries over into certain NT passages.

The OT terms, “tribulation,” “Day of Yahweh,” “Jacob’s trouble,” and “birth-pains.” In the original Mosaic context, the idea of a future age of tribulation occurs in Deuteronomy 4:30. By comparison with other passages such as those listed in Table Eight we can discern that that this tribulational period will bring about Israel’s final repentance and prepare the way for her long-promised blessing in the land. Because of the unconditionality of Israel’s election via the Abrahamic Covenant, the nation will ultimately be restored (see Deut. 4:30 and the texts cited in the fourth row of Table 8). Contrary to amillennialism, Israel has not been cast away. Her national repentance followed by a literal restoration to Palestine and enjoyment of peace, prosperity, and God’s Temple for the world is inevitable. Contrary to preterists, the destruction of the nation in AD 70 is not her final chapter in history.

In the progress of revelation just prior to the 70-year exile the classic OT writing prophets expanded upon the term tribulation. The exile would be a small-scale version of the final tribulation and so believing Jews had to be equipped to survive it. God provided for them by revealing the ultimate outcome of history beyond the immediate circumstance. Good will eventually triumph. Evil will be judged. Such must happen for the Kingdom to come. The logic here reasons from the greater to the lesser. If the ultimate victory is assured, then the Jews could survive the exile of 586 BC. The future tribulation expands to include all nations beside Israel.

Already hinted at in Moses’ texts (see row 3 in Table 8), Yahweh God will have His “day” (Day of Yahweh) when men of all nations will seek shelter in caves (Isa. 2:12-22) because of the great global geophysical judgments (Isa. 24). By this term, Day of Yahweh, OT prophets referred to special divine interventions into history involving judgments against nations. It could refer to God’s indirect intervention through human armies[3] (Babylon against Judah and Egypt as in Jer. 46:10; Lam. 2:1,21-22; Ezek. 7:19; 13:5; 30:3; Zeph 2:2-3 or Media-Persia against Babylon as in Isa. 13:6,9). The term could also refer to God’s direct intervention geophysically (Isa. 13:10,13; Ezek. 30:3,18; Joel 1:15-20; Zeph 1:15). The future Day of Yahweh will encompass a complex of judgments following the model of earlier occurrences: geophysical, astronomical, and human armies.

Within that broad period there would be one particular divine intervention that came to be known as the “great and terrible Day of the Lord” when all nations would

gather against Israel only to be defeated by the Lord in human form standing on the Mount of Olives (Joel 3:9-17; Zech 14:1-8).[4]

Thus the term “Day of the Lord” can refer to multiple divine interventions but they all manifest the same pattern of God judging nations in righteousness.

Israel doesn’t escape divine judgment in this future period. Just as she was judged in the OT by Yahweh using the human instrument Babylon, so she shall in the future be judged by Yahweh. Remember the outline in Table Eight: the future tribulational period also serves to bring her to repentance concerning the Messiah and her sin. Jeremiah spoke of the Day of the Lord as the time of Jacob’s tribulation (Day of the Lord here used in its broad sense). Daniel, too, spoke of Israel’s future tribulational period, and he added further revelation that at its end a resurrection will occur (Dan. 12:1). These terms must be set within their Mosaic frame of reference (Table 8). They refer to God’s judgment prior to establishing the long-promised Kingdom of God on earth.

Another term used in the OT to refer to this future tribulational period is birth pains. The prophets used it often in characterizing a Day of Yahweh (Isa. 13:8; 26:17-18; 66:7-8; Jer. 22:23; 30:5-6; Micah 4:9-10). Price notes that there is a long Jewish tradition of identifying the eschatological tribulation as a time of giving birth:

“In Daniel’s tribulation text (Dan. 12:1), rabbinic commentators interpreted the ‘time of trouble’ as a future eschatological time equivalent with the period known as the ch^avalim (birth pangs). . . .So frightening was the prospect of encountering this time of tribulation preceding the messianic arrival that some sages hoped it would not come in their lifetimes. Among them was Rabbi Yochanan who exclaimed: ‘Let [the Messiah] come, but may I not see it!’ (Sanhedrin 98b).”[5]

What is it that Israel gives birth to? The Messianic Kingdom! That is her ultimate purpose in history.

The duration of this future tribulational period was revealed to Daniel by the archangel Gabriel (Dan. 9:20-27). There are to be 490 years of calendar time to “finish the transgression” for the nation. From the rebuilding of Jerusalem at the end of the Babylonian captivity until the cutting off of the Messiah was to be 469 years (Dan. 9:25-26). Then there will be another period when the calendar time runs again, beginning with a treaty (covenant) making between many in the nation Israel and a “prince that shall come” (9:26-27). This period is known among Bible students as Daniel’s “Seventh Week.”

All seven years can be called a tribulation because it continues and brings to a conclusion the domination of Israel by Gentiles caused by her disobedience to the Lord. In fact Daniel speaks of “the” transgression (9:24) underlying these seven years, pointing to a particular sin which we can infer is the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. It fits with His closing remark to the nation “from now on you will not see me until you say, ‘blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’” (Matt. 23:39). Thus the entire seven-year period constitute discipline and cursing upon Israel so that under the dynamics of the Mosaic texts they are a tribulation (cf. Deut. 4:30, Table 8). The birth-pain metaphor would seem to apply to the whole seven years. Most Bible students, therefore, call Daniel’s Seventh Week the Tribulation.[6]

Israel’s Final Historical Milestone. From the above material, you can infer how to measure Israel’s progress in history. As a nation, Israel produced the Scripture and the Messiah. Her ultimate product is the Kingdom of the Messiah. Thus her final historic milestone must be establishment of that Kingdom.

Let’s work backwards from that milestone, using the information we’ve gleaned so far from how God works within His covenants with that nation. To begin the Kingdom, the King must return. For the King to return, Israel must repent nationally from her rejection of the King when He first came. Israel won’t repent nationally until she is subjected to extreme forms of discipline through human and natural mechanisms. These disciplinary actions climax during a time period called “Jacob’s trouble or tribulation.” The birth of the Kingdom historically requires a painful time of birthing. It will be a special period of intensified divine intervention, a “Day of the Lord” in OT terminology. As repeatedly shown in the OT, God judges and saves together. Israel’s deliverance must involve a judgment.

The familiar characteristic of a calendar period—this time a seven year period—will appear to mark off the this time of tribulation. For the “prince that shall come” to make a treaty with Jews in the land concerning a Temple in Jerusalem, obviously Jews must be regathered in the land. For final deliverance from such a tyrant, Israel must experience an extraordinary divine intervention, a climatic event known as the “great and terrible Day of the Lord.” There are more details than these which we will examine later. For now it is sufficient to appreciate that Israel’s progress toward her final milestone shows a pattern that originated at her origin under Moses (cf. Table 8).

The Church’s Progress. Unlike Israel, the “calendar-less” Church originates no new Scriptural covenants, produces no new Messiah, nor inherits a national position in the future Kingdom. There is no outline of historical progress like that Moses gave Israel; there is only the picture of gradual maturity in the face of a hostile world. Instead, the NT views the historical life of the Body of Christ by means of a number themes. Let’s examine some basic ones.

First, there is the theme of the union between believers on earth and the ascended, seated Lord in heaven. Church-age believers are “seated with Him in the heavenlies” (Eph. 2:6). As the qualified ruler of “all things” the Father has given the Son as “head” to the church which is the “body”(Eph. 1:20-23). Christians thus have their ultimate citizenship “in heaven” (Phil. 3:20) rather than in a national entity such as Israel or a Gentile nation like Rome or the United States. The Third Person indwells the Church and keeps this union authentic.

Second, there is the theme of corporate growth. As we studied in the previous chapter, Church history reveals that this growth is largely doctrinal. One of the most frequent features of NT warning passages centers on the matter of maintaining true doctrine over against seducing spirits and apostasy. Not only did the Holy Spirit reveal new truths of the Church age to the apostles, but He has steadily throughout Church history engineered circumstances so as to stimulate deeper apprehension of these truths. This type of growth isn’t seen as something having to do with political power or occupation of real estate. Nor is it seen to encounter a decline and an exilic period of history.

Third, there is the theme of global evangelization. Men in all people groups are to declare their allegiance to, or rebellion against, the seated King of Kings (Matt. 28:19-20). The gospel is to penetrate among “all the Gentiles” (Rom. 1:5; 15:20). Such evangelization is to occur throughout all generations of the Church age and will eventuate in the Body of Christ including universal representation of each people group (Rev. 5:9). The need to be truly a representative group of all humanity remains ever present.

Fourth, there is the theme of suffering from the onslaught of Satan. Just as Christ on earth was hated and attacked, so His Body is to be hated and attacked down through history (John 15:20; Rom 8:18-29). The NT casts the Church in a largely defensive role yet even in this role her identity with the Divine Warrior Yahweh emerges (Isa. 59:16-20 cf., Eph. 6:11-14). Nowhere does the NT picture the Church as a globally-dominating, politically-conquering entity.

Fifth, the theme of the Church’s immunity from the future wrath of God is strongly affirmed (Rom. 8:1; I Thess. 1:10; 5:9). The wrath of God to be expressed during the return of Christ comes in the context of the tribulational period and the Day of the Lord previously defined through Moses and later OT authors. It comes upon both Israel and all other nations for their rejection of God’s gracious way of salvation. The Church, by origin and therefore by character, accepts that way of salvation. Thus it does not share exposure to that future time of judgment. The Church is disciplined in a different fashion. According to Revelation 2-3, the Lord Jesus tailors judgments upon local congregations according to their particular sins. Yet with regard to the coming tribulation upon the whole earth, He will keep the Church from that time in history (Rev. 3:10).

Finally, overhanging all Church history is the imminency of the return of Christ for His Church. The term imminency means that Christ could come for His Church at any time—no prophesied event has to occur before it. A prophesied event might occur before it, but doesn’t have to. Throughout the numerous NT passages speaking of Christ’s return for His Church (distinguished from His administration of the wrath of God upon Israel and the nations), none speak of any event prior to that coming (e.g., I Cor. 15:51-52;.119 Phil. 3:20; 4:5; I Thess. 1:10; Jas. 5:7-9). Rather than look for some celestial sign, the return of Israel to the land, or the rise of the Anti-Christ, the Church is to look forward to only its “rapture” into the arms of the Lord.

The Rapture Event. The term rapture refers to the event described in I Corinthians 15:51-52 and I Thessalonians 4:13-18. This event constitutes the part of the return of Christ that concerns the Church alone. It consists of two nearly simultaneous happenings: the resurrection of dead Christian believers (not OT saints) and the translation of living Christian believers.

At the rapture, believers in Christ ascend to meet Jesus in the air and go with Him to heaven (note John 14:3 speaks of a place other than earth). There is no movement to the land of Israel mentioned. After it occurs, there are no remaining believers on earth and none in natural, mortal bodies. It concerns only believers in Christ, not OT saints. It is a new piece of revelation that has to be added to previous OT revelation.

The rapture occurs when all the Gentiles that are destined to be part of the Church come in to it (Rom. 11:25). At this point the total number of believers in the Body of Christ is reached. The Church is completed at last. This completion of believers in Christ, rather than completion of some sort of calendar span of time, is what ends the Church age.

The Church’s Final Historical Milestones. Besides the imminent rapture, two other events make up the set of final milestones to the Church’s role in present history. After the rapture brings all believers in Christ together in the presence of the ascended Lord, He passes judgment upon the fruit of each believer. This judgment is called by theologians the “bema seat” judgment. According to Paul, this judgment distributes rewards based upon works (I Cor. 3:10-15; II Cor. 5:10). Jesus refers to it when giving out His evaluations of individual congregations in Asia Minor (Rev. 2-3). Rewards are given or denied based upon behavior. These rewards apparently also include assigned roles in the coming Kingdom of God. The bema seat judgment is a sober reminder that obedience and fruit do count in the Christian life. More on that later. The third final milestone in the Church’s historic existence is its arrival back on earth in resurrected bodies and reward-based duty assignments. According to Revelation 19 Christ returns with His bride (the Church) to earth to judge the world and make way for the long-awaited Kingdom of God. Obviously, to be in this position the Church must have previously been removed from the earth, put in resurrection bodies, and received rewards.

We have now completed our survey of the Church’s destiny in contrast to that of Israel. Believers in the Church must orient to a different eschatology than that of OT saints. They differ significantly in their respective positions before the Lord. Before we study the doctrinal ramifications for Christian living, we must look at how the Church fits into the prior OT plan that centered upon Israel and the Gentile nations.

THE CHURCH AND THE TRIBULATION

At least five different scenarios are being advanced today by students of eschatology to relate the Church to the OT outline of history. Since all five views compete in evangelical circles, it behooves serious students of the Word of God to know what they are and develop reasons for choosing a position. I will describe each of these five scenarios and offer a critique pointing to pretribulationism as the correct scenario. Keep in mind what we studied in the previous chapter about Church history. The last few centuries have seen the Holy Spirit stimulating the Church to think through its eschatology and refine it just as earlier generations of Christians were led to refine other doctrinal areas. Eschatological variation and debate, therefore, ought not to discourage your involvement in this area of doctrine. The Lord wants us to face the issues of our day and to do so properly we have to refine Christian eschatology.

Preterism. Some students, particularly in Reformed circles (e.g., R. C. Sproul), have recently attempted to strengthen the amillennial or postmillennial viewpoints against the logical consistency of premillennialism by relegating the strongly prophetic portions of the NT—Jesus’ Mt. Olivet discourse in Matthew 24 and John’s book of Revelation—to past history (hence the term “preterism” in contrast to the term “futurism”). The basic idea of preterism asserts that these Scriptures view the Fall of Jerusalem to Rome in AD 70 as the wrath of God against unbelieving Israel.

What does preterism do with OT texts that underlie these NT texts? For example, Matthew 24:29 and Revelation 6:12-14 speak of the same catastrophic events as Isaiah 13:9, viz., the great tribulational judgments upon the world that figure so prominently in the OT view of Israel’s history. “Stars falling” and the “sun not giving its light”, according to preterist interpreters are figures of speech that depict the fall of a nation or kingdom. When such terms occur in the NT, the reasoning goes, they refer to the fall of the nation Israel for its rejection of Jesus. In this fashion preterism carries out the same metaphorical interpretation methodology advocated centuries ago by Augustine. Augustine, you remember from Part IV, was responsible for replacing the premillennial viewpoint of the early church with the amillennial viewpoint. Under the influence of Greek philosophy that demeaned physical forms and flushed with the recent capitulation of mighty Rome to the Christianity, Augustine built upon earlier allegorical interpretation to deny the literal and physical nature of the Millennial Kingdom. By his amillennialism the Church (the Roman Catholic Church in particular) replaced Israel and took over all the Kingdom promises.

Older versions of preterism before and during the time of Augustine were less consistent and less developed. Early preterism generally viewed the first few centuries of Church history as fulfilling prophecy (from the fall of Jerusalem through the rise of persecutions under Nero and other emperors variously seen as the Antichrist to the fall of pagan Rome under Christianity in Constantine’s day). Today’s preterism, however, insists that most, if not all, NT prophecy was fulfilled in the first century with its fall of Jerusalem and Neronian persecutions. Today’s preterists must insist, therefore, that the book of Revelation was written prior to AD 70. The tribulation, in this view, has come and gone; it is past, not future. We now live in the Kingdom age. Preterism thus is bound logically, theologically, and hermeneutically to amillennial or postmillennial views. It cannot coexist with premillennialism.

What exegetical justification do preterists offer? They cite NT texts that seem to anticipate the soon coming of Christ. With these texts in hand, they appeal to believers to defend the inerrancy of Scripture by adopting preterism. It has a powerful appeal to evangelical Christians who haven’t studied carefully the cited NT texts. Jesus, they point out, clearly stated that his Mt. Olivet prophecies were going to be fulfilled in “this generation”, i.e., the one present as He spoke (Matt. 24:1-3,34). All the events in Matthew 24 (and the parallels in Mark and Luke) had to have been fulfilled before the generation of Jesus’ day died off. The detailed, additional revelation of the Matthew 24 events through the Apostle John are stated as “at hand” and about to come to pass “shortly” (note the language throughout Revelation). Preterists claim that they are literally interpreting these texts while their opponents (futurists) depart from literal interpretation. Once preterists anchor their approach with these “time texts,” they then cite from first-century historical narratives features that “fulfill” Matthew 24 and Revelation, (e.g., Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the occurrence of Nero as the sixth Caesar from Julius Caesar and the myths of his return that followed his death).

Of course, the most prominent problem with the preterist approach is the lack of Jesus coming back to earth in AD 70. If all the events of Matthew 24 and Revelation were fulfilled then, where was Jesus’ coming? In AD 70 did “all the earth. . .see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt 24:30)? Did “every eye. . .see Him , even they who pierced Him” (Rev. 1:7)? Did He return from a cloud and come back to earth just as He left earth and ascended into a cloud (Acts 1:10-11)? Realizing the problem, some ”partial” preterists (e.g., R. C. Sproul, Kenneth Gentry) split the second coming passages into two groups: one group (Rev. 1:7; 19:11-21; 22:12,20) supposedly refers to the AD 70 coming in judgment against Israel; a second group (Acts 1:11; I Thess. 4:16-17) refers to another future coming in judgment against the whole world.[7]

Other, more logically-consistent “full” preterists (Don Preston) insist that all such texts refer to the past event of AD 70. Christ’s coming in AD 70 cannot be associated with the coming of the Holy Spirit some forty years earlier (as some liberal theologians tried to do in during the past century or two). Preterists, therefore, are left with trying to associate it with the Roman invasion and judgment upon Israel. Moreover, they are left trying to interpret present history as the manifestation of the long-promised Kingdom age that fulfills all prophecy.

Preterists’ most persuasive arguments concern the “time texts” mentioned above—texts apparently indicating that Christ was going to come soon after His ascension. Lexical studies of the terms used, however, clearly show that they can have two meanings: “soon” (not delaying), and “quickly” (not slowly). Which meaning a given instance has must be determined by the context. The former meaning occurs in I Timothy 3:14 (“I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long”). The latter meaning occurs in Matthew 28:7-8 (“And go quickly and tell his disciples. . . and they departed quickly from the tomb. . . .”) The second meaning rather than the first is the one most commonly associated with prophetic events. Such passages sometime use the illustration of a thief breaking and entering (Matt. 24:43; I Thess. 5:4; II Pet. 3:10). The thought here isn’t that the thief comes soon, but rather whenever he does come, he comes so quickly that one cannot respond. The thought focuses upon the sudden interruption into the “normal” state-of-affairs, a miraculous intervention into history like the global flood of Noah’s day (Matt. 24:37-39; II Pet. 3:1-13). That flood did not come soon; it took over a century to come. When it came, however, unbelieving humanity were utterly unprepared. The NT emphasis upon the quickness of Christ’s future coming points to its supernaturalness and unpredictability.

Similar to the terms for “soon/quickly” is the expression “at hand” which is used in Revelation 1:3 and 22:10. Preterists argue that this expression requires the events of Revelation to occur shortly after the book was written. The coming of Christ, they claim, was “at hand” in the sense that it was only a short time away. However, just as with the term “soon”, so with this expression: a second meaning occurs in biblical prophecy passages. Dr. Ice explains:

“An illustration from sports may help. A team may make it to the championship game. It may be said of the team that the championship is ‘at hand’ or ‘within grasp.’ This does not mean that it is certain to come within a short period of time, just because it is at hand. Just ask the Buffalo Bills. The NFL championship has been “near” or “at hand” for a number of years for the Bills, but thus far it has yet to arrive.[8]

“At hand” can mean something potentially could occur soon besides meaning that it will occur soon. This idea of potentiality, of something imminent, we’ve seen twice in previous chapters. First, during Christ’s earthly ministry, the Kingdom was “at hand” in the sense that if Israel had received Jesus as Messiah, it could have come about right then. The Kingdom was imminent. Then a second time the Kingdom appeared to be “at hand” when Peter promised that if the nation Israel would reconsider their decision about Jesus, the times of refreshing could come immediately.

A favorite preterist proof-text centers upon the identity of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 (“This generation will not pass away until all these things take place”). Preterists ask these questions: is not “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 the same group of people being addressed by Jesus since the last contextual use of the phrase “this generation” (Matt. 23:36) clearly refers to Jesus’ contemporaries; and if Jesus had meant to refer to a future generation would He have not used “that generation”?

Let’s think about pronouns like “this/these” and “that/those”, especially as used in eschatological texts. Pronouns substitute for object-nouns previously mentioned or implied in the context. Demonstrative pronouns help locate where the object is within the speaker’s perspective. “This” points out an object that is visualized as nearby to the speaker; “that” points out an object that is visualized as further away from the speaker. By carefully observing which demonstrative a speaker uses, the listener can learn where the speaker locates himself relative to the objects that are spoken of. Everyday speech as well as literary texts often show that a speaker shifts his location relative to the objects that are spoken of. Eschatological texts are no exception.

Experienced readers of OT prophecy know that such a shifting back-and-forth between a present-centered perspective and a future-centered one is common in eschatological passages. Readers repeatedly observe shifts in temporal viewpoint from the present to the future then back to the present as in Psalm 2 and many other places. In Isaiah 12, for another example, the text speaks of a future time as “that day” (12:4), a day located further away from the speaker. It shows that the speaker visualizes himself as in the present looking into the future. The text then, however, shows that speaker has moved into the future and now speaks about saving works of the Lord as nearby in his perspective (“Let this be known. . .”).

Preterists think that Jesus throughout all of His discourse in Matthew 24 never moves away from a present-centered perspective. In such a perspective “this” and “these” would refer to things present and “that” and “those” would refer to things in the future. Indeed, Jesus has this present-centered perspective when speaking of the future time of his coming. He uses “that” and “those” in such expressions as “those days” and “that hour” (24:19, 22, 29, and 36). He also speaks of the past flood of Noah as “those days” (24:38). The objects Jesus speaks about are remote to His vantage point in the present.

However, when He speaks of specific events in that future time (wars, famines, earthquakes, astronomical catastrophism), He uses the demonstrative pronoun “these” (24:8, 33) indicating that in His perspective the prophesied phenomena are now in the foreground. No longer is He standing in the present looking into the future.Now He stands in the future looking at its features “close up”. He focuses upon these future works of God as though He and his audience are there in that future time looking at them as they occur. And it is while He has this future-centered perspective looking at these features close up, that He utters the sentence “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (24:34). In this context it is clear that “this generation” belongs in the same visualized foreground as the events themselves. The generation Jesus has in mind is the generation who get to see these Tribulational judgments. Thus He uses the near demonstrative pronouns “this” and “these” that tie both the objects viewed and the viewers together in that same future time. If He had meant to say what the preterists think He is saying, He would have remained in the present-centered perspective, looking into the future and uttering something like this: “This generation will not pass away until all those things take place.”

Preterism experiences difficulty with Daniel 9:24-27. If, like most non-dispensational systems, preterism denies that a gap exists between the first 69 weeks and the 70^th, then that 70^th week, a seven-year period, cannot be made to stretch from AD 32 or 33 when the Messiah was cut off to the judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70. To make this passage fit the preterist scheme of an AD 70 final judgment upon Israel, advocates must give up literal interpretation of this very crucial OT passage.

Finally, preterists must date the book of Revelation before AD 70 in order to have AD 70 events appear as future happenings. Evidence for the date of this book is split between an early date near AD 70 and a later date near AD 96. While other schools of interpretation can accept either date, preterism can accept only the earlier date. Moreover, if preterism were true, then much of the rest of the New Testament motivational passages that rely upon the future coming of Christ to encourage godly living would become irrelevant. With Christ’s coming already past, much of the NT cannot directly relate to the Christian life today. It would have applied only to believers living between Pentecost and AD 70. Preterism, for all its complaints against dispensationalism, winds up in the end creating its own dispensation between the ascension of Jesus Christ and AD 70 that takes away much of the NT!

Post-tribulationism. The second of the five scenarios relating the Church to the Tribulation is post-tribulationism. Recent post-tribulationism places the Church within the seven-year Tribulation with the Rapture event occurring after this seven year period as part of Christ’s return to earth to judge the nations. It combines the Rapture of the Church with the Return of Christ..125 Unlike preterism, post-tribulationism can involve premillennialism as well as amillennialism and postmillennialism.

For most of Church history prior to the recent few centuries of eschatological doctrinal clarification, most theologians saw the Church as living within a present Tribulation or as existing after the Tribulation of pre-Constantine Rome. Thus post-tribulationism in its earlier undeveloped state was a part of a vague amillennialism. The Church age would end with the Return of Christ and the Rapture was part of that Return.

During recent Church history in which eschatology began to be refined and sharpened, there arose a strong emphasis upon literal interpretation of prophetic texts with a rise in popularity of premillennialism. The same literal hermeneutic that led to resurgent premillennialism also led to a differentiation between the Rapture of the Church and the Return of Christ. In the late 1800s when these two events were subject to much discussion, there arose the school of modern post-tribulationism. Led by proponents like S. P. Tregelles in the 19^th century and by Robert Cameron, Alexander Reese, and Robert Gundry in the 20^th century, modern post-tribulationism has been quite vitriolic against pre-tribulationism without at the same time dealing in a logical way with specific OT and NT passages.

What post-tribulationism needs to prove is that the Rapture and the Return cannot be distinguished sufficiently to show they are distinct events separate from each other.[9]

The problem post-tribulationism faces is that the Rapture is specifically addressed to the Church with its unique position distinct from Israel. The Return, however, is spoken of in the NT with direct continuity from OT prophecies relating to Israel. Table Nine shows the contrasts found in the texts that speak of each event. Since these differences are at least as great as the differences in OT prophecy between the first and second advents of the Messiah, it seems that post-tribulationism fails to prove the required closure between the Rapture and Return.

Since modern post-tribulationalists tend to be pre-millennialists, they also have to show, if the Rapture occurs at the end of the Tribulation and thus all living believers no longer have natural bodies, how the Millennial Kingdom can get started with believers in natural, mortal bodies. [The Millennial civilization requires natural bodies subject to death—see, for example, Isa. 65:20.] Sometimes post-tribulationists attempt to generate living survivors from the Tribulation in natural bodies from the 144,000 witnesses of Revelation, from repentant Jews in Matthew 24:30, or from the 75-day interim period that occurs between Christ’s return and the beginning of the Millennium (cf. Dan. 12:11-12). The attempt to use the

Rapture	Return
Only and all of those “in Christ” are resurrected or translated (I Thess. 4:16-17)	Resurrection not mentioned in Olivet Discourse and OT resurrection reference speaks of resurrected of “some” dead OT saints but not of translation of OT living saints (Matt. 24; Dan. 12:2)
Physical union with Christ in the air with all Church-age believers in resurrection bodies; no mention of inauguration of the Kingdom on earth with natural bodies (I Cor. 15:50-57; I Thess. 4:16-17)	Judgment of nations with everyone in natural bodies and inauguration of the Kingdom on earth (Matt. 25:31-46)
Christ comes in blessedness to deliver His Body into eternity (John 14:1-3; I Cor. 15:50- 57; I Thess 4:16-17).	Christ comes in judgment against all nations, including Israel, and to save the elect remnant of Israel and the “sheep” among the Gentiles for entry into the Kingdom on earth (Matt. 24:29-31; 25:31-46—OT imagery from Joel 3:12-16; Zech 14:3-5)
Believers removed; unbelievers left (see above references)	Unbelievers removed; believers left (Baptism of Fire motif in Matt. 3:12; 24:40-41 cf 25:30,41)
Christ comes for His globally-dispersed Church (see above references)	Christ comes with His Church back to the Mt. of Olives (Zech 14:4; Acts 1:11; Rev. 19:7- 14)
Church delivered from the wrath of God (I Thess. 1:10; 5:9; Rev. 3:10)	Entire globe, including believers dwelling on it at the time, experience the wrath of God (Rev. 6-19)
Church to look forward to physical union with Christ with no mention of anticipatory “signs” (I Cor. 1:7; 4:5; 15:51-52; 16:22; Phil 3:20; 4:5; I Thess 1:10; II Thess. 3:10-12; Titus 2:13; Jas 5:7-9; I John 2:28; Rev. 3:11; 22:7, 12,20)	Numerous signs associated with the Tribulation and Day of the Lord (OT prophecies; Matt. 24:3-44; Rev. 5-19)

Table 9. Partial listing of the differences between the Rapture for the Church and the Return of Christ to earth to

establish the Kingdom. Post-tribulationism must show that these two events cannot be distinguished.

144,000 as a source for the Millennial civilization doesn’t work because they are all male and all celebate (Rev. 14:4). The attempt to use the repentant Jews in Matthew 24:30 fails because, according to post-tribulationalism, the next verse requires the Rapture which would translate all such Jews into resurrection bodies leaving none in natural bodies. Finally, the attempt to use those who believe during the 75-day interim period after Christ’s return also seems to fail because they would have been unbelievers at Christ’s return and therefore have been removed in judgment.

A third problem for post-tribulationism, which insists that the Church remains on earth during the Tribulation, is reconciling the Scriptures that immunize the Church from the wrath of God (I Thess. 1:10; 5:9; Rev. 3:10) with the Scriptures that declare the Tribulation to be the supreme historical example of the wrath of God (see Table 8; Rev. 6-19). What is the Church doing in the Tribulation and, if it is, how is it immunized against the very present “wrath of God”? For one who follows OT theology (again see Table 8), the phrase “wrath of God” refers to a specific Tribulation period of judgment that has to do with Israel and the nations who have rebelled against God—Israel because of its rejection of the Messiah and the nations because of their persecution of Israel. The Church positionally distinguishes itself from both Israel and the nations because it started as the community of Jews who did receive the Messiah and because it contains Gentiles who have submitted to the authority of Israel’s God. Therefore, the Church has no purposeful connection with the Tribulation.

Post-tribulationalists have to resort to various schemes to explain the presence of the Church inside Daniel’s 70^th week when it isn’t part of the first 69 weeks. Some writers try to eliminate the wrath of God from the seven-year Tribulation and confine it to the moment of Christ’s return. This attempt fails because by definition the Tribulation is the wrath of God. Others try to invoke the protective method for the Church that God used to protect the Jews in Egypt during the Exodus judgments. This approach fails because during the Exodus no physical harm came upon believing Jews whereas during the Tribulation numerous believers are martyred. The promise of Revelation 3:10 doesn’t say that God will merely protect the Church from Tribulation, but it says He will protect it from the time of Tribulation, viz., the Church will not be present during that historical period.

Finally, a fourth problem for post-tribulationism concerns the sequencing of the Bema-seat judgment of the Church, the marriage feast of the Church, and the Return of Christ to earth. If the Rapture doesn’t occur until the Return of Christ, then the Bema-seat judgment and the marriage feast must follow the Return since the Church would not have been removed for these events until after Christ descends to earth. However, several texts in the book of Revelation indicate that the marriage supper occurs in heaven before the Return of Christ to earth (Rev. 19:7-9). Theologically, one would expect that prior to marriage feast, the Bema judgment would have had to occur for the bride “to have made herself ready.” Moreover, in addition to the requirement to be made ready for the marriage supper, there is the requirement to have already received reward-based-assignments for the coming Kingdom by the time that the Church returns with Christ (Rev. 19:14).

We conclude that post-tribulationism along with preterism fails to properly relate the Church to the Tribulation and OT prophecy. Preterism fails because it continues the same basic interpretation methodology of Roman Catholicism, i.e., an amillennial or post-millennial perspective. Post-tribulationism, while adapting a reformed hermeneutic for eschatology, errs in not being sufficiently consistent with that hermeneutic. It stops short of logically integrating its exegesis of NT prophetic passages so as to produce a coherent view of the distinct historic roles of Israel, the Church, and the Millennial Kingdom.

Three Quarter Tribulationism or the Van Kampen / Rosenthal “Pre-Wrath Rapture” View. A third scenario that attempts to relate the Church to the Tribulation has arisen since 1990 through the efforts of the Christian publisher, Robert Van Kampen and the former executive director of Friends of Israel, Marvin Rosenthal.[10]

In this arrangement, the Rapture and the Return of Christ are distinguished, unlike post-tribulationism. The Rapture is then located, timewise, prior to the last quarter of the Tribulation. The Church continues through the first half of the Tribulation, past the midpoint, and into the second half of the Tribulation for a while until the “three-quarter point” Rapture occurs. Figure Eight shows this scenario.

ß------------------------------------Daniel’s 70^th Week------------------------------à

| | | Seal #7; 7 Trumpets; | |

| First 4 Seal Judgments in 3.5 yrs | Seals #5,6; Tribulation; | wrath of God; | | Millennial

| | wrath of man | Day of Lord | | Kingdom

| I | II | III | |

/ / /

Midpoint Rapture of the Unfinished business:

Church Vials #1-7 for 30 days;

Restoration for 45 days

Figure 8. The Three Quarter Tribulation Scenario of Van Kampen and Rosenthal that divides the period into three parts. The Rapture occurs half-way through the second 3.5 year period of the 7 year span of Daniel’s 70^th Week.

The scenario requires several unique features not found in any of the other views of the Church and the Tribulation. First, Daniel’s 70^th week is divided into three parts instead of the customary two halves of three-and-a-half years each. The term “tribulation” as a title for this seven year period is dropped and moved to label only the second division between the midpoint and the Rapture. Moreover, the meaning of the term is changed to exclude any of God’s judgments; “tribulation” refers in the three-quarter view only to those judgments caused by man. Such a redefinition of “tribulation” is required in order to keep the wrath of God confined to that period of history after the Church has been removed via the Rapture. Otherwise, the promise that the Church escape the wrath of God would be vitiated. Hence the title of Rosenthal’s book, “The Pre-Wrath Rapture. . . .”

Such an arrangement requires a unique view of the book of Revelation. Since the “wrath of God” is mentioned in Revelation 6:17 in connection with the sixth seal judgment, that seal must be pushed forward into the second half of Daniel’s 70^th week. Customarily, the sixth seal has been understood to occur by the midpoint of the 70^th week, not later. By pushing that seal forward in the 70^th week, little time remains for the seventh seal, the seven trumpet judgments, and the seven bowl or vial judgments. As a result, the bowl judgments spill over the end of the 70^th week. They now fall inside the 75-day period prior to the actual beginning of the Millennial Kingdom.

Figure Eight also points to another unique interpretation of the book of Revelation. On the basis of Jesus’ remark in Matthew 24:22, Rosenthal concludes that the Great Tribulation (normally the second 3.5 years of the 70^th week) has been shortened to less than 42 months. This shortening establishes the second part of the 70^th week in Figure Eight. Room is thus left for the third part which is labeled as the Day of the Lord during which God’s wrath pours out upon the earth.

Three-Quarter Tribulationism starts, unfortunately, with some careless exegesis and theology that causes it to create problems of interpretation that really don’t exist. After trying to resolve these derivative problems, the view ends up with a series of additional problems in setting the Church vis-à-vis the Tribulation. A prime example concerns the concept of “tribulation.” From Table Eight we observed that Israel looked forward throughout the OT with dread to a time of tribulation. OT revelation supplies sufficient information to understand clearly the meaning of the term. During OT history God caused various judgments that prepared Israel for the ultimate judgment or tribulation yet to come. As we pointed out in discussing Table Eight, these OT divine interventions consisted of both human armies and geophysical catastrophes.

Therefore, Three-Quarter Tribulationism’s attempt to separate the 70^th week events into purely human invasions and persecutions that occur in the first two sections of Figure Eight and divine geophysical catastrophes that occur only in the third Day-of-the-Lord section is artificial and unbiblical. This view fails to explain how earthquakes that occur in the first section (Matt. 24:7) are caused by man and not geophysical judgments caused by God. All the judgments during the 70^th week, from the first seal to the last bowl, are expressions of the wrath of God unleashed by the Lord Jesus Christ acting as Judge beginning in Revelation 6.

The OT concept of tribulation includes the metaphor of birth pains. The OT metaphor of birth pains includes all of Daniel’s 70^th week, not part of it, as we saw in the discussion following Table Eight. Jesus explicitly labeled the first part of the 70^th week as a time of the “beginning of birth pains” (Matt. 24:8). Paul confirms this usage (I Thess. 5:3). This birth-pain metaphor encompasses all seven years as a time of tribulation. The term “tribulation” as a title for the entire 70^th week, therefore, is legitimate. Not only is it legitimate, it properly conveys the OT viewpoint that would have prevented the artificial and unbiblical distinctions between the wrath of man and the wrath of God that underlie Three-Quarter Tribulationism. It would have prevented overstatements.130 like Rosenthal’s insistence that the Greek term for tribulation never refers to the first half of the 70^th week.[11]

Three-Quarter Tribulationism correctly holds that the expression “Great Tribulation” begins after the midpoint of the 70^th week as Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15 reveal. Because of its confused notion of tribulation, however, this view can’t allow the tribulation of the Great Tribulation to last a full 42 months or else the Church would be exposed to the wrath of God that occurs in the third part of the 70^th week. To try to resolve this dilemma, Rosenthal seizes upon Jesus’ remark about the Great Tribulation being shortened (Matt. 24:22). Interpreting this remark as a modification to the prior-announced 42-month period (Daniel 12:1-7), he concludes that the Great Tribulation will last less than 42 months. Another problem now arises. The text of Revelation 12:7-17 that was written decades after Jesus’ remark still requires the Great Tribulation to last a full 42 months. Obviously, Jesus’ remark must refer to the original decree of God to establish the 42-month duration as a sufficiently short time period to permit survival of a faithful remnant of believers, not to a subsequent modification of it.

Other examples of unnecessary secondary problems created by Three-Quarter Tribulationism could be cited. Let’s look at one more. This view insists that the cry of unbelievers after the opening of the sixth seal that the wrath of God has come (Rev. 6:16-17) is an anticipatory comment, not a conclusion from past experience. If it were a conclusion from the unbelievers’ past experience, then that would mean the wrath of God had already come during at least the sixth seal, if not earlier. That in turn would require the Rapture to precede the sixth seal or earlier. Logic would then dictate that the Three-Quarter Tribulation position collapses into the older Mid-Tribulation position to be discussed in the next section. But how can Revelation 6:16-17 be an anticipatory comment? How would unbelievers recognize that a completely new kind of catastrophe was about to occur, a catastrophe directly from God rather than the previous catastrophes that supposedly arose from man alone?

Following logically from this unique interpretation of Revelation 6:16-17, the bowl or vial judgments must occur after Christ returns in the 75-day preparatory period just before He begins the Millennial Kingdom (see Figure 8). Now we encounter yet another unnecessary interpretative problem with the text of Revelation. The bowl or vial judgments occur in Revelation 15-16 before the Return of Christ which occurs in Revelation 19. The textual sequence no longer corresponds to the actual temporal sequence of future history. In some cases the textual sequence of Revelation is not in temporal order but in topical order (as occurs in some of the gospels, for example). However, in this case the text contains temporal markers that require correspondence between the sequence of the text and the sequence of the events. In Revelation 17:1 one of the angels who administered the bowl judgments comes to John and shows him the destruction of Babylon which occurs in chapters 17 and 18. Next in Revelation 19:1 there is a sequential text “after these things” and the Return of Christ is revealed to John. How, then, can Three-Quarter Tribulationism wrench the bowl judgments out of the order in the text and put them after the Return of Christ?

If the Rapture is distinguished from the Return, where in the flow of Revelation does it occur according to Three Quarter Tribulationism? Three-Quarter Tribulationism selects a textual reference to people in heaven that is closest to and just after the sixth seal judgment text of Revelation 6:12-17. The reference is Revelation 7:9-17, which speaks of a great multitude. This view interprets the multitude as the Raptured believers in Christ and OT saints who have just been brought into heaven. In order to solidify this group of people as the Raptured group, Van Kampen argues that the text shows them in resurrected bodies because of the fact that they are pictured wearing white robes, standing on their legs and holding palms in their hands.[12] Again, we see the same pattern emerging of secondary problems developing as a consequence of Three Quarter Tribulationism’s exegesis. Here the problem is that the text cited clearly labels the group as one unknown to John which has just come out of the Great Tribulation.

Besides the strangeness of John’s ignorance of who these people are, if they are the Church raptured, this view creates tension with the group in heaven observed in Revelation 5:9-11. Three-Quarter Tribulationism insists that this group of obviously martyred believers cannot be the same as the Raptured saints in Revelation 7:9-17 because the former have entered heaven through martyrdom and don’t have resurrected bodies. However, since they were martyred prior to the sixth seal and because according to Three-Quarter Tribulationism the Church still exists on earth up to the sixth seal, they must be “in Christ” when they are martyred. If so, then it follows they are dead in Christ and must be part of the Rapture, which this view insists occurs in Revelation 7.

Clearly, Three-Quarter Tribulationism generates a new set of problems by trying to identify the great multitude with the Raptured Church. Unlike preterism, Three-Quarter Tribulationism holds to a literal hermeneutic. It genuinely seeks to unravel the textual details of the Rapture and Return. It is a midway position between post-tribulationism (discussed above) and mid-tribulationism (discussed below). As a midway position is suffers from some of the weaknesses of both. Like post-tribulationism it faces the problem of keeping the Church out of the wrath of God during the Tribulation period. Whereas post-tribulationism tried to solve the problem by

positing some sort of divine protection for the Church during the Tribulational judgments, Three-Quarter Tribulationism tried to redefine the wrath of God as something distinct from tribulation so it could be compressed down to a few months at the end of the seven-year period. As we have noticed, however, secondary problems of interpretation erupt all over the text. This view also shares some of the weaknesses of mid-tribulationism, weakness which will be discussed in the next section.

Mid-Tribulationism. A fourth scenario attempts to extend the Church age into half of Daniel’s 70^th week rather than into three-quarters of it. Much of the previous Three Quarter view relied upon features first articulated by proponents of this scenario. In agreement with the Three Quarter view, mid-tribulationism distinguishes between the Rapture and the Return. Unlike that view, however, mid-tribulationism adheres to the conventional two-part view of Daniel’s 70^th week. Figure Nine shows this view.[13]

ß------------------------- Daniel’s 70^th Week------------------------à

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

_ |_______________________ |_______________________|__

/

/

Midpoint & Rapture of Church

Figure 9. The Mid-Tribulation Scenario retains the classical two-fold division of Daniel’s 70^th Week. The Rapture occurs at the midpoint.

Like all the futurist scenarios mid-tribulationism must deal with the promise to keep the Church from the wrath of God. Post-tribulationism, you will remember, tried to do so by either protecting the Church somehow from the wrath of God throughout the 70^th Week or by confining that wrath to the closing moments of the 70^th Week. Three Quarter tribulationism tried to do so by confining the wrath of God to the latter half of the last three-and-a-half years by claiming that the Great Tribulation consisted solely of the wrath of man and that it had been “shortened” to leave a little space for the wrath of God to occur. Mid-tribulationism also has to deal with this problem. It does so by identifying the Great Tribulation with the wrath of God, both of which then occur in the last half of Daniel’s 70^th Week.[14]

Central to mid-tribulationism is its linking the Rapture of the Church to a key event in God’s judgments upon Israel and the nations. The key link, according to mid-tribulation proponents, centers upon the identity of the “last trump” in one of the Rapture texts, I Corinthians 15:52. Since another Rapture text, I Thessalonians 4:16, mentions a “trump of God” both of these passages are linked to the last of the seven trumpet judgments in Revelation 11:15. To make its case, however, mid-tribulationism has to make two further assertions: (1) that no wrath of God occurs before the seventh trumpet judgment; and (2) that the seventh trumpet judgment occurs at the midpoint of Daniel’s 70^th week. Thus mid-tribulationism must prove three points to establish its position. Mid-tribulationism bolsters this link by pointing to what is claimed are hints of the Rapture in Revelation 10-11. Revelation 10:7 speaks of a “mystery of God” that is about to be “finished.” This reference to mystery mid-tribulationism identifies with the “mystery “ of I Timothy 3:16 and, thus, the completion of the Church. Revelation 11:3-12 speaks of God’s two witnesses who are killed but then resurrected and called up into heaven in a cloud. Noting some similarities with Rapture texts, mid-tribulationism uses Revelation 10-11 to clinch its case.[15]

Let’s evaluate the three key assertions above and the supplementary assertion just made. Mid-tribulationism must make the case that no wrath of God occurs prior to the seventh trumpet judgment in Revelation 11:18. Unfortunately, earlier in Revelation 6:16-17 the wrath occurs, clearly prior to the seventh trumpet. Moreover, Revelation 7:14, where the only occurrence of “great tribulation” occurs in the book, occurs before any of the trumpet judgments. Mid-tribulationism at this point is no more successful than Three Quarter tribulationism at postponing the wrath of God into the latter part of the seven-year period.

The other mid-tribulational assertion says that the seventh trumpet judgment occurs at the midpoint of Daniel’s 70^th Week. The problem with this position comes from the fact that all seal and all trumpet judgments have to be completed by the midpoint when none of them are said to express the wrath of God! Moreover, the seventh trumpet judgment appears in Revelation 11 to be very close to the end of the 70^th Week since the Return is very close at hand. Only the vial judgments remain to happen. Mid-tribulationism merely asserts without strong exegetical evidence that the seventh trumpet judgment occurs at the midpoint of the 70^th Week.

The other crucial mid-tribulational assertion links the Rapture’s “last trump” with the seventh trumpet judgment. This assertion claims that the “last trump” terminology implies that there are previous trumpets in a coordinated chain. The trumpet judgments provide such a chain. However, according to Matthew 24:31 yet another trumpet occurs at the gathering of Israel from the nations just prior to the Return. If mid-tribulationism requires that the Rapture occur at the last of a chain of trumpets, it has to identify the seventh trumpet with this trumpet in Matthew. Once this identification is made, mid-tribulationism becomes indistinguishable from post-tribulationism since Matthew 24:31 occurs long after the midpoint of the 70^th Week. In fact, mid-tribulationism and Three Quarter tribulationism both slip toward post-tribulationism in their treatment of Matthew 24. By insisting that this major Scriptural passage includes revelation of the Rapture event, both views wind up trying various maneuvers to avoid concluding that Matthew 24:31 occurs at the end of the 70^th Week—mid-Tribulationism by either ignoring the passage or by reinterpreting its chronological sequence and “Three Quarter” tribulationism by splitting it away from Matthew 25:31. Among the three views, therefore, it seems that post-tribulationism is the most stable.

Finally, the case for the Rapture being implied symbolically by the two-witness event in Revelation 11 depends upon an allegorical hermeneutic. The two witnesses die in the literal city of Jerusalem, and their bodies lie for a literal number of days in Jerusalem’s streets. The text seems to invite a straightforward literal interpretation. Nowhere in the text are there any hints at individuals besides the two witnesses. The only way this passage could imply a Rapture of the entire Church would be by allegorical interpretation, a move that flies in the face of the futurist interpretative approach. We have now discussed the preterist scenario and three futurist scenarios (post-tribulationism, Three-Quarter Tribulationism, and mid-tribulationism). Notice that each of the futurist views is struggling to combine events having to do with the Church (Rapture and union with the ascended Lord Jesus) with events having to do with Israel’s 70^th Week. The first of the futurist views, post-tribulationism, unites the Rapture and the Return into one indivisible event. Thus it combines very clearly the Church and Israel. In doing so, however, it forces the post-Rapture events of the Church (Bema Seat Judgment and the Marriage Feast) to occur instantaneously while it nearly destroys the OT picture of the Messiah coming to establish His Kingdom on earth with saints in natural bodies.

The last two futurist views—Three Quarter Tribulationism and mid-tribulationism—correctly distinguish the Rapture from the Return but continue, like post-tribulationism, to include the Church inside the 70^th Week. Once thisinclusion occurs, however, the Church’s immunity from the wrath of God arises as a crucial problem. Both of these views seek to redefine “wrath” so as to keep it from occurring during the first part of the 70^th Week when the Church is present. In the light of OT theology behind the 70^th week, these attempted redefinitions of God’s wrath fail. The OT makes clear through its vocabulary of the pain of childbirth, vocabulary that Jesus adopted in Matthew 24 to describe both halves of the Tribulation, that the entire 70^th Week is a period of God’s wrath. Moreover, its purpose is directed to Israel (to produce repentance toward the coming Messiah Jesus) and to the Gentile nations (to divide them on the basis of their response to God’s work in Israel), not to the Church. Unnecessary exegetical complications arise from these two views.

Pre-Tribulationism. The fifth and final scenario of combining the destinies of Israel and the Church places the Rapture prior to Daniel’s 70th Week rather than trying to fit it inside that timespan. In agreement with the Three-Quarter and mid-tribulational views, pre-tribulationism distinguishes the Rapture and the Return as separate features in the Second Coming complex of events. It adheres, too, to the classical two-part division in the 70^th week, agreeing with mid-tribulationism but rejecting the tri-partite division of Three-Quarter tribulationism. Figure Ten pictures the scenario.

Rapture

Possible | | ß------------------------- Daniel’s 70^th Week------------------------à

Gapà | | | |

| | | |

| | | |

________|___|__________________________|________________________________ |__

Figure 10. The Pre-Tribulation Scenario retains the classical two-fold division of Daniel’s 70^th Week and

places the Rapture prior to its beginning. Some pre-tribulationists believe there may be a gap of time

between the Rapture and the signing of the treaty between the Anti-Christ and Israel that starts the 70^th Week.

Advocates of this position believe that it best solves several challenges in the textual references to the Second Coming. It clearly solves the problem of keeping the Church from the wrath of God in a way compatible with the Revelation 3:10 reference to the time of tribulation. It maintains the entire 70^th Week as a time of judgment focused upon Israel and the nations as this Daniel’s 70^th Week judgmental period is presented in the OT. It allows enough time for the Bema Seat judgment and Marriage Supper of the Lamb to occur prior to the Church returning with Christ at the end of the 70^th Week and permits a literal interpretation of the Millennial Kingdom starting with people in natural bodies. Pre-tribulationism also raises the issue of “imminency”. Nowhere in the NT epistles’ references to the rapture does there appear to be any prior “sign” of it. The Rapture comes suddenly without warning (see discussion above under the Church’s Progress). Mid-tribulationism, Three-Quarter tribulationism, and post-tribulationism cannot have this sort of imminency. They all have prior signs in heaven and on earth such that when one observes them, one can calculate how soon the Rapture will occur. Pre-tribulationism has the Church looking for the any-moment return of Christ, not looking for the years-prior rise of the Anti-Christ.

By placing the Rapture before Daniel’s 70^th Week pre-tribulationism reinforces the qualification of the Lord Jesus Christ to trigger the series of catastrophic judgments beginning in Revelation 6. Revelation 5 claims that His qualification to open the seals derives from His having redeemed “us” out of every tribe, tongue, people, and nation (5:9). The “us” group already exists in heaven prior to the beginning of tribulation and seem to be the reason why the Lord Jesus Christ has proven Himself before the Father as worthy. He has become “complete.”

This is not to say that pre-tribulationism is without its difficulties. Critics have pointed to historical circumstances that occurred at the time its modern “father” John Nelson Darby worked out its first systematic statement. Critics have argued that it misinterprets Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians 2. Andm critics have accused it of fostering an “escapist” attitude toward suffering. What does pre-tribulationism say to these accusations?

First, regarding the historical circumstances, church historians have shown that Darby began to arrive at the idea of a pre-tribulational Rapture by 1827 while recovering from an injury. It wasn’t until 1830 that charismatic and unorthodox “prophets and prophetesses” supposedly had visions which critics claim were the real source of pre-tribulationism. Serious examination of the 1830 utterances of the prophetess Margaret Macdonald shows no pre-tribulational elements existed in them. Moreover, in recent years scholars have discovered an essay by the founder of Brown University in Rhode Island, Rev. Morgan Edwards (1722-1795), that describes a position close to pre-tribulationism that involves the Rapture of the Church and subsequent return with the Lord when He descends to the Mt. of Olives. Scholars have also discovered a very ancient manuscript ascribed to a Syrian theologian in the Eastern Church, Ephraem (AD 306-373). He wrote about a tribulation period prior to the Lord’s return of “one week” of seven years and about an imminent rapture of Christians prior to the tribulation.[16] Clearly, then, the idea of a pre-tribulational Rapture has a long history, even though it was not systematically developed until the 19^th century “back to the Bible” movement.

How does pre-tribulationism respond to the accusation that it misinterprets Matthew 24? Every futurist position discussed so far except pre-tribulationism insists that the Church and Israel are somehow both involved in Matthew 24. Most insist that 24:31 parallels Rapture passages in the epistles because of certain similarities. Their argument from similarities undercuts the distinction made previously between Israel and the Church and between the Return and the Rapture. If both the Church and Israel are spoken of in Matthew 24 and these distinctions are weakened, then post-tribulationism is the logical result. Mid-tribulationism and Three-Quarter tribulationism in holding this mixture view are thus unstable.

In contrast to these views pre-tribulationism maintains the distinctions between Israel and the Church and the Return and the Rapture. Matthew 24 is viewed as Jesus addressing his Jewish disciples as representing Israel here, not the Church (which wasn’t formed until weeks after these Mt. Olivet discourse). Matthew 24 in this respect parallels Matthew 10 where the disciples very clearly represent Israel’s believing remnant, not the Church. The disciples of the Mt. Olivet discourse apparently are thinking in terms of Zechariah 14:1-11. From the OT they had been taught that Jerusalem would be devastated by Gentile nations just prior to the arrival of the Messiah to the very place they and Jesus were standing on at that moment (cf. Zech. 14:4). During this Day of the Lord there would be astronomical and geophysical catastrophes (14:6-8) terminating in the Kingdom of the Messiah and world peace (14:9-11). During this discourse Jesus fills out details in this OT frame of reference. He actually expands the disciples’ picture just as Gabriel did for Daniel. Jerusalem and the Temple would be devastated (Luke’s account focuses upon this destruction that would come in AD 70) and the times of the Gentiles would occur for an extended period. Then sometime off in the future in a day when the Temple would be again rebuilt, the Antichrist would desecrate it (note that this future Temple is NOT destroyed unlike the Temple of the disciples’ day) for a time. Then the Messiah would come with astronomical and geophysical catastrophes and establish His Kingdom. The disciples’ idea from Zechariah was expanded to consider the interadvent age as in Figure 11.

Zechariah View

ß-------------------------------------- --------------------------------------à

The Gentiles destroy Jerusalem Zech 14:1-2

Messiah comes to Mt. of Olives to rescue the city Zech. 14:3-4a

Astronomical & geophysical catastrophes Zech 14:4b-8

Astronomical & geophysical catastrophes Zech 14:4b-8

Jesus View

ß----------------------------- -------------------------------à

Gentiles destroy Jerusalem Luke 21:12:24 “before all these”

Desecration of rebuilt Temple Matt 24:15-26

Astronomical & geophysical catastrophes Matt 24:27-30

Regathering of diaspora, Messianic Kingdom & world peace Matt 24:31; 25

Figure 11. In the Mt. Olivet discourse Jesus builds upon OT prophecy and fills in more details

for the disciples’ concern about Israel and the Temple.

The OT prophesied that God would scatter Israel to the four winds (Deut. 28:64-68; Ezk. 5:12; 17:21). It also prophesied, however, that God would regather His elect nation from the four winds one-by-one accompanied by the sound of a great trumpet (Deut. 30:3-4; Isa. 27:12-13; 43:5-7,10,20). This scenario is Israel’s, not the Church’s. Matthew 24:31 doesn’t speak of the Rapture; it speaks of the OT regathering. Neither do the later verses in Matthew 24:40-41 speak of any Rapture; they speak in terms of OT prophecy—the unbelievers are taken away to make way for the Messianic kingdom just as unbelievers were taken away in the flood of Noah’s day. Pre-tribulationism, therefore, maintains a consist distinction between Israel and the Church, leaving Matthew 24 addressed to Israel.

The profound difference in perspective between the future of Israel and the future of the Church can be observed by comparing the Matthew 24 OT view of the future of Israel with the view that Jesus shares with the Church in Revelation 2-3. In the letters to the seven churches Jesus focuses believers’ attention on eternal rewards for life after resurrection. No mention is made of any special prior events except when in 3:10 He excludes the Church from the tribulation to come.

Another criticism of pretribulationism centers upon II Thessalonians 2. The Thessalonians were upset by some sort of rumor that apparently the Day of the Lord had come. Critics of pretribulationism argue that if Paul had taught a pretrib Rapture to the Thessalonians in his first epistle, then he should have responded to this rumor by telling them not to worry since they would be raptured before the Day of the Lord. Why, they, ask is Paul silent about any pretrib Rapture in II Thessalonians 2?

Paul’s so-called silence is not about the Rapture, per se. He surely refers to it in the phrase “our gathering together to Him” (II Thess. 2:1). The silence concerns only the matter of the timing of the Rapture. There seems to be no clear reason given in the context for Paul’s omission of the Rapture’s timing so we may safely conclude that its timing would not have answered the problem the Thessalonians were having.

And what was their problem? They thought that a special time had come that endangered their safety. Whether this special time was the familiar Day of the Lord or some portion of it, the textual evidence varies. The majority text reading in 2:2 reads “Day of the Messiah”, a slightly different designation than Day of the Lord. Perhaps this Day of the Messiah period was thought to be a special time of tribulation that the rumor claimed had come about already ahead of the actual Day of the Lord. If so, one can understand why Paul would not have bothered to use the pretrib Rapture argument. He was battling a view that would have had this Day of the Messiah out ahead of both the Rapture and the Day of the Lord. The logical refutation required that he show that this Day of the Messiah was not going to precede the Day of the Lord but in fact was to occur after revelation of the Antichrist. In this logic the timing of the Rapture would have been irrelevant to the discussion.

Another more important point arises from this text. Whether some subtly involving a special Day of the Messiah is involved here or not, the critics of pretribulationism have the same problem with it as the pretribulationists themselves. Here is why. If a critic is a posttribulationist, he either holds to a Rapture before a very short Day of the Lord (to avoid the Church being exposed to the wrath of God) or he holds to a Rapture in the Day of the Lord (the Church being somehow protected from the wrath after the manner of Israel during the Exodus). If the former view, then he has exactly the same problem as the pretribulationist. Why the silence of Paul since he should have reminded the Thessalonians that they would be raptured before the coming very short Day of the Lord? If the latter view, then the Thessalonians should not have been upset at all since the Rapture was imminent! Mid-tribulationists and Three-Quarter Tribulationists both have the same problem as the former posttribulational

view. The bottom line is that we don’t understand enough about the rumor that troubled the Thessalonians to be able to extract from this text any information about the timing of the Rapture favoring any of the competing scenarios.

Finally, critics of pretribulationism often take cheap shots about the view being “escapist”, i.e., that it misleads Christians to underestimate the intensity of struggle in this life prior to the Rapture. While sounding pious, this argument actually misleads Christians to misunderstand the purposes of suffering for the Church. By definition the Church is that group of humanity who has not rejected Israel’s Messiah and therefore cannot be accused of that sin. And it is that sin that brings the Tribulational judgments upon Jews and Gentiles alike. The Church suffers indeed as Christ did, but for different reasons and in different ways. Christians suffer persecution and onslaughts of Satan precisely because of their identification with Christ in the fallen world. They are the only “part” of Christ available to Satan to attack. Moreover, the Church doesn’t suffer globally at the same time. Simultaneous global persecution of believers cannot occur until the Restrainer is removed and the Antichrist is let loose. Then a new more intense persecution arises never before seen in history: suffering for different reasons and in different ways.

---

[1] For this reason “date-setting” the end of the Church and return of Christ is doomed to failure. All date-setting attempts arise from what theologians call “historicism”, i.e., the view that biblical prophecy, chiefly the book of Revelation, is being fulfilled by Church history. Historicism became widely popular during the Reformation when Protestants saw themselves suffering under the Tribulation of Rome. Through historicism they were able to argue that the Pope was the Antichrist. Historicism reached a frenzied peak with Seventh-Day Adventism’s founder, William Miller, who predicted Christ’s return in 1844. This debacle and Protestantism’s strengthened position led to the demise of historicism. Even today, however, confused prophecy students occasionally drift into historicism in trying to set dates for Christ’s return. The problem here is that the Church isn’t Israel and isn’t regulated in the same manner God uses for Israel.

[2] Naïve university students often fall for these “reconstructions” as fact just as they do for evolution as fact. Of course, in both cases the professors involved usually deliberately hid their anti-Christian agenda

[3] That the Day of the Lord includes secondary human agencies of judgment under God’s sovereignty is obvious from OT history. Marvin Rosenthal, therefore, errs in claiming that the future Day of the Lord cannot utilize secondary human agencies of judgment in his book, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1990), pp. 141-2,5. He tries to narrow the meaning of the term to only the moment of Christ’s coming to judge the nations at the end of Daniel’s 70^th week (the “great and terrible Day of the Lord” discussed above) rather than to keep its biblical broad as well as biblically narrow usage. To do so within his prophetic schema, however, he has to deny that the earlier Tribulational judgments involving human agencies can also be considered as part of a Day of the Lord.

[4] Interestingly, Jewish rabbis by NT times had already concluded that “this [great and terrible Day of the Lord] is understood to refer to the advent of the Messiah” as cited from Shabbath 118a note of the Babylonian Talmud by Renald E. Showers, The Pre-Wrath Rapture View (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2001), p. 163.

[5] J. Randall Price, “Old Testament Tribulational Terms,” When the Trumpet Sounds , ed. Thomas Ice and

Timothy Demy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), p. 71f.

[6] Later in this chapter when we attempt to synchronize the separate destinies of the Church and Israel we will note that there are those who refuse to label this seven year period as the Tribulation for a number of reasons.

[7] For a details in the preterist-futurist debate see Thomas Ice and Kenneth L. Gentry, The Great Tribulation: Past or Future ? (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999).

[8] Ibid ., p. 115.

[9] I am indebted in this section for the clear argumentation presented by John S. Feinberg in his article, “Arguing About the Rapture: Who Must Prove What and How?” in When the Trumpet Sounds , ed. Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), pp. 187-210.

[10] See Marvin J. Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) and Robert Van Kampen, The Sign (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1992). The title is somewhat gratuitous since all views (post-, mid-, and pre-tribulationism) insist upon the Church escaping the wrath

of God.

[11] Rosenthal incorrectly insists that the Greek term for tribulation never refers to the first half of the 70^th week (Rosenthal, pp. 103, 105). It does in Matthew 24:9 which text refers to the time period prior to the midpoint discussed later in 24:15-21

[12] Van Kampen, pp. 296-8.

[13] A definitive work on mid-tribulationism is Norman B. Harrison, The End: Rethinking the Revelation (Minneapolis: The Harrison Service, 1941).

[14] Notice that ALL four futurist views see themselves as “pre-wrath” so that Rosenthal’s view cannot legitimately claim that title for itself as something distinctive.

[15] I am indebted to the critique of mid-tribulationism in Gerald B. Stanton, Kept From the Hour (Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991), pp. 178-208.

[16] Grant R. Jeffrey, “A Pretrib Rapture Statement in the Early Medieval Church,” When the Trumpet Sounds , ed. Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), pp. 106-125. Other essays in this volume describe eschatology in the early Church as well as more details surrounding the development of dispensational pre-tribulationism in the early 19^th century.