Saturday, June 1, 2013

Why Eschatology?


So, since I am team teaching through 1 Thessalonians on Wednesday nights at my church, it seems like a good time to pick up my blogs on Christ’s return.  Before I turn to the substance of the discussion proper, I want to examine the reasons why eschatology (the science of the last things) is important for us to study.

First, it is in the Bible.  God thought it was important enough to make sure that it is in the Bible.  The main places are Daniel, Matthew, 1 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation, but eschatology is found throughout the Bible.  As Millard Erickson says, if it is in the Bible, it is the Christian’s duty to read it, think about it, and meditate on it.

Second, our eschatology impacts our other doctrines.  If we have a misunderstanding about what happens in the end, we leave ourselves open to misunderstanding doctrines that pertain to the middle.


Finally, just as above, when we get our view of the end times wrong it can impact how we should be living prior to those end times.  Allow me to share a story to help illustrate my point.

When Chinese men decide to become a pastor of an underground church, the question is not “if” they will go to prison but “when” they will go to prison.  In light of this, their training encompasses not only Bible study but also physical conditioning.  Prisons in China are bad places to be.  Many prisoners die.  In order to prepare, Chinese pastors follow a strict dietary and exercise routine so that they can survive the experience.

If the church must go through the tribulation, shouldn’t we be preparing like these Chinese pastors?  Shouldn’t we keep our lamps trimmed and burning?

Before we turn to the matter, there are a lot of people whom I respect a great deal who have differing opinions on this topic.  Let me say that while I write bluntly about these ideas and with certitude, my respect for them is in no way diminished because we disagree. Now back to my last blog…

In my last post on this topic, I mentioned three “problems” with the post tribulation view:

  1. If the rapture and the second coming are the same event, believers will have to go through the tribulation.
  2. If the rapture and the second coming are the same event, the return of Christ is not imminent—there are many things which must occur before He can return.
  3. In describing the tribulation period, Revelation chapters 6–19 nowhere mentions the church. During the tribulation—also called “the time of trouble for Jacob” –God will again turn His primary attention to Israel (Romans 11:17-31). (Source: gotQuestions?org)

I would like to address all three of these problems before broaching a fourth problem related to the third.

“If the rapture and the second coming are the same event, believers will have to go through the tribulation.”

This is just a statement of the obvious.  The tribulation will certainly be a troublesome time like never seen here on earth.  That doesn’t make it false for the non-Christian nor does it make it false for the Christian if it is God’s plan for them to endure it.

“If the rapture and the second coming are the same event, the return of Christ is not imminent—there are many things which must occur before He can return.”

First some definitions:

Imminent: ready to take place; especially: hanging threateningly over one's head imminent danger of being run over>
(
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imminent)

Immanent: indwelling, inherent immanent
— Anthony Burgess>
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immanent)

If we talk of the “Imminent Return of Christ” we mean that everything has been fulfilled in order for Christ to return.  Persons holding to the pre-tribulation rapture view would argue in favor of the “Imminent Return of Christ” opposing those holding to a mid- or post-tribulation rapture.

If we talk of the “Immanent Return of Christ” we mean that Christ will appear in bodily form. Those holding to a premillennial and postmillennial reign view would argue in favor of the “Immanent Return of Christ” against those holding to an amillenial reign.  All persons holding to a tribulation rapture view (pre-, mid-, and post-) are premillennial as far as I am aware.

I go through these details as these words are confused a fair amount of the time.  For example, this pastor’s blog uses “immanent” when it should be using “imminent”: http://faithbaptistfowler.org/1/post/2011/6/living-in-light-of-the-immanent-return-of-christ.html.

With that foundational work out of the way, why would anyone believe that everything is fulfilled for Christ to return and has been for some time? If this were the case, Christ would have returned.  It may be true (but it is arguable) that everything listed in the Bible as a prerequisite for Christ’s return has been met.  Even so, why should we be so prideful as to think that God revealed to us His entire “To Do List” preceding Christ’s return?  What we are told, instead, is that we should be watching and waiting and that we will be able to know the times based on events taking place.  This seems to fit just as easily (if not more so) into the post-tribulation rapture view as it does the pre-tribulation view. To put it simply, everything can’t have been fulfilled for Christ’s return one second ago, or Christ would have returned.  He is waiting for something.

In describing the tribulation period, Revelation chapters 6–19 nowhere mentions the church. During the tribulation—also called “the time of trouble for Jacob” –God will again turn His primary attention to Israel (Romans 11:17-31).

And…?

On the point from Revelation:  Revelation does in fact mention the many, many believers who will be martyred for their faith.  Why would John have had to use the word church during the tribulation section of Revelation?  He repeatedly uses the word “saints”.  Aren’t all saints in the body of Christ? Isn’t the body of Christ the universal church?

On the point from Romans:  Hasn’t God been dealing heavily with the Gentiles since the Jerusalem church was scattered to Antioch? Did He have to rapture out the believing Israelites in order to reach Gentiles?  Why would we think that God could not turn His attention to the nation of Israel with believing Gentiles still around?

The fourth problem that I to which I alluded above deals with dispensationalism and covenant theology and is related to the problem 3).  Depending on one’s exact placement in this broad spectrum of views, their view of the rapture could be greatly impacted.  As you might have guessed, this topic needs at least its own blog (or three). So, I will save that for next time!

5 comments:

Unknown said...

¬¬People often get very opinionated and even self-righteous when it comes to their view on eschatology, especially when it comes to pre-trib vs post trib. I haven’t really been convinced enough in either direction to be dogmatic, and even if I were, I would still enjoy the intellectual pursuit and debate that accompanies deep exegesis of the Scriptures. That being said, Michael, I can see that this is much more than an intellectual pursuit for you. Maybe it started that way, but I can truly see that your heart is not for you to be proven right, but for the church to be prepared for what it may not see coming, namely, the events of the Tribulation. So, I appreciate your heart of humility towards those who would disagree with you, often vehemently, and toward the truth contained in Scripture that we can uncover with prayer and proper exegesis.
I intend to offer some counter arguments to the ideas you have set forth, not because I necessarily agree with them or disagree with you, but in order to foster a closer examination of the Scriptures from every angle so as to allow for the greatest understanding, with the purpose being that I would be able both to understand the in’s and out’s of this subject of eschatology and to explain and discuss them with others. Because so many people hold on so tightly to the pre-tribulational rapture view, then to convince them otherwise (if that needs to happen) will take very clear, accurate, precise handling of the Word of God in such a way that the truth is unavoidable. Truthfully, whether or not the church is to endure the Tribulation, we are woefully unprepared, I believe, even for those events leading up to the Day of the Lord.
Some of what I have will be questions of my own, but probably a lot will come from sources such as Renald Showers and maybe Charles Ryrie and John MacArthur.

Unknown said...

Post-tribbers subscribe to the immanent return of Christ, meaning his bodily return to the earth, whereas pre-tribbers subscribe to the imminent return of Christ, meaning at any moment with no preventing prophecy unfulfilled. The latter seems to be the expectation of the early church based on the epistles of the NT. Some examples:
1 Corinthians 1:7 “so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ”
1 Corinthians 4:5 “Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts…”
1 Corinthians 16:22 “If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Maranatha (our Lord come)”
Philippians 3:20 “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ”
Philippians 4:5 “Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near
1 Thessalonians 1:10 “and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come.”
Titus 2:13 “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus”
Revelation 3:11 “I come quickly.” We could look at each of these verses individually, and it would probably be a good idea to do that, but the idea seems to be that the church was expecting the Lord to return in some way very soon, even within their lifetimes. There doesn’t seem to be any real concern that they are to endure the Tribulation. Now, the church was assured persecution, so are they taking that for granted and so hoping even more in the return of Christ at the end of the Tribulation to mete out judgment on their oppressors, or do they plan to be taken to Christ before this? The return of Christ seems to be the next thing on their calendar. 1 and 2 Thessalonians, two of the earliest books of the NT, predating the writing of the gospels, seem to be in part a response to error on the part of the Thessalonians regarding this subject. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 Paul writes, “Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless” Paul then goes on to explain the things that must take place before the commencement of the day of the Lord proper. These include the revelation of the man of lawlessness, some kind of apostasy, and some restrainer of lawlessness being removed. Many believe that the removal of the Church and thus the Spirit of God in a Rapture account for the lack of restraint against wickedness and thus the apostasy. If they were expecting a rapture at the second coming at the end of the tribulation, they would not be worried if they thought they were in the tribulation. They would expect it. However if they were expecting a rapture apart from Christ’s physical return to earth and that before the tribulation, they would be greatly concerned if they thought themselves to be in the tribulation (day of the Lord), because they had missed the rapture.
Also concerning imminency, just because Christ is waiting to return does not mean that anything “has” to happen to precipitate his return. The typical answer to “What’s taking so long?” is 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” So if we assume an imminent return, the reason for the delay could in fact be His desire to see more people saved. Or, if you want to open the door on the election debate in the middle of an eschatology debate, then after the smoke clears from the universe exploding, you could say that He is waiting for the last chosen person to accept the call.

Michael said...

Before we delve into the meat of this discussion, I want to ask you a few questions. 1) Who is the Spirit of God? 2) Where is the Spirit of God? 3) What qualities of the Spirit of God of which you are aware? If you answer these questions, I think you'll see that the removal of the Spirit of God is an impossibility. God the Spirit may choose to limit His influence of the affairs of men, His restraint of their evil deeds. I'm guessing that any theologian who says "God will remove His Spirit" must mean this (instead of a physical removal). So here's my question, if God can limit His influence and restraint, over man's evil deeds without physically removing Himself, why would the church need to be physically removed for this to happen?

I agree that the general feeling and teaching of the New Testament is the eager anticipation of Christ's return. I don't find this incongruent with a post tribulation view.

Whether something "has" to happen prior to Christ's return, I think the passages of 2 Thessalonians and 2 Peter both point to that fact. Even if these things have to happen simply because God willed it, they still have to happen. As to the Thessalonians and their expectations, remember that they didn't have Revelation and may not have had Matthew. So, it is easy to see how they could be confused. I don't think we should base our arguments on the expectation of the Thessalonians, rather we should base it on the teaching of Paul. I wrote a quite lengthy blog on Paul's warning to them to be prepared. I recommend that you give it a read.

Finally, I also recommend you read Why Four Gospels by D. A. Black. I have a copy I can loan you. I may change the way you think about how and when the Gospels were written. I now hold to Matthean priority, and thus an early gospel of Matthew.

Unknown said...

They didn't have any of the NT except maybe James, but Paul still said there was no need for him to write to them, so apparently they knew a lot more than me. I agree about the Spirit of God, but there is a special presence of the Spirit in the Church. As far as restraining evil, look at the difference between civilizations with a large Christian population vs those with no Christian influence. I have to wonder what restraining the HS would be able to do in a world completely devoid of those in whom He dwells. I would love to look at that book and will re-read the blog you linked to.

Unknown said...

Is Paul giving warning them to prepare, or is he saying what will be the case in order to show to them that they are not indeed in the tribulation, that they have been enlightened and given the info about it and should know they are not going through the tribulation? I agree that Jesus says a lot about being prepared, but in a really Jewish way, citing the specific geography such as Judea. Also, why does Jesus speak of people being taken in judgment, eg wheat and tares, etc, whereas the passages usually said to describe the rapture involve the taking of believers. Is Paul describing the tribulation to prepare the church, or to comfort it with the knowledge that it had not yet happened and that they would not go through it?