Revelation (Part 8) - Interpreting Text by System 3/16/09

Christ has more to say in his Olivet Discourse. His focus shifts however. He had been talking about Jerusalem’s destruction because those are the words which had confused his disciples. The confusion regarded the temple’s destruction in regard to his return. Jesus cleared that confusion. But he uses the opening now to discuss his return. He had just told them to watch for the signs of the abomination of desolation. But as he shifts to a discussion of his return, he also lets them know that there won’t be any signs. “But concerning that day and hour…” (Which day? The other day that they had questioned him about—the day of his return.) Concerning that day and hour “no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only” (24:36).

We see here an evident change of direction or focus. And the characteristics of watchfulness are different. With Jerusalem’s destruction, the disciples were urged to watch for signs in order to escape. But concerning his coming, they are urged to be prepared because they will not be given a sign—they will not know when it is about to occur. The day of his coming will be as in the days of Noah. They had been warned by Noah that judgment was coming, but the people were not prepared. When the flood came, they were swept away. Just so, the people of this age will face Christ’s judgment unprepared when he comes. Verses 40 and 41 show the suddenness of Christ’s return. People will be about their normal work when suddenly one will be received by Christ while the other is left to face judgment.

In these verses, however, the pretribulationists argue that the rapture is not in view. This is actually a good time to review the entire chapter so far according to the pretribulational understanding. The pretribulationist sees Christ’s words at the end of chapter 23 as a judgment not for their continued unfaithfulness as a nation, but rather for their immediate rejection of Christ as king. According to their understanding, Christ was presenting himself as king in the Triumphal Entry. When Israel failed to make him king, Christ rejected them and pronounced this judgment. The difficulty here is in imagining what would have happened if Israel had accepted Christ as king. And this is truly one of the shakiest legs of the dispensational stance. Let’s look at Israel’s supposed choice. If they accept Christ as king, would he then not go to the cross? If so, all Israel, paying for their own sins, would spend eternity in hell. If they don’t accept Christ as king, Christ rejects them and pronounces desolation on them for doing so. It would seem to me that the pretrib position here is absolutely untenable. God’s plan of reconciliation from the beginning was for Christ to fulfill the covenant obligations so that he could be the perfect sacrifice and effect reconciliation. Nothing in the OT compels us to view a separate plan whose presumed ultimate highlight is Christ as an earthly king over a sinful nation.

The disciples ask their questions at the beginning of chapter 24. The first question concerns the destruction of the temple. Pretribulationists Dwight Pentecost and John Walvoord argue that Christ does not answer this question anywhere in Matthew 24. From the very beginning (verse 4), Christ’s answer supposedly refers to a future tribulation period that begins after the rapture of the Church has taken place (thus, the chapter never mentions this age, Gentile believers, or Christ’s coming to receive the Church). Christ’s address to the disciples is an address to the nation of Israel whose program God will once again pick up after the rapture. Therefore, although the disciples (apostles) are referred to later by Paul as the foundation of the church and, even according to pretribulationists, members of the Church Age, at this point they are supposed to be symbols of the nation of Israel in an economy apart from the church.

Continuing the pretrib outlook, verses 4 through 14 describe events of the tribulation (even though we know that all these events are also indicative of every time period between Christ’s resurrection and now). Verse 15, which specifically mentions the abomination of desolation, is said to refer to the antichrist conducting an abominable act in a newly built Jerusalem temple by which he proclaims himself God or desecrates the altar of God. In our previous discussion, we had pointed to verse 15 and following as the destruction in Jerusalem in AD 70. One of the reasons supporting this view is the parallel passage in Luke 21. Luke 21:20-24 are located in that chapter exactly relative to verses 15-28 in Matthew 24. Luke 21:20-23 reads, “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people.”

Compare that with Matthew 24:15-21: “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.”

Do you see any similarities? Both provide a sign. Both provide a warning to flee (specifically, both say to flee from Judea to the mountains). Both proclaim hardship for pregnant women and those nursing infants. Both proclaim a time of great tribulation and distress. Besides these similarities, both passages are at the identical point in the flow of Christ’s answer. Yet, pretribulationists argue that in Matthew, Christ is talking about the future tribulation period and never mentions the destruction of Jerusalem. In Luke, they insist, Christ is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem, but doesn’t mention fleeing during the future tribulation period. Does that strike you as just a little odd?

Here is the point. I am not trying to portray pretribulationists as less intelligent, less perceptive, or less spiritual. There are indeed intelligent, perceptive, and spiritual people in every eschatological camp. But the pretrib understanding of much of the New Testament, including Matthew 24, is not based on exegesis but rather on eisegesis. The pretribulational system is developed apart from Scripture and then imposed upon Scripture so that if you don’t know the system, you supposedly can’t understand the Word of God. We have nothing in Matthew 24 that tells us that Christ is not answering the question of Jerusalem’s destruction. We have nothing that compels us to understand this as God’s future interplay with Israel after Christ has already come back to rapture a separate “church” from the earth. We have no reason to assume the disciples must represent only Israel and not all Christians. We have no reason to look at parallel passages in the Gospels and assume they are discussing different events. But if we want to hold on to an extra-biblical eschatological system, we must twist this passage around to say what the system tells us it must say. And that is a false hermeneutic. No matter the claims that dispensational pretribulationists insist for themselves, the interpretation of passages such as these show them not to be literal exegetes.

Continuing on, pretribulationists see verses 29-31 portraying Christ’s return following a tribulation period. And the gathering of the elect means only the gathering of those saved during the tribulation period—all the other elect will already be with Christ. Note also that these gathered elect will not be transformed or changed or given new bodies as the church was in the rapture. They must have their old, sinful, fleshly bodies as they enter the millennium so that they can reproduce to raise up a race of unbelievers to attack Christ at the end of that supposed millennium.

Verse 34 says that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” This verse presents another problem for the pretribulationist. But with the same brush aside of their literal hermeneutic that brought them through this far, some of them say that “generation” does not intend its normal use, but rather refers to the entire race or nation of Israel. Thus, Christ’s emphasis is switched from an insistence that these events will take place soon to a promise that God will protect the nation (hold it together) until these events take place. Other pretribulationists (seeing the change of meaning of “generation” as too much of a stretch) say that when Christ mentions “this generation,” he is talking about the generation during which the tribulation takes place. In other words, substituting “that” for “this” would make it clearer. But then, what is the point of Christ’s statement? In essence he would be saying the generation of the future tribulation period will be alive during the future tribulation period. Yeah, so? We know that.

As we now take a look at verses 37 through 41, we must remember that the pretribulationists insist that the rapture has already taken place and is not in view in this chapter. Therefore, the eating and drinking (usually expressions showing thoughtless unconcern and self-indulgence) are supposed to be going on right at the end of the future tribulation period (a time usually depicted by the pretribulationists as the worst of times and perhaps even the pouring out of the bowls of wrath on the earth. Dwell on that picture a little bit longer. This is the time of the tribulation. This is the time when the literalists insist that the water turns to blood and is poisoned, stars are striking the earth wiping out millions upon millions of people, violence, death, sickness, and a sense of impending judgment, yet…it will be like the days of Noah when people were eating and drinking in carefree self-indulgence? Okay, literalist, which literal picture do you want us to imagine now?

Who are those “taken” in verses 40 and 41? The normal reading may make us want to say that the ones taken are the saved, gathered together to Christ. The pretribulationist, however, says we have it backwards. Those taken are just like those in Noah’s day who were swept away in destruction. Actually, back when the KJV was the main Bible of choice, this argument was easier to make. The KJV says that the flood “took” the ungodly away. Just so, they say, the ungodly are “taken” in judgment in verses 40 and 41. However, rather than just look at the English word “take,” we are going to have to trust the Greek on this one. In Noah’s example, the translation of “swept away” fits well. They were taken in judgment. But in verses 40 and 41, the word is paralambanō. That word is often translated as “take,” but it holds the sense of taking to receive. Joseph was told by the angel not to be afraid to take (paralambano) Mary as his wife. Christ told the disciples in John 14 that if he left he would doubtless come again to receive (paralambano) them to himself. Only when straining to force a faulty interpretation on a passage would we understand this word to be “taking away in judgment.” And it certainly does not match the emphasis of all of the next chapter’s examples, especially of the virgins being ready to be taken in while the others are left.

It is also interesting to note the three parables of chapter 25. In all three instances, faith (represented by oil, understanding of the Master’s intent, and attitude toward the elect) is key to immediate relationship with the Lord at his coming. Notice especially in verses 31-46 that resurrection and judgment occur at Christ’s second coming. This presents another difficulty for the pretribulationist. They must see, first, a soul resurrection at the point of being saved (John 5:25; Romans 6:4). Then, they speak of a resurrection at a pretribulational rapture. They have to view another resurrection and judgment here in Matthew 25 at Christ’s (second) second coming. And they argue for another resurrection and judgment at the end of a future millennium. And I’ve always wondered about the people being saved during the supposed future millennium. When they die (and according to the pretribulationist view of Isaiah 65, some die), where do they go? Immediately to be with Christ? Well, he’s reigning on the earth. So do they fall over dead only to bounce right back up resurrected? Or must they wait until the end of the millennium without Christ, which doesn’t seem to follow other Scripture? Either way, pretribulationists have introduced multiple resurrections into their scheme which simply do not follow the biblical pattern.

The tribulation is indeed discussed in Matthew 24. But it is a tribulation specifically intended for the nation of Israel to illustrate the spiritual significance and reality that God has turned away. That was accomplished in full in AD 70 with the temple’s and Jerusalem’s destruction. Conjecture involving another rebuilt temple with additional tribulation that has to take place after a secret, hidden rapture and before another coming of Christ to establish a future millennial kingdom on earth is not found in Matthew 24 or, to put it bluntly, anywhere else in Scripture.

Perhaps no other passage in the New Testament comes to mind so readily when thinking of the Rapture as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. In this passage, Paul is attempting to relieve apparent fears or maybe merely puzzlement concerning Christ’s coming and gathering of the elect. The Thessalonians did not seem to understand how those who had already died would be part of this event. Paul assures them that those who have already died would take part, in fact, preceding, in the flight to Christ, those who are alive and remain. The pretribulationists, in consistent eisegetical fashion, explain that Paul meant here only the dead since Pentecost. Does the chapter express that? No. But since their dispensational system requires it, we are supposedly forced to read the passage accordingly.

The passage (through verse 18) provides no statement of timing. But timing was a question, and Paul, therefore, addresses it in the verses that follow. Chapter 5 begins a section (through verse 11) that addresses “the times and the seasons.” Paul begins his discussion about the timing of Christ’s coming by saying, “You have no need to have anything written to you.” Why is that? I can think of two possible answers. One is that he had already specified to them orally when he was with him the exact time of Christ’s coming. But that possibility seems far-fetched. Nowhere else in the New Testament do we read of the exact timing of Christ’s return. Therefore, the conjecture that Paul had told them earlier seems totally off-base. The second answer is that we don’t know the exact timing, and he had told them that previously; therefore, he has no need to tell them that again since they already know that the timing is sealed with God. This seems the likely reason because it fits exactly what we had just seen in Matthew 24. There, Christ said there are no signs. There, Christ said that no one knows the day and hour. And, as we continue to read in 1 Thessalonians 5, we find that Paul does not give us a day and hour either, but he does warn us to be prepared.

Paul suggests an analogy of the coming of Christ that seems to confuse many people. Christ, he says, will come as a thief in the night. Many people assume from this that Christ is going to come quietly and secretively. Does this not oppose the assertion in Matthew 24 that he would light up the sky at his coming? But if the analogy assumption doesn’t seem to fit, the first thing to do is review our assumption. Perhaps, the point is not to concentrate on the thief, but on those to whom the thief is coming. With that focus, the analogy displays a sleeping, non-alert, unprepared household. This focus, rather than being in opposition to Matthew 24, fits perfectly with the analogies and parables from the end of Matthew 24 through chapter 25. Christ will come, not at a day and hour he has told the world, but at a time that we don’t know. Thus, like the household to which the thief comes, many will be asleep and unprepared and, therefore, will face the judgment. But read on in verse 4 of 2 Thess 5. Paul says “you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief.” We have oil in our lamps; we have faith and are therefore prepared.

We were told by the pretribulationists that the rapture was not mentioned in Matthew 24. The only gathering together that is mentioned there occurs after a tribulation period, not before it. And that’s why, they say, we have analogies and parables about judgment, since judgment occurs at the “Revelation” of Christ at the end of the tribulation and not at the “Rapture” of Christ at the beginning of the tribulation. As we study this portion of Scripture in 1 Thessalonians, however, everyone agrees that the Rapture is described in chapter 4. But in association with this Rapture, chapter 5 tells us that those unprepared will receive “sudden destruction” and “will not escape” (5:3). The pretribulationists insist that Paul has suddenly skipped over the tribulation to discuss the judgment afterwards. What in this passage tells us to interpret in such a fashion?? The pretribulationist’s answer is that we don’t understand the code.

Back up in verse 2, Paul used the expression “the day of the Lord.” That, say the pretribulationists, should have been our signal to switch times. According to their view, the day of the Lord is associated, in the New Testament, with all eschatological events—except for the Rapture. They know this, so they say, because the phrase is used exclusively with judgment, while the phrase “day of Christ” is used exclusively for the Church.

The appeal is made largely upon the use of “the day of the Lord” in the Old Testament. But to insist that there must be two comings of Christ—one of Church Rapture and another of Judgment—because the Old Testament uses “day of the Lord” to describe judgment to other nations is not altogether legitimate. Many of the Old Testament references do not refer to Christ’s second advent. Furthermore, even if the phrase were used exclusively with judgment, that would only emphasize a perspective of his coming and not necessitate a separate coming.

But insistence on this special code is particularly odd when one considers the infrequent use of the phrases in the New Testament. “The day of the Lord” is used a total of 5 times in the entire New Testament—3 times by Paul and 2 times by Peter (one of which is located in his Pentecost sermon found in Acts 2). Likewise, the phrase “the day of Christ” is used only twice, both times by Paul. If you want to add other phrases such as “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ,” “the day of our Lord Jesus,” and “the day of Jesus Christ” (each phrase is used only once by Paul), we end with a total of 5 uses of “the day of” with the word “Christ.” (“The day of our Lord Jesus” is particularly difficult to classify since it does include “Lord” and does not include “Christ” but must be classified with the “day of Christ” verses by pretribulationists since it speaks of the Church and not of judgment.)

By these 10 uses, we are supposed to interpret a code that Paul and Peter use to distinguish between the Rapture at the start of the tribulation and the Revelation at the end of the tribulation or (as in Peter’s case) at the end of the Millennium. Surely the infrequent use must strain the credibility of such a system.

I mentioned that there were 5 instances in the New Testament of the phrase “the day of the Lord.” Only two of them, however, are clearly referring exclusively to judgment.

1 Cor 5:5
“you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”

2 Pet 3:10
“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.”

The other three may be argued as pertaining to both the rapture and the judgment.

Acts 2:20 “the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.”

The verse from Acts is included in a portion of Scripture that Peter quotes from Joel 2 in his sermon at Pentecost. Peter introduces this quotation by saying it is fulfilled in their current time. Thus, the quotation relates to people of the church age and their forward-looking hope toward Christ’s coming (the Rapture). But it also uses the imagery of judgment—sun darkening and moon turning to blood.

1 Thessalonians 5:2
“For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.”

This verse is the one that started our discussion of phrases. The pretribulationist insists that we are to apply this verse to Christ’s coming at the end of the tribulation because the phrase speaks of judgment. But insisting so based on the three uses of “the day of the Lord” we have seen so far is exegetical nonsense. Contextually, Paul is speaking of the Rapture (1 Thess 4:13-18). That context continues into chapter 5’s discussion of times and seasons. Again, to insist that we separate from context without contextual indication simply because Paul uses a phrase that (based on his other three uses) is not clearly exclusive for judgment is a faulty hermeneutical practice.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-2
“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.”

We have the same situation here as in our 1 Thessalonians reference. The context—our being gathered together to him—indicates the Rapture. Yet because of the phrase “day of the Lord” pretribulationists insist we turn our attention to a different, separated return of Christ. However, doing so would be imposing a system on the text rather than letting Scripture develop our interpretation.

Based on our review, there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that the phrase “the day of the Lord” is a code phrase by Paul and Peter to indicate only a perspective of judgment. And even if it were, it certainly does not mandate a separate return of Christ in order to carry out that judgment.