Why
Baptists Should Not Embrace Pretribbism
Introduction: What a person believes about the timing of the
Lord’s return does not affect their salvation. You can be a Pre-, Mid- or Posttribber
and be saved. However, it does determine your readiness for the Lord’s return.
The Lord calls us to be ready for His return. Biblical readiness involves much.
It involves advance mental and spiritual preparation for Him as He instructed
(Lk. 21:28-33). It involves taking heed to those things that indicate His
coming is near at hand. It involves faithful obedience while He is away. It
requires us to be on guard and in the right place of service. It involves
maintaining a holy and godly life. All of these things constitute readiness.
Such a ready state cannot be obtained instantly at some future point in time.
This kind of readiness can only be obtained and maintained by perseverance in
holiness and obedience now. Therefore, we are to be ready and watching always.
Although Pretribbism has a bandwagon
appeal and a superficial appearance of readiness, I believe that Pretribbism is
a serious distortion of God’s Word and a serious detriment to Biblical
readiness. It is a message of “peace, peace” when there will be no such peace.
As a result those embracing Pretribbism cannot be ready for the Lord’s return
as they are in open disobedience to His instructions concerning readiness. They
will not be able to stand in honor at the Lord’s coming because they are
contemptuously disregarding His instructions for readiness.
There are many good solid Biblical reasons
why our Baptist people should not embrace this new light doctrine.
A. It perverts the “Blessed Hope” – Tit. 2:13
What “hope” does Titus 2:13 refer to? The
Bible states there is but “one hope” (Eph. 4:4). Is it that hope which was
proclaimed from the foundation of the world (Tit. 1:2)? Is it the hope of “eternal life” in Jesus
Christ as proclaimed by the gospel (Col. 1:23)? Is it the hope of glorification
of the body in the resurrection? Is it the hope that Paul shared with Israel
(Acts 23:6; 26:6-7; 28:20)? Is it the hope of Christ’s return from heaven? All of these constitute the one and same
hope. This hope is finally attained when
Christ comes again and glorifies the dead bodies through resurrection and
transforms the living at the rapture (I Pet. 1:13; Tit. 2:13). This is the
“blessed hope” of all who embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ in all ages
whether departed into heaven or present upon earth. The saints in heaven cry
“how long” while the saints on earth cry “come quickly.” The ETERNAL
deliverance from the corruption of sin is “that blessed hope” of all God’s
elect.
However, Pretribbers have redefined “that
blessed hope” (Tit. 2:13) to be the hope of TEMPORAL deliverance from the 70th
week of Daniel rather than the hope of ETERNAL deliverance from sin. They have
restricted “that blessed hope” to church age saints alone while denying it to
Old Testament and tribulation saints. In so doing they have redefined the
“blessed hope’ to something other than the hope offered by the gospel. The
gospel hope cannot exclude Old Testament and tribulation saints nor can it be
restricted to church age saints according to the following scriptures (Acts
10:43; 26:22-23; Gal. 1:6-8; Heb. 4:2; Tit. 1:2;). However, this is exactly what the Pretrib doctrine not only
teaches but demands. Indeed, the common use of this hope in their pulpits has
restricted it to only those presently living at His return. They have made it a
technical expression for a point of timing and escape from tribulation rather
than for the event of glorification of the elect.
However, if “that blessed hope” is the
gospel hope of eternal life then pretribbers are guilty distorting the gospel
and that is a serious error (Gal. 1:8-9). What God intended to be the hope of
all believers, pretribbism has redefined and restricted to a very few
believers.
However, “that blessed hope” in Titus
2:13 is not left to the mere opinions of men. The Grammatical structure of
Titus 2:13 denies the interpretation placed upon it by Pretribbism. The grammar
demands that the “blessed hope” refers to hope of the gospel at the Posttrib
GLORY coming of Jesus Christ. The grammatical rule is called “The Grandville
Sharpe” rule. It is one of the oldest known rules in Greek Grammar. It was
discovered several hundred years ago and is the primary defense of orthodox
scholars in the defense of the deity of Jesus Christ. To state this rule in
very elementary terms it simply means that when you find two nouns (sharing the
same case and number) divided by the conjunction “and” with only the first noun
with a definite article (“the”) then the second noun merely redescribes the
first noun. For example this rule when applied to the Biblical phrase “the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” would require us to believe that “God” and
“Father” refer to the same person instead of two different persons. The word
“and” which divides them does not mean an “additional” person but rather an
“additional” description of the same person. Likewise in Titus 2:13 “that
blessed hope and glorious appearing” does not refer to two different events but
rather the grammar demands that “glorious appearing” is an additional description
of the same event or “that blessed hope.” This is not a matter of
interpretation this is a matter of grammar.
The great Greek Scholar, A.T. Robertson
defended this rule against the attack of the Unitarian Greek scholar Winer in
his book “The Minister and His Greek New Testament.” He gave this more
technical definition:
“When
the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case [viz., nouns (either
substantive or adjective, or participle) of personal description respecting
office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or
qualities, good or ill], if the article ‘o, or any of its cases precede the
first of the said nouns or participles and is not repeated before the second
nouns or participles, the latter always relates to the same person that is
expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a
farther description of the first named person.” – A.T. Robertson, The Minister and His
Greek New Testament. p. 62
The “glorious appearing” of Christ as the
“great God” cannot refer to any other point in time but to the Posttrib coming.
The Greek term translated “appearing” (epiphany) is always used in Scripture as
the opposite for anything done in private or secret. This is no secret coming
but that coming where He openly manifests His glory as the “great God.”
This text is not the proof text for
Pretribbism but it is the death for such a theory. If the Posttrib coming is
“that blessed hope” for which the churches are commanded to be “looking for”
then it should be obvious that they are on earth when it arrives or else why
command them while on earth to be “looking for” it? The grammar will not allow
any other application than the Posttrib coming of Christ.
What do Pretribbers do with this grammatical
fact? Most Pretrib Greek scholars
acknowledge it but avoid discussing the implications of it. However, others
ignore it and continue to distort it because to acknowledge it is to admit
pretribbism is a false hope.
B.
It contradicts Inspired Prophecy
The difference between a “contradiction”
and a “paradox” is that a paradox can be rationally harmonized while a
contradiction cannot. Indeed, the
attempt to harmonize a contradiction will only result in more contradictions.
The Pretrib teaching demands that
“NOTHING must occur before the return of Christ” while the clear
teaching of Scriptures is that “SOME THINGS MUST occur before the return
of Christ.” Pretribbism says “NOTHING MUST happen FIRST” while the Bible
says “SOME THINGS MUST happen
FIRST.” This is a contradiction
not a paradox.
The Bible provides a number of prophecies
that precede the coming of the Lord. The coming of Pentecost (Acts 1:5) the
worldwide commission (Acts 1:8). The appointment of another apostle (Acts
1:16). The “must” prophesies concerning the ministry of Paul. The AD 70
destruction of Jerusalem followed by the dispersion and regathering. The
completion of the Biblical cannon, etc.
Pretribbers try to present this problem as
a paradox and offer a variety of rational explanations to harmonize their
theory with the Bible. However, their explanations only involve more
contradictions. For example they say
all these things could have happened quicker.
Yes, but not so quick that they do not happen first. Anything that must
happen first denies a doctrine that demands, “nothing must happen first.”
They say that not all Christians knew of
these prophecies. However, this implicates the Spirit of God as a deceiver and
author of confusion. Why would he tell prophets and apostles the “must”
prophecies while instructing them to tell everyone else that “nothing must”?
They say that these things didn’t need to
happen at all but that Christ’s coming would in effect render them unnecessary.
However, the Scriptures demand that not one jot or tittle would pass away until
all scripture was fulfilled. Again this is a contradiction between the
scriptures and Pretribbism.
They say that nothing NOW prevents His return
at any second. However, this is an admission of error. This is admitting that
New Testament Christianity could not have believed or embraced Pretribbism
since such things prevented His coming THEN.
Moreover, how do they know that there are not more prophecies yet to be
fulfilled? Even they point to “signs of the times” and acknowledge that these
things are fulfillments of prophecies.
New Testament Christians could not have
possibly believed that “nothing” prevented the coming of Christ without
contradicting and denying the inspired word of God.
You cannot embrace Pretribbism without
denying the credibility and inspiration of the Scriptures. You must choose
between the inspired Scriptures which repeatedly say certain things “MUST”
occur and Pretribbism which says “NOTHING MUST” occur. This is a contradiction
and not a paradox.
C.
It distorts the Biblical Attitude toward tribulation
Old Testament saints rejected escape from
tribulation because they knew it was God’s ordained means for them to obtain
rewards (Heb. 11:35). New Testament saints rejoiced that they were counted
worthy to suffer for Christ (Acts 5:41). Why? Because they knew it was God’s
ordained means to gain rewards and glorify God. Baptists during the period after the writing of the New
Testament until the Reformation gladly offered themselves for tribulation
thinking they were in the tribulation under the antichrist. Why? Because they
believed it was God’s providential means to glorify Him and gain rewards.
Revelation saints are described as those who “loved not their lives unto death”
(Rev. 12:11). Corrie Ten Boon after
suffering for her faith came to America and
was shocked by the Pretrib escape theory. She warned Americans that this
theory offered a false peace that no Christian embraced in third world
countries or in the history of Christianity.
Only those Christians raised in America
and other countries free from persecution have embraced the Pretrib theory. I
challenge any Pretribber to take their theory of hope of escape from
tribulation to Christians suffering for their faith in Ethiopia and elsewhere
and see how it is received. While they are being tortured for Christ go ahead
and offer them a hope of escape and see what comfort they find in it.
D.
It departs from the Historic Faith of Baptists
Pretrib historians have searched high and
low seeking to find the missing link between their view of New Testament
Christianity and those who embrace pretribbism today. The only thing they have
found is that all Baptists between the New Testament and the Reformation have
commonly believed they were going to enter the tribulation or were already in
it and therefore all expressed the hope of the soon coming of Christ. It is
common knowledge that all Baptists during the Dark ages believed they were
already in the great tribulation suffering under the antichrist (Pope) and the
Great Harlot of Revelation.
Shamefully, some Pretrib historians have
decided to dismiss the fact that all these saints believed they were about to
enter the tribulation or were already in it. Instead, they choose to jerk out
of this tribulational context their expectation for the soon return of Christ
and paint them as pretribbers. John
Walvoord, one of the most eminent pretrib theologians went so far as to admit
the tribulational context but then dismiss it by accusing all of them of being
confused.
However, what Walvoord considers
confusion, Jesus considered to be the proper response for those who are about
to enter tribulation. He instructed those who were to enter the tribulation to
respond in great expectation of His return. This is exactly what we find in
Baptist history. Those who believed they were about to enter or were already in
the tribulation expressed great anticipation for the soon return of Jesus
Christ. This is not a confused response but the natural and Biblical response
for someone who believes they are living in the last seven years of this age.
When the context is considered, there is
not one quote in Baptist History between the writing of the New Testament and
the Reformation that supports a Pretrib belief among ancient Baptists. Why?
Because the Bible does not teach such a theory and therefore Baptists did not
believe such a theory. Instead, they responded to great torture with fearless
joy. Why? Because that is exactly how the Lord instructed them. Why? Because
they believed that Christ’s coming must be at hand because they believed they
were in the great tribulation. Yes, they were wrong about the time but only a
Posttrib view could make such a mistake.
Pretribbism is a new light doctrine that
has originated only within the last two centuries and within countries without
persecution. Today it is popular only within countries where no serious
persecution is allowed. I challenge the pretribber to take his new light
doctrine and offer it as comfort to those suffering great torture for Christ in
other parts of the world today. What kind of encouragement would such a hope
give those being cruelly tortured for Christ? What comfort can suffering
Christians find in a hope that promises escape from great tribulation? The
conclusion is obvious and its total absence in the theology of suffering
Christians both now and yester years is just as obvious.
E.
It rejects the Lord’s instructions for readiness
Those Jesus addressed in the Olivet
Discourse as recorded in Matthew 24-25; Mark 13 and Luke 21 are pretribulation
church saints. This is the indisputable contextual evidence. The plural pronoun
“ye” and “you” (“ye” when subject of the verb and “you” when the object of the
verb) is used consistently throughout the context. Grammar says that the
identity of the pronoun must be traced back to the nearest antecedent. The
nearest antecedent is the noun “disciples” and then “his disciples.” This
designation is never used in scripture for anyone except baptized believers in
a church state. There are no other antecedents in the context, hence, there is
but one subject being addressed throughout.
Furthermore, the progressive development
argues that He is addressing pretribulational disciples in order to prepare
them to respond correctly to tribulational things. For example, he instructs
them “before” all these things come to pass (Mt. 24:25). The future tense
“shall” is used throughout the discourse indicating that these disciples
represent PREtribublational disciples. Moreover, He is instructing them in
advance in order that they will be ready to respond correctly when “these
things” do begin to come to pass (Lk. 21:28). He does not want them to respond
in “fear” or be deceived into thinking that some of these things indicate the
end has come (Mt. 24:4-6). These are pretrib disciples already in a state of
watchfulness and ready when “these things” begin (Lk. 21:28-33). The parables
tell them how to be ready and what it means to watch for His coming.
They are told in the parable of “all the
trees” that pretribulational disciples cannot watch for the Lord’s return apart
from watching for the focal point of that return. The focal point of His return
is identified as definite preceding signs. In the remaining parables to watch
for His return refers to this focal point.
They are also told that they cannot know
the day or hour nor times or seasons of that return until “these things” begin.
Therefore to watch for “these things” is essential to remove yourself from the
unknown to the known time of His return.
He illustrates this point in the reference to Noah’s day and the parable
of the Goodman. Those removed by the flood “knew not” simply because they did
not take heed to obvious preceding
events (preaching of Noah, building of the ark, animals gathering). Hence, to
watch is to take heed to such preceding events. The Goodman of the house did
not watch and therefore did not know when the thief came and broke up his
house. Jesus said that IF he had watched He would have known and would not have
allowed the thief to come upon him unaware. Hence, readiness for His return
demands watching at all times simply because “these things” have not come to
pass and therefore we still do not know the time of His coming apart from
watching for the heralds of that coming. Since there are no heralds for the
heralds we must be constantly watching.
The parable of the wicked servant warns
against simply waiting for the heralds and then getting ready. Holiness is a
matter of consistent faithfulness (good servant) and not something that can be
turned on or off instantly. Since the heralds come unannounced they will always
catch a person unawares who determines to live ungodly until such signs
appear.
The parable of the ten virgins warns us
against depending simply on holy living. It is foolish to wait by resting in
our spiritual virginity when we have been told in advance that we need to be
mentally prepared for the heralds of His coming. The wise were not only virgins
but prepared spiritually in advance for what they knew was coming. They were
ready when awakened but the foolish were not. The wise could meet these things
in joy whereas the foolish were temporarily (present tense “I know you not”)
shut out of that joy. The only difference between the wise and foolish is
advance preparation for what both knew was coming.
The parable of the talents warns against
going to seed on advance preparation at the expense of faithful service. The
evil servant prepared well in advance by digging a hole and burying his talent
and then just slothfully waited for the Lord’s return. Many today are caught up
in the study of eschatology but ignore practical obedience and service.
The last segment warns against empty
profession of faith. The goats were professing children of God whose faith was
empty and dead. The real test of living faith is love for the brethren. In Matthew
13 the Lord describes the judgment of the professing kingdom (separation of
fish) and then immediately identifies His “brethren” as those who believe and
practice what He says rather than those who are merely blood related persons.
Therefore in conclusion, to be ready means
to be always watching for the focal point of His return (these things) since no
man knows when they will begin except by watching. Second it means taking heed
to these things when they do begin. Third, it means the perseverance in holy
living until He comes instead of depending upon a delay. Fourth it means making
advance mental preparations in addition to holy living. Fifth it means
practical service in addition to advance preparation. Last, it means making
sure that you have a living faith when He returns.
Pretribbism contradicts the instructions
of Christ concerning tribulational things. Christ instructs pretribulational
disciples not to fear these things while pretribbism intentionally tries to
instill fear of these things in pretribulational disciples. Christ directs
pretribulational disciples to look for these things in anticipation as heralds
of His return. Pretribbism denies the need for looking for preceding heralds of
His return. Christ teaches that His posttrib coming is unknown except by
watching for these things. Pretribbism takes these texts about the unknown hour
of His Posttrib return and creates another coming that is nowhere described in
the context. Jesus concludes the Olivet Discourse by saying what He has said to
them He has said to all His disciples (Mk. 13:37). Pretribbism denies this
instruction is for all His disciples but rather restricts it to only a special
class of Jewish saints. Jesus addresses this entire discourse to
pretribulational disciples in order that they might be prepared and ready in
advance of “these things” while pretribbism applies them to newly saved Jews at
the beginning of the tribulation who have no opportunity for such advance
preparation or readiness that is required.
Significantly, the Bible does not instruct
Pretribulational saints to hoard up food or weapons. Indeed the book of
Revelation warns against taking up the sword in this time. Psalm 91 is the
instruction manual for preparing for the tribulation.
E.
God’s Word Explicitly Condemns It
There are three distinct passages of
scripture that deal with the tenets of the Pretrib theory and explicitly
condemn it as heresy. These three passages are found in Matthew 24:22-31; 2
Thess. 1:6-2:12 and 2 Pet. 3:3-14.
Matthew 24:22-31: In this passage
Jesus deals with three false teachings concerning His return. He first
identifies them and condemns them and then provides the correct response to
each error. (1) Some will teach that Christ will come “then” during the 70th
week of Daniel; (2) Some will teach that Christ will come in some out of the
way place on earth where all His disciples will have to gather themselves to
that location. (3) Some will teach that He will come secretly. In each case the
Lord responds, “Believe it not.” However he continues after listing these
errors and gives the correct view to each error. He begins with the last stated
error and works back to the first stated error. Instead of coming secretly He
will come like lightening that is seen from east to west. Instead of coming to
some isolated place where His followers will have to seek him out, he will
gather them together as buzzards are gathered together upon a corpse. They are
gathered together in the air in flight. Instead of coming “then” He will not
come until “immediately after the tribulation of those days” after certain
celestial signs occur in heaven.
Jesus uses two metaphors and one literal
time statement to answer these errors. The metaphor of lightening and the
metaphor of gathered birds in flight upon ONE carcass (this cannot refer to
Armageddon as there are many carcasses there). He does not use a metaphor to
answer the time question as only a time response can answer that.
This response of Christ condemns the
tenets of pretribbism. Pretribbism teaches a coming BEFORE those days instead
of “immediately after the tribulation of those days.” Pretribbism teaches a
secret coming. Pretribbism denies a Posttrib gathering of the saints in the
air.
2 Thessalonians 1:6-2:12: It is the inspired grammar and special words used in
this passage that condemns Pretribbism as deception and error. In 2
Thessalonians 1:7-10 the passage is one sentence in the Greek text. There is no
rest from tribulation for the churches until the glorious revelation of Christ
in heaven. The grammar demands that this rest does not occur until the Posttrib
appearance of Christ in heaven. Hence, the churches continue under tribulation
until the Posttrib coming. The release from tribulation by the world is due to two
things. In regard to the wicked, the tribulation upon the churches is stopped
by the Lord coming in flaming fire upon the wicked. In regard to church saints,
the tribulation is stopped due to glorification by rapture and resurrection at
the Posttrib return. In verse 10 the word “when” points back to the rest, which
occurs in the day of Christ’s Posttrib appearance.
2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 sets forth the
positive teaching of the rapture at the Posttrib return while 2 Thessalonians
2:1-12 sets forth the negative defense of that day. In verse one the Greek
grammatical rule (Grandville Sharpe Rule) demands that His “coming” and
“gathering together” of the church are the same event. Verse one identifies the
topic being addressed as the day when the church is raptured. In verse two the
words “day of Christ” continues the discussion about the rapture. Paul only
uses this phrase and this is the sixth and last time he uses it. In all
previous five times the “day of Christ” refers to the rapture day as all pretrib
scholars admit. Why reject this established meaning in this last use by Paul
especially when verse one says this is the topic being discussed? Some had been
teaching that the resurrection was past and that the Thessalonians had missed
the resurrection day. Of course the resurrection day was also the rapture day
as both occurred together as Paul instructed them in I Thessalonians 4:13-17.
It is easy to see why such a teaching would be upsetting and disturbing. Paul
tells them not to let anyone deceive them into thinking that the
rapture/resurrection day (“day of Christ”) could occur before two primary end
time events – the great apostasy and the revelation of the great apostate.
Immediately after stating these two preceding events must occur first, he goes on
to describe both events. The revelation of the great apostate is described in
verses 4-8 while the great apostasy is described in verses 9-12.
Some have argued that the terms “falling
away” refer to the rapture. However, the ridiculousness of this conjecture is
seen by trying to read it that way in context – “Now concerning the rapture day
(v. 1) don’t believe anyone that says it has already come (v. 2). Because that
day cannot come until it comes first.”
This conjecture is based on pure nonsense.
The Greek word that underlies the English translation is never used in Biblical
Greek or Classical Greek for anything other than a political or religious
revolt. The contenders for this argument know this and so they totally discard
the word the Holy Spirit used and tell us that what the Spirit meant for us to
understand was the root form of this word which is used many times by Paul
elsewhere. Paul used the root word
elsewhere but chose not to use it here. Why? Moreover, in every case this root
word is used in Scripture it is never once used for a spatial departure but
always used for the departure from truth. The Holy Spirit chose the Greek word
“apostasia” where we get our English word “apostasy.” Moreover, both preceding
events are further described in the following verses (vv. 4-12). Paul calls
those deceivers who teach a PRE-apostasy or PRE-antichrist coming. This is exactly the error of
Pretribbism.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:4-6 the one who
“restrains” is mentioned. Pretribbism interprets this restrainer to be the Holy
Spirit in the churches. They argue that the church must be raptured before the
antichrist can be revealed. However, this interpretation not only contradicts
what has just been denied in verses 1-3 but it is a speculation in contradiction
with the clear teaching of Scripture. In the book of Daniel the Lord gives the
order of governments that will arise right up to His coming. In chapter 10 the
restraining power that regulates the rise and fall of these governments is said
to be angelic with Michael at the head permitting and restraining these
governments including the antichrist government. In the book of Revelation it
is angelic beings that pour out the wrath of God and Michael is the one who
finally restrains both the antichrist and Satan.
Pretribbism says the rapture occurs
before the revelation of the antichrist whereas Paul says it does not. Paul
identifies pretribbism as deception and those teaching it as deceivers.
2 Peter. 3:3-8: Peter warns
that in the last days there will come scoffers who reject the “promise” of His
coming. The basis for their objection will be the fact that long periods of
time have come and gone since Christ promised to return. This long period of
delay is interpreted by scoffers to be contradictory to the language used for
His promised return. Christ promised to return “quickly” and that “all things are at hand.” Pretribbers
interpret this language the very same way scoffers do – in terms of human
imminence. In so doing, Pretribbers scoff at necessary preceding prophetic
events to His coming.
Peter responds that such a principle of
interpretation is due to ignorance of the Lord’s meaning. God does not intend
for us to understand that such terms demand an imminent expectation and deny
necessary preceding events. Instead God intends for us to understand such terms
as He counts time. Two thousand years to Him is but two days as He reckons time
(vv. 8-9). It has only been two days since the promise has been made and to
come quickly and to consider all things “at hand” is consistent with Divine
imminence.
Moreover, according to Peter, “looking
for” something does not demand an imminent expectation. He says we are to be looking for the
posttribulational, postmillennial new heaven and new earth (2 Pet. 3:12). Such
expectations are anything but imminent and such expectations do not deny
necessary preceding events. Furthermore, he says that such a postmillennial
expectation can be used as incentive for holy living (2 Pet. 3:14). Indeed,
expectation of tribulation is a far greater incentive to holy living than any
hope of escape.
Peter could not possibly believe or teach
a Pretrib coming. He was bluntly told that He would die before the Lord returns
and he reminds his readers of that necessary preceding event. Moreover, after
his death he predicts yet to come a period called the “last days” (2 Pet. 3:37)
wherein scoffers were yet to arise and base their scoffing upon this predicted
delay between the first and second coming. The very essence of this prediction
denies the validity of pretribbism as pretribbism denies the necessity of any
such necessary future preceding events to the coming of Christ. Indeed,
pretribbism demands that Christ could have come the very next second after
Peter laid his pen down. This very last day prophecy in and of itself is a
denial of Pretribbism. Pretribbism cannot be harmonized with necessary
preceding events. Pretribbism uses the very same interpretation of His promise
that scoffers use. Peter says that both are ignorant and fail to understand
that the proper understanding of the promise of His coming does not deny but
includes such necessary preceding events.
F.
It distorts the great Second Coming passage of I Thessalonians 4:13-18
This passage is directed to those attending
the funeral parlor that they are not to sorrow as those who have no hope for a
reunion with their departed loved ones. It is to be used to comfort the saints
at funerals. It is not stated or implied that it is for the use to comfort
saints about the Great Tribulation period or the 70th week of
Daniel.
Moreover, the pretrib interpretation of
this passage is utterly ridiculous. They interpret this passage to teach a
Pretrib secret coming for the churches. Some secret coming!! The world will have to be deaf and blind to
miss this coming. There is the sound of a great trumpet and the resurrection of
the dead out of the graveyards as well as the rapture of saints into the air.
Nowhere does it say that the resurrection or rapture occurs in a split second.
It is the body that is changed in a split second not the occurrence of the
resurrection or rapture into the sky.
For the Pretrib view to be correct the
trumpet must be a dog whistle and the emptying of graveyards must be invisible
as well as their departure into the clouds.
On the other hand, the words “we which
remain” can be literally translated “we which survive.” This is the same gathering and same trumpet
that sounds in Matthew 24:30-31. In Matthew 24:30-31 the gathering takes place
while He is still “in the clouds”. He
sends the angels to gather His elect not only from the four corners of earth
but from heaven as well (living and departed). He sends his angels to gather
his elect while still in the clouds.
“Immediately after the tribulation of
those days…And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man IN HEAVEN. And then
shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man
COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send
his angels with a GREAT SOUND OF A TRUMPET, and they shall gather together his
elect from the four winds, from one end of HEAVEN to the other.” – Mt.
24:29,30,31
This is the very same coming presented as the expectation for the
churches in Revelation 1:7-8
“Behold (literally “look”) he cometh with the clouds
and every eye shall see him and they also which pierced him, and all kindred’s
of the earth shall wail because of him. EVEN SO. Amen. I am Alpha and
Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is and
which was and which is TO COME, the Almighty.”
This is the very same coming described to
the churches at the close of the book using the very same language (“behold He
cometh” vs “behold, I come quickly”; “Even so. Amen” vs. “Even so, come Lord
Jesus.”)
“And,
behold, I come quickly…I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last….Surely I come
quickly, Amen. EVEN SO, come, Lord Jesus” – Rev. 22:12,13,20
G.
Pretribbism is a result of Mishandling
the Word of God
There is not one literal description of
the Pretrib coming found in the Bible. Nowhere does Scripture say, “Immediately
BEFORE the tribulation of those days shall Christ come or gather together His
elect.”
The Pretrib theory depends upon supposed
necessary inferences in order to establish itself in the Bible. In direct
disobedience to Peter’s admonition concerning the language of His promise (2
Pet. 3:8) pretribbism demands that such language can only be interpreted to
mean immanency. Pretribbism jerks out of context statements concerning the
unknown time of the Posttrib coming of Christ (Mt. 24:36 with Acts 1:6-7) and
demands this refers to another coming (pretrib) nowhere to be literally
described in the context. Pretribbism jerks out of context the statements
concerning Christ coming as a thief and supposes this must mean an imminent
pretrib return when in actuality this phrase is only applied to those who are
not watching for His coming and never to those who are watching (I Thes. 5:4).
The Scriptures never use a plural “comings” or a plural for any of the terms
used to describe the Second Advent (parousia, epiphany, revelation, etc.) but
Pretribbism demands two future comings separated by seven years. Pretribbism
violates the most fundamental law of Biblical interpretation which demands that
doctrines are not to be established upon parables, metaphors, types and
inferences but rather to be established first upon clear and unambiguous
contextual precepts and statements of Scripture and then only supported by
parables, metaphors, types and inferences and never in reverse.
Pretribbism is categorically rejected by
Biblical writers as deception (Mt. 24:23-31; 2 Thes. 1-2; I Pet. 3) and is the
end times teaching of “peace, peace” when there will be no such peace. In
short, such a teaching is a detriment to Biblical readiness for the Lord’s
return. Jesus warns us of those who
will come in the last days and claim to be anointed ones by the Holy Spirit and
preach that His coming is drawing near before necessary preceding things come
to pass.
“And
he said take heed that ye be not deceived; for many shall come in my name,
saying….THE TIME DRAWETH NEAR, go ye not after them.” – Lk. 21:8
- Mark W. Fenison