How Pretribulationism Has
Almost Destroyed the Doctrine of Imminency
–Sam A. Smith
[Sam A. Smith is a graduate of Dallas Theological
Seminary. Having advocated pretribulationism for over thirty-five years, he
believes that the case for pretribulationism is seriously flawed and has
actually undermined the case for the imminency of the rapture, and may even
jeopardize the future of dispensationalism itself. This is the third of four
papers on the problems of pretribulationism. The first is titled: Can
Pretribulationism be Proven by Imminency?, the second is titled: Does
Pretribulationism’s Wrath Argument Prove Pretribulationism?, and the fourth
is titled: Some Final Thoughts on Rapture Theories. These titles
are available from Biblical Reader Communications (BiblicalReader.com).]
On the one hand there is pretribulationism (the belief that the rapture of the church must occur before the tribulation period begins), and on the other hand there is every other view. Between these, there has always been a vast gulf. Of the major views (pretribulationism, midtribulationism, Rosenthal’s pre-wrath view, and posttribulationism) only the pretribulational view is consistent with the doctrine of imminency (that the rapture of the church will occur without signs or warning, and could occur at any moment). If the choice were between these views, and if the doctrine of imminency is valid, then of these views only pretribulationism could be correct. That logic, along with the argument that the church must be removed from the earth prior to the manifestation of divine wrath at the day of the Lord, forms the crux of the support for pretribulationism. Of course, there are numerous minor arguments offered for pretribulationism, but those are merely “icing for the cake.” It has always been assumed by pretribulationists that imminency is the linchpin of the pretribulation rapture theory (see, Walvoord, The Rapture Question, pp. 53, 55, and 82). Pretribulationists generally assume that if the imminency of the rapture could be sustained, that alone would be sufficient to prove pretribulationism. (And if the opposition of most non-pretribulationists to imminency is any indicator, it seems they share that assumption.) The wrath argument is a little trickier. The wrath argument would only prove pretribulationism if it could be shown that the entire tribulation is to be divine wrath. The wrath argument, while a powerful argument if it could be sustained, has this inherent weakness: there is no firm biblical or logical proof that the entire tribulation period is to be divine wrath; such has merely been a pretribulational (and posttribulational) assumption. (For further discussion see the author’s paper, Does the Pretribulational Wrath Argument Prove Pretribulationism?) Add to this the fact that pretribulationists have seriously undermined the biblical case for imminency by removing Matthew 24:36-44 (and hence, 24:45-25:30) from the discussion of the rapture. (Matthew 24:36‑44, if spoken in regard to the rapture, is the only biblical passage that explicitly teaches that the event is imminent.) This state of affairs has led to a fracturing of the dispensational position, with pretribulationism on one side, and midtribulationism, Rosenthal’s pre-wrath theory, and dispensational posttribulationism (all non-imminent views) on the other side.
It has largely gone unnoticed that pretribulationism has changed in a subtle, yet significant way over the past seventy-five years. There is the old pretribulationism of J.N. Darby, C.I. Scofield, A.C. Gaebelein, and H.A. Ironside; and there is the new pretribulationism of Lewis Sperry Chafer, Henry C. Thiessen, John F. Walvoord, and J. Dwight Pentecost. The dividing line between the old and the new pretribulationism centers on the interpretation of Matthew 24:36-25:30. The older pretribulationists generally interpreted Matthew 24:36-25:30 (a portion of Christ’s Olivet Discourse) to apply to the church (or at the very least to the entire interadvent age, which includes the church), and as such they saw support in this passage for the imminency of the rapture. The new pretribulationists differ profoundly on this point; they insist that the descriptions and illustrations given in this passage are of Israel during the tribulation period awaiting the second coming of Christ; and while they hold strongly to the doctrine of imminency, they are forced to conclude that this passage offers no support for the imminency of the rapture, since (given their interpretation of the passage) the rapture is not in view. The significance of this shift in interpretation is impossible to overstate. [Both Gaebelein and Ironside represent a transitional view, holding that Matthew 24:36-44 refers to the Jewish remnant in the tribulation period and that 25:1-30 pictures the entire interadvent age, including the rapture of the church (A.C. Gaebelein, Matthew, Vol. 2, p. 217, H.A. Ironside, Matthew, pp. 324-336).]
Chafer taught his view of Matthew 24:36-25:30 in the 1930s and ’40s for nearly two decades prior to the publication of his Systematic Theology in 1948. Chafer’s successor, John F. Walvoord, greatly extended the influence of Chafer’s view during his fifty plus years of teaching and leadership at Dallas Theological Seminary, and through his many books, such as: The Rapture Question (1957), Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (1974), The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation (1976), The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook (1990), and Major Bible Prophecies (1991). Chafer’s view was also incorporated into Henry C. Thiessen’s Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (1949), and J. Dwight Pentecost’s Things to Come (1958), both widely used in the training of theological students. Ultimately, Chafer’s interpretation of Matthew 24:36-25:30 became the standard view in every major pretribulational seminary in America; and thus an entire generation of seminary students, from the 1930s forward, have been exposed to this view.
Why did Chafer, and later Walvoord, argue so stringently that Matthew 24:36-25:30 is not the church awaiting the rapture, but Israel during the tribulation awaiting the second coming? There were two principal reasons. First, Chafer and Walvoord were focused on refuting posttribulationism and partial rapturism, both of which projected arguments based on the assumption that Matthew 24:36-25:30 describes the rapture. Second, and perhaps more importantly, they were aware of the fact that if this passage describes the rapture, at least one of Christ’s statements recorded in Luke 21:36 (from Luke’s parallel account) could be reasonably interpreted to be incompatible with pretribulationism—thus potentially putting pretribulationism at odds with the teaching of Christ. Luke 21:5-38 is a parallel account of a portion of the Olivet Discourse, and in verse 36 Christ is quoted as saying: “Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man” [NIV]. This statement from Luke’s account dovetails with Matthew’s account likely at 24:42. If Christ described the rapture in Matthew 24:36-44, his statement in Luke 21:36 casts serious doubt as to the pretribulational certainty of the event. (If the rapture is a pretribulational certainty, why the exhortation to his followers to pray that they might be able to escape the events of the tribulation period?) There are, of course, interpretations of Luke 21:36 that, although perhaps awkward, would not conflict with pretribulationism; however, arguing that would, at the very least, have conceded the basis for a conflict between Christ’s teaching and pretribulationism; and in the end, it would have left a lasting question-mark over pretribulationism. Thus, Chafer argued that Matthew 24:36-25:30 was spoken with reference to the second coming proper, rather than the rapture. (By “second coming proper” I mean Christ’s return to the earth to establish and reign over his kingdom as described in Revelation 19:11-20:4.) Chafer’s solution dealt a double blow by removing a key proof-text used by posttribulationists and partial rapturists, and avoiding even the possibility that Christ’s teaching in Luke 21:36 might be seen as incompatible with pretribulationism. Regrettably, this shift in the interpretation of Matthew 24:36-25:30 removed that text from the discussion of the rapture, and thus disallowed the only direct proof-text for the imminency of the rapture—indirectly disqualifying virtually all of the early church testimony to imminency, which (to the degree that biblical support was cited) was almost universally based on Christ’s teaching in this passage. Removing Matthew 24:36-25:30 from the discussion of the rapture (and thus as a support for the imminency of the rapture) was like removing a central load-bearing column; the case for imminency collapsed into a heap of rumble. This weakening of the biblical and historical support for imminency undoubtedly set the stage for the abandonment of imminency by some dispensationalists, which began in the early nineteen-forties—within little more than a decade after the time that Chafer began to popularize his view. (Although Chafer’s Systematic Theology was not published until 1948, his prominence as founder and president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and his extensive conference speaking ministry contributed to the rapid dissemination of his view, at least among dispensationalists.)
It is important to understand that pretribulationism was controversial from its beginning with J.N. Darby in the mid-nineteenth century, and no wonder, for the dominant eschatology at the time was postmillennialism. However, even some who came to accept pretribulationism later abandoned the theory. (For example, W.J. Erdman, pastor of Chicago’s Moody Church from 1876 to 1878, and one of the consulting editors of the Scofield Reference Bible, first accepted pretribulationism, but later repudiated it in favor of posttribulationism.) However, due largely to the popularity of the Scofield Reference Bible and to the dispensational Bible college movement, pretribulationism became well-established in the first half of the 1900s. In the early nineteen forties, a controversy erupted within premillennialism due to the proposal of the midtribulational rapture theory. Midtribulationism (being composed mostly of covenantalists rather than dispensationalists) rejected imminency altogether (see, Norman B. Harrison, The End: Rethinking Revelation, 1941, pp. 231-233) and held that only some events of the seventh seal of Revelation, which they placed at the mid-point of the tribulation period, represent divine wrath. However, the tribulation chronology employed by early midtribulationism was not well conceived; also the arguments used to place the rapture at the seventh trumpet of Revelation were quite weak (for further discussion see, What the Bible Says About the Future, pp. 202-203, by the author). Midtribulationism never gained a large following, and languished; nevertheless, dissatisfaction with pretribulationism did not disappear. In the early nineteen-nineties a theory based on the general framework of midtribulationism emerged under the name “pre-wrath rapturism” (Marvin Rosenthal, The Pre-wrath Rapture of the Church, 1990). Rosenthal’s theory was a reformulation of some of the core ideas and arguments of midtribulationism; it added some new arguments, and very importantly, it subscribed to an improved tribulation chronology that placed the rapture about three-quarters of the way through the tribulation period. Like midtribulationism, Rosenthal’s pre-wrath theory jettisoned imminency and viewed only a segment of the tribulation, about the last quarter, as divine wrath, thus allowing for the rapture to occur late in the tribulation period. To the extent that this theory was based on the framework of midtribulationism, it suffered from the same problems. While midtribulationism emerged out of covenant premillennialism, Rosenthal’s pre-wrath theory emerged from dispensational premillennialism. Interestingly, they share two basic characteristics: 1) the denial of the imminency of the rapture; and, 2) the denial that the entire seven-year tribulation period is divine wrath (one of the core arguments of pretribulationism).
If the new (post-Chafer) pretribulationists do not view the statements of imminency in Matthew 24:36-25:30 as applicable to the rapture, how do they support the doctrine of imminency? J. Dwight Pentecost’s Things to Come (pp. 168-169, 180-181, 202-204) presents us with a classic example of the new pretribulational quandary regarding the support of imminency. Pentecost cites several New Testament passages to support imminency (Jn. 14:2-3; 1 Cor. 1:7; Philp. 3:20-21; 1 Thess. 1:9-10; 4:16-17; 5:5-9; Tit. 2:13; Jam. 5:8-9; Rev. 3:10; 22:17-22 [sic]). However, when examined, we find that none of these passages teaches that the rapture is imminent. Not surprisingly, none of these passages are quoted or exegeted in his treatment of the doctrine. The weight of support Pentecost cites falls heaviest on the early church’s belief in imminency, and he quotes from 2 Clement and the Didache (Pentecost, Things to Come, pp. 168-169). Interestingly, when the contexts of these two quotes are examined, it is apparent that they were both based on statements made in Matthew 24:36-25:30 (which Pentecost and virtually all post-Chafer pretribulationists reject as referring to the rapture). The immediate quotation he cites from chapter sixteen of the Didache contains no less than fourteen allusions to the Olivet Discourse, and the quote from 2 Clement chapter twelve specifically appeals to the Olivet Discourse as its scriptural basis of authority (with an explicit reference to Matthew 24:3). Walvoord does the same, citing the same passage in the Didache; he also cites Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (Book VII, Section ii, Paragraph xxxi), which contains six allusions to the Olivet Discourse (Walvoord, The Rapture Question, pp. 53-56). Neither Pentecost nor Walvoord comments on the obvious fallacy of appealing to the early church testimony, while at the same time denying the applicability of the scripture upon which those statements were based. What are we to make of this? It is apparent that some in the early church believed and taught the imminency of Christ’s appearing; and they based their belief on Christ’s statements in his Olivet Discourse (principally the Matthew 24:36-25:30 section). This likely indicates a general belief in imminency on the part of the very early church, at least prior to the influence of Gnosticism and the Alexandrian school, even though discussion of the topic in early church literature is sparse. However, the new (post-Chafer) pretribulationism has reduced the support for imminency to little more than some general references to Christ’s appearing, and a few statements from the early church fathers based principally on a passage that pretribulationists insist isn’t even applicable to the rapture. This is an unfortunate circumstance, particularly since dispensational premillennialism has, for the most part, “hung its hat” on the hook of pretribulationism, and pretribulationism is in very serious trouble. Of course Chafer is not the source of all of this trouble. As we have observed from the preceding discussions, there are inherent logical defects in the principal pretribulational arguments that have been there all along; for neither the argument from imminency, nor the wrath argument prove pretribulationism as many mistakenly assume (see the first two papers in this series). However, Chafer’s view on Matthew 24:36-25:30 has hastened the abandonment of imminency by some dispensationalists, and may ultimately contribute to the abandonment of dispensationalism itself. Unless dispensationalists can recover from pretribulationism’s theological overextension in claiming more than can be proven, and reclaim the doctrine of imminency as rooted in Matthew 24:36-25:30, it is likely that the beneficiary will be posttribulationism (dispensational, covenantal, or blended). Posttribulationism is, after all, what lies at the bottom of this slippery slope; midtribulationism and Rosenthal’s view are merely “speed bumps” along the way.
In
his Olivet Discourse, Christ clearly taught that his appearing would be
imminent. In Matthew 24:36-44 he said:
[24:36-44] “But of that day and hour no one
knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. (37) For the coming of
the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. (38) For as in those days before the
flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the
day that Noah entered the ark, (39) and
they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will
the coming of the Son of Man be. (40) Then
there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. (41) Two women
will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left. (42) Therefore be on the
alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. (43) But be sure of this, that if the
head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he
would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken
into. (44) For
this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour
when you do not think He will.” [NASB]
The
appearing that Christ describes in this passage can only be his appearing at
the rapture of the church sometime prior to the second coming proper. Of course
Christ did not make a distinction between his appearing for the church (the
rapture) and his second coming proper to establish his visible kingdom on
earth; it was left to Paul to reveal that distinction (1 Cor. 15:51-52). Christ
simply spoke of his “coming” in which he combined elements of both events.
Thus, it would not be incorrect to say that the rapture is a component (or
“phase”) of the second coming, though the events are separated in time, with
the rapture occurring sometime prior to the second coming. Nevertheless,
Christ’s description of his coming in Matthew 24-25 clearly contains elements
of both events (such was normal biblical expression according to progressive
revelation; just as elements of Christ’s first and second advents are
co-mingled in the same sentence in Isaiah 61:1-3, and just as elements of the
millennium and eternity are co-mingled in Isaiah 65:17-25). The fact that
Christ did not distinguish between the rapture and the second coming proper
does not mean that they are not discrete events, nor does it in any way support
posttribulationism, which sees the two events as one; it simply means that we
must learn this distinction from elsewhere in scripture (hence the mystery that
Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 15:51-52). Having said that, it is apparent
that Matthew 24:36-44 (as well as the material that follows in 24:45-25:30) is
applicable to the rapture, at least insofar as it teaches the imminency of
Christ’s appearing. In fact, Christ’s statement on this subject was so explicit
and so complete that there was no reason for the subject to be developed
further—the Master had spoken, and that was all that needed to be said.
How can we be certain that
this passage has the rapture in view? Simple: this passage must refer to the
rapture or to the second coming proper, or to both—on that point all are
agreed; and on the basis of comparison it seems quite impossible that it could
refer to the second coming proper, which leaves only the rapture. The appearing
of Christ as described in this passage is secret (vv. 36,42,44), unannounced
and unexpected (vv. 36-39, 43,44), and virtually instantaneous (vv. 40-41). Yet
Christ in the immediate prior context (vv. 27-31) stated the opposite in
regard to His second coming proper. He said that it will be public (vv. 27-28),
that it will immediately follow the catastrophic judgments associated with the
conclusion of the period (v. 29) and be attended by an unmistakable sign
in the sky visible to the whole world (v. 30); not to mention that it will be
predictable to the very day once the desecration in the temple takes place at
the mid-point of the tribulation period (according to Daniel 12:11 from the
abomination in the temple there will be 1290 days). Thus, on the basis of
comparison, it is apparent that this passage could only have been spoken in
reference to the rapture, not the second coming proper. We can state this with
confidence since the law of identity (sometimes called, the law of non-contradiction)
tells us that nothing can be what it is not (i.e.,
unannounced and unexpected, yet announced and occurring on a specific day; or
instantaneous, yet occurring over a span of time; or imminent, yet occurring on
a precise day from the midpoint of the tribulation period, hailed by highly
specific worldwide events, and preceded by an unmistakable sign in the sky
visible to the whole world). The description of the event in verses 36-41 is
irreconcilable with the description of the second coming proper given in verses
27-31, and therefore can only refer to the rapture of the church sometime prior
to the second coming proper. It is really quite amazing that we should have to
reassert this most obvious truth.
How
is it that this truth has been almost universally ignored? No doubt, the bulk
of interpretive comment on this passage has come from covenantal interpreters
(whether amillennial, postmillennial, or premillennial). Covenantalists of all
millennial persuasions fail to distinguish the rapture as an event separated in
time from the second coming proper. Since covenantalists do not view the
rapture as a discrete event, they must attribute Matthew 24:36-25:30 to the
second coming, and thus they incorrectly conclude that the second coming must
be imminent. Over time that view has become generally accepted in spite of the
obvious problems involved. Add to that the fact that this portion of the Olivet
Discourse presents a significant problem for pretribulationism. As strange as
it may seem, pretribulational interpreters who assign Matthew 24:36-25:30 to
the second coming proper are forced to the same problematic conclusion as
covenantalists; that is, that the second coming proper is (in some significant
sense) imminent. Chafer was forced to this conclusion (see, Lewis Sperry
Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 4, p. 367; and Vol. 5,
pp. 129-140). Walvoord was also forced into a paradoxical position. He
recognized the problems associated with viewing the second coming as imminent
(see, John F. Walvoord, The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation, pp.
22-24); however, while he argued against the imminent second coming doctrine as
held by posttribulationists, his own position on Matthew 24:36-25:30 led
inexorably in the same direction. Walvoord attempted to minimize this
discrepancy by explaining that while the general time of the second coming can
be known (at least once the desecration in the temple occurs), it is the
precise day and hour that cannot be known (Walvoord, The Bible
Knowledge Handbook, 1990, pp. 392-398). However, such hedging in order to
justify the reassignment of Matthew 24:36-25:30 to the second coming
trivializes Christ’s teaching. Are we to believe that Christ’s concern with
which these forty-six verses (24:36-25:30) are occupied, was only that his
disciples might not be watching at the exact time of the exact
day he would return? Wouldn’t the catastrophic bowl judgments, the gathering of
nations for the final battle (Armageddon), and finally the sign in the sky to
be seen by the whole world (24:29-30) make such a concern a moot issue? (For
who on earth will fail to know when the second coming is about to happen? Isn’t
the principal teaching of Matthew 24:23-31 that the second coming is going to
be unmistakable when it happens?) Interesting, Walvoord’s argument on this
point appears to have been a co-opting of a posttribulational argument
popularized by Nathaniel West in his book, Daniel’s Great Prophecy”
(1898); for West offers precisely the same argument against the use of Matthew
24:36-25:30 by nineteenth century pretribulationists who claimed that Matthew
24:36-25:30 taught the imminency of the rapture! (The text of West’s argument
can be found in George Ladd’s The Blessed Hope, p. 46.) That
the new pretribulationists have been unable to offer a better explanation of
how Matthew 24:36-25:30 could describe an imminent second coming (other than to
recycle a posttribulational argument that trivializes Christ’s teaching) is
telling. And what it says is that the position of Chafer and Walvoord (et.
al.), that Matthew 24:36-25:30 describes the second coming, not the
rapture, cannot be squared with scripture and sound reason. (For additional
comments on the Chafer-Walvoord interpretation of Matthew 24:36-25:30, see the
appendix.) Not only has this view undermined the biblical foundation of the
doctrine of the imminency of the rapture by removing the only biblical
proof-text for the doctrine, it has also contributed to the fracturing of
dispensational premillennialism into imminent and non-imminent camps, and quite
possibly has contributed to the overall decline of dispensationalism.
In
his Olivet Discourse, Christ taught the imminency of the rapture—a fact
recognized by pretribulationists prior to Chafer, but denied afterward in order
to combat posttribulationism and partial rapturism, and to avoid the appearance
that Christ’s teaching might be incompatible with pretribulationism (i.e.,
the Luke 21:36 problem). The new pretribulationists’ denial that Matthew
24:36-25:30 describes the rapture (at least with respect to the teaching of
imminency) has led to a fracturing of dispensationalism. The result has been
the defection of some dispensationalists from imminency altogether; and the new
pretribulationists themselves have been left with no biblical support for the
doctrine of imminency, other than some passages stating the nearness of
Christ’s coming and a few statements from church history based on Matthew
24:36-25:30 (a passage which they deny has direct applicability to the
rapture). The choice to regard Matthew 24:36-25:30 as a description of the
second coming proper is one of the most tragic errors in the history of modern
dispensational premillennialism; it is exceeded only by the error of wedding
pretribulationism to dispensational premillennialism in the first place. Had
those that recovered the truth of dispensational premillennialism in the
nineteenth century (Darby, et. al.) not exceeded the limits of scripture
and sound reason in insisting on the necessity of a pretribulational rapture, it
is likely that much of the confusion this dispute has generated in the last one
hundred years would have been avoided; and dispensationalism might not be in
the state of decline it is in today.
Pretribulationism is an
over-reaching theology. Although correct in its insistence on an imminent and
pre-wrath rapture, it far exceeds the bounds of scripture and sound reason by
insisting that the rapture must be pretribulational. Insofar as the
rapture is concerned, we must confess that about all we can state for certain
regarding its timing is that it is imminent (possibly, but not
necessarily, pretribulational), that it will occur before the coming wrath at
the day of the Lord, and that it is sooner than it once was—what I prefer to
call an “imminent and pre-wrath” rapture.
We have observed why
pretribulationists do not wish to acknowledge Matthew 24:36-25:30 as the
rapture (i.e., the problems posed by posttribulationism and partial
rapturism, and the Luke 21:36 problem); I would now like to focus on how they
have attempted to rationalize away this incontrovertible fact. It is asserted
that Matthew 24:36-41 does not describe the rapture because the flood
illustration given in verses 37-39 indicates that those “taken” are taken in
judgment—a scenario that would only be consistent with the second coming
proper. Of course we should be suspect when an interpretation requires that we
dispense with a fundamental law of reason, such as the law of identity. So, let
us once again reassert that based upon the law of identity Matthew 24:36-44
cannot refer to the second coming proper, since the description given in this
passage is irreconcilable with the description of the second coming proper
(given in verses 27‑31). Thus, the assertion of the new
pretribulationists that Matthew 24:36-41 describes the second coming is simply
wrong. If, as we have said, Matthew 24:36-41 cannot refer to the second coming
proper, how does one answer the new pretribulationists’ assertion that the ones
taken in verses 40-41 are taken in judgment (corresponding to the analogy of
the ones the flood “took” in judgment)? The answer is that there is no
parallelism between the ones the flood “took” and those “taken” in verses
40-41. Neither the structure of the passage, nor the language indicates a
parallel. Verse 39 uses the word ere, from airō, translated
“took” (or “swept away”); and verses 40-41 use an unrelated term, paralambonetai,
(in the middle voice) translated “taken,” or “received (or seized) to or for
one’s self.” While we need not make too much over the meaning of these terms,
it is at least clear that no parallelism is expressly indicated in the choice
of words. Nevertheless, Walvoord
insists there is a parallel. He states that once Noah’s ark was finished and
all were safely inside, the unredeemed could have known (based on Noah’s
prophetic proclamation) that the flood was imminent; thus in like manner the
second coming will be imminent once all of the tribulation signs have been
completed (Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come, p. 193). Hence,
Walvoord builds his case on an assumed parallelism between those the flood
“took” and those “taken” in verses 40-41. The purpose of this parallelism is:
1) to establish that verses 40-41 refer to the second coming proper (since
those “taken” are taken in judgment), and 2) to explain how the second
coming proper could be described as “imminent.” However, Walvoord’s interpretation
is based upon an unstated assumption: that verses 40‑41 actually refer to
the second coming proper. In other words, he assumes that verses 40‑41
describe the second coming proper, in order to establish the parallel between
the ones the flood “took” and those taken in verses 40-41; then he appeals to
the supposed parallel as evidence that verses 40-41 describe the second coming
proper. This is clearly circular reasoning. As we have already observed, the
event described in verses 40‑41 cannot be the second coming proper (due
to the law of identity); thus verses 40‑41 cannot refer to the second
coming, and there is no basis for asserting an analogical parallel between
those the flood “took” and those that are “taken” in verses 40-41. Actually,
quite the opposite is true. Since we have shown that verses 40‑41 can
only describe the rapture, we must conclude that the ones the flood “took”
(v. 39) are analogous to the one’s that are “left” in verses 40-41 (an
asymmetric, or inverted parallelism). Not only does Walvoord mismatch the
parallelism in this passage, he fails to interpret what the passage actually
says. The Noah illustration does not say that the antediluvians knew (or
“should,” or “could” have known) the flood was imminent once Noah entered the
ark; it says that they didn’t know what was happening until it actually
happened, i.e. “until the flood took them all away” (v. 38-39). If
the Noah illustration were analogically parallel to the second coming, as
Walvoord argues, we should have to conclude that those taken in judgment at the
second coming will not know what has happened until they are actually taken
away (in accordance with the parallelism), yet such a conclusion would be
incongruent with other scriptures; for according to Revelation 6:12-17 the
unsaved will be aware of their doom before the breaking of the seventh seal,
which is well before the end of the tribulation period. Even knowing their
predicament, the unrighteous will refuse to repent (Rev. 9:20-21; 16:9-11), and
their armies will gather to oppose Christ at his return (Rev. 19:19). Thus we
see that Walvoord’s interpretation that verses 40-41 refer to the second coming
proper (based upon an assumed parallel between those the flood “took” and those
“taken” in verses 40-41) is neither logical nor biblical.
I would also like to briefly comment on the new pretribulational
interpretation of Matthew 25:1-13, since this passage is a continuation of
Christ’s teaching on imminency in 24:36-51 (cf. 25:13). Consistent with their
interpretation of 24:36-44, the new pretribulationists generally interpret the
similitude of the ten virgins (25:1-13) as referring to the second coming
proper. According to this interpretation, the passage describes Christ
returning (having previously claimed his bride at the rapture) and calling
redeemed Israel (represented by the virgins with oil) unto the wedding feast in
the millennium; but some of Israel will not be prepared (redeemed) and will be
left out (as represented by the virgins without oil for their lamps). Although
it is true that Christ will return with his bride at his second coming, and
saved Jews and Gentiles will enter the kingdom with him, reading that into this
similitude is highly problematic. First, we are told in verse 1 that this
similitude pertains to “the kingdom of heaven”—a frequent topic in Matthew’s
gospel (see, Matthew 13). However, when we look at the other passages that deal
with the kingdom of heaven, not one is limited in scope to the Jewish nation
during the tribulation period, as this interpretation requires. In every other
mention of the kingdom of heaven, the entire interadvent age, including the
church age, is in view. So, the new pretribulational interpretation does not
fit the stated scope of the passage, (i.e., the kingdom of heaven).
Second, we note in verse 3 that some of the virgins were “foolish” (professing
but unredeemed, as seen by having a lamp but no oil), while some were “prudent”
(having both a lamp and oil), yet all presumed they would gain entrance to the
wedding feast at the appearing of the same bridegroom; in fact, it appears that
initially all ten virgins were, at least ostensibly, of the same party (i.e.,
all professed faith in the true Christ). This picture of a mixed Christianity
(believers and unbelievers visibly united in the profession of a common faith)
fits well with the present age, especially given the picture in the parables of
Matthew 13; however, the tribulation period will be a time when believers will
face great persecution and martyrdom (Rev. 6:9-11), and those who merely
profess will fall away; the non-elect will even come under a powerful delusion
sent by God to worship and serve the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:11). To assume
that the non-elect will choose to associate themselves with severely persecuted
believers in anticipation of the arrival of the true Christ at his second
coming does not seem plausible. This description best fits the general apostasy
associated with the end of the present age, to which Christ gives abundant
testimony (Matt. 13:1‑50). Third, in verse 5 we are told that while the
bridegroom was delaying, all the virgins became “drowsy” and “began to sleep.”
This could hardly describe believers during the later part of the tribulation
period, whose lives are being spiritually refined (Dan. 12:2; Zech. 13:8-9),
and who from the mid-point of the period will be in constant peril because of
their testimony (Matt. 24:15-20; Rev. 6:9-11). To suggest that the body of
believers present on earth during the latter tribulation period could be fairly
characterized as “drowsy” and beginning to “sleep” (v. 5) fails to
recognize what the Bible says about the nature, purpose, and some events of the
tribulation period. The tribulation believers, more than any other generation
of believers, will be the ones who, owing to their great faithfulness and
testimony, will pay the ultimate price for holding forth the truth and
maintaining a pure testimony amid the most difficult persecution history has
ever, or will ever see (Rev. 6:9; Matt. 24:15-22). While it is true that belief
will be relatively rare when Christ returns at his second coming (since many
believers will perish), those that do believe will certainly not be “drowsy” or
“asleep.” How the new pretribulationists, who generally take a literal view of
tribulation prophecy, could subscribe to such an interpretation is really quite
incredible. Note also that the delay of the bridegroom and the slumber of the
virgins more naturally fit with the current age than with the tribulation
period. Fourth, the unexpectedly long delay of the Lord indicated in the
similitude of the ten virgins (25:5) and also of the talents (25:19) clearly
encompasses the present age (from the time he departed until his appearing),
and argues against limiting the scope of this passage to Israel in the tribulation
period. Fifth, the new pretribulational interpretation views this passage as a
description of Christ’s return after having previously claimed his bride to
enter the millennial wedding feast. However, according to the text (25:1), this
story is a similitude (homoiōthēsetai from homoioō “like unto”). If this were an actual
description, as Chafer’s interpretation implies, it could not be a similitude
as the text explicitly states—for a thing cannot be compared to, i.e.,
“similar to” itself (another application of the law of identity). While it is
true that Christ will return with his bride, the church, at the second coming,
that truth is not taught here. The similitude of the bridegroom and the ten
virgins merely illustrations the manner in which Christ will appear—“like unto”
a bridegroom (that is, an ordinary middle-eastern bridegroom), who, having
delayed long finds his entourage sleeping upon his arrival—an apt picture of
the state of the church at the rapture, particularly in light of the general apostasy
prophetically anticipated at the end of the present age (Matt. 13). Christ here
does not describe himself as a bridegroom; he merely compares his
return to a bridegroom arriving at an unexpectedly late hour. Also, the view
that this passage describes Christ as an actual bridegroom fails to consider
that it was Paul, not Christ, who first revealed the truth that the church is
to be the bride of Christ (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:22-30)—for Christ nowhere
taught that doctrine. [For those who insist (against the many sound reasons
presented above) that this is an actual description of Christ, perhaps I should
point out that even in that circumstance it would still best fit the rapture.
First, the multiplicity of the virgins is not a barrier to them representing
the church; the body of Christ (the church), is, after all, composed of a
multiplicity of members (1 Cor. 12:12). Second, that the wedding feast
will take place on earth in the millennium is merely an assumption—the text
says nothing about where this feast takes place. Third, the description does
not have to be limited only to the second phase of the oriental wedding (the
post-wedding feast). If the wedding and the feast are to be in the same
location (heaven), then this could picture Christ claiming his bride and taking
her to his home (heaven) where the wedding and the feast will take place.
Fourth, it should be noted that at an unexpected hour there was a “shout”
saying, “Behold, the Bridegroom. Come out to meet him.” This could easily
correspond to the shout of the archangel in the 1 Thessalonians 4:16,
which is a description of the rapture. Also, we should note that in 25:6 the
virgins are commanded: “Come out to meet him” (exerchesthe {from ex
= “out” + erchomai = “to come”} eis apantēsiv {“unto a meeting,”
or “encounter”}). If this is taken as a description of the second coming, and
if the unredeemed are the ones to be removed, leaving the redeemed to go into
the earthly millennium (as Chafer and Walvoord insist), how is it that the
redeemed are here called “out” (out of what?) to meet the bridegroom, and the
unredeemed (represented by the foolish virgins with no oil) are left
behind? Clearly the particulars do not
fit the second coming proper as Chafer and Walvoord claim. However, as I said,
I don’t think this is a description so much as a metaphor used to convey the
unexpectness of his appearing. In any case, it best suits the rapture, not the
second coming.] As we have observed, Matthew 24:36-44 can only refer to the
rapture of the church; and thus it follows that 25:1-14 (and so, 25:15-30) must
also refer to the rapture of the church, at least as far as the element of
imminency is concerned. (I will not comment on 25:15-30 since the
pretribulational interpretation of that passage is predicated upon the
interpretation of 25:1-14 as being the second coming proper—as goes one, so
goes the other.)
© Copyright 2007, Biblical Reader Communications / Sam
A. Smith
This document may be copied for non-commercial, educational
use
if provided to the end user absolutely free.
All other rights reserved.
This notice must appear on all copies.
Available from: www.BiblicialReader.com
How Pretribulationism Has Almost Destroyed the Doctrine of
Imminency
Published May 7, 2007, The Biblical Reader