The Written Word (book excerpts)
"The
Blessed
Hope"
by George Eldon Ladd
CONCLUSION
We have now concluded our study both of the Biblical teaching
about the Blessed Hope and of the history of pretribulationism,
and have come to the following conclusions. The idea of a
pretribulation rapture was not seen in the Scriptures by the
early church fathers. They were futurists and premillennialists
but not pretribulationists. This of itself indicates that
pretribulationism and premillennialism are not identical and
that the Blessed Hope is not the hope of a rapture before the
Tribulation. Pretribulationism was an unknown teaching until the
rise of the Plymouth Brethren among whom the doctrine
originated. From this source, it has come to America where,
although warmly received by some, it has been rejected by other
devout students of the Word, or has been at first accepted and
later rejected by others. This very fact should suggest caution
in making pretribulationism an essential element in prophetic
interpretation.
The vocabulary of the Blessed Hope knows nothing of two aspects
of Christ's coming, one secret and one glorious. On the
contrary, the terminology points to a single indivisible return
of Christ. Scripture says nothing about a secret coming of the
Lord.
The Scriptures which predict the Great Tribulation, the Rapture
and the Resurrection nowhere place the Rapture and the
Resurrection of the saints at the beginning of the Tribulation.
Nor does Scripture know anything of two phases of the first
resurrection -- that of the saints and that of the tribulation
martyrs -- separated by a seven-year period of tribulation. On
the contrary, the one passage which is most specific as to
chronology places the resurrection of both martyrs and saints
after the Tribulation. Furthermore, the isolated verses which
are claimed for pretribulationism do not in fact assert a
pretribulation rapture. This doctrine is nowhere affirmed in the
Word of God; it is an assumption in light of which the Word is
interpreted.
We have examined the arguments on which the assumption rests and
have found that they do not require this inference. Such
terminology as that of Christ's coming for and with His saints,
the day of the Lord and the day of Christ do not establish two
events. Scripture says nothing about a removal of the Holy
Spirit. The Revelation says nothing about the Rapture and does
not see a raptured Church in heaven during the Tribulation. In
fact, the union of Christ with His bride does not take place
until His return after the Tribulation.
The Biblical teaching of watching is not the equivalent of
watching for an any-moment coming of Christ.
The Scriptures which promise deliverance from God's wrath do not
prove a pretribulation rapture, because God's people who will
find themselves on earth during the Tribulation will be divinely
sheltered from the outpourings of wrath. On the other hand, it
would be a reversal of God's providences in history if He were
to remove the Church from the last attack of human and satanic
hostility even though it will be the worst history has known.
The concept that the Scriptures which refer to the Great
Tribulation have to do only with Israel and not with the Church
is an arbitrary method of interpreting the Word which, if
carried out consistently, would make havoc of Biblical
interpretation. We have found that dispensationalists themselves
do not apply this method of "dividing the Word" in a consistent
manner.
Finally, we concluded that the undue concern with the question
of pretribulationism tends to cause neglect of more important
and vital issues having to do with the Blessed Hope; that it is
not necessary for the preservation of the purifying influence of
the Blessed Hope; that it tends to misunderstand the most
fundamental element in the purifying Hope; that it sacrifices
one of the greatest incentives for world evangelization; that a
Biblical attitude of expectancy is not identical with a belief
in an any-moment coming of Christ; that it misrepresents the
Blessed Hope by defining it in terms of escape from suffering
rather than union with Christ and thus may be guilty of the
positive danger of leaving the Church unprepared for tribulation
when Antichrist appears; and that pretribulationism is not
essential to a premillennial eschatology.
In short, pretribulationism is neither affirmed by the Word of
God, nor is it an inference required by the Word, nor is it
essential for the preservation of the highest spiritual values.
It is, on the contrary, beset by certain grave dangers.
What is to be said of posttribulationism? Let it be here clearly
affirmed that the author has no desire to be represented as a
protagonist of posttribulationism, although this is probably
inevitable. A Christian leader of national stature recently
wrote, "One of these days you are going to be greatly surprised
and you will be caught up to meet the Lord before the
Tribulation breaks upon us. Don't you hope so?" To this
question, we reply with an emphatic, Yes, we do. Let no one say
that the author wants to see the Church suffer persecution or
tribulation, or that he desires to find himself in the Great
Tribulation. However, questions of theology are not decided by
our desires or our dislikes; they are decided by appeal to the
Word of God. And since we do not find pretribulationism taught
in the Word of God, we must insist that this position should not
claim that it is synonymous with the Blessed Hope. The author
has frequently heard the reaction expressed both by la ymen and
pastors that they believe in a pretribulation rapture because
they do not want to suffer the Great Tribulation. Who does
desire it? However, the question is, What saith the Word? And
unless the Word is clear on such an important point, can we run
the risk of promising God's people what may be a false security
of deliverance from trouble when what they need is warning and
preparation to endure trouble?
The question will be asked, Does the Word assert that the Church
will go through the Tribulation? Is not posttribulationism
equally an inference? Is the student of the Word to throw up his
hands and make an arbitrary choice between two inferences,
selecting the one he prefers?
With the exception of one passage, the author will grant that
the Scripture nowhere explicitly states that the Church will go
through the Great Tribulation. God's people are seen in the
Tribulation, but they are not called the Church but the elect or
the saints. Nor does the Word explicitly place the Rapture at
the end of the Tribulation. Most of the references to these
final events lack chronological indications. Perhaps God wishes
us to be certain about the great verities of Christ's return,
the Rapture and the Resurrection, but has deliberately refrained
from answering all of our questions as to the order of events.
However, in one passage, Revelation 20, the Resurrection is
placed at the return of Christ in glory. This is more than an
inference. Furthermore, even apart from the clear teaching of
Revelation, if we were left only to inference, our study has
suggested that a single indivisible return of Christ, which
requires a post tribulation view, is the inference which is m
ore naturally suggested than that of two comings of Christ with
a pretribulation rapture.
The author takes it as a basic hermeneutical principle that in
disputed questions of interpretation, the simpler view is to be
preferred; the burden of proof rests upon the more elaborate
explanation. We know that Christ is coming back in power and
great glory. We know that every eye shall see Him for He shall
come as lightning blazes from one end of heaven to the other. We
know that when He comes, the dead in Christ will be raised, the
living saints will be raptured, Antichrist will be judged, and
the millennial kingdom inaugurated. If the Coming of Christ, the
Resurrection and the Rapture are not a single indivisible event
followed immediately thereafter by the punishment of Antichrist
and the inauguration of the kingdom, the burden of proof rests
on those who would elaborate this basic outline by dividing the
coming of Christ into two aspects and the first resurrection
into two parts. Unless such a proof is forthcoming, the
necessary inference is that this division of the coming of
Christ and the resurrection into two parts is invalid, and one
is not required to accept it as the teaching of the Word of God.
Students and teachers of the Word may hold this position if they
feel it helps them to understand the Scriptures, but they ought
not insist that this doctrine is essential to sound doctrine and
an indispensable element in premillenial eschatology. It should
be held as a teaching about which there may be legitimate
differences of opinion within the area of prophetic
interpretation.
The analogy has been drawn between the prophetic expectation of
the first coming of Christ and our expectation of His second
coming. We have quoted Dr. Walvoord to the effect that "before
the first coming of the Lord, there was confusion even among the
prophets concerning the distinction between the first and second
comings (I Peter 1:10-11)." The prophets were not given
sufficient light to make an accurate detailed chart of prophetic
events. The distinction between the two advents of Christ could
not be appreciated until He came the first time. If the analogy
holds, God has not even now given us enough light to make an
accurate, detailed chart of all the events which will attend the
second advent. Jesus did not criticize the disciples for failing
to have a correct interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies
before the event but only for failure to recognize the
fulfillment when it actually occurred.
Following this analogy, we must conclude that there could be
distinctions involved in events attending Christ's return, but
these distinctions will not become really clear until the events
themselves actually take place. Meanwhile, we must insist that
the contemporary inference of two aspects in the second coming
does not have the explicit confirmation of Scripture. The
natural interpretation of the return of Christ is that of a
single glorious event at the very end; and this was always the
expectation of the futurist views of the Church until the
creation of the dispensational distinctions. The burden of proof
rests upon those who insist that the natural and simplest
explanation is not the Biblical teaching. Pretribulationism is
not asserted in the Scripture; it is not proven. It is an
assumption in light of which Scriptures are interpreted. The
strong balance of probability rests with the simpler view,
especially since this view is not burdened by contradictions.
Having said this, we would revert to our original thesis, only
to broaden it: neither pretribulationism nor posttribulationism
should be made a ground of fellowship, a test of orthodoxy, or a
necessary element in Christian doctrine. There should be liberty
and charity toward both views. That which is essential is the
expectation of "the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of
our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ."
|
|
