YOUR ORDERS Previous Orders / Re-Order
The Timing of the Parousia
There are three views with regard to the timing of the Lord’s coming, and those are pretribulationism, midtribulationism, and then posttribulationism.1 It is important to understand that the timing issue with regard to the Lord’s coming (i.e. the doctrine of the rapture as distinct from the second coming) is the result of premillennial theology. For instance, amillennialists and postmillennialists do not believe Scripture to teach any kind of rapture, because those theologies believe there is only one return of the Lord Jesus, which is accompanied by a general resurrection and general judgment.2 Consequently, amillennial and postmillennial eschatology is simplistic (and therefore easy to understand), because all prophecies with regard to judgment and resurrection are combined.
Premillennial eschatology is very complex because there are many diverse events. Scripture prophesies of a rapture, seven-year tribulation, second coming, a 75-day interval prior to the millennium, the final rebellion of Satan at the end of the millennium; moreover, there is not a general resurrection and general judgment, but there is the judgment seat of Christ, the first resurrection, the second resurrection, and the Great White Throne judgment. What is noteworthy with regard to premillennialism is to compare it to diagrams of the Book of Kings or the Book of Chronicles, which are also incredibly complex because those Old Testament books are accounts of real history. Likewise, premillennial eschatology is complex because it systematizes what will be historical, and therefore literal details of the Bible.
It is also worthy noting that there is nearly universal agreement that if one interprets Scripture literally, the outcome will be a premillennial eschatology. For instance, (amillennialist) Oswald T. Allis wrote, “The Old Testament prophecies if literally interpreted cannot be regarded as having been fulfilled or as being capable of fulfillment in this present age.”3 Floyd E. Hamilton, who was also opposed to premillennialism, wrote similarly, “Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures. That was the kind of a Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for, on the basis of a literal interpretation of the Old Testament.”4 Of course, amillennialists and postmillennialists attempt to provide explanations as to why one should not regard specific prophetic texts literally and why one should not interpret biblical prophecy literally. Certain passages in 1 Thessalonians or in Daniel (chs. 7—12) and Revelation are regarded as an apocalyptic genre (sc. symbolic primarily), and/or are interpreted spiritually (allegorically), so that the literal meaning is not desired.5 Therefore, addressing the issue of the distinction between the rapture and the second coming is not a concern for amillennialists and postmillennialists.
Pretribulationism and Midtribulationism
The issue with regard to the rapture of the church is a premillennial discussion dealing with the timing of that coming, and whether it is pretribulational, midtribulational, or posttribulational. The pretribulational view that the rapture will precede the seven years of tribulation is what Midnight Call understands Scripture to teach. The midtribulational view is actually a variation of the pretribulational, because midtribulationists simply regard the church as being exempt from tribulation, or the wrath of God, which begins at the midpoint of the tribulation, that is, the last three and a half years. Both pretribulationists and midtribulationists would agree the church is not destined to experience the wrath of the tribulation, but pretribulationists and midtribulationists disagree as to when that wrath begins.
The pretribulationist understands the wrath of God to begin at the beginning of the tribulation, and the midtribulationist believes that God’s wrath occurs at the tribulational midpoint, which is their method for affirming that the church is raptured prior to the outpouring of God’s wrath. Midtribulationists refer typically to Revelation 11, wherein the biblical text refers to the snatching upward of the two witnesses who have been martyred. Midtribulationists believe the prophesied event to be symbolic of the church. Consequently, the midtribulationist does not believe the rapture is imminent; it cannot occur at any moment because certain events must occur, which is a primary distinction from pretribulationism, which states the rapture can occur at any moment (i.e. although events may precede the rapture, there are no prophesied events that must occur).
Midtribulationism does not receive much attention, as there are not many midtribulationists presently, and there have not been many midtribulationists throughout the history of the church. Marvin Rosenthal, the founder of Zion’s Hope Ministries and the Holy Land Experience in Orlando, Florida,6 has attempted to revive midtribulational thinking with what he calls the “pre-wrath rapture of the church.” Rosenthal does not regard his view as midtribulational and does not make any reference to midtribulationism. However, his argumentation is entirely similar to midtribulationism, and should be understood as a combination of both pretribulational and posttribulational assertions. The majority of rapture discussions involve the pretribulational or posttribulational views.
Posttribulationism
Posttribulationalists are attempting to reassert their position. Baker Books has even released a new book affirming a certain type of posttribulationism,7 because adherents of that position recognize that primarily with regard to the rapture, the majority of the focus has been upon pretribulationism. According to the posttribulational view, the church will experience the entire seven years of tribulation, and the rapture and the second coming are regarded as one event. George Eldon Ladd (1911-82), who was professor of New Testament exegesis and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, is a primary reference for posttribulational studies. There is also much attention upon Ladd’s eschatology and its relationship to the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit.8 The theology of Ladd was a major influence upon John Wimber (1934-97), founder of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship, who was convinced that demonstration and validation of the power of the Gospel was through miracles. Ladd is a noteworthy individual not only for eschatological studies, but also for pneumatology (doctrine of the Holy Spirit) among those who argue that signs and wonders of the New Testament times should be common practices in the contemporary church. Ladd’s writings remain influential in the current time.
As a futurist posttribulationist, Ladd wrote, “The parousia, the apokalypse, and the epiphany appear to be a single event. Any division of Christ’s coming into two parts is an unproven inference.”9 Ladd believed the words “parousia, the apokalypse, and the epiphany” refer to the same, single event, and therefore are not to be differentiated. Ladd is incorrect, however, in his assertion. The first word, parousia, is translated “coming” in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, and in that passage refers rather specifically to the rapture of the church. The same Greek word, parousia, is used in Matthew 24:27 and is accurately translated “coming” with regard to the Lord’s return to earth. Since the same Greek word is used in Matthew 24:27 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15, posttribulationists believe the texts refer to the same, single event. Pretribulationists disagree, and understand parousia to describe two separate events: the rapture and the second coming.
Parousia is properly translated as coming, and literally bears the idea of presence associated with the coming. An illustration may help to clarify the literal meaning. Grandparents may say they are expecting the presence (the parousia) of their grandchildren for a special occasion. The statement may be understood in a twofold manner. The first meaning may be that the grandparents are expecting the presence of their grandchildren soon, and they will be present for the special occasion. In other words, the grandchildren will come soon, which will be evident in them being present and experiencing the special occasion of their grandparents. Therefore, the soon coming and the actual celebration occur at one time. The second meaning of the statement could be that the grandparents will be experiencing the presence of their grandchildren soon, and they will also be present for the special occasion. Therefore, two events are understood. The grandchildren could come soon, leave the grandparent’s home, and return again for the special occasion. The coming of the grandchildren may refer to one event, or it could refer to two events.
The illustration serves to demonstrate that the coming of the grandchildren does not necessarily infer one, single event. It is similar with the presence (coming) of the Lord Jesus. When the Greek word, parousia, is used, it does not have to mean that the rapture and the second coming are one event. Parousia could quite simply be a word that describes two separate events. Ladd’s statement is wrong because the mere use of parousia does not indicate whether the coming is the rapture of the church or the Lord’s return to earth. Only context of the biblical passage will indicate which coming is being referenced.
The other word used with regard to the Lord’s coming is apokalupsis (ajpokavluyi"). The three uses of this word in 1 Corinthians 1:7 and 1 Peter 1:7 and 4:13 are references to the rapture. Apokalupsis simply means “revelation.” In the Corinthians passage and the two references in 1 Peter, the Greek word is referring to Christ coming for His church and revealing Himself to her. At the second coming, of course, Christ will also reveal Himself, but in a different manner; He will reveal Himself as He returns to earth at the close of the tribulation (i.e. He will reveal Himself as Lord of lords and King of kings to the entire world). One must examine context to determine which coming is being referenced. Context will indicate whether the usage is with regard to Christ coming to reveal Himself for who He is, or whether it is His second coming when He reveals Himself to the entire world.
The third word mentioned by Ladd is epiphaneia (ejpifavneia), which simply means “manifestation.” Christ will certainly manifest Himself to His church. Epiphaneia is used in 2 Timothy 4:8 and Titus 2:13 with reference to Christ manifesting Himself to the church at the rapture. The same word is used in 2 Thessalonians 2:8, which refers to the time when Christ destroys Antichrist; the Lord Jesus manifests Himself by His coming, which is an epiphany that destroys Antichrist. Context determines whether the rapture or the second coming is intended.
If posttribulationists are correct (which they are not), the Greek words—parousia, apokalupsis, and epiphaneia—must catalog the time of the Lord’s return whenever they are used. In other words, anytime one reads the three Greek words (or their translation), they must be cataloged into one single event. The biblical response would be not to catalog but to recognize that the three Greek words characterize the coming of Lord Jesus. Parousia, apokalupsis, and epiphaneia do not catalog the Lord’s return as a single event; rather, they characterize His return at the rapture and at the second coming. For instance, the word parousia characterizes the presence of the Lord at the rapture and also at the second coming. The apokalupsis characterizes the revelation of Christ; there will be a revelation of who He at the rapture, and also at the second coming. Moreover, at the rapture, there will be a manifestation of the Lord to His church; therefore, the Greek word epiphaneia is used.
Conclusion
In its original language (Koine [“common”] Greek), the New Testament used different words to describe the rapture and the second coming. The usages do not catalog the Greek words, nor do they indicate that the coming of Lord Jesus is a single event; rather, the usages characterize the return of the Lord Jesus at the rapture and at the second coming (i.e. two events, not one). Perhaps another illustration may help. One could say that an air conditioning unit has a motor, but it is also true to state that cameras and vehicles have motors. If the three references to motor are cataloged, this would mean that a motor is always the same (within an air conditioning unit, a camera, a vehicle, etc.). But this would not be the intended meaning of the word usage, because what is meant is just what a motor does. One understands the function of a motor, and therefore the usage of that word is characterizing; it is not intended to mean that every reference to a motor refers to the exact, same motor. It is similar with the words used for the rapture and the second coming.
Therefore, parousia, apokalupsis, and epiphaneia do not catalog the Lord’s return into a single event; rather, one must examine context to determine what the words characterize. One must ask, does the word characterize the rapture, or does the word characterize the second coming? To be rather direct, there are too many irreconcilable differences between the biblical passages with regard to the rapture and those regarding the second coming for them to be cataloging the same event. Revelation 19, for instance, prophesies Christ’s coming, and the emphasis is upon His judgment of the wicked. Whereas, in 1 Thessalonians 4, there is only a depiction of the righteous in Christ, and the emphasis is upon the dead being raised to life. The dead are raised to life and the living are immediately translated (i.e. they receive a new, glorified body).
In Revelation 19, however, the living are judged: either the living are judged to experience death, or the living are judged to enter the kingdom. In 1 Thessalonians 4, the living meet the Lord Jesus in the air; whereas, in Revelation 19, there is the prophecy of Christ coming with the armies of heaven, that is, coming with His saints. The emphasis in 1 Thessalonians 4 is upon the guests at the marriage supper of the Lamb; whereas, in Revelation 19, the “bride” is distinct from those assembled “for the great supper of God.” In 1 Thessalonians 4, the emphasis is upon the coming of the Lord Jesus for those who will be with Him forever. Conversely, in Revelation 19, the emphasis is upon those forever separated from Christ Jesus. Incredibly distinct events are being described in 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 19.
John 14:1-3 and 1 Thessalonians 4 use remarkably similar language. In John 14, Jesus said “do not be troubled,” and in 1 Thessalonians 4, He said, “do not have sorrow,” because the emphasis is upon the fact that if one trusts in Jesus as Lord and Savior, and therefore believes in God, then when Christ comes, He will take those individuals to be with Him. John 14 states that the Lord Jesus will receive them, whereas 1 Thessalonians 4 says they will be raptured, taken to be with the Lord, and will always be with Him. Of course, these are tremendous differences from what one reads in Matthew 24—25 and Revelation 19; in those passages, the emphasis is upon events when Christ returns to earth. Therefore, the biblical text causes this writer to disagree with his posttribulational brethren, as he does not believe that parousia, apokalupsis, and epiphaneia catalog one single event. When context is examined more carefully, it is evident that those words may refer to two different events: the rapture of the church and the Lord’s return to earth. The believer in Jesus may biblically anticipate the return of the Lord prior to the beginning of the seven-year tribulation. (379)
ENDNOTES
1 Pre-wrath rapturism would be best identified as a variation of midtribulationism. See this author’s previous article: “Pre-Wrath Rapturism,” Midnight Call (December 2008): 17-25.
2 Scripture distinguishes the rapture of the church and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth, in addition to differentiating the first resurrection (which includes the judgment seat of Christ for the church, the judgment of Old Testament saints, the judgment of tribulation saints, the judgment of millennial saints) from the second resurrection (the judgment of unbelievers at the Great White Throne).
3 Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945) 238.
4 Floyd E. Hamilton, The Basis of Millennial Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1942) 38.
5 For example, Allis wrote, “Obedience is the precondition of blessing under all circumstances” (Prophecy and the Church, 33). It is correct to state that some blessings of God in both the Old Testament and New Testament are conditioned upon obedience. However, it is equally true that the sovereign decrees of God will be fulfilled exactly as He promised. Moreover, while Israel was disciplined severely for disobedience, the fulfillment of God’s promises to the believing remnant is unconditional (as in election). Hamilton provided another alleged reason for rejecting premillennial doctrine, “Jesus Himself, in speaking of that whole idea said, ‘The kingdom of God is within (or, in the midst of) you’ (Luke 17:21), thus contradicting the idea that it was an earthly, literal Jewish kingdom” (Basis of Millennial Faith, 39). Jesus, however, did not declare a spiritual form of the kingdom had arrived, but was indicating that the kingdom was near because He was present on earth, and a genuine offer of the kingdom was proffered to the nation of Israel (see Ron J. Bigalke Jr. and George Gunn, “Contingency of the Davidic Reign,” in Progressive Dispensationalism: An Analysis of the Movement and Defense of Traditional Dispensationalism, ed. Ron J. Bigalke Jr. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2005) 181-82.
6 As a result of increasing debt, the Holy Land Experience was purchased by the apostate Trinity Broadcasting Network in June 2007.
7 Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung, eds., A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to “Left Behind” Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009).
8 Bruce A. Baker, “Progressive Dispensationalism and Cessationism: Why They Are Incompatible,” “Is Progressive Dispensationalism Really Dispensational?,” in Progressive Dispensationalism, 257-84, 346-60.
9 George E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956) 69; cf. Douglas J. Moo, “The Case for the Posttribulation Rapture Position,” in The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 176-78.
