Things That Must "Come First"

“for these things must come to pass first, 

but the end will not come immediately.” 

(Luke 21: 9)

In keeping with the words of Christ from his sermon on the mount of Olives (called his "Olivet Discourse"), I affirm that there are certain things that must come to past first before the second coming (his parousia, epiphany, apocalypse). I certainly do believe that "the great tribulation" (Rev. 7: 14; See also Rev. 3: 10) will precede his second coming, will precede the rapture and resurrection of believers. I believe the second coming is described in Revelation chapter nineteen and it occurs after the seven seals have been opened and the seven trumpet angels have sounded their trumpets and this harmonizes with the above words of Jesus. Tribulation must come first, along with several other things. 

Elias Must First Come

"And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." (Matt. 17: 10-13)

Just as the old testament on the surface seemed only to have spoken of a singular coming of the Messiah so it also seemed to speak of a singular coming of Elijah (Elias). However, as we see from new testament revelation, Christ has two comings (with an inter advent period). One has occurred and the second is yet to occur. Likewise, we also see from new testament revelation that the coming of Elijah has two comings. Further, in each case, Elijah comes before Christ.

The following are citations from an old posting of mine in the Baptist Gadfly (See here) in which I cited from J.A. Seiss and his work "The Apocalypse." 

"Here, then, we would seem to come upon solid Scriptural ground. If Elijah means Elijah, and the great and terrible day of the Lord is the day of Christ’s final coming in judicial majesty to crush out Satan and his seed, there is no alternative left to believers in God’s word, but to receive the doctrine that Elijah is to come again to prophesy and execute works of judgment upon earth, and just in that period of time to which the Apocalypse assigns these Two Witnesses. Whatever else may be compassed by the prediction, and in whatever narrower circles it may have been fulfilled, if words are not utterly deceitful, and certainty can at all be predicated of God’s very specific promises, this prophecy cannot be considered fulfilled or accomplished in the past, nor until Elijah the Tishbite, in propria persona, returns again to the earth."

"On the mount of Christ’s glorious Transfiguration Elijah appeared. The disciples saw him and knew him. And, as they were coming down from the mount, they asked the Master about this very point, alleging the doctrine of the scribes that “Elias must first come.” And He answered and said unto them: “ELIAS TRULY SHALL FIRST COME, AND RESTORE ALL THINGS.” (Matthew 17:11.) This passage is decisive. “The great Interpreter of prophecy gives right to that interpretation of the prophetic word which the scribes maintained,” says Trench. It cannot refer to John the Baptist, for John was then dead, while every part of it specifically relates to the future. “Elias truly shall come, and shall restore all things.” Besides, the restoration or “restitution of all things” (ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων), in the which it is affirmed that the coming Elias is to take part, is specifically referred by the Apostle Peter to the time of Christ’s second coming. (Acts 3:19.) In all its terms and relations, therefore, we are compelled to accept this solemn declaration of the Saviour as looking to the future, and meant to set forth what yet awaited fulfilment. John the Baptist is here out of the question, unless indeed he is to come again. Dr. Stier has rightly said: “Whoever, in this answer of Christ, would explain away the manifest and striking confirmation of the fact that a coming of Elias was yet to take place, must do great violence to the words, and will never be able to restrain the future of their form and import so as to be applicable to John the Baptist.”

But, it may be asked, Did not Christ say in the same connection, that Elias had come already, leaving it to be understood that He spoke of John the Baptist? The answer is, Yes; but in a way entirely distinct from the declaration we have just been considering. Elsewhere also he says of John: “If ye will receive [it, him, or something else] this is Elias, which was for to come.” (Matthew 11:14.) This proves that there is a sense in which John the Baptist was Elias, but certainly not such a sense as that in which the Jews were expecting Elias, nor yet such a sense as that in which He declared, after John was dead: “Elias truly shall first come and restore all things.” John was not the literal Elias. This we are compelled to admit, or else he did not tell the truth; for when the priests and Levites asked him, “Art thou Elias? “he answered, “I AM NOT.” (John 1:21.) And this clear and positive denial is further sustained by the facts

(1) that he did not restore all things as was predicted of Elias, and
(2) that the great and terrible day, which was to be ushered in immediately upon the finishing of the Elijah ministry, did not succeed the ministry of John, but is even yet future."

"Whilst, therefore, there is a sense of much importance in which John was Elias, there is another, more literal, and equally important sense, in which he was not Elias, and in which Elias is still to be expected, according to the Saviour's own word."

"There was a twofold ministry embraced in the ancient promise to send Elijah, just as there was a twofold advent in the predictions concerning the Messiah. In neither case did the Old Testament clearly distinguish between these two, but viewed them both as if they were but one. And as the two Messiah-comings are widely separated in time, though belonging to one and the same work, so there are two Elijah-comings, equally separated in time, and equally comprehended in the predictions. Hence, John, as the forerunner of Christ in the first advent, was Elias, that is, he filled the Elijah place, operated in the Elijah spirit and energy, did for that occasion the Elijah work, and so far fulfilled the Elijah promise. As the angel said of him before he was born, he went before Christ “in the spirit and power of Elias” (Luke 1:15-17); which implies that he was not Elias himself. The Saviour could, therefore, truly say of him while living, “If ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come, “and so likewise after he was dead,” Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.” John the Baptist operated in the spirit and energy of Elias, and performed the Elijah mission for the first advent, and so far “was Elias,” but, according to the word of the angel, only the virtual, and not the literal Elias. He could accordingly answer the Jews, who had in mind the literal Elias, that he was not Elias, while yet, in another respect, he was Elias. In him the prediction in Malachi concerning the sending of Elijah had a true and real fulfilment, but only a partial, germinant, preliminary fulfilment, whilst the highest and ultimate fulfilment respects another advent of the Messiah, and the coming of the literal Elijah as the herald of it."

"Such also is the view which the fathers took of the matter, and so they held and taught on the subject with great unanimity.

Justin Martyr says, “If Scripture compels you to admit two advents, shall we not allow that the word of God has proclaimed that Elijah shall be the precursor of the great and terrible day, that is, of His second advent? Accordingly our Lord in His teachings proclaimed that this very thing would take place, saying, that Elijah would also come. And we know that this shall take place when our Lord Jesus Christ shall come in glory from heaven; whose first manifestation the Spirit of God who was in Elijah preceded as herald in John.”

So, who came first, John the Baptist or Christ? Answer: John. Who will come first when Christ comes the second time? Answer: Elijah (Rev. 11) 

I am excited to think that I might live to see the coming of Elijah as one of the two "witnesses" of Revelation chapter eleven. (See my post on the two witnesses, where I show that they are Elijah the prophet and John the Apostle are the two, here in the Old Baptist Blog and here, here, here, and here in The Baptist Gadfly Blog) 

Tribulation Must Come First

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 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." (Matt. 24: 29-30)

Clearly this text shows that tribulation shall precede the coming again of the Lord.

Falling Away Must Come First

"Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." (II Thess. 2: 3-4)

These verses destroy the idea that Christ will come before Antichrist, or before the great falling away and time of tribulation. 

Antichrist Must Come First

The above text says Antichrist (or "Man of lawlessness" and "son of perdition") will come before Christ comes. The verses following show this and they read as follows:

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."  (II Thess. 2: 8-10)

By "that wicked" and "him whose coming is after the working of Satan" is the one mentioned in verses 3-4, the "man of lawlessness" (or sin, Greek anomia) and "son of perdition." If the Lord destroys him at his coming, then he must already be present on earth before the coming of the Lord to destroy him. This Antichrist is mentioned by the apostle John in his first epistle and is also the one described in the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation). In fact he is seen in chapter eleven as killing the two witnesses after they have prophesied in sackcloth for 42 months. 

So, I am looking for the two prophets (John and Elijah) and for the Antichrist to come before Christ comes. This same truth is revealed in the Book of Daniel, who also spoke of the Antichrist as "the little horn."

"I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened...I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." (Dan. 7: 8-10, 13-14)

These verses also show that the little horn comes before Christ and that it is the coming of Christ "the Son of man," who destroys the little horn thereby.

Since Christ does not come till Revelation chapter nineteen, all the events of Revelation's first eighteen chapters comes before his coming. This chronology also puts the second coming at the sounding of the seventh and final trumpet of the Apocalypse and is in keeping with what Paul said about the time of the resurrection, it occurring at the sounding of "the LAST trumpet." (I Cor. 15: 52)

"How Long Is The "Coming" of Christ?" (II)

This posting will be a follow up to my previous posting "How Long Is The "Coming" of Christ?" (here)

J.A. Seiss in "The Apocalypse" (pg. 578-79, here) elaborates on what I presented in that posting, showing how the "coming" of Christ is no singular event nor encompassed within a particular moment or 24 hour day. He said (emphasis mine):

"When we speak of the day of the Lord, or the judgment period, many have the notion that it is but one day, or a very brief space of time. They are consequently led to wonder how we can speak of the impending nearness of that day, and yet look for the rebuilding of a great city then to be destroyed. The difficulty, however, does not lie in the nature of the things, but in the popular misapprehensions of what the day of the Lord means, and the length of the period which it covers. The mistake is in taking the day of the Lord, or the coming again of our Savior, as if one particular moment of time, and one single event or scene were to be understood. What the Scriptures describe as the day of the Lord, and the second coming of Christ, is no more limited to a single event or moment of time than was the day of his first coming, which extended over more than thirty years, and embraced various stages and successive presentations. If we take the prophecies concerning the first advent, we find it impossible to apply them to any one day, year, or scene, in the evangelic history. Micah said that Christ should “come out of Bethlehem” (Ephratah), but Hosea said that he would come “out of Egypt.” Malachi said that he should “suddenly come to his temple,” and Zechariah that he would come to Zion “riding upon an ass, upon a colt the foal of an ass;” whilst, according to Isaiah, “the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali” were to see the “great light.” All these presentations were his coming. He did come when he was born at Bethlehem; he did come out of Egypt; he did come when he announced himself at Nazareth; he did come as a great light among the people of Northern Galilee; he did come riding into Jerusalem on the ass; he did come suddenly to his temple when he twice drove out the money changers; and he came when he reappeared after his resurrection. Each one of these particular incidents is alike called his coming; but they were only so many separate presentations, at different dates, extending through a period of thirty-three years, all of which together are required to make up the first advent as a whole. And just as it was then, so it will be again. The second coming, like the first, is complex and distributive, extending through a variety of successive and diverse scenes, stages, events, and manifestations, requiring as many, if not still more, years." 

I think that any bible believer should be able to understand and accept as true these words of Seiss even though it goes against the "popular" shallow thinking of many upon this subject. 

Seiss wrote:

"The Antichrist does not appear at all amid the scenes of the Apocalypse until after the seven seals have been opened, and six of the succeeding trumpets have been sounded. How many years those seals and the six trumpets may consume we are not informed, but we have every reason to believe that they may be counted by tens, if not by scores, subsequent to the opening of the door in the heaven and the taking up of the saints, which is the first act in the great drama. The space occupied in narrating what occurs under the seals and trumpets would indicate this. The long waiting of the Ten Virgins for the coming of the Bridegroom, which is subsequent to the first translation, indicates the same thing. Forty years, at least, perhaps a whole jubilee period of fifty years, or even a full seventy years, answering to the period during which the judgment was upon Israel for its sins, are likely to be embraced in what the Scriptures call the day of the Lord, and the second coming and revelation of Jesus Christ."

Seiss is a Pre Tribulation Premillenialist. He has Dispensational leanings. Yet, he did not, like many of them, believe that Antichrist would come into the world till late in the great tribulation. Many today want to put the appearance of the Antichrist in Rev. 6: 1 in the appearing of the white horse rider. But, in this they are wrong. Though Seiss is wrong on his putting the rapture in Rev. 4: 1, yet he is right in where he chronologically puts the rise of Antichrist.

When he says that "many years" take in the time of the seals and trumpets of the Apocalypse he is correct. Though he does fit Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy of the seventieth week (7 years) into the time period of the day of judgment (great tribulation) he does not limit the entire time period of the tribulation to those seven years, but sees it as much longer, as I do. See my posting "Tribulation Period - 7 Yrs. Or More?" (here). Though I do not think the great tribulation, or the day of wrath and judgment, will be twenty to fifty years, yet I do believe it will be longer than seven years as does Seiss. 

Seiss wrote:

"Supposing, then, that Babylon should not even begin to be rebuilt until after the day of the Lord has commenced in the rapture of the eagle-saints (Luke 17:34-37; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17; Revelation 4:1), there still would be ample time for it to come up in all the grandeur and force indicated before the great acts of destruction in which that day reaches its consummation. Much can be accomplished in forty, fifty, or seventy years."

Seiss wrote this in the latter part of the 19th century. Were he alive today he would see how the world has the technology today to build a new mammoth city in quick time, especially when all the world is united in its construction.

But, the rapture does not take place before the building of Babylon. Babylon will be built either immediately before the great tribulation or at its commencement.

We do not have two comings of the Lord in Revelation, one in Rev. 4: 1 (rapture) and the other in Rev. 19. There is only one second coming. There are so many arguments to prove this. We have mentioned them many times.

In closing let me say that the main point of this posting is to see how the "coming" of the Lord, or his "day," is not to be limited to a single day but rather encompasses years, just as did his first coming. 

On the building of the commercial city of Babylon (Rev. 18) I will have more to say in an upcoming post, the Lord willing.

 

"I Am Glad For Your Coming"

I have stated in years gone by that many bible teachers and students do not understand the amount of time involved in the second coming of Christ. See How Long Is The Coming Of Christ? and the follow up article here. I showed that just as we cannot confine the first "coming" of the Lord as taking in only one minute, hour, or day, so too with his second coming. 

The word often used for "coming" is the Greek word "parousia" and means "arrival" or "presence."* The first coming or presence of the Lord was thirty three years. The second coming also cannot be restricted to a single event occurring in an hour, or a day, or a few years. 

As an example of how we use the word "coming" in the same way, as not denoting what takes place in an instance, but to a longer period of time inclusive of much more, we often say to a guest in our house "I am glad for your coming." We certainly do not simply mean we are glad that he traveled "to" our house, but that he also came and had his presence with us for a period of time. Don't you see?

*"parousia" (translated as "presence") is used by Paul in contrast with "apousia" (translated "absence") in Philippians 2: 12 (KJV). 

 

How Long Is The "Coming" of Christ?

When was the first "coming" of Christ fulfilled? The day of his conception in the womb by the Holy Spirit? The day he came forth from the womb? Or, does his "coming" denote his entire time on earth? If we think of "coming" as initial arrival, then it would most likely refer to his birth from the womb. However, if we think of "coming" as not only "arrival" but as "presence," then his coming the first time would indeed encompass not one instant in the life of Christ but his entire time on earth. There were stages or parts to his "coming," we might say.

When precisely is the second "coming" of Christ? The day when "every eye shall see him?" Or, when the several events connected with his coming are occurring? Is it when he comes in the sky or clouds? Or, is it when he sets his feet upon the earth, upon the Mount of Olives? Or, when he comes in the battle of Armageddon? Again, if we think of "coming" as initial arrival, then it would describe that first part of coming, but if we think of "coming" as not only arrival or advent but as "presence," then his second coming, like his first coming, would indeed encompass not one instant, or one event, but is what takes place over a period of time. 

Jesus' first coming encompassed thirty three plus years. I doubt his second will encompass that much time; However, it will not be a single instant, a single twenty four hour period, but longer. If the day of wrath and great tribulation is his coming, his presence, then it would indeed be several years. In other words, Christ will be "present" in the judgments that will precede his setting foot on the Mount of Olives.

Historically, the coming (parousia) of a king involved many events and stages. 

What think ye?

 

The Exodus

 "The Exodus" refers first and foremost to the "exiting" of the chosen people, Israel, the true "seed of Abraham," from their four hundred years in Egyptian bondage by God through the hand of Moses. This Exodus was both a redemption and a deliverance. It also involved the idea of entering into something else. After all, when one exits one place, he moves to another (enter). Israel exited Egypt, then entered the wilderness, and then finally entered the land of promise. The Exodus is referred to in the new testament in this verse:

"By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing (the Exodus in Greek) of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones." (Heb 11:22) 

The Exodus of Israel was a type of other superior exits. 

First, of the exit of Christ from this world after his death and resurrection.

"Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease (Exodus) which he should accomplish at Jerusalem." (Luke 9:31) 

Moses and Elijah appeared in glory on the mount of transfiguration and the topic of their conversation with the glorified Christ pertained to Christ's Exodus, the one "he should accomplish at Jerusalem." It was not merely a statement about his death, the departure of his soul into Sheol, or of his body into the tomb, but also of that deliverance which he should accomplish at Jerusalem by his sacrificial death and resurrection. It would also include his Ascension into heaven. Our exit out of a state of bondage to sin and death is accomplished by the Exodus of Christ. His Exodus is our Exodus. 

Second, of the exit of believers from this world by death or by the translation and resurrection (rapture) of believers at the coming again of Christ the Lord.

"Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease (Exodus) to have these things always in remembrance." (2 Pet. 1: 15) 

In this passage the apostle Peter calls his "decease" an "Exodus." In death the believer exits this world and enters into the heavenly land of promise. He crosses the Jordan river, which, in Christian jargon symbolizes "crossing over" in death. Death is a "departure." So Paul wrote: "For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand." (II Tim. 4: 6)

The Greek word for "departure" is "analysis" and means "an unloosing (as of things woven); a dissolving (into separate parts); departure; a metaphor drawn from loosing from moorings preparatory to setting sail." In this respect death, for the righteous, is also a "passing away." 

The Exodus of the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage is also used by the new testament writers to refer to both initial conversion and to an eschatological entering into the new heavens and new earth, the antitype of Eden and the land of Canaan. (See Jude 1, Hebrews 4, I Cor. 10, etc.)

When a sinner is saved, when he believes in Christ, he exits the world (of which Egypt is a type), exits his slave state to sin, and enters into the community of believers. Many Christian hymns sing about this typology. "I have left the land of bondage" they sing. They now "come to mount Zion, to the church of the living God." (Heb. 12: 22) But, it is only after having first "come out," exited, the fellowship of the world. So says the text:

“Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.” 18 “I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the Lord Almighty.” (II Cor. 6: 17-18)

If you are on the road to destruction, the road that leads to death, there is an "exit" provided for you, so that you can get on the road to life, eternal life. (Matt. 7: 13)

Not only is Christ our Passover (I Cor. 5: 7), but he is our Exodus, our means of escape.

 

Kept Through Great Tribulation

I do not believe in a rapture of Christ before the tribulation, but after it. I believe the rapture of believers occurs at the same time as the resurrection of their bodies. I believe it occurs "at the last trump" (I Cor. 15: 52), after the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse have sounded. I believe that the rapture and resurrection of the just takes place "on the last day," and not seven years before the last day. (John 6: 40) I believe that there is but one additional coming of Christ, a second, and this second coming is singular. There is not a third coming of Christ. Neither can I affirm that the second coming of Christ has two stages, each being called the coming of the Lord. However, I do believe that the coming of Christ a second time, like his first coming, takes in more time than a single twenty four day. 

I believe that the bible gives us signs of his coming, and which would include signs of the coming rapture and resurrection. I believe, as Paul taught, that two things in particular that must occur before the coming again of Christ are "the falling away" and the "revelation or coming of the man of lawlessness," the "son of perdition" (elsewhere called "Antichrist," and "the beast," and "the little horn"). I believe, as Christ taught in his Olivet discourse, that it is "after the tribulation" that Christ gathers together his elect. (II Thess. 2; Matt. 24)

The above words of Revelation 3: 10 speak of "time of great tribulation" that Christ spoke about. This time of great tribulation is alluded to in many prophetic texts. (Dan. 12: 1; Matt. 24: 21; Rev. 2: 22, 7: 14; Amos 5: 18-20) It will come upon all the world and particularly upon the nation of Israel, called the "time of Jacob's trouble." (Jer. 30: 7) It is also called a day of destruction, a day of vengeance and wrath, an evil day. (See my posting on this here) 

This time of testing and trial is for the purpose of revealing who is judged to be wicked and who judged to be righteous. However, in the coming global tribulation the Lord promises that he will "keep from" it those who have persevered as the Lord commanded. To those who believe in a resurrection and rapture of the righteous before the day of great tribulation the words "keep from" means to be removed from the place where those troubles occur. I rather believe that it alludes to being preserved in the midst of those troubles. I believe we have an example of this in the Exodus of the chosen people out of Egyptian bondage. 

The Exodus of the chosen people from slavery in Egypt is a type of the coming Exodus of the elect (from both Jews and Gentiles) from this world (age and condition) to the world to come. Who can deny that the "catching up" (rapture) of believers (in connection with their resurrection) will be a great Exodus? In the story of the Exodus from Egypt God brought a day of evil, a day of wrath and vengeance, a day of great tribulation and judgment, upon the Egyptian people and nation. When did he do this, before or after the departure from Egypt through the Red Sea? Before. The tribulation or day of testing and trial, for both the Egyptians and the Israelites, occurred in the land before Israel's departure. And, what happened? Were the Israelites "kept from" those troubles? Let us see. 

"But I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not even by a mighty hand. So I will stretch out My hand and strike Egypt with all My wonders which I will do in its midst; and after that he will let you go. And I will give this people favor in the sight of the Egyptians; and it shall be, when you go, that you shall not go empty-handed. But every woman shall ask of her neighbor, namely, of her who dwells near her house, articles of silver, articles of gold, and clothing; and you shall put them on your sons and on your daughters. So you shall plunder the Egyptians.” (Exo. 3: 19-22)

Notice that the snatching away of the elect from Egypt (the Exodus) occurred in the midst of the land while still occupied by Israelites. It is only "after" the various judgments (tribulations) have come upon the land of Egypt that Israel exits.

"And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh will not heed you, so that I may lay My hand on Egypt and bring My armies and My people, the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the children of Israel from among them.” (7: 3-5)

The bringing out of the chosen race was preceded by the judgments upon the land. The judgments were against "the land of Egypt," against the Egyptians, and not against Israel. So too in the coming global tribulation, the great tribulation, the evils sent will be against the wicked inhabitants of the world and not against the Lord's people (although many of them will tested and tried too). Said the prophet:

"And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand." (Dan. 12: 9-10)

The coming time of tribulation that will come upon all the world will serve to purge the visible professing church of all hypocrites and pretenders. 

"And the Lord said to Moses, “Rise early in the morning and stand before Pharaoh as he comes out to the water. Then say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord: “Let My people go, that they may serve Me. Or else, if you will not let My people go, behold, I will send swarms of flies on you and your servants, on your people and into your houses. The houses of the Egyptians shall be full of swarms of flies, and also the ground on which they stand. And in that day I will set apart the land of Goshen, in which My people dwell, that no swarms of flies shall be there, in order that you may know that I am the Lord in the midst of the land. I will make a difference between My people and your people." (8: 20-23)

I expect this to be the same way it will be in the days of the coming tribulation. God will sever the places where his people live and are gathered together so that they are "kept from" such evils. Notice that the evil of the swarms of flies was intended for the wicked Egyptians, the non elect. 

"Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh and tell him, ‘Thus says the Lord God of the Hebrews: “Let My people go, that they may serve Me. For if you refuse to let them go, and still hold them, behold, the hand of the Lord will be on your cattle in the field, on the horses, on the donkeys, on the camels, on the oxen, and on the sheep—a very severe pestilence. And the Lord will make a difference between the livestock of Israel and the livestock of Egypt. So nothing shall die of all that belongs to the children of Israel.” (9: 1-4)

I expect this to be the norm in the tribulation for the genuine believer, although some will be chosen to become martyrs for Christ at that time.

"And the hail struck throughout the whole land of Egypt, all that was in the field, both man and beast; and the hail struck every herb of the field and broke every tree of the field. Only in the land of Goshen, where the children of Israel were, there was no hail." (9: 25-26)

"But against none of the children of Israel shall a dog move its tongue, against man or beast, that you may know that the Lord does make a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." (11: 7)

May the Lord make the same difference with regard to us who will live to see the great tribulation!

When the death angel passed through the land of Egypt, he "passed over" the houses of the chosen people, who were in their houses which they had marked with the blood of the Passover lamb. Let us be "holed up" in our houses (booths or tabernacles) when the day of testing comes and let us make sure that we have had the blood of Christ applied to us. 

"Come, my people, enter your chambers, And shut your doors behind you; 

Hide yourself, as it were, for a little moment, Until the indignation is past. 

For behold, the LORD comes out of His place 

To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; 

The earth will also disclose her blood, And will no more cover her slain." 

(Isa. 26: 20-21)

 

What Will Christ's Appearing Mean For You?

"he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed" 

(Isa. 66: 5)

"Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord! For what good is the day of the Lord to you? It will be darkness, and not light. It will be as though a man fled from a lion, And a bear met him! Or as though he went into the house, Leaned his hand on the wall, And a serpent bit him! Is not the day of the Lord darkness, and not light? Is it not very dark, with no brightness in it?" (Amos 5: 18-20)

To true believers the second coming of Christ will be a time of great thrill and exuberant joy. "He shall appear to your joy." But, to the unbeliever (including pretenders), "he shall appear" to his shame and disgrace, and bring woe and tribulation. 

Let us therefore be diligent to make our calling and election sure. (II Peter 1: 10)

"And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (I John 2: 28)

The appearing of Christ will find two kinds of people and produce different effects upon the two. There will be those who will "have confidence" and those who have none. The former are they who did abide in Christ, and who held firm to a genuine faith and allegiance to him. The latter are they who did not abide, being like the five foolish virgins (Matt. 25) who, having no oil in their lamps, and asleep (when they should have been watching alertly), missed out on experiencing the joy of the coming of the Lord.

 

Post Tribulation Rapture IX

As I have mentioned in a previous posting, the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13 is a powerful argument against the idea that the rapture will take place before the destruction of the wicked and before the end of the age.

Reese wrote (emphasis mine - SG):

"Returning now to Matthew 13:39, it is certain that, when our Lord says "the harvest is the consummation of the age," He means that the wheat will be gathered and the tares burned at the time of His Coming in glory. This obvious truth, however, overthrows the theory that the saints will be gathered seven or more years before the End of the Age.

But if anything was lacking to refute pre-tribs explanation of the parable, it is found in their treatment of the burning of the tares. The wording of the parable, "Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn" (v. 30), and the words of the Lord’s interpretation (vv. 41-43), that professors are gathered for judgment at the same crisis as the transfiguration of the righteous, naturally caused great embarrassment to men who separated them by several years; for it is a favorite feature of the system that the Rapture will be secret, and that mere professors will be ignorant of the Lord’s Coming. How, therefore, could the hard fact of the bundling of the tares at the crisis of the gathering of the wheat be explained to suit the theorists’ system? Nothing was easier; in his Matthew (p. 278), Kelly explained it away altogether. He gravely proposes that the bundling of the tares infers to a mere providential work on the part of the angels, among the ungodly; these will be gathered into "worldly association" some time prior to the Rapture!

Lastly, the pre-trib theory of a rapture some years before the End of the Age is refuted by the closing verse of our Lord’s interpretation: "Then (tote, at that time) shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (v. 43).

Here, as we have already seen, we find that at the very time that the ungodly are rooted out of Christ’s Kingdom and judged, the resurrection and glorification of the righteous take place; for the shining forth of the saints has no reference to a previous concealment of the saints in heaven, but to their transfiguration at the resurrection of the just. Matthew 13:43 is a clear reference to Daniel 12:2-3, which speaks of resurrection.

In view of the hopeless breakdown of Darby’s and Kelly’s interpretation of the Parable of the Tares, it is not to be wondered at that some advocates of the new theories of the Advent should have come to see the need of a new apologetic in reference to it. The exegesis that prevailed for seventy years amongst all the greatest of pre-trib teachers, as well as the rank and file, was seen to be not danger-proof. In particular, it was felt among the new theorists that, if the gathering of the wheat in the parable signified the Rapture of the saints, then the new theories on the Second Coming could not be true; this point was at last clearly seen and admitted. What was to be done, therefore, to save the new doctrine? for the idea of giving up the theories as erroneous seems never to be entertained, such is the obloquy (humiliation) the alternative view inspires. The new plan is simple. It denies that the Parable of the Tares has reference to Christendom; denies that the gathering of the wheat refers to the Rapture of the saints. The parable will have its fulfillment only after the Church has been raptured, when, ex hypothesi, the Jewish Remnant takes up the work of evangelizing the world. Bullinger, with praiseworthy consistency, rules all the parables of Matthew 13 out of court, so far as the Church is concerned. The fact that they were found in one of the Four Gospels precluded any reference to the Church. Had they been written in one of Paul’s Epistles to the Body of Christ the case would have been different.'

The view that Reese refers to is that held by Dispensationalists like J. Dwight Pentecost.  It is their favorite tactic to deal with all texts that contradict their pre-trib rapture view by saying that such passages do not apply to any other than to Israel or to the "Jewish Remnant."  Such views even lead Dispensationalists to affirm that the whole old testament is only for Jews, that the Gospel of Matthew, especially the sermon on the mount, is not for any other than for the Jews.  All this however is ludicrous and I hope to have a series in the new future dealing with these errors of Dispensationalism.

Reese continues:

"Other teachers, however, like Gaebelein, in his Matthew, hand over to the Jewish Remnant only such of the parables of Matthew 13 as do not square with their novel theories. The Parables of the Tares and the Drag Net, which are specially inconvenient, are referred to the period, ex hypothesi, between the Rapture and the millennium.

It would take us too far afield to go into these Remnant theories now, and as the whole Remnant hypothesis will come before us on another occasion, the fiction of their supposed preaching had better be deferred as well. One or two remarks for the present will suffice. First, not a word of evidence is produced to support the assertion that the Parable of the Tares belongs to the Remnant. Such a body is not so much as hinted at in the whole course of Matthew 13. The real reason why this Remnant theory is produced at this juncture is clear to all candid minds. Read naturally the Parable of the Tares spells midnight to the new theories on the Second Coming, and so it is denied that the Parable has reference to the Church.

That the parable has reference to the present dispensation is clear from the fact that the Lord says "the harvest is the end of the age," that is, of the age that we now live in; for the idea of another evil age succeeding this one is a mere figment of Gaebelein’s imagination; the age, according to Scripture, that succeeds this present Age, is the millennium.

It is no wonder that the advocates of pre-trib theories of the Advent do not feel happy before the Parable of the Tares; no wonder they are in complete disarray amongst themselves in trying to make the words of the Lord, "let both grow together until the harvest," and, "the harvest is the end of the age," square with the theory that the tares and wheat do not so grow together, and that the harvest is not the End of the Age, but some years before it. Hence the fact that the most unnatural expedients are resorted to avoid the natural sense of Christ’s gracious words. To put the Four Gospels from us, to invent another secret harvest; to bring in the Jewish Remnant and rob us of precious promises; to reduce to thin air the binding of the tares; to make Antichrist rise after the End of the Age; to make the End of the Age a new age altogether—these are held as proof of a special enlightenment, and of "rightly dividing the word of truth." But to teach the obvious truth that the Parable of the Tares locates the gathering of Christians at the End of the Age, when false professors are judged—this is viewed as confusion, and the work of the Enemy.

Many people will entertain the following conclusion about the Parable of the Tares: when writers like Darby, Kelly, Newberry and Scofield insist that the gathering of the wheat signifies the muster of the saints at Christ’s Coming they do so because the natural reading of the words compels them so to interpret it. And when writers like Bullinger, Gaebelein and Miss Habershon insist that the wheat is so gathered at the very End of the Age, when Christ appears in His glory, they do so because that is the natural force of the Lord’s words, "the harvest is the end of the age." Now both sets of writers are right in what they affirm: Darby, Kelly, Newberry, and Scofield in that the gathering of the wheat signifies the Rapture of the Church: Bullinger, Gaebelein and Miss Habershon in that the gathering of the wheat is located by the Lord Jesus at the End of the Age, when He comes forth in His power and majesty, and establishes His Kingdom. Matthew 13:47-50 (R. V. mg.)."

The Dispensationalist view that "the wheat" excludes Christians, excludes all the saved of this present age, is an invention designed to do away with the argument, yet the argument is too strong to be laid aside in this manner.  The Dispensationalist has no grounds for limiting the significance of "the wheat" to Jewish believers after the present age has come.  Are Christians not children of God, children of the kingdom?

Reese continued:

"Another parable of Christendom reads as follows:

The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: which, when it was filled, they drew up on the beach; and they sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but the bad they cast away. So shall it be in the consummation of the age the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the righteous, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth.

There is no need to deal with this parable at length, because it obviously stands or falls with that of the Tares. It is fitting to note, however, that here again the separation of believers and professors takes place "at the consummation of the age." As in the Parable of the Tares wheat and tares "grow together until the harvest," so here, good and bad fish—representing the true and the false in Christendom—remain together until the separation at the consummation of the Age. When that time comes the faithful will be rewarded with the glory of Christ and His Kingdom; the false will be cast out into unquenchable fire. This, be it noted, at the same crisis."  (CHAPTER VI-THE PARABLE OF THE TARES AND THE WHEAT)

According to the text, who is "severed" from who?  Are the righteous severed from the wicked or are the wicked severed from the righteous?  The text is clear - "sever the wicked from among the righteous."  In a previous posting it was shown how many pre-tribbers misrepresent the words of Jesus when he said, in regard to his coming, "two shall be in the field and one shall be taken and another left." (See Matt. 24: 37-41 and this posting)  The one taken is not the righteous, but the wicked, just as in the days of the flood when the deluge took away the "ungodly," leaving only the righteous.

 

Post Tribulation Rapture VIII

"Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.  The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.  Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years."  (Rev. 20: 4-6 NASB)

The Resurrection immediately precedes the rapture (1 Thess. 4:13-17; I Cor. 15: 52). Revelation 20:4-6 shows that "the first resurrection" occurs after the tribulation. This is very problematic for those who affirm that most of the saved were resurrected seven years prior to Rev. 20.  In point of time the resurrection of this passage cannot be the first if most of the elect were resurrected seven years previously.  The standard pre-trib rebuttal to this is to affirm that "the first resurrection" has stages or phases and that Rev. 20 merely gives the last stage.  According to this view, the word "first" (prōtos) excludes any idea of priority of time, but strictly means "first in rank" or importance.  Though this is possible, it is highly unlikely. 

First, when John says "first resurrection" he implies a second or last resurrection and refers to this last resurrection by the words "the rest of the dead lived not again until."  Clearly a time element is involved in his defining what is the last resurrection.  In defining the two resurrections mentioned in the passage, they are defined by their being separated by a period of time, "a thousand years."  Why is the "first resurrection" first?  It is because it occurs before the last resurrection.  Thus, if "first" is used to distinguish the resurrection of the blessed and holy from the resurrection of the unblessed and unholy, it is not merely because of rank but of time.  The first resurrection is "first" in both rank and time.  In speaking of the "second death," the word "second" does not exclude the time element.  "Second death" implies a first death, which would be physical death.  Both "first death" (implied) and "second death" are used not merely with the idea of rank in mind, but also with the idea of time and chronology. 

Second, no one affirms that there are stages to the last resurrection of the wicked.  If there are no stages to the final resurrection of the wicked, there is probably none to the first resurrection either.

Third, when John describes the resurrection of the blessed and holy, which includes the tribulation martyrs, he says plainly "this is the first resurrection."  He does not say "this is the second or third stage of the first resurrection" or "this is also the first resurrection."

Fourth, in the description of the various groups that are resurrected to sit with Christ on his millenial throne, there is included the saved of the pre-tribulation times, believers from both the old and new testament periods (as we shall see).  And, they are resurrected and sit on thrones after the tribulation and coming of Christ.

Fifth, the text says that those resurrected in Rev. 20: 4-6 are resurrected a thousand years before the wicked, not a thousand and seven years. 

Sixth, in I Cor. 15: 23-24 there is no mention of multiple resurrections for the righteous.  Paul does not say "Christ the firstfruits, afterward, the church age saints, then the tribulation saints seven years later, then the end."

Seventh, in I Cor. 15: 51-52 Paul says "we shall all be changed, in a moment...at the last trump."  Were there various stages to the resurrection of the righteous, then Paul would have said "some of us will be changed at the last trump and some at other times."  The word "all" refers to the saved of all the ages, both those who have died and those who are alive at the time of the coming of Christ.  Notice that it is in the same moment that "all" the saved are changed, which overthrows the pre-trib tenet that says not all are changed at the same time.

According to the pre-tribbers, "the first resurrection" has three stages.  Christ, they say, is the first stage.  He also experienced the "first resurrection."  Next, they say, is the resurrection of all the saved dead when Christ comes (supposedly) in the rapture just prior to the start of the great tribulation.  Some even say that the two witnesses of Revelation chapter eleven, who are raised from the dead and caught up into heaven, represent another stage in "the first resurrection."  Finally, they say, we have the final stage of "the first resurrection" in Revelation twenty after the tribulation.  But, the arguments above disprove this idea.  And, Christ cannot be included in those who are in the first resurrection.

The text says, of those who experience the first resurrection, "they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him," but, how can Christ be included in the pronoun "they"?  If Christ is included in "the first resurrection," then we may read the verse - "and he shall be a priest of God and of Christ and reign with Christ."  How can Christ be a priest of himself and reign with himself?  When the Scriptures speak of "the resurrection of the just," it does not include Christ.  His resurrection is singular and unique in itself. 

In considering Revelation 20: 4-5, Alexander Reese wrote (emphasis mine):

"There are three distinct classes mentioned in the passage.

(a) First, there are those of whom John says: "I saw thrones and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them" (4a).

Who are these? The whole body of saints who live to see the Parousia at this time; they are transferred from earth to occupy thrones in the kingly rule of Christ; it is the Rapture of the survivors in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. It is not said that this class was raised from the dead; but simply that they took the thrones prepared for them. We have seen them suffering and enduring throughout the book; now they are seen as over-comers who inherit the sovereignty in the kingdom. It is here that they receive the Morning Star.

A decisive conclusion follows from the enthronement of the living saints at 20:4a; it is that Darbyist (pre-trib SG) theories are excluded. These presuppose that the heavenly redeemed, including those who survive to the Parousia, occupy their thrones and are glorified several years before the Millennium. We are to see all this in the Twenty-four Elders crowned and seated in chapter 4. But our passage locates the sitting upon thrones at the beginning of the Millennium. The language is clear and decisive on the point. John says: "I saw thrones;" obviously they were empty. Then he adds: "and they sat upon them;" that is, he sees a company in the very act of sitting down on their thrones. It is now, not a generation earlier, that the living saints are rewarded and ascend their thrones. Matthew 19:28, says the same thing of the Apostles, locating their enthronement at this very time.

(b) John mentions a second class that is honored at this time: "I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God" (R.V.).

(c) Thirdly, he speaks of "such as worshipped not the beast, neither his image, and received not the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand."

Of these two classes we read that "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

It is contended by theorists that these two classes consist only of saints who are to be converted and martyred after the Church is removed to heaven; they are those who die during, or just before, the Great Tribulation, and have no connection with the Church in Christ Jesus. There is some truth, but more error in these views. It is true that the third class consists of those who fall in the last Great Tribulation. Whether they have any connection with the Church, I leave for the present. But it is thoroughly wrong to limit the second class—those "that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and the word of God" —to latter-day saints, martyred, as Grant says, "in the time of the seals." It is wrong to assert that this class includes no Christians, but is restricted to half-enlightened Jews and Gentiles raised a generation after the Church. The proof of this is simple; the Church herself is not raised until this very time. Such is the doctrine of Christ, Paul, and of John in this very book (Rev. 11:15-18). Secondly, without raising questions to be fully discussed later, it is to be insisted, and strongly insisted upon, that "beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God" is a description, and a glorious description, of the martyrdom of a Christian. Unnumbered multitudes throughout the Church’s history, including Peter and Paul, have been slain "for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God." It is here they rise.

As if to shut out once for all the theories that have been based upon this passage, John himself has interpreted it for us. In chapter 1:9, we read: "I John, your brother, and partaker with you in the tribulation and kingdom and patience, which are in Jesus, was in the isle called Patmos, for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (R.V.).

Here is the same expression, and it is applied by John the Apostle to himself. In his valuable work on The Seven Churches, Abp. Trench says:

The unprejudiced reader will hardly be persuaded that St. John sets himself forth here as any other than such a constrained dweller in Patmos, one dwelling there not by his own choice, but who had been banished thither "for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (p. 21).

We may still be sure that "for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" explained the reason of John’s tribulation in A.D. 96, and the death of martyrs at that time. They were slain, in a word, because they were Christians, that is, they adhered to Christ’s teaching and God’s word, even at the cost of their lives.

Equally certain is it, therefore, that the same expression in Revelation 20:4, must denote the same class of people. To tell us that it means Christians in Revelation 1:9 and non or semi-Christians in Revelation 20:4 is to put an enormous strain on our credulity. No reasonable doubt can exist that when John says that he saw "the souls of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God" come to life, he is meaning to depict the resurrection of all who, since the time of Christ, have been slain because of their Christian service and belief. Not one syllable requires us to restrict it to those slain in the time of the Seventieth Week. In contrast to those of the next class—who fall under Antichrist—this one contains the resurrection of all the martyrs slain throughout the history of the Church. And it is to be noted that it takes place at the beginning of the millennium, not several years or decades before it."

"At the Last Trumpet (Rev. 11:18) the saints "appear before the judge" (Cf. 12:12): at 20:4a—which is immediately subsequent—they themselves sit on thrones and "share His glory."

In the light of Daniel 7:9, 13-14, 22, 27, 1 Corinthians 6:2, 4:8, 15:22-23, 2 Timothy 2:11-12, Luke 12:32, there can be no doubt that it is the whole company of the heavenly redeemed—the prophets, saints, and godly of Revelation 11:18—who are here raised or changed at the Parousia, to share the kingly rule of our Lord.

It is wrong, therefore, to assert, as some advocates and most critics of Pre-millennialism assert, that the first resurrection is limited to martyrs. Such an idea is foreign to all Scripture, and is not required by our passage. In Luke 14:14, it is "the just" who are raised; in John 6:39, 44, it is "the Elect" (Cf. Matthew 24:31), in John 6:40, "believers;" in 6:54, those who feed on the Son of Man; in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, "the dead in Christ;" in 1 Corinthians 15:23, "they that are Christ’s;" whilst John teaches in Revelation 11:18 that the whole company of the redeemed will rise and be rewarded; and Revelation 20:4a presupposes it; we have only to interpret the latter Scripture in the larger context of the Apocalypse, and the whole N.T.

In confirmation of our general view of Revelation 20:4, I append the words of two writers with large claims on the attention of students of prophecy. In the first extract Canon Faussett extends the denotation of those in the first class, and, in the last resort, he is right; but, me judice (in my opinion), Zahn is the more accurate. In the "British Weekly" debate of 1887 Faussett wrote: "Three classes are designated to live and reign with Christ as ‘priests of God and of Christ, a thousand years;’ first, the saints caught up to meet and return with the Lord: ‘they sat upon thrones;’ secondly, the martyrs beheaded for the witness of Jesus; thirdly, ‘such as worshipped not the beast’ (world-power)." Zahn interprets in his INT (vol. 3, p. 400).

With this the seventh vision (19:11-21:8) is introduced. Here is at last represented the event which was by intimation anticipated as far back as 8:1, and again in 11:15-18 and 19:7, announced as being in the immediate future. Jesus Himself comes upon the scene of action in order that after overcoming Antichrist and binding Satan, He may enter upon His kingly rule of a thousand years upon earth—a reign in which there shall participate not only the congregation who live to witness His coming, but also those who remained true till death, and who on that day are to be brought to life. Not till the millennium has expired do the general judgment, the destruction of death, and the creation of a new world take place."

"The Apostle has condemned the new program by linking the first resurrection with the millennium; and for most people at least there can be no resurrection before "the first.""

 

Post Tribulation Rapture VII

Alexander Reese wrote:

"Let us therefore go to the Epistles, especially as our opponents (pre-tribbers - SG) affirm vigorously that "the End" is never found there for the hope of the Church. Writing in the London (October 17th, 1907), Dr. W. H. Griffith Thomas remarked on Matthew 24:14: "I cannot find the word ‘end’ is anywhere else applied to the coming of the Lord for His people." And another scholarly Anglican writes: "As regards the word ‘End’ ‘—’ and then shall the end come.’ This is not the Coming of Christ; that event is nowhere called the ‘End.’ Here is the source of error with so many Bible students..." So also Dr. Gaebelein frequently and emphatically. I propose to show that not fewer than five texts in the Epistles associate "the End" (telos) with the Christian hope; and if one text of Scripture availed to "hang the universe on" in William Kelly’s day, he would be the first to agree that five will stand the expanding universe of Einstein, Lord Rutherford, and Sir James Jeans, and should suffice to support a biblical doctrine."  (CHAPTER VIII-THE CHURCH AND THE END IN THE EPISTLES - see here)

In the preceding post it was shown how I Cor. 1: 7-8 disprove this assertion of the pre-trib advocates.  In that verse "the end" is the same time as "the revelation of Jesus Christ" and "the day of the Lord Jesus Christ."  Further, it was shown that "the last day" is identified with "the end of the age." 

In chapter IV ("THE RESURRECTION OF THE SAINTS IN ST. PAUL’S EPISTLES") Reese cited 1 Corinthians 15:50-54.

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory."  (R.V.).

He then comments:

"Here is the highest and most glorious revelation in Scripture concerning the resurrection and transfiguration of the saints. It occurs as the climax of the long chapter on the resurrection of Christ and the holy dead. Our only concern, however, is to know if we can find any clue to guide us in our inquiry concerning the time of the resurrection. Other aspects of this chapter will come before us later; at present this one suffices.

Is there any clue to guide us? Yes, a very decided one; and one that for open minds will settle the whole controversy. Paul not only describes the resurrection and transfiguration of the saints: he emphatically indicates the time for the fulfillment of these wonderful events. Here are his words: "So WHEN this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, THEN shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, ‘Death is swallowed up in victory’" (v. 54).

Nothing could be clearer than the Apostle’s argument here. The resurrection and transfiguration of the faithful dead will take place in fulfillment of an O.T. prophecy. This occurs in Isaiah 25:8, which we have already considered. Now if, to use Bellett’s illustration, we go back to Isaiah, using the lamp that Paul has furnished us with, what do we find? Why, that the resurrection of the saints, and the victory over death, synchronize with the inauguration of the Theocratic Kingdom, the Coming of Jehovah, and the conversion of living Israel. Following are Isaiah’s words (25:6-9 R.V.): "And in this mountain shall the Lord of Hosts make unto all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined." Here we have the inauguration of the Kingdom under the figure of a banquet. "And He will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering that is cast over all peoples, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He hath swallowed up death for ever; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces." Here we have the resurrection, which, according to Paul, includes the raising of Christians.

Beautifully does Dr. Wheeler Robinson say in his essay in The Study Bible: "We seem to see the great King rising to greet the long procession of suffering and sorrowing humanity, which wears the veil of the mourner. His royal hand removes the veil and wipes away the tears, and destroys their cause for ever" (p. 121). Again: "And the reproach of His people shall He take away from off all the earth: for the Lord hath spoken it" (Isa. 25:8).

This gives us the rehabilitation of Israel, long put to shame before the Gentiles by their age-long dispersion, and apparent abandonment by Jehovah. Again: "And it shall be said in that day, ‘Lo, this is our God; we have waited for Him, and He will save us: this is the Lord; we have waited for Him, we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation’" (Isa. 25:9). Here we have the repentance and conversion of Israel at the Coming of Jehovah.

It will be seen, therefore, that Paul, so far from detaching the resurrection from the Kingdom, and the conversion of Israel, takes his stand with Isaiah, Daniel, and the Lord Jesus Christ, in linking them up inseparably. In the very act of revealing new truth about the Christian hope he shows that the theory of his holding to a special coming and resurrection "for the Church" is the veriest fiction: The Coming of Jehovah Jesus is the hope of both Israel and the Church.

That is, kingly rule in the Future Age is not for mere human nature, but for the new humanity in the Last Adam, who is a quickening Spirit. Hence he proceeds to deal with the resurrection and transfiguration of the saints: transfiguration essential for kingly rule—this is the secret truth now revealed.

The reader may ask what explanation pre-tribs give of this fundamental difficulty in 1 Corinthians 15:54, and how they attempt to reconcile their theories with this Scripture. As a rule they have nothing to say about it; they pay it the perpetual compliment of leaving it alone; or it is one of those "details" that it is inexpedient to inquire about, though usually a craving for the least detail of the End-time characterizes the school. Especially was this reluctance seen in dealing with pre-millennial colleagues like Tregelles and B. W. Newton, who, with inconvenient persistence, pointed out the grave discrepancy between the new scheme of the End, and the plain teaching of Isaiah 25:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:54. So far as I am aware, no pre-trib writer has ever honestly faced the question."

"I wish now to cite the case of Darby. One would scarcely have expected him to expound a crucial passage in a manner that subverted his entire scheme of the prophetic future. Yet such is the case. It is not a little remarkable, and will astonish some. In his Second Coming he writes as follows in seeking to prove that the Advent must be pre-millennial:

I wish to refer you to the connection of the passage in the 15th of 1st Corinthians with the 25th of Isaiah, because the connection of these two things—the resurrection of the saints and the restoration of Israel—will thereby be strongly brought out. The Apostle says that "when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.’ If you turn to the 25th Isaiah, you will see that this takes place at this time which we call the millennium when, the Jews being restored to their place on the earth there is that era of blessedness among the nations which is commonly called the millennium. It is there said, Thou shalt bring down the noise of strangers, as the heat in a dry place; even the heat with the shadow of a cloud: the branch of the terrible ones shall be brought low. And in this mountain shall the Lord of Hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined. And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory.’" That is at the time the resurrection takes place; for it is said in Corinthians, "Then shall come to pass the saying which is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." And thus it appears that the time when this resurrection takes place is the time when the Lord restores Israel, when He establishes Israel’s place in Zion, and takes away the veil from off the face of all nations (p. 84).

Sound doctrine! Yet every word of it is a complete refutation of theories telling us that the resurrection does not synchronize with the millennium and the conversion of Israel, but precedes them by a period of from seven to seventy, if not hundreds of years—for there is not the slightest certainty or even knowledge on the question—and that this period is characterized by increasing lawlessness, and Israel’s reception of Antichrist.

Trotter also makes the same damaging admission. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:54 (Plain Papers on Prophetic Subjects), he remarks on the word "then:" "Not ‘eita’ as in verse 24, but ‘tote,’ the literal and uniform meaning of which is, at that time." He then continues:—

Now the only passage in which this saying is written is Isaiah 25:8 and there it is so interwoven with unmistakable predictions of millennial blessedness, that for the Apostle to say, as he here does, that it is to come to pass at the same time as the resurrection and glorification of the saints, is equivalent to his declaring in plain terms that the Millennium is thus introduced (pp. 468-9).

On the same text, Kelly says in his Second Coming: "It appears on apostolic authority that the epoch of the resurrection of the righteous is bound up with the return and deliverance of Israel, as well as with the millennial blessing of all nations" (p. 57).

This is the very point that we are contending for!"

These words of Reese are ably made in defense of the posttribulation viewpoint and against that of the pre-trib.  But, let me add some other arguments from I Corinthians chapter fifteen.  Paul says that the resurrection of the righteous dead is the time when Christ conquers the last enemy.  "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (15: 26)  However, if the pre-trib view is correct, the destruction of death, by the resurrection of saints, does not destroy the last enemy, for the destruction of antichrist does not come till some time after this.  Antichrist is one of the enemies that Christ is to destroy with his coming.  (II Thess. 2: 8)  But, if death is the last enemy to be destroyed by the coming of Christ, then antichrist must have already been destroyed.  One cannot affirm that the resurrection of the righteous destroys the "last" enemy if antichrist remains to be destroyed.  It is obvious that the coming of Christ destroys all enemies, and the last to be destroyed is death.  Thus, antichrist is destroyed before death is destroyed by the resurrection (and rapture). 

Also, in verse 24 Paul says that the resurrection of the righteous will not only be when the "last enemy" is destroyed, but also "when he shall have put down all rule and all authority."  But, if the rise of antichrist and the ten kings of the beast occurs after this resurrection and coming of Christ, there is a contradiction.  If he does not "put down" these enemies till seven years later, then it could not be said at the time of the resurrection and rapture that he had then put down all.

Reese also wrote:

"Still another passage in 1 Corinthians calls for comment in any examination of the new theories of the Parousia. Anyone who has immersed himself in pre-trib prophetic literature knows that a vital part of their scheme of the End is the program of the resurrection. It is as follows:—

(1) The resurrection of the redeemed at the Advent according to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17.

(2) The resurrection of an immense multitude of saints, converted and martyred after the resurrection and Rapture, just mentioned. This takes place several years after the former one, namely: at the Day of the Lord.

(3) The resurrection of the rest of the dead at the conclusion of the millennium.

Let us test this by the teaching of the Apostle Paul; we quote from Weymouth’s version, not only for its greater faithfulness to the Greek at one or two important points, but for its happy illumination of some difficult sayings. It undoubtedly represents the attitude of modern scientific exegesis toward this passage of Scripture:

For seeing that death came through man, through man comes also the resurrection of the dead. For just as through Adam all die, so also through Christ all will be made alive again. But this will happen to each in the right order—Christ having been the first to rise, and afterwards Christ’s people rising at His return. Later on, comes the End when He is to surrender the Kingship to God, the Father, when He shall have overthrown all other government and all other authority and power. For He must continue King until He shall have put all His enemies under His feet (Ps. 8:6; 110:1). The last enemy that is to be overthrown is Death; for He will have put all things in subjection under His feet (1 Cor. 15:21-26).

Here is a passage where the great Apostle is dealing expressly with "the resurrection of the dead:" not merely of the righteous, but of the totality of the human race. Through Adam death passed upon all men; through Christ the whole human race shall be raised. And the Apostle even gives us the program of the resurrection:

1. Christ the first-fruits.

2. The redeemed, at Christ’s Coming to establish His kingly rule.

3. The End, when the rest of the dead are raised, at the close of Christ’s kingdom and His delivering the sovereignty to God the Father. Increasingly Lietzmann’s view is being followed that "End" means "Rest" or "Remainder."

Allowing for differences on details the great commentators of Germany are finding "in the passage a resurrection of the saints at the beginning of Christ’s Kingdom, and another at its close, in substantial agreement with John in the Apocalypse, chapter 20. One cannot fail to see that the interpretation is ruinous to Darby’s scheme; not a word is said about the resurrection of a special class of "tribulation" saints, seven years or more after the Coming, when the redeemed are raised. If Paul entertained any such notion, here was the appropriate place to say so, for he is distinguishing the classes in the resurrection of the whole human race."

In arguing this with a pre-tribber many years ago, the pre-tribber responded by saying that the resurrection of tribulation believers represented what are called "the gleanings."  That is, Christ is the firstfruits, the major body of saints, occuring at the coming of Christ, represents the "harvest";  but this harvest is not all, since there is to be another harvest of the "gleanings," of what was not harvested in the great harvest.  I challenged my pre-trib friend to give scriptural support for this view.  Paul spoke of no "gleaning" ressurection in I Cor. 15: 21-26 when he was giving the "order" of the resurrection.  Further, by definition, the gleanings were not a separate harvest, but the gathering of the scraps that were not harvested in the regular harvest.  Thus, for this view to have any merit, not only would support for it need to be found in scripture, but one would have to say that those saved people who represent the gleanings would be people who were saved at the time of the general harvest, but who, for some reason, were not then harvested.  They could not represent people who got saved after the harvest, for they would then be a totally new crop.  Yet, there are those pre-tribbers who do believe that the rapture is a selective rapture, resurrecting and catching up to the sky only the faithful Christians, leaving the unfaithful to be purified by the tribulation. 

When Paul says "then comes the end," after the resurrection (harvest) of "those who belong to Christ," at the parousia of Christ, he should say rather "then comes the gleanings, and then the end," if the view of my pre-trib friend were so.

The idea that "then comes the end" means "then next comes the end resurrection of the wicked" is a view that is held to by both Reese (post-tribber) and Seiss (pre-tribber).  I reject this view, believing that it rather means "then comes the end of the present age."  If this is the meaning of the apostle, it is a further blow to the idea that seven more years (or more) are yet to occur before the "end" of the age comes.  One will decide this point based upon whether Paul has the wicked in mind when he says "every man in his own order."  In the Greek there is no word for "man" (anthropos).  It is rather "each in his own order."  When Paul says "in Adam all die," he likely includes both saved and unsaved.  But, when he says "in Christ shall all be made alive," it is a debatable question whether both saved and unsaved are in the mind of the apostle.  Some will argue that he has only those "in Christ" in mind, meaning "those in Christ will be made alive," and thus when he says "each in his own order (rank)," he would mean "each righteous person in his own order."  Further, if this is the meaning, then clearly the "all" who die in Adam are not the same "all" who will be made alive in Christ. 

If the "all" who die in Adam are the "all" who will be made alive in Christ, then we would interpret "in Christ" instrumentally, meaning "by Christ" are made alive, and "in Christ" is not then to be interpreted as defining or limiting the "all" who are to be made alive.  It is certainly not denied that the resurrection of the wicked unto damnation is the result of the action of Christ who sends forth the reaping angels not only to call forth the just to their resurrection to life but who also sends for the reaping angels to call forth the unjust to their resurrection unto death and damnation. 

If Paul has in mind all men of both the righteous and unrighteous classes, then it would be natural to think that by "then comes the end" means "then comes the last resurrection."  He would be giving not simply the order of the resurrection of the righteous but of all men, including the unrighteous.  And, according to this view, the resurrection of the wicked would be last or least in order and rank.  Their resurrection is the last or end resurrection, which is in accordance with what is taught in Revelation chapter twenty about the first and second resurrections. 

One difficulty with this view is that the word "end" is a noun and not an adjective, so we cannot read "then comes the end resurrection."  Of course, Paul could mean "then comes the end of the resurrection ordered program."  Phrasing it this way the word "end" retains its function as a noun, but one is forced to add "of the resurrection," which is not a healthy practice to do when interpreting the words of scripture.  But, as Reese points out, some commentators translate the word "end" by the words "rest" or "remainder," thus the passage means "then comes the rest," which would be the wicked, the ones who were not part of "the first resurrection." 

Further, the word "then" comes from the Greek word "eita" which simply denotes sequence whereas the Greek word "tote" means "at that time," or immediately next.  The fact that "eita" is used rather than "tote" adds support to the idea that the resurrection of the wicked is in view, but it is not in itself determinative. 

Another important factor in deciding this point is what Paul says next - "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."  (vs. 24)  "Then" and "when" go together.  If the "then" denotes what takes place after the millenium, to the resurrection of the unrighteous, then this would also have to be the time when Christ "puts down all rule and all authority."  But, this cannot be placed after the millenium, but must be placed at the time of the resurrection of the righteous, as before observed, and at the start of the millenium. 

Not only is the "end" at the time "when" all rule and authority are put down, when the last enemy is destroyed, but is also the time "when" Christ "delivers up the kingdom to God."  What does this refer to?  To something that begins the millenium or that ends it?  Whatever it is, it occurs at the same time as when Christ conquers all enemies, and this, as we have seen, precedes the millenium.  Those who would put it after the millenium would say that this statement refers to Christ "delivering up the millenial kingdom" to God, thus ending it and bringing on "the ages of the ages" that follow the millenium. 

It seems to me more likely that this delivering of the kingdom up to God is what is described in the Apocalypse in these words:

"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."  (Rev. 11: 15) 

As was observed in previous postings, the sound of the seventh trumpet marks the time of the resurrection of the righteous, the very topic Paul is discussing in I Cor. chapter fifteen, and which he locates at the time of "the last trumpet."  This is what takes place at the start of the millenium. 

Further, the word "kingdom" (Greek "basileia") denotes dominion and rule, or the right and authority to rule and reign.  Thus, "the kingdom" that Christ receives at his coming is "the sovereignty" of the world, which receiving as the conquerer, delivers it up to the Father, as in fulfillment of the mission given to him by the Father. 

For these reasons, I do not think it is tenable to interpret "then comes the end" to mean "then comes the end of the resurrection, i.e. the resurrection of the wicked."  Rather, I think it means "then comes the end of the age," and this being the case, it is a further blow to the pre-trib view, for they do not believe that the end of the age comes at the time of the resurrection and rapture of the saints, but several years later.

 

Post Tribulation Rapture VI

In overthrowing the pre-trib scheme, one must show 1) that the resurrection of all the saints occurs at the same time and 2) that this occurs at the last day of the present age.  It is to be noted that not all pre-tribbers are in agreement regarding these points, but it is agreed by them all that not all the saved are raised at the same time nor that they are all raised on the "last day." 

Some dispensationalists, like J. Dwight Pentecost, believe that only those who are part of the new testament church are resurrected and raptured, and that Israel and tribulation believers are resurrected and raptured seven years later, at the end of the great tribulation.  Many pretribbers disagree with Pentecost and believe that the old testament saints will be resurrected at the same time the believers of the church are resurrected and raptured.  Yet, all pre-tribbers are in agreement that not all the righteous are resurrected at the same time, at the time of the rapture of I Thess. 4: 13-17. 

Needless to say, the resurrection of believers takes place at the same time when the saints who live until the coming of the Lord, when both will be raptured.  (I Thess. 4: 13-17)  Thus, if we can ascertain when the saved are resurrected we will be able to ascertain when the rapture occurs.  Alexander Reese ("The Approaching Advent of Christ") was correct to state - "wheresoever the resurrection is, there will the Rapture be also." (CHAPTER II-THE RESURRECTION OF THE SAINTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, chapter II - see here)

At The Last Day

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.  And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day...No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day...Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."  (John 6: 39-40, 44, 54)

Four times Jesus says of believers that he will raise them up "at the last day."  Further, this was the belief of old testament believers.

"Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day."  (John 11: 24)

In commenting upon the above verses, Reese wrote(see here):

"It is worthy of note that in every case in the above texts the resurrection referred to is clearly that of the faithful dead. It is the resurrection of "life" (John 5:29), inasmuch as Christ promises it to those who believe and feed on Him. With Martha the resurrection of her brother is a matter of hope, for he had waited for the consolation of Israel. In other words, these texts all speak of the "resurrection of the just" (Luke 14:14). And we are told in every case that it takes place "at the last day." Here is a very definite point of time; does it differ from that marked for the resurrection by Isaiah 26:19, 25:8; Daniel 12:1-3, and 12:13? It does not; there is complete agreement between the prophecies of Isaiah and Daniel, and the words of the Lord Jesus. Our Lord, however, is more specific. Isaiah had associated the resurrection with the conversion of Israel, the Coming of Jehovah, and the inauguration of the Messianic Age of blessedness for all peoples. Daniel linked it with the overthrow of Antichrist, the close of the Great Tribulation, and the deliverance of living Israel from the last great struggle. Our Lord associates it with the Last Day of the pre-Messianic Age, which is the same thing. Well does Meyer say: "It is the first resurrection that is meant (see on Luke 14:14, 20:34 Phil. 3:2; 1 Cor. 15:23), that to the everlasting life of the Messianic Kingdom."  (On John 6:39; italics his.)

The true sense of the phrase "the last day" is also given by Bullinger in his Apocalypse. "Martha expressed her belief in the resurrection ‘at the last day’ (John 11:24); i.e., the last day, at the end of the present age, and immediately before the introduction of the new age of the thousand years" (p. 621).

It is important to bear in mind, as Plummer in his Matthew has said, that "the Jews divided time into two ages, the Messianic Age, and that which preceded it" (p. 180). This was a fundamental idea of Hebrew eschatology; and it was adopted by our Lord and His Apostles. Our Lord, for example, in speaking of those who have left home, and relatives, and possessions for the sake of the Kingdom, observes that even "in this present time" they receive much more than they lose, whilst "in the world (age) to come" they shall receive life everlasting (Mark 10:30). Here, as frequently in the Gospels and Epistles, the pre-Messianic Age is contrasted with the Age of the Kingdom.

Now our Lord teaches us in His discourse on the Bread of Life that the resurrection of His people—not merely of the faithful in Israel, but of all who believe in His Name, and feed upon Him by faith-will take place "at the last day." And having regard to His fundamental ideas on Eschatology there can be no doubt that "the last day" is the closing day of the Age that precedes the Messianic Kingdom of glory. This is the conception of the Prophets: Jehovah comes; Antichrist is slain; Israel repents; the sleeping saints rise; the Kingdom comes in power. It is the last day of this present evil Age, the first of the Age to come. This is also the doctrine of Christ, except that the resurrection now embraces those that the Father has given to Him, and have life through His name.

Jesus said unto them, "The sons of this age marry, and are given in marriage: but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (Luke 20: 34-36 R.V. mg.).

Here again in the clearest manner "that age" —the age to come—is contrasted with "this age" —the Age that now is. Here are the two great divisions of Hebrew eschatology: the present Age of Gentile dominion, Jewish subjection, and civilization without God; and that Age, when the dead shall be raised and the Kingdom introduced by the Messiah. It is these two ages that our Lord has in mind. In this present Age mortal men marry and give in marriage. But they who are counted worthy of the future Age marry not, for they become sexless as the angels, being sons of God and sons of the resurrection. It is important to note the order of the words "they that are accounted worthy to attain to that age, and the resurrection from the dead" —not "the resurrection from the dead, and that age;" but first, the Messianic Age, then the resurrection. The resurrection of the just is the first result of the Messianic reign.

This passage is in exact accordance with the one last considered —"I will raise him up at the last day." For, just as the last note of one octave is the first note of the next, so the last day of this present Age is the first of the Messianic Age to follow."  (Chapter III)

J. Dwight Pentecost, in his famous work "Things to Come," wrote against the posttribulation position as defended by Alexander Reese in his book "The Approaching Advent of Christ." In chapter eleven, "Posttribulation Rapture Theory," Pentecost wrote:

"But if one separates the resurrection of the church from the resurrection of Israel, there is no strength left in Reese's argument." (pg. 173)

"Thus it is wrong to conclude that 'that day' or 'the last day' must teach that all saints will be resurrected at the same moment of time. It must be observed, also, that the passages Reese uses from the Gospels (John 6: 39-54; Luke 20: 34-36; Matt. 13: 43; Luke 14: 14-15) all apply to God's program for Israel. If it be shown that this resurrection does take place at the second advent, it does not prove posttribulation rapturism, unless the church must be resurrected at the same point in time. This is a false premise." (pg. 175)

"Reese's error is in supposing all the righteous dead must be raised at the same time." (pg. 175)

Pentecost speaks for the dispensational school of premillenialism.  He affirms that the error of Reese and those of the posttribulation view is that they apply the promise of resurrection to immortality and eternal life, in the above verses, to all believers, whereas Pentecost insists that it is limited to the nation Israel.  It is the height of absurdity for Pentecost to say that the promise of being raised up at the last day does not apply to Gentile believers in the church.  When Jesus says "he who comes to me" he excludes believers in the new testament church?  How absurd is that?  That is true only of Israel? 

Many pre-tribbers will disagree with Pentecost on this, and will affirm that believers of all ages will be resurrected and raptured at the coming of the Lord per I Thess. 4: 13-17.  The only people many pre-tribbers will affirm are not resurrected or raptured at this time are those who are saved during the time of the great tribulation.  But, if we can show that all the saved are resurrected at the same time, this overthrows the view that the great tribulation follows the resurrection of the righteous. 

Pentecost, since he believes that the promise of resurrection on "the last day" does not belong to any believer in the church, interprets "the last day" as being truly the "last day," the day that ends the great tribulation and begins the millenial reign of Christ.  Pentecost is correct to affirm that "the last day" is after the great tribulation but he is wrong to exclude new testament believers who compose the church from the promise.  He is wrong to restrict this promise to Israel only.  Other pre-tribbers deny that the promise of resurrection on the last day is limited to Israel.  Their answer to these verses will be to affirm that "the last day" denotes the last day of the church age, which church age ends with the start of the seven year period of tribulation.  Thus, "the last day" is not the last day before the millenium, but the last day before the great tribulation. 

There are a number of problems with this view, however.  First of all, it makes the tribulation an "age" all to itself, not properly a part of the church age, or present age, nor properly of the millenial age.  Secondly, it gives a foreign and strange idea to the term "the last day." 

Those who are resurrected at the coming of Christ, at the time of the rapture, includes all who "sleep in Jesus."  Some pre-tribbers agree with post-tribbers that this denotes all the saved dead from the beginning of the world.  Other pre-tribbers of the dispensational school, such as Pentecost, believe that those who "sleep in Jesus" only denotes those who have been saved and died during the church age, and excludes old testament believers. 

It is clear to me that the righteous dead of the old testament times will be resurrected at the same time as the righteous dead of new testament times and that this is the resurrection of I Thess. 4: 13-17.  And, if this is indeed the resurrection of all the righteous dead, then the time of the rapture and resurrection of I Thess. 4 occurs "at the last day."  But, it cannot be the last day if several more years are to transpire before the coming of Christ to reign. 

End of the Age

When is the end of the age? Jesus and the new testament writers speak of it in several places. Is "the end of the age" a point in time before the time of the great tribulation and apocalyptic judgments or immediately after?

"The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world (age); and the reapers are the angels.  As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world (age)...So shall it be at the end of the world (age): the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."  (Matt. 13: 39-40, 49-50)

The "last day" is that which marks "the end of the age."  The age that is now is called by the Apostle Paul "this present evil age."  (Gal. 1: 4)  This "present evil age" either includes the time of the great tribulation or it does not.  If it includes the time of the coming tribulation and day of wrath, then the pre-trib view is overthrown.  It is at "the last day" and "at the end of the age" that the wheat, symbol of the saved, are reaped (i.e. resurrected, translated, and raptured to meet the Lord).  Reese wrote:  "...the idea of another evil age succeeding this one is a mere figment of Gaebelein’s imagination; the age, according to Scripture, that succeeds this present Age, is the millennium."

That the tribulation period is a part of the present evil age is evident for a number of reasons.  In verse 43, Jesus sums up the parable of the wheat and tares by saying - "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."  Notice that it is "at that time" ("then" Greek "tote"), at the time of the resurrection of the righteous, that the righteous "shine forth in the kingdom," in the millenial kingdom.  But, if the millenial kingdom is yet seven years away from the time of the resurrection, this would not be true.  Matthew 13: 43 is a clear reference to Daniel 12:2-3, which speaks of resurrection.  Those who are raised to everlasting life are all the righteous dead who sleep in the dust of the earth.

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world (age)?...And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet...But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved...And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."  (Matt. 24: 3, 6, 13-14)

Throughout the Olivet Discourse "the end of the age" is the end of the present evil age that includes the tribulation period.  It follows the preaching of the Gospel in all the world.  It is the same message given to the disciples after the resurrection.  "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world (age). Amen." (Matt. 28: 20)  Christ is with the disciples in carrying out the great commission up till the time when the age ends.  Further, the end of the age is the time when the the saved go forth to "meet" the bridegroom, and this meeting is the rapture. "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom."  (Matt. 25: 1)

"Waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall also confirm you unto the end (telos), that ye be unreproveable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ ."  (I Cor. 1: 7-8 RV)

Clearly "the end" is equated with "the revelatin of our Lord Jesus Christ" and with "the day of the Lord Jesus Christ."  Wrote Reese:

"There is a wealth of exegetical literature to confirm our view that the End here is the Parousia of Christ. It is scarcely necessary to cite it, because the juxtaposition of the two eschatological terms Revelation and Day of Christ, which all the pre-trib leaders applied to the Day of the Lord, is right at hand to show what Paul meant. Yet a few brief quotations will be serviceable. A. T. Robertson says that "Unto the End" means "End of the age till Jesus comes, final preservation of the saints" (iv., p. 71). Robertson and Plummer in ICC say: "The doctrine of the approach of the end is continually in the Apostle’s thoughts: 3:13; 4:5; 6:2, 3; 7:29; 11:26; 15:51; 16:22" (p. 7). Godet says in his commentary: "The end is the Lord’s coming again, for which the Church should constantly watch, for the very reason that it knows not the time of it; compare Luke 12:35 and 36; Mark 13:32 (p. 58). Canon Evans in one of the more brilliant volumes of the Speaker’s Commentary remarks: "The end, not of life, but of this Aeon, or dispensation." So also Alford, Bachmann, Bousset, and J. Weiss."  (chpt. 8)

Thus, in summary, the Scriptures clearly state that the resurrection of the righteous occurs at the last day and at the end of the age, which could not be the case if several years transpire after the last day and after the end of the age.  The Scriptures also show that it is at the end of the age that the "age to come" begins, which age is the millenial age.