The Doctrine of Imminency: Is it Biblical?

I see imminency in a slightly different way than most other pretribulationists. There was a period when one can say the Lord could not return immediately; some events obviously had to occur before then. But as time progressed after His ascension, imminent language began appearing in the epistles. 

Notwithstanding the different eschatological views (historicism etc) that theologians held through history, many warned that Christ could come at any moment. Renald Showers provides a few examples in "Maranatha." 

Here's an article by Gerald Stanton. I don't agree with all he says:

The primary thought expressed by imminency is that something important is likely to happen, and could do so without delay. While it may not be immediate nor necessarily soon, it is next on the program and may take place at any time. If the event is evil or potentially dangerous we would call it impending for it is threatening to occur. But if it is an event full of hope and joyful expectation we express it by the noun imminence or the adjective imminent. Among believers, these words normally relate to the possible soon coming of our Lord Jesus Christ to catch up His Church in that happy and monumental event called the Rapture...continue reading

1 Thessalonians 4:17-18 Commentary

Here's a fantastic resource that ties everything together from a pretribulational perspective.

1 Thessalonians 4:17-18 Commentary

Here's John Walvoord's review of "The Blessed Hope" by G E Ladd. Note Walvoord's response to Ladd's critique of the pretribulational view of imminence. Read it HERE

Those misleading pretribulationists

The very first article I posted when I started this blog was on 2 Thess 2. I wanted to respond to a claim made by Rev Larry Wolf to the effect that:

“Pre-Tribulation Theory has no clear Biblical basis of support, but in distinct contrast it does have problem passages which are ignored instead of explained, such as II Thess 2:1-8.”
Prewrath proponent Dr Charles Cooper recently criticized Dr Robert L Thomas’ work on 2 Thess 2 and imminence. Dr Cooper made a number of, what I’d call, provocative statements:

“Dr. Robert L. Thomas’ efforts to defend pretribulational imminence may be likened to gymnastic contortions with his exegesis of II Thessalonians 2:1-3, and suggest either a deliberate attempt to deceive his readers or an ignorance of the whole counsel of the Word of God. I refuse to believe either conclusion to be true. Therefore, I am at a loss to explain why Dr. Thomas takes the positions he does when seeking to interpret what some conclude is the most difficult passage for the pretribulational position to overcome.”

He's at loss to explain it, cannot believe it and yet chooses to poison the well.

Dr Cooper again:

“For their definition of imminence to be correct, pretribulationalists like Thomas must distort Scripture to prove it.”
One of the main bones of contention was this:

“First, an uneducated reader is immediately mislead (sic) by Thomas’ first defense of his conclusion that “is present” is the best translation of enestēken (ἐνέστηκεν) because of the three translations that support his position.”
I contacted Dr Thomas and asked him about enestēken (ἐνέστηκεν). He graciously pointed out that some have not delved deeply enough into the documentation that he has presented in Vol 12 of the Expositor's Bible Commentary (revised edition). He added that it takes time for the truth to sink in if one adopts a position before a thorough examination of the text.

By the way, what wasn’t mentioned in Dr Cooper’s curious introduction of Dr Thomas - which included a bizarre reference to his age - was his contribution to the Expositor’s Bible Commentary. He has also penned one of the most outstanding commentaries on Revelation.

As Dr Cooper knows, not all pretribulationists agree that the day of the Lord covers the whole of Daniel’s 70th week - Richard Mayhue (a colleague of Dr Thomas) being one of them. He even refers to Dr Mayhue as he takes Craig Blaising to task in a more recent PRI article. Yet Dr Mayhue is more than capable of defending his pretribulationism, despite his DOL stance.

But either way, pretribulationists don’t have problems with 2 Thess 2.
Earlier, Dr Cooper suggested that some conclude that 2 Thess 2:1-3 is the most difficult passage for the pretribulationist position to overcome. Some may well "conclude" that but they'd be wrong.

I strongly recommend reading Dr Mayhue’s book 1 & 2 THESSALONIANS – TRIUMPHS AND TRIALS OF A CONSECRATED CHURCH in conjunction with Dr Mike Stallard’s first & second Thessalonians – LOOKING FOR CHRIST’S RETURN.

At this stage it’s worthwhile revisiting Eric Douma’s contribution to 2 Thess 2 and his thoughts on the prewrath system. While I don’t agree with his angle on the identity of the Restrainer, Pastor Douma has some challenging questions for the prewrath model that haven’t been adequately addressed yet.

This is, perhaps, one of the motivations for the recent spate of activity in this area.

More later....

Mat 24:36

But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only. (Mat 24:36 ASV)

There’s a short video on the internet that draws attention to this verse. It gets pretribbers to acknowledge that this speaks of the rapture then it tells them that they’ve just admitted that the rapture is found in Matthew. Indeed, some pretribbers DO think the rapture is in Matthew but that’s another story.

As for verse 36, reading on from there it’s a long stretch to imagine that “that day” occurs immediately after the “great tribulation”.

37 And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. 38 For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man. (Mat 24:37-39 ASV)

21 for then shall be great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. (Mat 24:21-22 ASV)

Note the extent of Matt 24:21-22 is global, not just Church persecution.

3 And when he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, Come. 4 And another horse came forth, a red horse: and to him that sat thereon it was given to take peace from the earth, and that they should slay one another: and there was given unto him a great sword. 5 And when he opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature saying, Come. And I saw, and behold, a black horse; and he that sat thereon had a balance in his hand. 6 And I heard as it were a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, A measure of wheat for a shilling, and three measures of barley for a shilling; and the oil and the wine hurt thou not. 7 And when he opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, Come. 8 And I saw, and behold, a pale horse: and he that sat upon him, his name was Death; and Hades followed with him. And there was given unto them authority over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with famine, and with death, and by the wild beasts of the earth. (Rev 6:3-8 ASV)

3 And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. 4 These are the two olive trees and the two candlesticks, standing before the Lord of the earth. 5 And if any man desireth to hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth and devoureth their enemies; and if any man shall desire to hurt them, in this manner must he be killed. 6 These have the power to shut the heaven, that it rain not during the days of their prophecy: and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they shall desire. (Rev 11:3-6 ASV)

All this presumably occurs immediately before the rapture when they are saying “peace and safety” and “drinking, marrying and giving in marriage”.

You get the picture.

2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 When they are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall in no wise escape. (1Th 5:2-3 ASV)

Here’s what R L Thomas has to say about Matt 24:36. Begin at the bottom of page 3:

IMMINENCE IN THE NT, ESPECIALLY PAUL’S THESSALONIAN EPISTLES

One more thing; Pretribbers are often taken to task for believing a “secret rapture” that, conveniently, is so secret it isn’t found in any verse. Interestingly, neither is the mid-trib, pre-wrath or post-trib rapture found in any verse…and they’re not even meant to be a secret. Strange that.

Footnote:

After posting this I came across a blog that asked the question “Why do PreTribbers always take Matthew 24:36 out of context?” (I could ask a number of questions about his rapture view as well.) The writer answers himself by saying they have to. Inserted among the objections was this gem:

“He (Jesus) continues that it will take the world at large by surprise just like the flood took everyone by surprise in the days of Noah. Except of course, Noah was not taken by surprise. This tells us that Jesus was teaching that His disciples would not be taken by surprise at His coming. So how could anyone reading this passage in its proper context come away with the idea that the second coming of Jesus as described in the Olivet Discourse could occur at any moment? That’s why the verse is taken out of context. The PreTribber will NEVER give the entire background when quoting that verse since it will undermine his unbiblical definition of imminency.”

Read the verses again. It couldn’t be plainer.

36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

That’s no one. Arguing that Noah knew is irrelevant to Matthew’s verses and not what Jesus plainly states.

37 "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 "For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be."

The context is surprise and - guess what? No one will know.

Don't the post-trib and pre-wrath folk argue that the wrath at Rev 6:17 is still future? If that's the case then "the world at large" isn't taken by surprise either. That kind of distorts Matt 24:36 just a tad, doesn't it?

Claiming that "Jesus was teaching that His disciples would not be taken by surprise at His coming" is blatantly reading something into the text that isn't there. I believe there's another word for that...

Non-pretribbers have to argue this way because imminency undermines their view ;-)

Will Believers Know the Day?

Always Ready and Watching?

Great post by Fred DeRuvo...at least in my opinion!

In the parable of the servants found in Luke 12:35-48, we see a scenario in which some of the head servants got lazy, began to beat the other servants, and essentially stopped watching for the Master’s return. The fact that they stopped watching, which in effect means they stopped expecting the Lord of the household to return at any moment, gave way to laziness and ill treatment of the others.

A great deal has been read into this parable, including the fact that the Master of the house is said to have gone to a wedding celebration. The truth of the parable can be found within the pattern of the slaves. Note that some of the slaves stopped to think about the situation, then said, ”My master is delayed in returning.” It was because of this thinking that these slaves began ”to beat the other slaves, both men and women, and to eat, drink, and get drunk.“ What is the point here? The point is that it was the slaves who actually began to doubt the return of the master of the house, which caused problems. We see this today with Preterists, and others, who teach that the Lord returned spiritually in A.D. 70, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. If you pick up reading material written by some of these individuals, you are met with some of the most antagonistic, sarcastic ridicule of those who believe in a literal return of Christ, that ever exists in written form. Some of these individuals know no bounds of good taste, and certainly do not understand how to approach a subject charitably...Continue Reading


Further into his post, Fred makes these observations:

Please note that the parable also indicates that nothing is to occur prior to the master’s return. He will simply appear. One moment he won’t be there and the next, he is there. There is nothing in the parable which would give notification of his impending return. He simply returns and when he does, he sees that some of his servants have been and are mistreating the others. He quickly puts a stop to that and metes out punishment...

We do not know when the Rapture will occur. Therefore, every day should be lived as if it is happening today. We should be about the Father’s business with the understanding that before this day closes, we could be ushered into His presence. Does that scenario bother you? You feel as if you are not being true to the integrity of Scripture? Okay, that’s fine. Then instead of the Rapture, substitute the phrase “your/my death.” Do you have any logical arguments at all that would prohibit you from believing that before this day ends, your life could end? .....

Understanding that our death is always imminent should create within us a respect for the time that we do have, so that we make the most of that time, appreciating life, and letting go of the things that do not matter. We should also understand that the time we have been given is extremely valuable, and we will be held accountable for it. Did you witness to anyone today? Did you spend time in prayer today? Did you get to know the Lord through His Word a bit more today? Did you see more of Christ developed in you today?

I should also point out that Fred's post has a bit of an edge to it. I like it.

Olivet Discourse - Part Three

Mat 24:36 "But of that DAY and HOUR no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

A pre-trib challenge…

“But of that day and hour no one knows..." Matt 24:36. What day and hour? Shouldn't "that day and hour" have an antecedent somewhere? I know, I know, you are saying that the "day and hour no one knows" is referring to the rapture. Right? Well, there's one small problem with that. Pretribbers deny that the rapture is ever mentioned in this passage... in fact, some go so far as to say that this was written for the Jews and not for the Church. (Besides, how many Jewish people do you know who study the New Testament?”

First we should note that the above statement is only partially accurate. Some pretribbers do believe the rapture is alluded to in the OD. Also, somewhere in cyberspace, there’s a short video aimed at pretribbers that asks a couple of questions and then presumes the same response. It springs a trap on the unsuspecting pretribber by stating:

That’s right, you just admitted that Matt 24 makes reference to the rapture – and thus, Matt 24 applies to the Church!

Let’s think about that for a moment. The above responses respectively imply that, because the concept of the rapture may presumably be found within the Olivet Discourse, it then somehow follows by default that the elect is the Church; the rapture and second coming are a single event and the gathering is the rapture. That's a lot of assumptions to make based on a two minute video.

In reality, every tenet must be examined on its own merits. Those who claim that the gathering is the rapture and the elect are the Church should engage the arguments for each point rather than indulging in assertions (see my previous OD post).

Before I go to v 36 I want to make the following points: the author of the quote above asked how many Jewish people would study the New Testament. This question infers that everything written in the NT must be for the Church. Apparently that includes Matt 24:20. I wonder how many Christians living in the vicinity at the time would worry about that one.

The OT contains prophecies that were ignored by Israel, yet they were put there for a purpose. As with the OT, Israel (and whoever is in the Tribulation) will be expected to read the NT - and many will. Is it really reasonable to assume data would be left out of the NT just because it related to Israel, and is everything in the NT exclusively related to the Church? How about the 144,000 of Revelation?

Speaking of which, another question goes something like this: “You say the Church isn’t in the Trib, yet Jesus said Revelation was for the Church.”

Here’s what the beginning of Revelation actually says:

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants (doulos), the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

Who else are called doulos in Revelation and are they part of the Church? (Rev 7:3) Note that, just as in chapter seven where the great multitude are never called the Church when their identity becomes an issue, isn’t it interesting how inclusive Rev 1:1 is also? One should never build doctrine on this fact but it intrigues me why Revelation is so silent regarding the Church during the judgments. The defense that some of the epistles don’t mention the Church either doesn’t really cut it because Revelation DOES so numerous times – just not in the right places for non-pretribbers.

Getting back on track, what is the antecedent to v 36? First of all let’s examine the alternative and let’s look at some other Scripture. Previous to v 36 the Lord discussed the birth pangs; the tribulation; the cosmic signs; the gathering of the elect etc. So non-pretribbers assume that the day He is speaking of has to be the day of the Lord and the rapture. Yet when we read on we find the following:

Mat 24:37 "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.

Mat 24:38-39 "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.”

Mat 24:40-43 "Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left. Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.”

Mat 24:44 "For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.”

Now let’s compare some more Scripture:

1Th 5:2-3 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape.

Rev 6:3-4 When He broke the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, "Come." And another, a red horse, went out; and to him who sat on it, it was granted to take peace from the earth, and that men would slay one another; and a great sword was given to him.

Rev 6:7-8 When the Lamb broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, "Come." I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth.

Pre-trib critics see the antecedent to be the actual final, physical, visible, Second Coming of the Lord. Whether post-trib or pre-wrath, this is preceded by cosmic signs that are associated with Matt 24, Rev 6 and Joel. The Joel 3 cosmic signs demand that multitudes are gathering for war prior to the rapture/DotL In a previous post I mentioned that one proponent of another view believed the AC was involved in a war with the saints on such a massive scale that it was critical that God rapture the Church thus shortening the GT so that “flesh would be saved”.

The obvious question is how do we reconcile all these “business as usual and peace and safety” messages in light of the contradictions? How can armies be gathering prior to the DotL/rapture (and the seal judgments) yet comply with the full meaning of Matt 24:38 and 1Thess 5:2-3?

Here’s the best response I’ve come across so far – “They only think they have peace and safety”.

One attempt to circumvent this problem is to argue that at the time of the Abomination of Desolation there is a short period of peace, thus satisfying 1 Thess 5. However, this doesn’t get around Joel 3. If the AC is involved in a crucial war and if armies are gathering for battle, on what Scriptural basis can you justify that the participants believe they have peace? This view also presupposes that Rev 6:4 is temporary. Finally, a temporary gap of peace beginning at the AoD contradicts the mission of the Two Witnesses (Rev 11:3-11).

Some may contend that the unregenerate are so deluded, they can gather for war and still proclaim peace and safety. In my opinion this is a strained assertion that lacks Scriptural backing.

Believers are explicitly told in Matt 24:42 that they cannot know the day the Lord is coming. If the rapture is post-trib we can sure get pretty close. But can prewrathers claim their system is any different? Does a short, unknown period of time (less then three and a half years) really fit the Lord’s contextual meaning when he addresses believers? I guess if one wants to be technical a believer wouldn’t know the exact day even if they were “watching” for the AoD. The point is that we can still get pretty close. If one wants to be consistently technical then the “peace and safety” issue on its own refutes the argument that v 36 alludes to the second coming.

Was the Lord really talking about a literal 24 hour day or did He use an idiom? Allen Beechick weighs in:

What Does "Hour" Mean?

Beechick is an example of a pretribber that sees a rapture and double imminence reference in Matt 24. While there are areas where I disagree with his conclusions, he capably defends pre-trib and points out various problems with the other systems. His work can be read HERE and his views on the Olivet Discourse HERE.

By the way, Rev 16:15 does nothing to support the post-trib view. The verse is a break in the story admonishing the reader of the consequences of not “watching”. It is not there to imply some sort of imminence at that late point in Daniel’s 70th week. That wouldn’t make any sense.

In light of the arguments above, Matt 24:36 cannot refer to Christ’s second coming in Power and Glory despite the best intentions of that little video. So what is the solution? Here is what Dr Robert L Thomas says regarding Matt 24:31:

The signs given in Matt 24:4-28 are within Daniel’s seventieth week and indicate the nearness of Jesus’ return to earth as described in Matt 24:29-31 These signals of nearness differ from the parables of Luke 12:35-48, which contained no signs of nearness. If signs must occur before His coming, His coming is not imminent. Neither are there signs given in Luke 17:26-37, where Jesus with several similar comparisons predicts the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. But in Matt 24:36 Jesus turns the page to speak of the absence of any sign that might signal the beginning of Daniel’s seventieth week. His words were, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven nor the Son, but the Father only.” His use of “day and hour” encompass a broader span than just a 24-hour day or a 60-minute hour. As is true throughout Matthew (cf. Matt 7:22; 10:19; 24:42, 44, 50; 25:13; 26:45), the two time-designations cover a broad period of time. Jesus is saying that no one has the faintest idea about when—in the broadest sense of the term “when”—the Son of Man will return. Here He indicates the complete unexpectedness of what will overtake the world at the time of His second advent. He changes the subject from the signs that indicate the nearness of His coming to establish the kingdom in 24:32-35 to speak of events which will have no signals to indicate that the advent is “at the door.” In other words, 24:36 speaks of a different arrival from the arrival signalled by “all these things,” twice referred to in connection with the parable of the fig tree in 24:32-34 After 24:36 Jesus looks at the events of Daniel’s seventieth week as a whole and how the beginning of that week will catch everyone by surprise, with no indication that it is “at the door.” ...IMMINENCE IN THE NT, ESPECIALLY PAUL’S THESSALONIAN EPISTLES

Dr Fruchtenbaum makes another observation. Matt 24:36 begins with the word But, which in Greek is peri de (1 Cor 7:1; 8:1; 12:1 etc). This construction points to the introduction of a new subject. See "Footsteps" page 641. Up until that point the Lord has been talking about the second coming but peri de introduces something new. Dr Fruchtenbaum and a few others believe the rapture is alluded to after this. I believe the change of subject also supports the idea that the beginning of Daniel's 70th week (the BROAD day of the Lord) is in view as argued by Dr Thomas. Whether or not the rapture is to be found after v 36 is another matter and the subject of much debate.

To be continued…


Further reading:

INTERPRETIVE FLAWS IN THE OLIVET DISCOURSE


Dr Ron Bigalke Jr touches upon Grundy's post-trib view of imminence:

Gundry’s first premise was to redefine the doctrine of imminence. He wrote:

"We should first of all note a lack of identity between belief in imminence on the one hand and pretribulationism on the other. By common consent imminence means that so far as we know no predicted event will necessarily precede the coming of Christ. The concept incorporates three essential elements: suddenness, unexpectedness or incalculability, and a possibility of occurrence at any moment. But these elements would require only that Christ might come before the tribulation, not that He must. Imminence would only raise the possibility of pretribulationism on a sliding scale with mid- and posttribulationism."

The problem with Gundry’s definition of imminence is the two words “necessarily” and “possibility.” According to Gundry, imminence means that Christ will return “at any moment” after the tribulation. In Matthew 24:36, Jesus declared, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” Gundry had to reinterpret this verse to mean, “The element of certainty is there, but it is slight.” Believers will know the approximate time, not the exact time of Christ’s return. “The shortening of the tribulation thus enables us to resolve general predictability and specific unpredictability without rending the exhortations to watch from their posttribulational context and without minimizing the function of signaling events by resorting to the historical [preterist] view with its vagaries.” Gundry’s definition of imminence means only believers in the tribulation will be watchful until prophetic events begin. Even when such events occur, believers “shall not know exactly”; rather the attitude is to “know approximately.”Imminence is redefined to “expectancy.” Midnight Call Magazine See Page 19.

Note also that Dr Bigalke adresses other premises of Grundy's posttribulationism.