If the historical witness of the Gentile Church has been good at one thing prophetically, it is altering God’s Scriptural and prophetic relationship to Israel, and how this effects the Church. Whether it is allegorizing God’s covenant with Israel by faulty New Covenant interpretations, or a pretribulation rapture theory which finds it okay to dismiss the Gentile Church from the Great Tribulation by way of secret rapture, the Gentile Church has a thing for glorifying the mercy of God in its favor at the expense of Israel. As highlighted throughout this series, a pretribulation rapture theory is not Biblical, it is a presuppositional inference upon Scripture. Thereby, the convenient escapism-mentality which is comfortable with a secret rapture of Gentiles, an expense of leaving Israel “left behind” to inherit epochal suffering by persecution and mass-martyrdom, namely, is an outrageous claim not supported by Scripture. George Eldon Ladd writes, “To this line of reasoning, we must raise the question: Where does the Word of God say that the Great Tribulation is exclusively Jewish? Dispensationalists say this, but does the Word of God really assert this to be true? Is this an inference, or is it the express declaration of Scripture? There is very strong evidence which suggests that the Great Tribulation applies to the Church as well as to Israel” (Ladd. 130). In this installment we will look at why pretribulationists assert this, and, conclude why Scripture does not support their view.
DIVIDING THE SCRIPTURE
Ladd’s approach to this importance is rightly coined “Rightly Dividing the Word” (p. 130). He defines this, writing, “It is the method of deciding in advance which Scriptures deal with the Church and which Scriptures have to do with Israel, and then to interpret the passages concerned in light of this “division” of the Word” (p; 103). In other words, “dividing” the word to fit the lens off the interpreter, rather than letting Scripture plumb-line the interpreters understanding. This is called presupposition. Presupposition is one of the great crises of Biblical interpretation altogether. It presupposes a cultural or individual experience and understanding as the central method of interpreting Scripture. The pretribulation rapture myth as a whole is a presuppositional indifference with suffering, in my opinion.While the modern Western Church has had its share of crises, and certainly the Church has been affected, the modern, and especially, in our contemporary moment of history, has not dealt with extreme persecution unto death. It cannot fathom the difference between God’s wrath and what the Scriptural witness testifies as to suffering for Him and with Him for His’ name’s sake. By this we will determine the double-standard used to interpret Scripture through the lens of pretribulationists.
The fundamental inference, or presupposition pretribulationists assert upon the Word is found in their removing of the Gentile Church from the earth during the Great Tribulation. They conclude eschatological prophecy concerning the Tribulation as a period meant only as relational toward God’s dealing with Israel. Their conjecture assumes events such as “the abomination of desolation” (ESV. Matt. 24:20) refer only to Israel. The method determines the Great Tribulation by paralleling the prophet Jeremiah’s words, “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jer. 30:7) as an application relevant only to Israel. “Dividing” the usage of the “elect” in eschatological Scriptural-language as applying to Israel alone, not the Church, “Dispensationalism solves this problem by the application of its major premise…the references to the elect in Matthew 24 must be references to the elect of Israel, not to believers who are elected to salvation” (p. 131). One may see the effect of “dividing the Word,” or applying presuppositional assertions upon Biblical interpretation, though subtle, ambiguously centralizes interpretation upon the belief of the interpreter. The bottom line of naïve intellectualism is the crippling of teachability. Every one of us gets stuck on belief systems and worldviews which unconsciously host faulty thinking and even deception. There is certainly a stubbornness and pride about us concerning thoughts which seek to undo what we have believed to be true. And rightly so, this is where our intellect stops, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit must have His’ ownership as the supplier of revelation and illumination of Scriptural truth.
Pretribulation-Dispensationalism assumes posttribulation-Premillennialism does not take into consideration their view of “dividing the Word. Ladd explains, adding, “’One difficulty so many postribulationists have is due to the fact that they get part of the book of Revelation in the grace age…If we distinguish the ages and recognize the ground on which we stand, whether it be Jewish or Gentile, we will find little difficulty in relation to the issue in hand.’ Therefore we must conclude that the saints and martyrs are not the church but the Jews” (p. 131). By this so-called “distinguish the ages,” pretribulation-Dispensationalism determines the emphasis of Old Testament eschatological prophecy only relevant to the fulfillment of God’s dealings with Israel. Concluding, “It is the last week of the seventy in Daniel 9:25-27 which have to do with the destiny of Israel, not the Church. During the sixty-nine weeks, God was dealing with Israel; and in the last week, the seven years of the Great Tribulation, God will resume His dealings with Israel which, during the parenthesis of the Church age, have been suspended” (p. 132).
As another example, pretribulation-Dispensationalism appeals to “The promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was given by God through the prophet Joel to Israel. The prophecy looks forward to a national restoration of Judah and Jerusalem when God would pour out His Spirit upon Israel…One would search in vain in Joel for any reference to the Church” (p. 132). In other words, pretribulation-Dispensationalism refuses to interpret certain eschatological prophecies to mean any “double fulfillment” (p. 133) in accordance with New Covenant Church. However, this leads to a double-standard.
By double-standard we mean, as Ladd elaborates, “Yet dispensationalists usually recognize that this promise [outpouring of the Spirit] has a double fulfillment to the Church at Pentecost and to Israel at the end of the age” (p. 132). This point has been there since one of the great architects of this theory, J.N. Darby helped establish the method. Ladd points readership to another example in Jeremiah 31:31-34, namely, verse 33, which reads: “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Dispensationalism applies a “double fulfillment” to this eschatological prophecy, meaning, the prophecy applies both to Israel at the end of the age, and to the Church as a whole. Ladd writes, “Scofield recognizes that this prophecy, given exclusively to Israel, has its fulfillment in the Church, when he says of Hebrew 8:8, “The New Covenant rest upon the sacrifice of Christ, and secures the eternal blessedness, under the Abrahamic Covenant, of all who believe.” The New Covenant, promised in Jeremiah 31, was made by the Lord with the Church and is now in effect; and at the end of the age, Israel as a people will be saved and brought within the blessings of the New Covenant” (p. 133). The double-standard in effect is a method which presupposes eschatological Scriptures like the Joel chapter-two outpouring of the Holy Spirit are okay to accredit both Israel and the Gentile Church, while other eschatological prophecy is presumed otherwise. Pretribulation-Dispensationalism gives no concrete reasoning behind this method, other than their injection upon Scripture to fit their pretribulation rapture theory. It appears as though they are guilty of dividing God’s Word into a series of events which are wholly pleasing to their understanding, and accrediting those Scriptures which are not so pleasant, at the expense of the Jewish Church and Israel at the end of the age.
CONCLUSION
Ladd concludes, writing, “The method of “dividing the Scriptures” leads to grave, and-we feel-insoluble difficulties” (p. 133). Pretribulation-Dispensationalism divides the Word between “Jewish ground,” and “Church ground” (p. 134). If this so-called “Jewish ground” is the basis for interpreting division between eschatological events concerning Jews and Gentiles, this opens many other issues. If this same application applies in the eschatological sense, this also means “The Sermon of the Mount in Matthew 5-7 is not for the Church in the age of grace but for the Jew in the restored age of law in the Davidic kingdom. If this is true, is Mark’s Gospel also Jewish? And is Luke’s Gospel Jewish too? Matthew was written for Jews, but Mark and Luke were written to Gentiles. Yet the “elect” are seen in the Great Tribulation in Mark 13:20, 27 even as in Matthew. Is this also Jewish ground? When Jesus said, as recorded in Luke 18:7, that God would avenge His elect, did He refer to Jews or to all the elect, all the company of the saved” (p. 134)? The list of devastating and destructive fall-out which may be approved through this method not only effects large portions of Scripture, it is not warranted anywhere in Scripture, and Biblical prophecy does not apply a special means to do so.
Dividing the Scriptures, namely, Biblical eschatological prophecy to fit presuppositional lenses of interpretation only result in harm. The pretribulation-Dispensational attempt to harmonize their interpretation has done so at great interpretational cost. Ladd thus ask the question, “Where does the Word of God say that we have left behind the age of grace and have returned to Jewish ground” (p. 135)? And his answer, rightly so, is to encourage the Church to hold fast to Scripture, to let Scripture inform our understanding of eschatological truth, rather than interpret Scripture by our experience. Ladd backs this up, pointing to Jesus in Revelation chapter-five, which reads:
“Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, and I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. And one of the elders said to me, ‘Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals’” (Rev. 5:1-5).
The problems of humanity and of the future are only intelligible to the One who is worthy (p. 135). Jesus. He alone is worthy. While Biblical eschatology gives a plethora of Scripture dedicated to helping us understand the signs of the times, and a structure for which these events will take place, nowhere in Scripture do we explicitly find a “Jewish ground” versus “Church ground” understanding of eschatology. This does not mean that within the unfolding of these events that there is not distinction between the purpose of events. The “abomination of desolation,” as pretribulation-Dispensationalism points out, is relevant to those living in the city of Jerusalem at that time. However, there is simply no Scripture or set of passages which teaches this is subject to Jews alone. Thus, the Scriptures may deal with something prophetically relevant to Israel, like when you see the “abomination of desolation” get out of Jerusalem; nevertheless, this does not presume no assertion to the Church. Ladd concludes, “The book of Revelation places the grace of God, displayed in the slain Lamb and the redemption freely provided, squarely in the center of the future. The Lamb of God can alone solve the enigma of human history. He alone can bring God’s purposes to their consummation. This is the central them of the Revelation. This destiny does indeed concern Israel, and “all Israel” is destined to be saved. It also concerns “Men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation” (5:9). It concerns all men. No reason appears in the Revelation to interpret this prophecy on Jewish ground; but the centrality of the Lamb of God who redeems by His blood men from every nation suggests that we are on Church ground, the age of salvation and grace…There appear no valid reason, therefore, -no assertion of Scripture which would require or even suggests that we must apply the prophecies about the Tribulation to a restored Jewish nation rather than to the redeemed of the New Testament, the Church. On the contrary, we have ample reason to apply the prophecies about the Great Tribulation both to Israel and to the Church” (p. 136).
No man other than Jesus is worthy to know the fulness of future destiny of humankind. Nowhere in Scripture does one find anything clear enough for this “division” asserted by pretribulation-Dispensational theory. The Church, both Gentile and Jewish Messianic worshippers, and unbelieving Israel will experience the Great Tribulation. Both Jewish and Gentile believers, the Church, have the great task of proclaiming the hour of the Lord. There is no Scriptural proof, only assertions upon the Word, which leads to the Church escaping the Great Tribulation, leaving a remnant of Jews to suffer persecution and martyrdom. All are present and affected. And the fact that a double-standard for interpreting which eschatological Scriptures favor their theory is enough to question their whole system of thought.
Works Cited
ESV. English Standard Version. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2001. Print.
Ladd, George Eldon. The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture.
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1956. Print.