Truth Magazine

By Robert C. Welch

Some premillennial preachers met with some other preachers and brethren in Louisville, Kentucky in 1952 far the-purpose of discussing some solution to the lack of fellowship. The premillennialists proposed that it could be had if they not be opposed as they taught the doctrine, according to what they were wont to call “teaching all the Bible.” They had the modern Christian Church misrepresentation of the slogan used by early restorationists: This perversion of the slogan, “where the Bible speaks we speak, where the Bible is silent we are silent,” is the interpretation that we not oppose anything said by them even though the Bible does not authorize the doctrine, We proposed to them that since the Scriptures declare that there is one faith then the two of us should study the issue to see what the Bible teaches on the matter and that an agreement upon what it teaches would be the only way there could be unity or fellowship. We proposed a formal debate. They totally rejected the idea of a debate or even any kind of discussion of the doctrine. In this meeting they demonstrated the reason for our not being in fellowship with them. They persist in their false doctrine and require our silence or acquiescence as they teach it.

Background Developments

The doctrine raised its ugly head as a divisive factor through R.H. Boll and some other men who lived in Louisville. There is little doubt that the theory existed in the minds of many of the preachers of the restoration right on down to the time of Boll. But it had not been made an essential in faith and preaching. Russell (forerunner of Jehovah’s Witnesses) and other denominational men were making wild, emotional speculations about the world-wide troubles which led into World War I. They perceived such troubles as the immediate precursor of the second coming of Christ to reign on the earth for a thousand years. Boll and these men around him took up the cry. Boll was an editorial writer for the Gospel Advocate and began teaching it in the journal. The others on the Advocate staff had a meeting with Boll and got an agreement from him that he would not present his speculative doctrine on its pages. They argued that his private adherence to the theory would not affect them. He began, however, in just a little while, to teach it again and was put off the staff. It was then that he began his own paper with this doctrine as the main theme and reason for its publication. He, of course, was teaching it from the pulpit and in his school classroom all the while. Another very influential preacher and writer lived in Louisville who was also on the Advocate staff, M.C. Kurfees. The relations grew very cold and bitter between them. The actual break in fellowship, began in Louisville, but not with the congregations, where;these twolabored. E.L. Jorgenson was preaching the doctrine at the Highland church in the city. Several of the members were opposed to the doctrine and were opposed to his preaching it. These brethren were withdrawn from in ,the mid-teens. They formed another congregation. Much was said about it in brotherhood papers, especially the Gosepl Advocate. Boll’s own paper, however, Word and Work, had little to say bout this break. The.reason is, evident, they were the ones who made it a test of fellowship. They did say,. in the July, 1918 issue:

In reference to a report which recently appeared inthe Gospel Advocates: Those who are interested to know the truth concerning the good work of the Highland Church of Christ and the situation so far as concerns any division existing there, can obtain the facts from any of the “acting elders, “from E.L. Jorgenson, or from any other member of the congregation. Already, inquiries are being received.

From this there was a gradual growth of estrangement between the churches in Louisville and over the nation. This process of severence of relationships reached a climax in the debates between Foy E. Wallace, Jr. and Charles M. Neal in Winchester, Kentucky and Chatanooga, Tennessee. The differences were so wide and the consequences of the doctrine were so destructive to faith that there was little ground left for joint participation. Neal himself left the church.

By the mid-fifties when one of them engaged in debate with me, both recognized the fact that unless there could be a reconciling of teaching there could not be fellowship in body. As this debate was in progress other preachers discussed with the premillennial preachers the matter of fellowship. Perhaps a debate was proposed on that specific topic, but fellowship was not a debatable question then, and is not now. First must be settled the differences in teaching and faith.

Fellowship Between Churches

The scriptural usage of the term fellowship has been abused to apply to relationships between congregations. The idea persists in the minds of some that the congregations are members of the universal body and that there is scriptural fellowship among them. The term as used in the Scriptures applies to relationship of saints one with another, or of a saints relationship to a church. But there is a recognition of one congregation by another to be found in the New Testament. Sometimes this recognition has to do with soundness of faith, as in Jerusalem sending Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11) and Antioch sending men with Paul to Jerusalem /Acts 15/. It involves the recommendation of another church as being worthy of membership of some Christian. It involves recommendation of the preaching and teaching as in special occasions such as gospel meetings. Could a church encourage its members to participate with another congregation in the preaching and practice of error? This is precisely what is involved in the common phraseology, “why we cannot fellowship premillennial churches.” We do not announce the meetings of these premillennial churches because we do not wish to endorse their false

teaching. We do not recommend them to our members who may be moving into that area because we do not want to encourage any saint to participate in the teaching, endorsement and support of false doctrine.

This is not to be compared with the such questions as the bearing. of arms or of the covering. These are questions involving the individual and not the church. The women who believes that she must wear an artificial covering in worship does not make it a test of fellowship with the woman ‘who does not believe it, at least, not to the point of making it ,a church fellowship question. The person who thinks it permissible to bear arms does not make it a church fellowship question. And the person who believes that it is wrong to bear arms does not make it a church fellowship question. If they should go so far as to do so, it would create the same kind of situation which exists with premillennial churches. They do insist that their doctrine must and shall be preached.

The Individual Level

That a person could hold premillennial mews and still be in fellowship with churches where such doctrine is opposed has been the fact in many instances. This was possible because those people did not make it an issue or a test of fellowship. They did not attempt to lead the members into their doctrine, nor impose it upon the church. The very church, which came into being because a group of people were withdrawn from for opposing the doctrine, had within its membership a few who were premillennial in thinking. Some of them actually came from the original premillennial congregation. Then some of these same people, personally known to me, went on to the forming of another church with no question about fellowship. Why could this be possible? They did not make it a necessity that the doctrine be espoused and preached. They held it as a private personal thing. This has been true of a number of other errors. There have been members who could see nothing wrong with the use of an instrument of music in worship, but they did not try to make it a church practice nor to persuade other members into their opinion. There have been many members who have seen nothing wrong with accepting people into the church on their Baptist baptism, but they did not try to make it a churchwide teaching. All three have needed to grow in knowledge of the word and rid themselves of the errors, but because they held their views as private opinions, they retained fellowship with the churches.

Premillennial Churches Cause The Break

This has not been an attempt to show the evils of the, doctrine, because other writers, in these special issues of the paper, have dealt with these subjects. What they have shown is sufficient for us to know that we cannot endorse the churches who promulgate the doctrine and we cannot endorse or support those who teach it. The theory minimizes the importance which the church has in New Testament teaching. It denies the purposes of God and the ability of God and Christ to carry out their purposes. It vitiates the gospel of Christ and substitutes for the hope set before us in the gospel. And they insist that they must preach it.

What the doctrine will do for the faith of people is seen in their compromise with denominations. Not to discuss differences, but in all good will, they exchange pulpits and worship occasions with the denominations in their neighborhoods. For most of their years of separate existence, the churches in Louisville have had Christian Church preachers for meetings and other special occasions. In recent years they have liberalized their view of fellowship so that such men as Carl Ketcherside have been frequent speakers. Two churches known to me have so far departed from their, original moorings that they have gone into fellowship and identity with the Christian Church (one in Louisville and another in Horse Cave, Kentucky).

They, as with Ketcherside, can seek fellowship with the Christian Church and other denominations, but show no inclination toward us. Instead they have antipathy for us. Our stand is too rigid upon the Scriptures for them. They will embrace everybody but us. And we cannot bid them Godspeed in their false teachings and ways, for by so doing we would become partakers of thier evil deeds (2 John 9-11).

Questions

1. What is the basic meaning and the basic doc trine of premillennialism?
2. From whom and where is the origin of troubles in the church over this doctrine?
3. Is it possible to have the scriptural “one body” without unity of faith?
4. Is scriptural fellowship between individuals or is it sometimes between churches?
5. Should a church endorse or recommend another who teaches and practices error?
6. How is it possible to have fellowship with a person who believes error?
7. What does premillennialism do for the faith of those who hold the doctrine?

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 3, pp. 40-42
January 21, 1982

By Weldon E. Warnock

Premillennialists tell us that during the Tribulation (an imaginary seven-year period) God will work among both Jews and Gentiles to save them. J. Dwight Pentecost, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote:

God’s purpose for Israel in the Tribulation is to bring about the conversion of a multitude of Jews, who will enter into the blessings of the kingdom and experience the fulfillment of all Israel’s covenants . . . . It is also God’s purpose to populate the millennium with a multitude of saved Gentiles, who are redeemed through the preaching of the believing remnant (Things To Come, pp. 237-238).

Lewis Sperry Chafter, a staunch premillennialist who founded Dallas Theological Seminary and who is often quoted among those of that persuasion, wrote:

The Scriptures bear testimony to the fact that Israel as a nation is to be saved from her sin and delivered from her enemies by the Messiah when he shall return to the earth . . . . Jehovah will, in connection with the second advent of Christ and as a part of Israel’s salvation, “take away their sins.” This, Jehovah declares, is His covenant with ,them (Rom. 11:27) . . . In Hebrews 10:4 it is stated that it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should “take away” sin, and in Romans 11:27 it is promised that Israel’s sins will yet be taken away . . . . The induction to be drawn from these and other portions of Scripture is that Jehovah will yet in the future, in the briefest portion of time, and as a part of Israel’s salvation, take away their sins (Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, pp. 105-107).

Hal Lindsey, graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and a prolific writer of the millennial mania, states:

As Armageddon being with the invasion of Israel by the Arabs and the Russian confederacy, and their consequent swift destruction, the greatest period of Jewish conversion to their true Messiah will begin (The Late Great Planet Earth, p. 167).

But before the seventh seal is opened, Revelation 7 gives us a parenthetical panorama of the evangelistic activity of the Tribulation period . . . . These evangelists are Jews who may have been witnessed to by some Christians prior to the Rapture; when they discover that all the believers are gone, they turn in faith to Christ to become their Messiah (There’s A New World Coming, p. 112).

As anyone can readily see (except the millennialists) in the preceding declarations and pronouncements, positions have been assumed and plain teachings of the Bible have been contradicted in order to provide a second chance for salvation in the Tribulation. But no second chance is offered in the Bible.

No Second Chance

First of all, there in no second chance because there is no tribulation period in which the opportunity for salvation is provided. The Bible nowhere teaches a seven-year tribulation, called “the Great Tribulation.” Foy E. Wallace said, “If the millennialists can find a passage in the Bible or the Almanac that refers to ‘wrath’ or ‘trouble’ or ‘battle’ they jump to the tribulation; the millennium and Armageddon.” Jesus said, “When the Son of man shall come . . . . then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations” /Matt. 25:31-32). “When” and “then” are adverbs of time and show the judgment will take place at the coming of Christ. This leaves no time for a tribulation.

Second, there is no second chance because the Scriptures show that the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles is through the gospel of Christ – now, in this dispensation. Paul said: ‘ . . . now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2). The theme of the Roman letter is that salvation is through the gospel for all (Jew and Gentile) who believe (Rom. 1:16). Righteousness is through the gospel (Rom. 1:17) which is “by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference” (Rom. 3:22). “For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek . . . . For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom. 10:12-13). Paul stated, “The word is nigh thee . . . (Rom. 10:8). God’s message of salvation is not far off, but is near, ready for those who will accept it. No future, second chance is offered in the gospel.

Third, there is no second chance because the gospel Paul preached is the only hope of Israel. Before king Agrippa Paul stated, “And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews” (Acts 26:6-7). Later, under house arrest in Rome, Paul declared before the chief Jews, “. . . because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain” (Acts 28:20).

The hope Paul preached was not what Israel hoped for. Israel hoped for an earthly Messiah and an earthly kingdom, a false hope. The hope for which true Israel hope was spiritual in nature, coming through the promise to Abraham and realized in Christ through the gospel. This is the hope of Israel! If Paul had preached what Millennialists are preaching, he would not have been bound by a chain, but adored and praised by his fellow-Jews.

Fourth, there is no second chance for the Jews or the Gentiles because conversion must come within the scope of the Great Commission. Jesus said that Great Commission embraces all nations (Matt. 28:18) and every creature (Mk. 16:15). Peter alluded to this at the house of Cornelius and said, “The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:36). Hence, there is no doubt that the Jews are included in the Commission.

But notice that the Great Commission ends with this age when Jesus said “. . . lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20). There are no provisions for another age. We are living in the last days (Acts 2:16-17), the last times (1 Pet. 1:20) and the last hour (ASV) (1 Jn. 2:18). Jesus is speaking to us in the last days (Heb. 1:2), not some future era. He was manifested in these last times (1 Pet. 1:20), not a future time and he is speaking to the dead (spiritually dead) in this last hour (Christian Dispensation) (Jn. 5:25), not some future hour.

Fifth, there is no second chance for the Jews or Gentiles because it would require another covenant as there is no such provision in the present covenant. Salvation is in the present covenant, the New Testament, is through the cross of Christ. “By which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). “And to Jesus the mediator of the New Covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling” (Heb. 12:24). “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20).

However, the cross concerns itself with the church or church age as it was the rejection of the Jews that made the cross possible, according to millennialism. But they inform us the church age will cease when Jesus comes to rapture the church at the beginning of the so-called “Tribulation.” Hence, the cross could not be preached during the Tribulation, but some other provisions must be made for the saving of the Jews and Gentiles. Oswald T. Allis wrote:

It cannot be too strongly emphasized that if the Dispensational doctrine regarding the nature of the promised kingdom and the meaning of the word “at hand” is accepted, it leads logically to the view that the Cross, as an atoning sacrifice for sin, concerns the Church age and the Church saints only. As preached at the first advent it did not include or involve the Cross; as preached at the second advent it will not include or presuppose the Cross. It was the rejection of Jesus by the Jews which made the Cross necessary; and it was this rejection which made the Church age possible. So it is for the Church age and for it alone that the Cross is of supreme importance. Only Church saints can say, “Who love me and gave Himself for me.” This we maintain is logical, thorough going Dispensationalism. We feel obliged to point it out, not because Dispensationalists are thoroughly logical and draw these disastrous conclusions fully and clearly, but because we believe that a doctrine which leads to such conclusions cannot be true (Prophecy and the Church, p. 234).

Furthermore, it was because the first covenant was faulty that the second one was established (Heb. 8:7). But since the millennial theory necessitates still another covenant, the inevitable conclusion is that the second covenant, the New Testament, is also faulty. But James tells us it is perfect (Jas. 1:25) and none other will, therefore, be sought, premillennialists notwithstanding.

Sixth, there is no second chance because there is no probation after Jesus comes the second time. Listen to the apostle Peter: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night . . . . the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2 Pet. 3:9-10). The time to repent is during the period of God’s longsuffering, before Jesus comes again. There is no opportunity to repent after Jesus comes because the earth will be no more. As Foy Wallace said, “That certainly turns the second chance theory, for anybody, Jew or Gentile, into a tail spin.”

Seventh, there is no second chance because God is no respecter of persons. “For there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom. 2:11; cf. 1 Pet. 1:17; Acts 10:34). How can God be impartial by saving those in the Tribulation with a second chance while condemning those who died unsaved prior to the Tribulation?

Eighth, there will be no second chance because the means of conversion will be removed from the earth. Assuming there is a tribulation, there will be no saints on earth to preach the gospel as the church will be raptured and there will be no Holy Spirit present to convict the sinner. Millennialists, by and large, believe in a direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the sinner. But He will be removed according to their interpretation of 2 Thess. 2:7. Allis states:

If the church consists only of those who have been redeemed in the interval between Pentecost and the rapture, and if the entire Church is to be raptured, then there will be no Christians on earth during the period between the rapture and the appearing. Yet during that period 144,000 in Israel and an innumerable multitude from the Gentiles (Rev. vii.) are to be saved. How is this to be brought about, if the Church has been raptured and the Holy Spirit removed from the earth (Ibid., p. 12).

This presents a most difficult problem for the millennialists and so they have had their .imaginations running in all directions in trying to find some plausible answers. Thus far, they have found no biblical solution (and they won’t, either).

Ninth, there is no second chance because when Jesus returns the door of salvation will be shut. In the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13), when the bridegroom came and entered the house, the door was shut (v. 10). The meaning is that when Jesus comes again the door of opportunity of entering His kingdom, the church, will be forever shut.

Tenth, there is no second chance because the passages used by the millennialists to try to prove a second chance have been misapplied. Some of their favorite passages are Jer. 30:7, Joel 2:32 and Rom. 11:26-27 for the Jews and Isa. 2:2; 60:3, 5 and 62:2 for the Gentiles. Revelation 7 is the alleged fulfillment of these proof-texts (?).

But Jeremiah 30:7 means that Jacob (Israel) shall be saved (delivered) out of Babylonian captivity and eventually serve God through a Davidic king (Jesus in the gospel age). Joel 2:32 is quoted by Peter on Pentecost and applied to those on that occasion (Acts 2:16-21). Romans 11:26-27 teaches, in light of the context, that salvation comes to the Jews in the same manner it does to the Gentiles – by gospel obedience. The word “so” is an adverb of manner and means, “in this way or manner shall all Israel be saved.”

As to the salvation of the Gentiles, the Isaiah texts have reference to the blessings afforded the Gentiles through the gospel of Christ. This was first realized at the house of Cornelius (Acts 10).

The seventh chapter of Revelation depicts the church on earth, spiritual Israel (144,000); and the church in heaven, the innumerable host who had served the Lord faithfully through trials and tribulation while on earth. Such is the view of R.H. Charles, Albertus Pieters, Ray Summers and others. The language is symbolic and has no connection with a future salvation of Jews and Gentiles.

In conclusion, there is nothing for the Jews or the Gentiles in the future. The gospel of Christ is final to all men. -today and forever. May we hearken unto it now. “Wherefore, even as the Holy Spirit saith, Today if ye shall hear his voice, Harden not your hearts . . .” (Heb. 3:7-8).

Questions

1. Briefly state what the millennialists have in common, such as Pentecost, Chafer and Lindsey, concerning the subject under discussion.
2. In what period of time is the future salvation of the Jews and Gentiles alleged to take place? How long is the period?
3. According to Lindsey what may turn the Jewish evangelists to Christ?
4. How does Matt. 25:31-32 show that there can be no future period or age for salvation?
5. How do 2 Cor. 6:2 and Rom. 10:8 (under point two) show that there is no second chance?
6. Why would Paul have not been in chains if he had preached what millennialists are preaching?
7. Why cannot the Great Commission (under point four) be preached in the so-called Tribulation?
8. Under the fifth point what made the cross possible? In what age does the cross belong? How would this preclude the preaching of the cross during the Tribulation?
9. How does 2 Pet. 3:9-10 show there can be no second chance?
10. If God provides salvation for many in a future period, how would this indicate that God is a respecter of persons?
11. According to Allis under point eight, why cannot there be conversions to Christ in the Tribulation?
12. How does the parable of the Ten Virgins show there can be no second chance?
13. What does “so all Israel shall be saved” in Rom. 11:26 mean?
14. Who are the 144,000 in Rev. 7?

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 3, pp. 38-40
January 21, 1982

By Larry Ray Hafley

Perhaps you saw the bumper sticker a few years ago which said, “In case of the Rapture, this car will be without a driver.” Regardless, you are at least passingly familiar with the expression, “the Rapture.” The rapture theory is part and parcel of premillennial speculation. It states that before a seven year period called, “the great tribulation,” the saints will be snatched, or the righteous will be raptured from the earth to be with Christ. After this time, Christ will come to the earth with His church and commence His 1,000 year reign in Jerusalem. If you have been content to read your Bible, this is all news to you. Like infant baptism, Christmas, Groundhog Day, and the Pope, the rapture doctrine is not in the word of God.

The Chief Text

The central text used to support and sustain the rapture doctrine is 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18:

But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent /precede/ them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Paul shows that the dead in Christ are not to be sorrowed after like those who have no hope. Some believed that one who died before Christ came would miss the blessings and benefits of His coming. Paul lays that fear to rest. As a matter of fact, the righteous dead will rise first, before the righteous living, to meet the Lord. Paul was not contrasting the righteous dead and the wicked dead.

The chief text to refute the rapture doctrine is 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. See above.

First: The Quiet Coming. Rapturists teach that they will be quietly, mysteriously taken away. Presto, they will become invisible! Actually, the second coming will be quite a noisy affair. Paul says the Lord will “descend… with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God.” Peter says “the heavens shall pass away with a great noise” (2 Peter 3:10/. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” There is no room for a hushed up rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4.

Second: The Two Comings. Those pregnant with visions of rapture expect their deliverance in the first stage of a two-part coming or the first of two comings. Well, whatever. Their idea is that stage number two occurs after the seven years of tribulation when the Lord shall return to set up His kingdom on earth. (Compare that with 1 Cor. 15:24-28/. But the context of 1 Thessalonians 4 is a stubborn thing. Men divided the Bible into chapters and verses, so we often separate areas that are kin to one another. Continue reading into 1 Thessalonians 5.

But of the times and seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you as a thief.

Obviously, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:4 is at least contextually related. Compare the comforting conclusions of 1 Thessalonians 4:18, “Wherefore, comfort one another with these words,” and 1 Thessalonians 5:11, “Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.” So, when the Lord combs and the righteous are “caught up,” at the same time the wicked will be overtaken and destroyed. This is also the teaching of 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10:

Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe because our testimony among you was believed in that day.

God is going to repay tribulation to the troublers. He is going to repay rest (a noun, not a verb) to the troubled. But when? (1) “When the Lord shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them (the sinners)” and (2) “when he shall be glorified in his saints. . . in that day.” (3) “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory” (Col. 3:4). But what about the wicked? They are not in Colossians 3:4. Yes, but they are in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10. (4) Both the righteous and the wicked are in Matthew 16:27. “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” So, when the Lord comes with the angels, then (not later) He shall reward every man knot part, not some/, but “then,” “every man.” There is no sequential, sectional coming; hence, no rapture. Truly, “there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust” (Acts 24:15). Are you amazed, all ye that await your rapture? Well, “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, into the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” Observe that the “shout” of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is the “voice” of John 5:28. Do you see the implications of that conclusion?

Now, place all these cited and related passages together. If you come up with (1) a separate coming of the Lord for the saints only, (2) seven years of. tribulation on earth; (3) another coming of the Lord and the beginning of a 1,000 year reign on earth, then you are reading ideas for -which there are no words of the Lord.

Third: The Duration. The third rupture imagination is seen in its duration. Rapturists say the saints will soar to meet the Lord in the air for seven heavenly years before being hauled back to earth for 1,000 earthly years. That is not what 1 Thessalonians 4 teaches. It says that after the righteous are raised “so shall we ever be with the Lord.” To suit their dream, it should say, “so shall we be for seven years with the Lord.”

As the righteous shall “ever be with the Lord,” so the destruction of the wicked will be unending. The wicked “shall not escape,” and they “shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.” The “everlasting destruction” (2 Thess. 1:9) is equivalent to the “ever be” with the Lord (1 Thess. 4:17). The destruction, like the deliverance, is final, total, eternal. “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal” (Matt. 25:41).

Fourth: The Visible Coming. The wicked will not see the Lord when He comes to rapture the righteous, or so say the premillennialists. How do we account for this blatant blindness? We are told that the Lord is coming for His saints (the rapture) and then He will come with His saints (the second coming. The first time He will not be seen or manifested, but He will be seen the second time. No such distinction is taught in the New Testament. Both the “alive and the dead” will be judged “at his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:1). Both the wicked and the righteous will see Jesus when He comes. “When he shall appear, ” the righteous will see Him (Col. 3:4; 1 Pet. 5:4; 1 Jn. 2:28; 3:2). “When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven,” the wicked will see Him, or else the word “revealed” means concealed.

“Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye (not just the righteous) shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him” (Rev. 1:7). All will see the Lord when He comes “with clouds.” The righteous will meet Him “in the clouds” (1 Thess. 4:17). He shall come back as He went, i.e., visibly with clouds (Acts 1:9-11; 1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 1:7), and “every eye shall see him.”

Conclusion

The rapture doctrine is a delusion. It is a large part of the fabric of premillennial sewing, but there is not even a stitch of it in the testimony of the Lord. If the hope of the rapture is so prevalent and prominent in the Present premillennial preaching, why is it not frequently and fervently advocated and demonstrated in the word of God?

Questions

1. What is the chief text used to support the rapture doctrine?
2. What was Paul’s point in 1 Thess. 4:13-18?
3. According to the rapture doctrine, how long are the saints to be with the Lord?
4. How long are the saints to be with the Lord according to 1 Thess. 4?
5. What is the significance of the “voice” of jn. 5:28 and the “shout” of 1 Thess. 4:16 as it pertains to the rapture theory?
6. When the righteous are glorified, what will happen to the wicked? Will they: (1) Be given a second chance? (2) Be left in their graves? (3) Be raised, judged and condemned? (4) None of the above.
7. Will there be any noise when the Lord comes for His saints? Cite passages.
8. Will Christ’s kingdom be set up when He returns? See 1 Cor. 15:24-28.
9. How many people will see the Lord when He comes again?
10. What is the significance of “clouds” with respect to the rapture doctrine in such passages as Acts 1:9-11; 1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 1:7?

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 3, pp. 35-37
January 21, 1982

By Jack L. Holt

The heart and core of the dispensational theory is that Christ came to earth to restore the physical kingdom of David to Israel. But since Israel did not accept Him as King, He was frustrated in this mission. This “unforeseen” event caused the Old Testament prophecies to be postponed. Further, the church was set up as an interim arrangement until Christ comes again. At His second coming Christ will set up His kingdom and reign on David’s throne in earthly Jerusalem for a literal thousand years.

The dispensational (premillennial) theory should be seen for what it really is. It is not just harmless speculation about “unfulfilled prophecy,” but is rank unbelief. This “harmless theory” voids the true mission of Christ to the world and makes the death of Christ an accident. One way to prove this whole theory is false is to show from the Scriptures that the mission of Christ was spiritual. And in fulfilling this mission the cross was not accidental but a just moral necessity (Rom. 3:24-26).

“Why did my Savior come to earth and to the humble go?” Here is a trustworthy statement about His mission: “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15). In 1 John 4:14 it is declared, “And we have seen and do testify that the Father hath sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.” Further, “Ye know He was manifested to take away sins” (1 John 3:5). The Hebrew writer tells us “He appeared to take away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Heb. 9:26). Now did Jesus come to set up a material kingdom or to die for the sins of the world?

The salvation of man from sin is possible only because a sacrifice for sin has been made. Jesus came “not to be ministered unto, but to minister (not reign as an earthly king, JLH) and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). Paul didn’t think the death of Christ was an accident. He wrote, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). If His death was according to the Scriptures how was it an accident? Peter said, “He was delivered according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). As Jesus approached the cross He said, “The Son of man must go as it is written of Him” (Matt. 26:24). But the dispensationalist makes the “must” an accident.

Isaiah spoke of the suffering and vicarious death of Jesus in chapter fifty-three. In Acts 8, we see the Ethiopian eunuch reading and reflecting on this chapter when Philip joined him. When the eunuch wanted guidance, Philip began at the same Scripture and preached unto him Jesus. Philip found Jesus, not national Israel in Isaiah 53. Jesus, His mission, His sufferings and death, are in the Old Testament. In an effort to escape the New Testament interpretation of Isaiah 53, some seek to apply the chapter to the nation of Israel. There are three reasons why this chapter cannot apply to national Israel.

First, the chapter tells us of one who voluntarily suffered. This was never true of Israel. They didn’t volunteer to go into captivity. Second, the one who suffers in this chapter is innocent. This is not true of a nation, nor of any mere man. “All we like sheep have gone astray,” but He didn’t. The New Testament writers apply the passage to Jesus (1 Pet. 2:22ff; Lk. 22:37; Heb. 9:28) Third, the one who suffers in this chapter suffers for the sins of others. It is not only voluntary suffering, but vicarious suffering. The nation of Israel never suffered for the sins of the world. When you read Isaiah 53, you come face to face with Jesus. The message of that chapter is the Gospel message of the spiritual mission of Christ.

In revealing the purpose of His coming Jesus said, “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me” (John 6:38). In doing God’s will, Jesus came to earth not to set up an earthly kingdom, but to die for our sins. Paul pictures the journey of Christ to earth in Phil. 2:5-9. Jesus was in the form of God, (v. 5) but He didn’t cling to that. He voluntarily emptied Himself of the glories of heaven (v. 7; John 17:4-5) and took upon Himself the form of a servant and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross (v. 8). This death, far from being an accident, was involved in the incarnation itself and was involved in the will of God (Heb. 10:5-10).

Before Jesus left heaven, He knew the cross was at the end of the road (Heb. 12:2 – check Vincents Word Studies here). Paul said, “Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty (not through His reigning as an earthly, king) ye might be rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). The riches of the kingdom of Christ are spiritual.

Jesus knew the redemption could be won only by the way of the cross. In the temptation He rejected “the easy way,” to gain the kingdoms of the world as offered by the devil (Matt. 4:8-10). In the garden, as He faced the agonizing death of the cross, He prayed that the will of God that He came to do would be done (Matt. 26:39). His going to the cross was not the surrender to fate by a helpless, frustrated victim but the voluntary sacrifice of one whose soul was strong and who loves us all with a “love divine all love excelling.” The cry from the cross, “It is finished,” was not the cry of a helpless victim, but the cry of the greatest victor the world has ever known.

The death of Jesus differed from the death of all other men. “He dismissed His spirit” (Matt. 27:50). He chose the moment of His death. His death was completely voluntary. “No man taketh (my life) from me, but I lay it down of myself” (John 10:18; Phil. 2:5-7): Death was not forced upon Him, for He had control of all events. He could also have raised Himself from the dead.

Jesus was not afraid to die. He had powers at His disposal that He could have used to escape death (Matt. 26:53). But had He escaped death the question comes, “How then could the Scripture be fulfilled that thus it must be?” (Matt. 26:54). Here and in other verses you have the Divine Imperatives. It is not, “Well, I guess I’ll go to the cross since this is the way the Jews want it,” but this is the way it must be. (Check these “Divine Musts,” Matt. 16:21; Mk. 9:31; 14:49; Lk. 9:22; 17:25; 24:7; John 12:34; 20:9; Acts 17:3; Heb. 9:16).

To say that Jesus formed the purpose of dying for man after opposition to Him arose among the Jews is just a futile attempt to evade the plain statements of the Scriptures.

In Lk. 24:24-27, Jesus said, “. . . O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” Jesus said the Scriptures are about Me, about My suffering and death. Why be so slow to believe them? The dispensationalists are not slow to believe them, they don’t believe them at all! Why did Jesus put an “ought not Christ to have suffered these things,” if it were all an accident?

In v. 26, Jesus said He was to suffer these things and enter into His glory. When Christ entered into His glory, He received the kingdom. Put two scriptures together, “Grant that my two sons may sit . . . in thy kingdom” (Matt. 20:20-21). Then, “Grant that we may sit . . . in thy glory” (Mk. 10:35-37). When Christ entered into His glory, He received the kingdom. But He must suffer and die to enter into His glory. Without the sufferings and death of Christ there could be no kingdom or glory. There must be first the cross, then the crown (cf. 1 Tim., 3:16; Heb. 2:9). Now since you can’t have the kingdom without the cross, if the cross was an accident, was the kingdom also an accident?

Jesus was not a helpless victim of Jewish unbelief. Neither was He a helpless martyr for His ideals who was swept along by the current to the cross. He was in complete control of all things every step of the way to the cross. Nothing could be done by man to hinder or thwart the divine mission. Jesus lived by. God’s will and in keeping with His time and every event had its hour. “Known unto God are all His works from the beginning” (Acts 15:18).

The Scriptures clearly teach that the mission of Christ was spiritual. He came to die on the cross to save a lost world not to restore the national kingdom to Israel. That fact proves dispensationaIism is false to the core. The whole dispensational program is materialistic, unscriptural and those who accept it are guilty of unbelief. The people of God should not glory in some materialistic hope. With Paul let us say, “God forbid that we should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 3, pp, 34-35
January 21, 1982