Questions Concerning the Second Coming
Sep 10th, 2007 by Nathan White
Though this blog has been sort of quiet the last few weeks, I have been getting a considerable amount of feedback from a number of people concerning my posts on Eschatology. Instead of responding directly or re-posting all of my writings on this subject, today I’m just going to leave it at a few basic questions that are sure to point you in the Biblical direction.
A few weeks ago my wife came home from a women’s bible study at the church we are currently attending (and about to join) and enthusiastically wanted to talk to me about some of the things they discussed. They are currently studying the second coming of Christ, and the teacher had started the study by posting a few questions to ponder, with more discussion to follow in the weeks to come. My wife wanted to go through each question with me, but before I conceded I asked her, “What position do you hold?” She looked up and said, “I don’t know, but I definitely know that I am not a premillennialist.”
It is my hope that you too will consider the questions below and the scriptural ramifications of each one. Essentially, these questions ‘cut to the chase’, and leave behind all of the story-book interpretations of Revelation 20 (Left Behind), the symbolic nature of the book of Revelation, the traditions of men and denominations, the adherence to the teachings of a favorite preacher over the Word of God, and the highly-contradictory exclamations of taking things ‘literaly’. If you are interested in the truth, these questions will lead you to it. If you are not, then these questions will probably frustrate you, as they will expose the holes that are in every man-made system of eschatology.
- How many peoples of God are there? That is, does God have two different plans for two different groups of people? Do not the scriptures teach of one bride, one flock, one church, one faith? What do the scriptures say? (Not the systems)
- How many Second Comings of Christ will there be? Do the scriptures teach of one final Day, one final trumpet, one appearing of our Lord, or is there more than one of each of these? What do the scriptures say? (Not the systems)
- How many resurrections will there be? When the scriptures teach of the resurrection, do they speak of multiple resurrections taking place at multiple points in history? What do the scriptures say? (Not the systems)
- How many judgments will there be? When the scriptures teach of the judgment, do they speak of multiple judgments taking place at multiple points in history? What do the scriptures say? (Not the systems)
- Will Christ return at the last trumpet on the last hour of the last Day of this present age, or will He return 1,000 years before the last hour of the last Day of this present age? (In other words, does Scripture teach that Christ’s return will inaugurate the age that is to come, or will it inaugurate the final era of this present age?) What do the scriptures say? (Not the systems)
- Will physical birth and physical death continue to occur after Christ’s Second Coming? Will physical life, death, and creation as we know it continue after the appearance of Christ in the clouds? (Don’t you think I Cor. 15 would deal with this (24-26)? What do the scriptures say? (Not the systems)
- Can men be savingly converted after Christ’s Second Coming? What do the scriptures say? (Not the systems)
My friends, if you look to the plain, literal, clear, precise teaching of the New Testament on these matters, and for the moment lay aside the tough language of Old Testament prophecies and tough symbolic language of Revelation 20, you will no doubt see the truth of God’s Word in the matter. Then, when you go back to the tough passages, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened by the proper perspective, the truth will be as plain as day. I trust you will do so, and find these ‘cut to the chase’ questions (which did not originate with me) to be a blessing in your own life as you try to sort through the plethora of teaching out there on the end times.
Nathan,
As someone who has recently deserted premillenialiism and a pre-trib rapture position, I am still struggling with how to explain these things to my premil friends. My bible study group did a study on the book of Daniel by Beth Moore and she taught the dispensational, premil, pretrib rapture, God’s not done with Israel package. I attempted to show the rest of the women in the group where I thought she was wrong (assisted by a fantastic critique of dispensationalsim by Pastor Grover Gunn). Now my best friend is doing this same study. She is, I think, a little less willing to listen to me because her father, whom she deeply respects on biblical things, thinks the way Beth Moore does. Do you have scripture you could supply to go with the answers to the above questions, or some more resources you could suggest for me to present to her on this issue?
Excellent post. My pastor pointed me to your blog for this particular post. I’ve bookmarked your site. Also, I’d like to lift these questions to post on a group blog in which I participate (mdpmusings.blogspot.com - aka “bluecollar”). I’ll give your blog credit and point others here as well. The pastor (or other person) who came up with those questions was insightful; I have heard them them asked in other ways and separate times. They are impactful when grouped together.
Lastly, will you indulge me an off-topic question? What’s the signficance or reason for Montmartre in your blog’s banner? (Having been a student and employee in France many moons ago, it caught my eye.)
Hannah said: Do you have scripture you could supply to go with the answers to the above questions, or some more resources you could suggest for me to present to her on this issue?
Great question. First, I hear you about Beth Moore. She is very popular, and I know a lot of people who enjoy her stuff. Personally, I find some very troubling things with her teachings, but we’ll leave that at that.
Secondly, I am going to answer each one of these questions in future posts, taking one at a time, so hopefully those will prove to be some help to you, whenever it is that they end up getting posted.
Regarding resources, here are a few:
-An old post of mine which will get you started on some of the stuff I’ve written before: Eschatology: How we got here.
-The Eschatology page at Monergism.com is extremely good. This will give you all you need.
-Some excellent books on the subject: The Momentous Event by W.J. Grier (this one is the best I have ever read, as it is very short and concise); The End Times Made Simple, By Sam Waldron; and regarding Dispensationalism (Israel/church): Dispensationalism -Rightly Dividing the People of God? By Keith A. Mathison.
And, regarding some scripture, I’d encourage you to try and answer the questions of this post from these passages clearly teach: Matt 12:41-42; John 5:29; John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; Matt 13:30, 40-43, 49-50; Matt 16:27; Matt 25:9-10, 14-30, 32-33; Luke 19:11-27; 1 Thess 5:2-4; 2 Thess 1:5-10
I hope that helps. Feel free to shoot me an email if you’d like some of my notes on this subject or if you have any specific questions.
Susan said: What’s the signficance or reason for Montmartre in your blog’s banner?
Hi Susan. Glad you found the questions helpful. The Montmartre in one of the banners is simply by coincidence. I grabbed all the ’sheep’ or ‘flock’ pictures I could find and put them up for the ’shepherd the flock’ affect.
–
SDG
Nathan writes, “for the moment lay aside the tough language of Old Testament prophecies and tough symbolic language of Revelation 20, you will no doubt see the truth of God’s Word in the matter.”
While your questions are good ones, I must say that the above line is disturbing. I suppose I could prove any theology by convincing my audience to neglect all passages that run counter to it. Is this really “the plain, literal, clear, precise teaching of the New Testament” that you make it?
Jonathan said: While your questions are good ones, I must say that the above line is disturbing. I suppose I could prove any theology by convincing my audience to neglect all passages that run counter to it. Is this really “the plain, literal, clear, precise teaching of the New Testament” that you make it?
Hi Jonathan,
No, you’ve misunderstood me. I certainly didn’t mean to say that we “neglect all passages that run counter to it”! God-forbid that we fail to test our theology against every single text of scripture!
Instead, I am encouraging my readers to start with the plain texts such as the gospels and the epistles, before they jump in and try to tackle the symbolic ones. This is built on a few assumptions that you’d probably agree with:
-Scripture interprets scripture. Many texts are easier to understand than others, and thus they shed light on the passages that are harder to understand.
-Scripture does not contradict itself. If a truth is taught in one place, a contradicting truth will not be taught elsewhere.
Thus, I’m encouraging my readers to use contextual exegesis (considering the immediate context) of any and all of the passages in the Gospels and Epistles which discuss Eschatology (the questions above), before they tackle the tougher passages like Revelation 20 (dragons, chains, pits, souls, etc.). Clearly, I believe that the Gospels and the Epistles teach a position that is contradictory to the premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20, not compatible with it.
Nevertheless, the questions were not posed with the understanding that any attempt to answer them must be limited to the Gospels and Epistles. Clearly, I believe that they can be answered in the right using any and all of scripture. I did, however, make special note to exclude ’systems’, for the dispensational/premillennial position will come out as more of a system, in my opinion, if we allow assumptions to enter our thinking. To give one example (not specifically related to my questions): Premillennialists believe that glorified people will be walking around earth with other mortals during ‘the thousand years’. Nowhere is this explicitly taught in scripture, but it rather comes about from implicit assumptions given their interpretation of Revelation 20. This by itself doesn’t make it wrong, but it does if there is some other explicit teaching which is incompatible with this assumption.
So, it is my desire that we lay aside assumptions from the texts, for the moment, and examine what scripture explicitly says. Once we know what it explicitly says, we are in better position to fill in the assumptions and the tougher, more symbolic texts.
Clearly, the scriptures always speak of the resurrection and judgment of both the just/unjust as taking place at the same time, on the same day, at the same trumpet so to speak. Splitting these up based upon assumptions, rather than explicit exegesis, is what I am trying to avoid.
–
SDG,
Nathan
Excellent post. I think you are proposing a good way to begin to understand a complicated doctrine.
Nathan, thank you for your lengthy reply. I do understand your concern to let the clear passages interpret the less clear, but you have severely prejudiced the outcome of the investigation by determining what is clear (to you) and what is not. For example, to eliminate all Old Testament prophecies from the initial discussion does not qualify as actually letting Scripture interpret Scripture. As I said before, you can influence someone to believe virtually anything by this approach.
If I may mention one more point, your claim to the “plain, literal, clear, precise teaching” of Scripture has in times past been the trump card of the dispy premills. The progressive dispys have done a great job showing that this is fallacious. What is plain, literal, clear, precise, or normal to one person may not be that to another. This is why good and godly men and women disagree.
Jonathan said: you have severely prejudiced the outcome of the investigation by determining what is clear (to you) and what is not.
No, you misconstrue my intentions. It is not about what is clear to me, it is about going to passages that use plainer language. Everyone here would agree that interpreting the book of Revelation is not on the same level as interpreting the book of 2 Thessalonians, for example. One book is very symbolic, and one is very conversational to even the most unlearned of readers.
Jonathan said: to eliminate all Old Testament prophecies from the initial discussion does not qualify as actually letting Scripture interpret Scripture. As I said before, you can influence someone to believe virtually anything by this approach.
No, again you misunderstand; forgive me for not being more clear (despite my many words): I am not eliminating all OT prophecies at all. By all means, answer the questions using the OT! I am simply encouraging the layperson to start with the gospels and epistles because they are very simple and forthright in their language. Look, we don’t relay on the Old Testament to teach us the doctrine of justification by faith (though it can be found in there), instead we rely on plain and clear New Testament epistles, and let those shed light on the OT passages. I am simply advocating the same thing when it comes to this area of theology. Also, I believe in progressive revelation to a certain extent, in that the New Testament sheds light on the Old Testament. That is, it would be foolish to start with the types and shadows and letting those interpret the reality, rather than going to the reality as declared in straightforward language. Same with eschatology, IMHO. Let us go to Paul’s instruction to the churches (the Thessalonians for example) and let his simply language shed light on the tougher, more symbolic passages.
Jonathan said: your claim to the “plain, literal, clear, precise teaching” of Scripture has in times past been the trump card of the dispy premills. The progressive dispys have done a great job showing that this is fallacious. What is plain, literal, clear, precise, or normal to one person may not be that to another. This is why good and godly men and women disagree
I completely agree. In fact, I posted on this subject just a few weeks ago, found here: http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/08/15/what-is-a-literal-interpretation-of-scripture/
Lastly, just to give you some background, check out these posts of mine:
http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/06/18/what-premillennialism-demands/
http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/10/the-final-resurrection-of-premillennialism/
In those (especially the one on the final resurrection) you can get a better idea of what I mean when I say that some tenets of premillennial interpretations of Revelation 20 go directly against and contradict the contextual exegesis of other NT passages, which are surprisingly less symbolic than that of dragons, chains, bottomless pits, keys, souls, etc.
Thank you for the comments and the challenge!
–
Nathan
Nathan,
Thanks for providing links to your previous posts. I find the post regarding “what is a literal interpretation” particularly informative.
Are you familiar with RC Sproul’s “The Last Days According to Jesus”? In it, Sproul notes that to interpret the Bible ‘literally’ in the classical sense requires that we learn to recognize in Scripture different genres of literature. Poetry as poetry, parable as parable, etc.
Sproul points out that part of the confusion concerning biblical interpretation stems from contemporary usage of the term ‘literal,’ which today usually refers to a plain sense of a word, whereas historically it referred to interpretation of text according to genre.
Likewise, in Kim Riddlebarger’s book titled “A Case for Amillenialism,” he addresses the difference between a literal or literalistic interpretation. Riddlebarger suggests that dispensationalist interpret literalistically – downplaying how OT passages are interpreted by authors of the NT. Riddlebarger has a pretty good section, I think, of examples where classic dispensationalism interprets some passages disregarding analogy of faith (Scripture interpreting Scripture).
Anyway, I think you provided some good Scriptural texts for examination and food for thought in your post. The comments section looks good as well. I’ve printed it all out to reread and think about.
Great discussion! Good questions, Jonathan. Excellent responses, Nathan.
But, but, but, if I can’t use obscure texts and have to use clear ones, I can’t make up my own mind as to there meaning.
Susan,
Yes, I have read both Sproul’s ‘Last Days According to Jesus’ and Riddlebarger’s ‘Amillennialism’. I would recommend Riddlebarger over Sproul, however, as I do not agree with Sproul’s preterism. I will say, however, that Sproul’s book is a good one, and I gleaned many things from his wonderful research.
I must say that, personally, I cannot stress enough how good ‘The Momentous Event’ by W.J. Grier was. It is very short and concise, and best of all, cheap! Here is Amazon’s price at 6.99. Check out those reviews.
I pray that no matter what position my readers hold, that they would at least read some quality stuff like Grier’s treatment before they speak out for their particular view.
You don’t need to twist my arm to buy a book.
But don’t tempt me again with an amazon link and a good price.
I need to flee temptation.
This time, I succumbed.
Here I was thinking you had succeeded in driving off all your pre-mil readers, Nathan.
But now a nice conversation has started. Very good points above concerning how to let Scripture interpret Scripture, and the importance of recognizing different styles/genres of writing in the texts.
Nathan, I posted this over at Bluecollar, so I’ll paste it here too: The basic issue I see with Nathan’s approach is that he is prima facie eliminating large swaths of Scripture from the initial discussion because he believes they are unclear. Nathan writes, “I think all would agree that the clearer texts shed light on the more symbolic texts –and that is the only thing I am advocating.” Yes, but it just so happens that those Scriptural references are not believed to be unclear or symbolic by those who object to his view. Hence, my disagreement over his use of language such as “plain, literal, clear, precise” to describe passages that he perceives to be such (which is subsequently agreed over). How can we “lay aside” the OT prophecies from the initial discussion when they are the very foundation of the NT? Perhaps the better approach would be to go to the texts that are foundational to each system instead of saying which one’s are off limits for the preliminary discussion. I think I might get the same response from you if I told you from the outset of our debate which passages you were allowed to use and which one’s you were not, which passages were clear and which ones were not.
Taking a step back, I think this really illustrates the point that the relationship of the testaments is a major issue between our systems.
Jonathan,
I appreciate the thought you have put into this, but I do feel that you are slightly misrepresenting me (though not intentionally), and that I am repeating myself. Let me briefly address your statements:
You said: The basic issue I see with Nathan’s approach is that he is prima facie eliminating large swaths of Scripture from the initial discussion because he believes they are unclear.
My intention is to encourage the layperson, who is not well-versed in the Greek language, biblical interpretation, etc., to start with gospels and epistles before moving onto the OT and Revelation. Ignore my advice if you like; it is a personal recommendation, not a rule of engagement concerning this subject. Have I ever said otherwise?
You said: it just so happens that those Scriptural references are not believed to be unclear or symbolic by those who object to his view.
That is fine; I don’t consider them to be unclear either. Symbolic, well, yes, when I read Revelation, I see ample amounts of symbolism, even in the all-important Revelation 20 (dragons, bottomless pits, chains, keys, etc.), I’m sure you’d agree.
You said: Hence, my disagreement over his use of language such as “plain, literal, clear, precise” to describe passages that he perceives to be such (which is subsequently agreed over).
Let’s not try to define literal at this time. Let me simple say once again that I believe the gospels and the epistles were written in much more simple language, say, then the book or Revelation. That’s all I’m saying; feel free to disagree, as this is not a breaking point in the discussion.
You said: How can we “lay aside” the OT prophecies from the initial discussion when they are the very foundation of the NT?
I am not going to address this specifically, but I hope you understand that this is a presupposition that readers may or may not agree with (at least in extent). If I say “I believe that the New Testament sheds light on and explains the true meaning of the Old Testament (for example, Malachi 4:5)”, then that likewise would be my unproven presupposition that would color this discussion. Maybe this presupposition colored my questions, or maybe not. But my intention in encouraging lay readers to first bypass the OT stuff when starting out is so to avoid reading these NT passages with unproven, OT presuppositions firmly in mind.
You said: I think I might get the same response from you if I told you from the outset of our debate which passages you were allowed to use and which one’s you were not, which passages were clear and which ones were not.
I certainly feel that you are putting words in my mouth and then tearing me apart for what I really didn’t say. Where did I say ‘allowed’ to use, not ‘allowed’ to use? I thought I clarified by saying that every scripture is open to the questions. However, you’ve got me on the ‘clear’ point, as I (and probably most) don’t believe that a verse by verse exegesis of Revelation is as ‘clear’ or ‘easy to understand’ as a verse by verse exegesis of 1 Cor chapter 15.
Jonathan, in my post I said: If you are interested in the truth, these questions will lead you to it. If you are not, then these questions will probably frustrate you, as they will expose the holes that are in every man-made system of eschatology.
Personally, and I mean this in all love towards my premillennial brothers in Christ, many of who are far more-learned than myself in both faith and practice, I believe that anytime the teachings of the gospels and epistles are closely looked at, the premillennialist gets really nervous. Admittedly, if one starts with the gospels and epistles, they will know nothing of some supposed earthly millennium in which Christ is present here with glorified believers. This concept is read (and forced) back into the gospels and epistles, not from exegesis of those texts, but by an erroneous interpretation of Revelation 20 and making that fit where nothing of the sort is explicitly taught. Honestly, how many ‘last’ trumpets, ‘appearings of our Lord’, ‘judgements’, ‘resurrections’, and ‘Days of the Lord’ are there? We can say, ‘well, since there is a 1000year golden age in here, we got to make it fit’; or we can go with what texts like Matt 12:41-42; John 5:29; John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; Matt 13:30, 40-43, 49-50; Matt 16:27; Matt 25:9-10, 14-30, 32-33; Luke 19:11-27; 1 Thess 5:2-4; 2 Thess 1:5-10; etc., appear to say at face value. Contextual exegesis of these passages contradicts the premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20; it does not support it. And that, my brothers, is probably where the breaking point is between where we agree and where we don’t
Nathan writes, “my intention in encouraging lay readers to first bypass the OT stuff when starting out is so to avoid reading these NT passages with unproven, OT presuppositions firmly in mind.”
Bingo! This one statement really gets at the heart of the matter. As I said in my previous comment, the relationship of the testaments is key. Nathan, thank you for a great discussion. I have the utmost respect for you and your eschatological position. The greatest heroes of the faith are of your perspective, but I humbly disagree. Warm regards,
Thank you for the kind words; I trust that this was a fruitful discussion all the way around.
Note, however, that I didn’t disagree with your presupposition regarding the OT; I was simply noting that OT presuppositions can and often do color the position.
Thus, read the OT all you want! Just make sure your presuppositions on that portion of scripture are accurate. Whether or not that is really the ‘key’ to this discussion, I would probably disagree with, but it can sway opinion, no doubt.
What does the scripture explicitly say, rather than what many believe it implicitly says…is what I purposed all along to communicate.