Futurist Posttribulational
Interpretation
[John F. Walvoord,
President and Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological
Seminary, Editor, Bibliotheca Sacra.]
With the emergence of premillennialism in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a relatively new view of
posttribulationism was advanced which can be called the futurist
view. In contrast to posttribulationism which characterized
amillennialism and the Protestant Reformers who considered
themselves already in the tribulation, the new view contended that
the last seven years of Daniel’s prophecy of Israel’s program
revealed in Daniel 9:24-27 should be considered as still future. In
harmony with this position, it was often also contended that
Revelation 4-18 describes a future rather than an historic
situation. The leading twentieth-century exponent of the futurist
view is George E. Ladd who sets forth his position in his work
The Blessed Hope, published in 1956.
The Premises of Futurist
Posttribulationism
As illustrated in Ladd, futurist
posttribulationism is built on the premise of premillenialism. He
states, “One thing should be emphasized: the author would affirm his
belief in the personal, premillennial second advent of Jesus Christ.
He is looking for His coming; it is his Blessed Hope.”[1]
George E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956), p. 13.
In adopting premillennialism, Ladd also holds to
a futurist view of the Book of Revelation. Although he deviates in
some minor respects from the futurist view of that book, in general
he follows the concept that there is yet ahead a seven-year period
climaxing in a great tribulation which will fulfill literally the
prophecies of the Old and New Testaments that describe this time of
trouble immediately preceding the second coming of Christ. In taking
this interpretation, Ladd assumes the authority and accuracy of
prophecy and usually interprets it literally, although there are
some notable exceptions to this rule.
The premises of Ladd’s position, accordingly,
require him to turn away from historic amillennialism as held by
Augustine and later embraced by the Protestant Reformers. Ladd
offers a relatively new view of posttribulationism which differs in
major aspects from that held by the early church as well as by the
Reformed theology. His major point of agreement with them, however,
is that he places the rapture as occurring at the second coming of
Christ after the time of tribulation.
In rejecting pretribulationism, Ladd also
rejects dispensational interpretation although he distinguishes
Israel from the church in some passages. In others he rejects a
distinction, holding that promises given to Israel in the Old
Testament should be interpreted as having a dual fulfillment, that
is, fulfilled both in the church and in Israel. Ladd recognizes that
dispensationalism naturally leads to pretribulationism, and
therefore he devotes a chapter to a refutation of dispensationalism.
In general, his arguments for posttribulationism
are well presented in a persuasive way, and he attempts to avoid any
unfair or discourteous treatment of those with whom he disagrees.
His approach is that pretribulationism is a new doctrine not
advanced until the early nineteenth century, in contrast to
posttribulationism which is the traditional and historic position of
the church.
The Historical Argument for
Posttribulationism
As pointed out in an earlier review of Ladd’s
The Blessed Hope,[2]
John F. Walvoord, “A Review of The Blessed Hope by George E.
Ladd,” Bibliotheca Sacra 113 (October 1956): 289-307. Some of
this previously published material is adapted and used in this
article. the first third of his book is devoted to the
historical argument for posttribulationism., although the work is
introduced as “A Biblical Study of The Second Advent and The
Rapture.” Ladd himself says, “Let it be at once emphasized that we
are not turning to the church fathers to find authority for either
pre-or posttribulationism. The one authority is the Word of God, and
we are not confined in the strait-jacket of tradition.”[3]
Ladd, The Blessed Hope, p. 19. theology. While many
seem to be specifically premillennial, a difficult matter like
pretribulationism could not be settled in a context where they
erroneously believed they were already in the great tribulation. The
early premillennialism of the first two centuries was soon engulfed
by the amillennialism which arose in the third and fourth centuries.
Amillennialism with its spiritualization of prophecy provided no
basis for considering a matter like pretribulationism. It was not
until the Protestant Reformation that the authority of Scripture and
the imminency of Christ’s return were once again firmly recognized.
It was not until premillennialism became a major factor in the
church in the nineteenth century that pretribulationism could even
be considered.
The often-repeated charge that Darby secured his
pretribulationism from Edward Irving has never been actually
documented although they arose about the same time. One can hardly
account for the wide acceptance of pretribulationism by Plymouth
Brethren, who were devoted students of the Bible, to the offering of
this view by a person who had no reputation for orthodoxy. A more
cogent explanation is that pretribulationism arose as a refinement
of premillennialism based on literal interpretation of prophecy
which made it difficult to harmonize the doctrine of the rapture
with the second coming of Christ to set up His kingdom. Most
pretribulationists obviously base their views on the Bible, not on
the historic background of the doctrine.
In his treatment of the history of the doctrine,
Ladd is right in pointing out that pretribulationism was not the
unanimous position of premillennialism in the nineteenth century.
Much of his chapter dealing with the history of pretribulationism
recounts those who abandoned pretribulationism for
posttribulationism, with the implication that pretribulationism does
not stand up to careful study. However, what this proves is that the
pretribulationists did not know why they were pretribulationists.
The argument that there was a broad trend away from
pretribulationism is refuted by Ladd’s own admission that
pretribulationism has wide acceptance and current vitality as a
doctrine. Undoubtedly, there are conversions both ways. If
pretribulationism was not known until 1825, certainly there must be
some doctrinal basis for its widespread acceptance at the present
time.
On the basis of the documentation which Ladd
offers, he concludes that the early church was posttribulational,
that pretribulationism arose in the nineteenth century, and that
some who accepted pretribulationism later departed from it. His
conclusion that, therefore, pretribulationism is unscriptural
remains the question.
The Argument from Vocabulary of
the Blessed Hope
In chapter three of his presentation, Ladd takes
the position that the three Greek words for the rapture, coming
or presence (παρούσια),
appearing (ἐπιφάνεια), and
revelation (ἀποκάλυψις), are
technical words that must refer to one event only, that is, the
second coming after the tribulation. This is a broad assumption
which is faulty in hermeneutics as well as in exegesis, and is an
error that is sometimes held also by pretribulationists. The basic
rule for the interpretation of any word in the Bible must be its
context. Obviously, words like coming, appearing, and
revelation are not in themselves technical words, and if they
are used in a technical sense in the Bible it must be sustained by
an examination of every reference.
Some pretribulationists have attempted to
identify some of these terms with the rapture and others with the
second coming. Most expositors, whether pretribulational or
posttribulational, however, hold that these words are not technical
words in themselves and must be interpreted by the context in which
they appear. If the first coming and the second coming of Christ
were both referred to as “comings,” it would not prove that the two
comings were the same coming. Likewise, the use of the same terms
for the rapture and the second coming do not make them the same
event. These words are general words and Ladd’s entire chapter three
begs the question, that is, it assumes what he is trying to prove.
If the Scriptures were attempting to present a pretribulation
rapture, how else could they do it without using the same words?
The argument on terminology is continued in
chapter four where he deals with the subject “The Tribulation, the
Rapture, and the Resurrection.” The argument here turns on the lack
of reference to the rapture in important passages dealing with the
second coming of Christ. He discusses Matthew 24:4-14; 2
Thessalonians 2; and Revelation 8-16 . He concludes:
Our survey of these three great passages which set
forth the coming of Antichrist and the Great Tribulation shows
clearly that none of them asserts that the Church is to be raptured
at the beginning of the Tribulation. When such a doctrine is
attributed to these Scriptures, it is an inference and not the
assertion of the Word of God.[5]
Ladd, The Blessed Hope, p. 77.
One wonders how such an argument can be offered
soberly because it is so obviously based on an illogical premise.
Two of the three passages are admittedly dealing with the second
coming of Christ after the tribulation. The fact is that they do not
talk about the rapture at all because no rapture occurs in
connection with it. Second Thessalonians 2 deals with the rapture in
verse one and with the second coming in verse eight , but this does
not make them the same event. The problem is Ladd’s, not that of the
pretribulationist. The silence about the rapture in two of the
passages points to the conclusion that the rapture does not occur at
the second coming.
The fact is that none of the passages dealing
with Christ’s coming after the tribulation ever includes a reference
to the translation of living saints. Even Ladd, while not referring
to it in this chapter, later admits, “nor does the Word of God
explicitly place the Rapture at the end of the Tribulation.”[6]
Ibid., p. 165. He nevertheless contends, “if a pretribulation
rapture is a Biblical doctrine, it ought to be clearly set forth in
the Scriptures which prophesy the Rapture of the Church.”[7]
Ibid., p. 77. Ladd does not seem to realize that the same
argument holds against the posttribulational point of view. Why is
not a posttribulation rapture “clearly set forth in the Scriptures
which prophesy the Rapture of the Church?” If pretribulational
doctrine is based on an inference, so is posttribulationism.
It is noteworthy that in his entire discussion,
Ladd practically ignores the three principal Scriptures revealing
the rapture, that is, John 14:3; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52; and 1
Thessalonians 4:13-18. If Ladd is going to deal with the biblical
content of the rapture, why does he ignore the principal passages?
The answer is, of course, that there is no explicit teaching of
posttribulationism in these passages and it does not advance his
argument.
In discussing the word resurrection, Ladd
refers specifically to Revelation 20:4 where there is a resurrection
that is obviously posttribulational. Ladd here begs the question and
rejects categorically the concept that there can be any other
resurrection before the first resurrection. He argues, therefore,
that the rapture must occur at the second coming.
The idea that the first resurrection can be in
more than one stage is taught in 1 Corinthians 15:23-24. Three
stages (τάγμα) of the resurrection of
the saints are included: Christ, first; those at His coming, second;
and those at the end, third. While the third resurrection can be
debated, as it is not clear whether it refers to a resurrection of
the saints at the end of the millennium or refers to the
resurrection of the wicked, this passage clearly distinguishes the
resurrection of Christ from the resurrection of the saints and
declares that they are stages. To this could be added Matthew
27:52-53, which speaks of a token resurrection of saints immediately
after the resurrection of Christ. The fact is that the resurrection
at the rapture and the resurrection of the tribulation saints in
Revelation 20:4 are not the “first” in the sense that no
resurrection occurred before. They are first only in the sense that
they occur first or before the final resurrection, which is the
resurrection of the wicked at the end of the millennium. Actually,
the order of resurrections are Christ first, then the resurrection
of Matthew 27, then the resurrection of the rapture, and then the
resurrection of the tribulation dead. To this should be added the
resurrection of Old Testament saints which even pretribulationists
place at the end of the tribulation. In other words, Ladd is once
again assuming what he is trying to prove, namely, that the rapture
and its attendant resurrection occur at the same time as the
resurrection of the tribulation saints. What he overlooks is the
fact that in Revelation 20:4 the specific resurrection refers only
to tribulation saints, not to anyone else. The fact is that Ladd is
inferring that the rapture occurs after the tribulation but has not
proved it.
Is Posttribulationism a Valid
Inference?
In chapter five Ladd faces the problem that
posttribulationism is an inference. He approaches it, however, from
the question as to whether pretribulationism is a valid inference.
The fact that a whole chapter is devoted to this is most significant
as it is an admission that this is a vulnerable point in the
posttribulational argument. While it is not possible to deal with
all of his presentation, the salient points can be discussed.
Ladd concedes at the outset: “We will admit that
even if Scripture did not explicitly affirm a pretribulation
rapture, it is possible that the totality of scriptural data would
demand such a conclusion; and in this case, it would be a valid
inference.”[8]
Ibid., p. 89. In the discussion which follows, he offers a
comprehensive refutation of arguments commonly used by
pretribulationism. In other words, his method is to attack
pretribulationism rather than to support posttribulationism.
The important question of the usage of the word
church is handled only briefly, although it is a major
consideration. He admits that the word church is not found in
any tribulation passage but replies that the word is never used in
the Book of Revelation “to designate the Church in its totality.”[9]
Ibid., p. 98. This, however, is not the real point. The
burden of proof is on the posttribulationist to prove that the
church is in the tribulation. If even a local church could be found
in the period, it would be a point in favor of posttribulationism.
Ladd, however, like most posttribulationists, passes over this point
hurriedly because actually posttribulationism has no answer to this
difficulty in their system. When it comes right down to it, they
lack any positive proof that the church—the
ecclesia—is ever found in the tribulation period or, for that
matter, is indicated in the sequence of events related to the second
coming to set up Christ’s kingdom. As this is a key doctrine of
pretribulationism, his rather weak and inadequate treatment of this
problem is a defect in his argument. In contrast he devotes pages to
indecisive questions.
In dealing with the question as to whether
pretribulationism is a valid inference, Ladd finds it appropriate to
ignore one of the most important pretribulation arguments for the
necessity of an interval.[10]
Cf. John F. Walvoord, “Premillennialism and the Tribulation,”
Bibliotheca Sacra 112 (April 1955): 97-106.
Pretribulationists have often pointed out that if every living saint
is raptured at the time of the second coming this would, in itself,
separate all saints from unsaved people and would leave none to
populate the millennial earth. Ladd does not deal with this problem
at all. Some of his fellow posttribulationists, such as Rose in his
book Tribulation til Translation and Gundry in his recent
work The Rapture and the Tribulation, do face this problem.
Both postulate a second chance for those not saved at the time of
the second coming. According to them there is a time period between
the rapture and the beginning of the millennium during which people
can still come to Christ. Rose puts this in a forty-day period
between the rapture and the judgment of the nations in Matthew 25.
The only posttribulational answer to the problem which faces
premillenarians in regard to populating the millennial earth is to
give a second chance to those not saved and, therefore, not raptured
at the rapture. However, the Scriptures do not reveal such a second
chance. Ladd’s silence on the whole matter seems to indicate he does
not have a solution to this major problem of posttribulationism.
The Argument from Commands to
“Watch”
In supporting his futuristic view of
posttribulationism, Ladd devotes considerable attention to various
Greek words used in the New Testament to indicate the attitude of
watchfulness. His point is to prove that the idea of the imminency
of the Lord’s return is not involved. Here his fallacy is that he
attempts to make a general word a technical word, much as Reese and
others have done. This violates the basic rule of interpretation
that a word must be considered in its context. In some cases, the
context is clearly in reference to the second coming of Christ to
establish His kingdom. In other cases, it is in connection with the
rapture. The important point is that each of the various
exhortations to watch for the Lord’s coming has its own context. In
some cases the context has to do with the return after the
tribulation and, obviously, refers to people living at that time.
The context in such instances makes clear, as in Matthew 24-25 ,
that watching for the Lord’s return has special pertinence after
the signs appear but not before them. By contrast, however,
where the rapture is clearly in view, no signs are given but the
believers are exhorted to look for the Lord’s return itself (cf.
John 14:3; 1 Cor 15:51-52; 1 Thess 4:13-18). It may be conceded that
some pretribulationists have overdone the argument based on these
exhortations, but the similarity of expressions for expectancy of
the rapture and the Lord’s return after the tribulation does not
prove that the two events are one and the same. Both are events to
be expected, even if the expectancy may differ according to the
context.
Wrath or Tribulation?
In a separate chapter, Ladd deals with the
question as to whether divine wrath and tribulation are one and the
same, and rightly concludes that the church cannot experience divine
wrath although the church may experience tribulation. Most
pretribulationists will concede this point. Ladd’s argument,
however, passes over the main point in the distinction as it is
commonly presented by pretribulationists, and the real issue is
avoided rather than faced. The point is not that the church will
escape the wrath of God, but that it will escape the time of
the wrath of God. As illustrated in the promise to the church at
Philadelphia: “I will also keep thee from the hour of
temptation, which will come upon all the world, to try them that
dwell upon the earth” (Rev 3:10, italics added). It is also
indicated in 1 Thessalonians 5, that Christians belong to the time
designated as “the day” in contrast to “the night” in which the
wrath will come. That the wrath of God is only at the end of the
tribulation is refuted by the fact that it is mentioned in
Revelation 6:17, that is, early in the period.
That the church will experience tribulation
throughout its course is conceded by all pretribulationists. The
question is whether the church will go through that specific time
designated in Scripture as the great tribulation. It is noteworthy
that Ladd does not deal adequately anywhere in his volume with the
great theme of the tribulation although he evidently accepts a
literal view of it. The characteristics of judgment of that period
are such that they will affect both saved and unsaved, namely, such
judgments as earthquakes, pestilence, war, famine, and stars falling
from heaven. His argument that God will save the church in the
tribulation as he saved Israel out of the judgments that fell on
Egypt is its own refutation. No Israelites died in the plague. By
contrast, as Ladd himself admits, the tribulation will feature the
most awful persecution of saints ever to have occurred in the
history of the church as supported by the multitude of those
martyred in Revelation 7 who are said to come out of the great
tribulation. While it is true that God can protect those whom He
wishes and does protect the 144,000, the Scriptures make clear that
the majority of those who trust Christ in the end time will seal
their testimony with their own blood. The whole concept of the
saints going triumphantly through the tribulation is not supported
by the facts, as only a small portion of them will survive.
Relation of Posttribulationism to
Dispensationalism
Although the recent work by Robert Gundry
attempts to support the dispensational interpretation of Scripture
while maintaining posttribulationism, his work is an anomaly, and he
is the first in the history of the church to attempt this approach
to posttribulationism.
By contrast, Ladd devotes a whole chapter
showing that pretribulationism is built on dispensationalism, and if
dispensationalism is proved to be incorrect, pretribulationism falls
with it.
Ladd introduces his chapter attacking
dispensationalism as the foundation for pretribulationism with these
words:
In this brief chapter, we shall deal with a most
important reason used by pretribulationists for refusing to apply
the prophecies about the Great Tribulation to the Church. It is so
important that it may be called the major premise of
dispensationalism. It goes back to J. N. Darby, and is a method of
handling the Scriptures which B. W. Newton, one of the earliest and
most learned of the Brethren, called “the height of speculative
nonsense.”[11]
Ladd, The Blessed Hope, p. 130.
In his discussion of dispensationalism, Ladd
departs somewhat from his usual scholarly approach and accuses
dispensationalists of holding interpretations which no
dispensationalist would support. He defines dispensationalism as
“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 the light of this single
‘division’ of the Word.”[12]
Ibid. Dispensationalism, however, is not a premise seized on
arbitrarily but a result of the application of literal
interpretation of Scripture which all conservatives recognize is the
norm for interpreting the Bible. A literal interpretation of
passages dealing with the church and passages dealing with Israel
indicate a distinct program, even though there are some
similarities. Therefore, dispensationalists conclude that there have
been various rules of life in Scripture and that it is not proper to
apply Scriptures relating to one program to another without
sufficient basis.
While it has not been possible to deal with all
of Ladd’s arguments in support of his conclusions, it is a fair
judgment to say that his opposition to dispensationalism is a major
cause for his posttribulational view, and that this is normally the
case for most posttribulationists. If his premise is correct—that
dispensationalism which distinguishes Israel and the church is not a
biblical method of interpretation—then Ladd may also be correct in
arriving at his posttribulational conclusion. Pretribulationism,
however, is clearly based on literal interpretation, which holds
that God’s program for Israel and His program for the church are not
identical.
The Posttribulational Concept of
the Blessed Hope
Posttribulationists are not at all agreed as to
how the blessed hope fits into the prophetic program except that
they always relate it to the second coming of Christ. Many will
agree with Ladd’s concluding chapter in which he expresses the
opinion that we should not be so involved in the controversy between
pre-and posttribulationism that we neglect our defense of the
literalness of the second coming of Christ and the millennium which
follows.
In his treatment of the blessed hope, however,
it is most significant that Dr. Ladd does not expound even briefly
the major passages on the blessed hope in the Bible, namely John
14:1-3; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; and 1 Corinthians 15:51-58. Instead
he quotes an unknown author who uses Titus 2:11-14 to exhort to
godly living in expectancy of the Lord’s return. Ladd denies that
the main force of this passage has to do with the Lord’s return and
also denies that the passage deals with the rapture. This is pure
dogmatism. It does not seem to have occurred to Ladd that the
glorious appearing here could very well be the rapture rather than
the second coming as it has only believers in view, and to deny that
believers will see Christ in His glory at the rapture is to deny the
obvious.
It is unfortunate that Ladd repeats the libel
that pretribulationism discourages worldwide missions. The facts are
that many aggressive missionary organizations are pretribulational
in their position and anyone else who uses the pretribulational
point of view as an argument against missions is certainly violating
Scripture. In this, pretribulationists will agree with Ladd while
disagreeing that it is an argument against pretribulationism.
In reading the final chapter of Ladd’s
presentation, it is rather amazing how little is said about the
blessed hope itself. Here the problem is that a posttribulational
rapture is difficult to harmonize with “the blessed hope” if the
church must go through the great tribulation, and many, if not most,
of the church is martyred. It is hardly a blessed hope that those
who survive will be raptured without dying. Far better it would be
for them if they had lived out a normal life in a period prior to
the rapture and had gone to heaven through death rather than living
through the great tribulation. It is rather singular in most
posttribulational works that they do not recognize the force of this
problem in their own system.
It is also notable that Ladd does not give any
reasonable sequence of prophetic events relating to the second
coming except that he merges the rapture with the second coming. He
does not discuss the problems that this causes premillennialism in
regard to populating the millennial earth. He passes over Matthew
25:31-46 without dealing with the problems of posttribulationism.
For many pretribulationists, one of their principal difficulties
with the posttribulational view is that it does not resolve the
problems that a merger of the rapture and the second coming create.
If posttribulationism is to be credible, its proponents must not
dodge their problems but face them.
Ladd’s plea for tolerance on this point is
understandable and with this many would agree. Fortunately,
Christians can preach on many truths in agreement although
disagreeing on the time of the rapture. However, it still remains
true that the posttribulational view does not afford a uniform
system of prophetic fulfillment related to the second coming, and
this is evident by the fact that posttribulationists hardly ever
sponsor a prophecy conference or attempt to unify their own school
of thought as to the order of end-time events. Their problem is that
they do not agree among themselves as to how a posttribulational
rapture actually fits the sequence of events related to the second
coming.
|