My background is in Dispensational-Pre-Tribulational-Rapture-Premillennial theology. My alma mater (Multnomah Bible College and Multnomah Biblical Seminary) find their heritage squarely ensconced within this orbit; indeed, so much so, that Multnomah has at points been called ‘mini-Dallas’ (Theological Seminary)—in fact Multnomah’s origins are inimically tied into Dallas, by way of its founder[s], and its faculty (which is largely changing nowadays!). Anyway, I thought I would post something that is related to the kind of theology that both Multnomah and Dallas have helped to promulgate over the years through their sending of pastors, missionaries, teachers, evangelists etc.; and in particular what I am going to broach is the fine (and even idiosyncratic–for some) point that has to do with the theory of the Pre-Tribulational rapture. If you are unfamiliar with it, then just think of the story told in the popular Left Behind series; except in the rendition I will share here, we will experience the more academic side of what stands behind ‘Left Behind’ rapture theology.
Daniel B. Wallace has written one of the standard New Testament Greek Grammars, and it served as the basis of much of my advanced Greek education in both Bible College and Seminary. At the end of his chapter on Articles, he provides an example of how a proper understanding of the Greek grammar can actually support the Pre-Tribulational rapture theory—which foists an idea that there is a distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (which happens Post-Tribulation). Here is what Wallace writes:
2 Thess 2:1 ‘Ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ὑπὲρ τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡμῶν ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ’ αὐτόν,
Now we ask you, brothers, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together with him
This text impacts the discussion in some American evangelical circles over the time of the rapture. Many postribulationalists/non-dispensationalists have considered the two to have the same referent precisely because of their misunderstanding of Sharp’s rule and its specific requirements.
Since the TSKS construction involves impersonal substantives, the highest degree of doubt is cast upon the probability of the terms referring to the same event. This is especially the case since the terms look to concrete temporal referents (the parousia and the gathering of the saints), for the identical category is unattested for concrete impersonals in the NT.
This is not to say that one could not see a postribulational rapture in the text, for even if the words do not have an identical referent, they could have simultaneous ones. Our only point is that because of the misuse of syntax by some scholars, certain approaches to the theology of the NT have often been jettisoned without a fair hearing. [Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament With Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes, 290.]
So even if you fully repudiate Pre-Tribulational rapture theology (as I now do—I am Post-Tribulational, and some days Covenantal/Historic-Premil and other days Amillennial 😉 ), at least you will realize that so called rather disparagingly Left Behind rapture theology actually has some Greek and academic rigor behind it. That said, even as Wallace notes, in the end, the referent of ‘the coming’ and ‘gathering together’ could be synonymous. The only way we can really conclude which way to go with this is not the Greek Grammar (even though it helps lay out the critical options), but by situating the grammar within its larger theological-canonical place in regard to understanding the overall movement of God as given reference in the first coming of Jesus Christ.
I am out of time for this edition, there is always more to be written, but never enough time to write it!
I’ve heard the quip “I’m pan-trib: it will all pan out in the end.” Certainly it is important for us to explore these issues and be prepared as much as one can for whatever may befall us. If the Lord comes soon, may we not be ashamed at his appearing, if tribulation comes between now and then, we are not the first people to endure horrific tribulation before the parousia, but we could be the last. :O)
Bobby,
I, too, once held to a pre-trib pre-mil view. Then Harold Camping’s early view, then classic a-mil, then historic pre-mil, then post-mil, now I’ve got kind of a modified blend of post- and a-mil. Okay.
One thing that has bothered me about the rapture idea is 1 Thess 4:16-17. I went to a premil church a few years ago, and the pastor was doing an end times series. He came to this passage and dismissed the post-mil position, claiming that Paul would have needed to explain that Christ would be coming back to earth right after we met him in the air. Because Paul didn’t mention the return back down to earth, it’s not gonna happen. But to set up his explanation he used a reference of the ancient idea of going outside the city to meet an approaching king, then ushering him into the city. I found this analogy rather odd, as if his analogy applied we would meet Christ in the clouds and usher him back to the earth. If his view were correct, Paul actually would have needed to explain that we would not usher him back, because the reader would have understood the obvious: we will usher him back down here.
So, that’s one reason I don’t hold to a rapture view.
Always ignore Wallace’s theology. He’s not qualified. Also, Wallace is so right about the limitations of Granville Sharp’s rule that it shouldn’t even be brought up here. This is not a “TSKS” passage. Let’s look closer:
Ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ὑπὲρ τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡμῶν ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ’ αὐτόν
What governs the case of these nouns? Why are they genitives? Because they are both objects of the preposition ὑπέρ. This is a two-case preposition, taking objects either in the genitive or the accusative. Its objects are therefore nouns of matching case for a simpler reason than Sharp’s rule. Here the καί functions as a copulative between two genitive objects of the same preposition.
So “Paul” asks the audience, with regard to these two things—the parousia and the gathering together of the faithful to Christ—not to credit any claims that “ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου”—that the “day of the Lord” has arrived.
The question, if I’ve got you correctly, is whether these two things can be understood to either be referents to the same event themselves, or clearly temporally separated. And to that I have to say that the question itself cannot be answered, because it asks for facts not in evidence. These are not “concrete temporal referents”—they’re parts of a Judean apocalyptic mythos. They are associated together, but in a sense in which they all belong to the future in ways that are anything but concrete. And conflating this text with Revelation is the worst thing you could possibly do to it, because pseudo-Paul refuses to answer the question of concrete details of the day of the Lord even more steadfastly than Paul himself. (cf. 1 Cor. and 1 Thess., both chock-full of positive images of the resurrection of the dead at the coming of Christ rather than denials of the request for information.)
So: about the two objects of the preposition, it must be understood that both of these things are understood by the author to be parts of the “day of the Lord.” That’s as far as we have warrant to go in the text, in terms of chronology. No relative temporality is indicated at all. However, there is good reason to believe that they are not referents to one and the same event, as Sharp’s rule might otherwise suggest. This has everything to do with the way the nouns in question are qualified by other genitives. Whose parousia? “The parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Whose gathering together? “Our gathering together to him.” Because of this clarity, one cannot assume, as in Sharp’s rule, that because of the lack of a second article, the second noun is a clarification of the first. The subjects of the verbs implicit in the nouns are clearly different. These are different actions, even though they are understood to both take place on the “day of the Lord.”
The best that can be said from 2 Thess. 2 is that the “day of the Lord” will involve the coming of Christ in power, and presumably subsequently our gathering around him once he is present. And that is all that the text states; the chapter goes on to speak of the evil that will precede it, but nothing more regarding that day itself except the expectation of the death of Satan (the one oppressing the community in real life) at the coming of Christ.
OK, that was perhaps too punchy on Wallace. However, I do wish he’d stick to grammar and syntax, at which he’s quite obviously qualified—or write clearly separate works in which he argues theological points in the depth they require.
If we still need a better, shorter explanation for why there is no second article, consider the actual syntax. The emphatic fronting of the pronoun ἡμῶν removes the necessity for what would otherwise be τῆς ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἡμῶν, and simplifies the addition of the object construct ἐπ’ αὐτόν. An article would be superfluous unless the author wished to place the strongest possible emphasis on the gathering.
Matt,
I’m down with almost everything you have communicated, at least your conclusion. I’ll leave pseudo-Paul, which I’ll leave alone. And I don’t have as much of a problem considering the themes of the book of Revelation and other books/epistles like Thessalonians etc. But in the end, no matter; because I ultimately agree with you.
My point, as far as referent, was simply noting how it is that Wallace does indeed make a temporal distinction; and I don’t think that is necessary per the context.
Your last succinct point about the article is good!
Steve,
I used to make that same kind of lame argument in favor of pre-trib. It is amazing how views change, and rightfully so. As far as post-mil, I have never been a fan nor ever will be 🙂 … which you already know.
Duane,
Yeah, I don’t like “pan” anything; I like to think more nuanced than that.
“I have never been a fan nor ever will be…”
I’ve done cursory looks at the 19th century brand of post-mil based on hopeful outcomes of the industrial revolution and the Rushdoony style stuff and see a few things I have issues with. One question I ask, though, is whether the Great Commission will be a success or a failure. Will ALL nations be baptized and discipled before Christ returns? If the Christ is a failure, then no. if He is a success, then at the time of Christ’s return, the entire world will have been Christianized. This is not to say that everybody will be saved, but that everybody will be discipled. This is why I see no heathen in the great judgment passages of Matt 7 and 25. The goats will plead that they did great things in His name.
Well, as for all things that haven’t happened yet, I could be wrong. 🙂
The Gospel is already a success. It is not contingent upon its proclamation or reception, but upon its reality and terminus in Christ Himself. I don’t see your principle as the best one for engaging this question, Steve.
“The Gospel is already a success. It is not contingent upon its proclamation or reception, but upon its reality and terminus in Christ Himself.”
Love that. Need to put it on a poster or something!
Thanks, Jerome!