Greek Grammar and Eschatology – Over the years I’ve seen a few examples of Greek words employed during eschatological debates. Now I want to make it clear that when it comes to Greek, I know zilch, and don’t pretend to.
But the liberal sprinkling of Greek terms is sometimes used to impress and influence those with opposing views. This practise ought to be humbly challenged. I am open to correction, not bluster.
Episunago
I recently saw an online discussion about the Greek word “episunagoge” and what it meant in Hebrews 10:25. Someone suggested the verse was eschatological—a rapture passage. His reasoning was that “epi” gives an upward direction to the assembly. In other words, if the writer intended a lateral gathering, as in attending church, he could have used “sunago.”
He concluded that there’s too much confusion and false teaching regarding eschatology; with everyone giving their opinion without biblical support and context. And that we must rightly divide the word.
Here we go then: A reading of the surrounding verses makes it plain what the Hebrews writer intended (Heb 10:23-25). Moreover, it is used in Mark 1:33 and Luke 12:1. These aren’t rapture passages.
This “episunago-rapture-language” argument was popularized by Robert Van Kampen (The Rapture Question Answered), and found its way into many prewrath-posttrib-pretrib debates. He claimed Matt 24:31 uses upward-movement rapture language; hence, it doesn’t prophesy Israel’s future gathering. But he overlooked Matt 24:37 when consulting his concordance.
The elect
The term elect in Matt 24:31 is another area of debate. Posttrib-prewrath proponents believe “elect” (eklektos) is never used for the church in the NT. For example,
…how is it that every other use of the term “elect” in the New Testament is a direct reference only to the Church, and suddenly the elect in the Great Tribulation (Mt. 24:21-22) refers to unsaved Israel.
In fact Renald Showers demonstrated that unsaved Israel is referred to as chosen and elect in the NT. See Maranatha – Our Lord, Come and The Prewrath Rapture View (a critique). Israel is called chosen in Acts 3:12, 13-15, 25, and Rom 11:26-29 confirms Israel’s continuous standing as a chosen nation.
But a recent book focuses on the word “eklektos.” Unlike his predecessors, the author acknowledges that Israel is referred to as chosen in the NT. Yet he insists that the key-word eklektos is specifically applied to the church. He says it’s used throughout the NT to refer to the disciples, who will inherit eternal life through the Messiah. So, the elect in Matt 24:31 must refer to the church.
There are no grammar rules supporting this assertion, and he’s leaning on eschatological assumption. See Mounce HERE and HERE. I’d counteract by noting that there are many OT allusions concerning Israel in the Olivet Discourse (especially Daniel, Zechariah etc). That being the case, why wouldn’t eklektos refer to Israel there? Furthermore, as Arnold Fruchtenbaum has noted, Christ’s return is contingent on Israel’s blessing of Messiah—Hosea 5:15 and Matt 23:39.
For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!
Therefore, even if the eklektos assumption stands—at Christ’s premil coming (Matt 24:29-31), Israel may be referred to as eklektos because they cannot see Him until they repent and call Him blessed.
Parousia or Parousiai?
I wrote “Bifurcating the Parousia?” in response to an accusation that pretribbers incorrectly divide Christ’s coming into two phases. Here’s a quote from the Solagroup article I linked above,
“…pretribulationism sees two separate parousias (comings) of Christ, one when He comes “for His Church” and the second, when He comes “with His Church,” a grammatical position with not one verse of substantiation or explanation.” (Bolding mine)
Most ironically, Best and Van Kampen, who make this charge, follow a system which has multiple coming-going events. Christ comes for the church and takes it to heaven (Rev 7), and then returns to earth. How is their system different? I did some axe-grinding HERE.
Despite the above criticism of pretrib, there’s nothing in the grammar which allows a PW proponent to assert that his multiple events comprises a Single Parousia, rather than Parousiai (plural). In Come Quickly, Lord Jesus, Charles Ryrie noted,
…the word [Parousia] itself does not indicate whether these are a single event or separate events. In other words, the vocabulary used does not necessarily prove either pre- or posttrib views.
There’s at least one reason PW will not allow the pretrib model a Single Parousia. Christ’s coming for the church prior to the 70th Week would admit imminence. And they will not allow that. But the Greek grammar does not support their claims.
Note that I haven’t talked about the meaning of apostasy in 2 Thess 2:3. That’s way above my pay grade. But in many cases we should be both humble and careful when someone blithely throws a Greek term at us as if it helps their argument.
Maranatha!
Sharing is caring!
