The problem with Pretribbers, Thessalonians and Hobby Horses… Ah, those poor pretribulationists – they never seem to get it right. Or so I’m told.
For a bunch of reasons these days I’m less motivated to ride my prophecy hobby-horse. There are other things I want to focus on. Every once in a while I hop back on. I miss it. Usually it’s to react to something I’ve read or seen.
Rapture discussions involving favorite prophecy passages and books (Daniel, Thessalonians, the Olivet Discourse and Revelation etc) are inevitable minefields. We like to say that “iron sharpens iron” but I see more division than “sharpening” in this area.
I’m further persuaded that anyone who’s convinced of a solid understanding of prophecy (that everyone else is wrong), especially in Paul’s Thessalonians; and that these materials perfectly dovetail with their particular eschatology, is being overly optimistic.
Years ago I came a across a comment by a prewrath pastor who accused pretribbers of totally avoiding Thessalonians because they had no responses. Some time down the track another apologist for the same view stated that pretribbers have problems with Thessalonians because they disagree on many points.
So, which is it? The latter accusation brings to mind the Roman Catholic claim to superiority over Protestantism because of all those supposed schisms. Is it valid?
More recently a prominent commentator asserted that pretribbers maintain a difference between the Day of the Lord and the Day of Christ. Apparently it’s related to rapture timing. Well, I’m sure some of them do. But I guess that means pretribbers don’t avoid the Thessalonians materials after all.
In fact I own several commentaries from a pretrib perspective. None of these differentiate between the Day of Christ and the Day of the Lord. They include: Richard Mayhue, D. Edmond Hiebert, Mike Stallard, Robert L. Thomas, Oliver B. Greene, Robert L. Thomas, there’s David Guzik (online) and John MacArthur’s Bible Study notes.
And in case you’re wondering, none of the ones I own regard the apostasia to be a rapture-departure (contra Ice, Woods etc). They don’t need to in order to defend pretribulationism.
The 2 Thess 1:1-12 passages have received renewed attention with some asserting they refute pretribulationism. These claims aren’t new. Mike Stallard discussed them HERE, as well as in his commentary. For those interested, Charles Ryrie made some perceptive observations regarding these same passages in “Come Quickly, Lord Jesus.” Incidentally, Ryrie mounts several good responses to George Ladd’s polemics as well.
No rapture system is problem free – again, despite protests from those who’ve totally bought into a system. Elements of 2 Thess 1 have implications for both the pretrib and prewrath views. I may write my thoughts on this (for what they’re worth) at a later time.
I’ve had conversations with PW proponents who admit differences within the camp, yet agreement in essentials. I might say the same for the Thessalonians materials from a pretrib perspective. Yet for PW proponents, anything deviating from their official Thessalonians playbook is claimed to be unbiblical.
For example, the system derived by Van Kampen and promoted by Rosenthal assiduously teaches that Michael the Archangel is the Restrainer (2 Thess 2:6-7). One popular UK prewrath blogger declared Jacob Prasch’s Intra-Seal Prewrath system to be heretical because it teaches that the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit.
Is the identity of the Restrainer, then, an essential component of the classical PW system? It certainly appears to be an important aspect.
Proponents recite a Catechism which typically begins with, “After the tribulation….” What generally follows is a set of statements and verses. These individual components are claimed to be self-attesting to the system as a whole. At first blush, it appears to give the system structural strength. In practice, each component needs to stand on its own merit.
A case in point was when an individual was busy correcting the pretrib view in a forum. I challenged his interpretation of Matt 24:21-22 (using the stated intent of the text) noting that there’s a more logical interpretation which syncs with other texts pertaining to the Great Tribulation’s length. If PW is wrong on this single point, every other component must be revised, including its Parousia dogma and the Day of the Lord’s length etc.
His response wasn’t to directly challenge my understanding of these verses – instead, he appealed to the Great Multitude of Revelation Chapter 7 for support. Do you see the problem? There’s also a different, viable interpretation to the PW view in the Rev 7 passages; i.e., the GM martyrs can be still arriving during the Great Tribulation, not afterwards in a single rapture event.
Everyone brings filters to the Thessalonians materials. These will vary according to whether one is premillennial, amil-postmil, preterist, pretrib or non-pretrib.
Prewrath rapturism must also approach these with its interpretive lens firmly in place. For example: that the Day of the Lord and the rapture are back to back; the former is a fixed period limiting God’s wrath to that specific time (not before); the church cannot be removed prior to the Great Tribulation, and that the Second-Advent is a single Parousia event married to the rapture (see Parousia dogma above).
Wile the pretrib commentaries I noted above also bring their assumptions to these texts; I think the differences (Day of the Lord, rapture gaps etc) suggest a lack of deliberate collusion, rather than a scrambling to defend pretribulationism.
John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue (unlike some pretribulationists) see the Day of the Lord proper as occurring at the end of Daniel’s 70th week; while still providing a defense of pretribulationism. While I won’t go into reasons why I cautiously disagree, there are no explicit verses precluding God’s wrath from occurring prior to a late-stage Day of the Lord event.
Mayhue’s stance on God’s eschatological wrath in Thessalonians, as well as his view of 2 Thess 1:1-12, also somewhat departs from other commentaries. But again this suggests to me that he’s thinking for himself, not colluding to defend a view.
My essential point is that we ought to approach the Thessalonians materials with a degree of caution and humility. How many eschatological assumptions are we importing into them as opposed to applying exegesis?
Finally, regarding the theme of Day of the Lord, I recommend reading Paul R. House’s 46 page article in the book “Central Themes in Biblical Theology” (hat tip Dr. Paul Henebury).
Maranatha!
Further reading:
On Prophecy Charts and Virgins
Sharing is caring!
