XIII. TRIBULATION ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED - Part 2 (Chs. 13-24, Tribulation Arguments)

The Lord Jesus gives a warning of an unequalled tribulation which shall immediately precede His coming in glory: “Then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened....Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matthew 24:21-30).

Some have said, “What a fearful prospect it is if the Church shall be in this tribulation! Can we suppose it possible that the Lord can permit any part of this suffering to fall on His redeemed and believing people? Is it not more fitting, more in accordance with His dealings in grace towards them, that they should be removed to be with Him before this trouble sets in?”

And thus any theory is judged admissible which shall exclude the Church from sharing at all in this suffering, or from being on earth at the time. But we cannot draw conclusions in this transcendental manner. Thus Peter argued and spoke when his Master foretold “that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day”. It was nature, and not spirituality, that led him to think thus of the sufferings of his Lord, rather than of the promise of His resurrection: “Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee” (Matthew 16:22). Should not our Lord's rebuke to Peter check all such reasonings? Especially, too, when He speaks of His followers taking up their cross, losing their lives, but having before them the promise that the “Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father?” We can never set our opinion of what is fitting in opposition to any direct statement of the Lord.

But is suffering and trial so strange a lot for the people of Christ? “These things have I spoken unto you, that in Me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). How continually did apostles teach “that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God” (Acts 14.22). “No man should be moved by these afflictions: for yourselves know that we are appointed thereunto. For verily, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation, even as it came to pass, and ye know” (1 Thessalonians 3:3,4).

If, then, certain tribulations are to be expected as the common experience of the faithful servants of Christ, why should it seem strange that they should be instructed respecting the great and final tribulation? Why should it be thought that they must previously be taken away?

"What are these that are arrayed in white robes, and whence came they? These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb: therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple" (Revelation 7:13-15). These are “a great multitude, which no man can number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues”, [1] whom John saw standing “before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands”.

Thus the gathered assembly of those whose robes have been washed and made white in the blood of atonement, are set forth as those who have passed through great tribulation: it is so spoken of as their characteristic, that it seems as if the last scene on earth, in which they had been regarded, was one marked by tribulation.

It is said that, if the unequalled tribulation is an affliction for Israel and a punishment for the Gentile, how can the Church be in it? In this inquiry, two fallacies are assumed: First, that this tribulation is part of the out-pouring of judgment; and second, that the Church, while in the world, is exempted from part of the suffering which falls on men or on nations. For believers there is no penal suffering, because Christ in life and in death endured for His people all that is penal: any disciplinary sorrow on Israel or on the nations before Christ comes, has, in part at least, a corrective character; it ought to lead to repentance; and from this the last tribulation, though of a very special kind, is not to be excepted. [2]

But in this last tribulation, Christ is very mindful of His people: “for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened”; and, besides this, they are warned of that time, in order that they may at once flee away from the scene of suffering. Those who believe that these warnings are intended for Christians, may, by obeying the word of the Lord, be locally removed from the fierceness of the trial; those who think such warnings are not for them, of course, cannot do this; they neglect the light which God has given them. [3]

Thus the Lord desires that His people should be enabled to endure; that in obedience to Him, they should watch the coming on of this tribulation, and that they should know that, however they may in part be sharers in it, His own coming is to follow at once.

---------------------

[1] It may illustrate some points of the Jewish system of interpretation, when I mention that I have heard it gravely maintained, that this great multitude were all Jews: not persons of, or belonging to all nations, but Jews who had been scattered amongst all nations.

The use of words seems vain if it be legitimate thus to pervert them. It is not too much to call this trifling with Holy Scripture. I have also heard it taught that this is not a heavenly, but an earthly scene: that they stand on earth before the throne of God. If so, how could even the Spirit of God himself (I desire to speak reverently) find words to describe what is heavenly?

In some more recent statements, these are said to be a peculiar class, who stand in contrast to the Church; we “are washed”, but these (it is said) “wash their own robes”.

When advocates of a system support it by such perversions, it shows that they at least lack better arguments; and that they, and all who receive their teaching, value the “secret coming” system, more than they do the doctrines of grace; for they invalidate the latter to maintain the former.

[2] Some who saw that the company of the redeemed in Revelation 7 are indeed the Church, and who yet would not admit that the Church can be in the special tribulation, rashly cut the knot by asserting that this company were not in the tribulation at all; “they came out of great tribulation” (14) meant, according to such teachers, that they came away from it, so as not to have been in it! This they said was the force of the preposition εκ here. If this were true, then Colossians 1:18, where our Lord is called “the first-born (εκ) from the dead”, would teach that He never died at all, instead of the direct contrary. If it be allowable thus to wrest words, can Almighty God himself give an unequivocal revelation of truth in human language?

[3] See Appendix C.

XII. 1 CORINTHIANS 15:51-54 & ISAIAH 25:7,8 COMPARED

There are very few leading truths in Scripture which are based upon one passage merely, or upon teaching in one form: this is a gracious provision for meeting minds variously constituted as to their habits and ability of attention; those who do not feel at once the force of one kind of proof, are sometimes struck with the pointedness of another. Also, there are not a few who feel the conclusiveness of a legitimate and necessary inference even more than they do that of a direct statement.

The Apostle Paul, in teaching the Corinthians the hope of the resurrection of the saints, says, “Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed....So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, THEN shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory” (1 Corinthians 15:51-54). Where is this saying written? In Isaiah 25, in the midst of the predictions of the blessing of restored Israel, when the Lord “shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before His ancients gloriously”; then “He will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God shall wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of His people shall He take away from off all the earth: for the Lord hath spoken it” (Verse 7,8).

Thus it is a plain fact of revelation, that at the time of Israel's restored blessing, and not at a period (perhaps considerably) previous, shall the resurrection take place of “those who are Christ's at His coming”. The Spirit of God has given us His own note of time through the combined testimony of the prophet and the apostle. There can be no coming of the Lord (much more no secret coming) until He appears for the accomplishment of His promises to His ancient people Israel. “When the Lord shall build up Zion, He shall appear in His glory” (Psalm 102:16). Any hope of a previous resurrection must be based, not on Scripture teaching, but upon some thought which has been formed in contradiction to revealed truth.

This portion of Isaiah speaks, a little farther on, of a resurrection at this time: “Thy dead men shall live” [that is, the believing dead of Israel, the Old Testament saints]; “they shall arise my dead body” [this is the literal force of the words; Messiah owns His relation to them; He speaks of them as united to himself]. “Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead” (Isaiah 26:19).

XI. ANALOGY IS NOT NECESSARILY PROOF

When proofs have been asked for the doctrine of the secret advent and secret removal of the Church, certain supposed analogies have been sometimes presented instead, which were thought to bear on the subject. But as analogy is a resemblance of relations, it is needful that the facts should be first known and demonstrated instead of their being merely supposed. It has been asked if the crossing of Jordan by the children of Israel was not a thing known to them only at the time, and not heard of by the Canaanites till afterwards? Whether Elijah is not to be taken as a type of the Church, and Elisha as that of “the Jewish remnant”? Whether the ascension of the Lord from the Mount of Olives, seen by the disciples only, does not intimate a second advent only to be known by the Church? This last consideration, if it had any force, might seem to avoid the expectation of any coming of the Lord in the clouds of heaven in manifested glory. But not only are supposed analogies wholly insufficient to prove facts, but they are shown to be groundless, so soon as they are seen to be in opposition to any demonstrated point. When a truth has been proved from Scripture, then analogies may illustrate it; but they never can be the ground on which an elaborate system of teaching can be based. The teachers of the secret coming have first to show that the Word of God sets forth such a doctrine, and that the Church is not called on to look for the coming of her Saviour in the clouds of heaven, when every eye shall see Him.

A negative endeavour has been made to prove the secret removal of the Church. It has been said, that “in certain Scriptures, which speak of future events, no mention is made of the Church being on earth; therefore, of course, it has been removed in the manner in which we teach”. But in this it is assumed, that persons spoken of in any Scriptures referred to are not the Church, or part of the Church; secondly, the absence of all mention of the Church would not prove that it had been removed by a secret rapture; for, as this secret transaction is not mentioned in Scripture, it is a mere assumption of the point to be proved, to say that a silence respecting the Church at a particular time is a decisive reference to it. [11] We might as well argue, as certain Romanists have done, that when we are told in Acts 12:17, that Peter “went into another place”, he went to Rome to establish his See; asking (as they do), if he did not go to Rome, where else did he go? and, if this cannot be answered, then assuming that it must teach that he then commenced his (supposed) primacy of twenty-five years in that city. [12] To connect a negative fact with a supposition, does not add to the probability of the latter.

Differences of names and designations do not prove differences of classes; and this is especially the case when there is some figurative expression used, or some collective term for a corporate body. Thus, in Ephesians 1:22,23, the Church is Christ's “body”, and, in the same epistle (5:25-32), it is His spouse, the bride for whom He gave himself, “that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to himself a glorious Church”. The same epistle speaks of believers as “saints” and “faithful in Christ Jesus” (1:1), and yet the children of God may be equally truly reminded that they are servants of a Master in heaven. (6:8) It is from the assumption that different terms or different figures must denote different bodies of persons, instead of different relations of the same persons, that the opinion has been framed of the Church's exclusion from various Scriptures.

Thus, when the Revelation is said to be given “to show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass”, it has been said that the term “servants” shows that it is not intended for us, who are not servants, but sons of God, and brethren of Christ. This argument has been used by those who would evade the testimony of this book. But have such never read how the apostles of the Lord use and claim the term servant as pertaining to themselves?

“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle” (Romans 1:1).

“James, a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 1:1).

“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1). 

“Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ” (Jude 1).

And Christ sent the Revelation itself “unto His servant John” (1:1); who also is addressed by the angel, “I am thy fellow-servant” (Revelation 22:9).

Whoever, then, thinks of taking some essentially higher standing than that of those who in privilege are sons, but who can rejoice in being also servants, shows that his thoughts on this subject have not been formed from the teaching of the Word of God.

---------------

[11] See Appendix B.

[12] When questions were raised in the Jewish schools, by the Sadducean party apparently, as to where Daniel was when his companions refused to worship the image of Nebuchadnezzar and were, in consequence, cast into the burning fiery furnace, a reply was given (on the principle, apparently, of answering a fool according to his folly), "He was sent to Alexandria to purchase swine"; when the questioners treated this as wholly irrelevant, they were told to prove the negative, and if they could not show to what other place he was gone, to admit that he had been sent to Alexandria.

X. THE JEWISH “WASTEPAPER BASKET”

But if things are so, to whom would the Scriptures apply which give warning of perilous times? To whom could signs be given? This consideration has led to the Jewish interpretation of Scripture. Whatever has been felt to be a difficulty has been set aside by saying that it is “Jewish”; and that one word has been deemed to be quite enough to show that it has nothing to do with the Church. On this principle the application of very much of the New Testament has been avoided. If Jewish circumstances of any kind are found in a passage, or if the persons addressed were Jews by nation, these particulars have been relied on as showing that it does not apply to the Church. But it must ever be borne in mind that, however differing in external circumstances, the Church is one body, dwelt in by one Spirit: the Jew and the Gentile, alike brought near to God by the blood of Christ, are one in Him; so that Jewish circumstances or Gentile circumstances do not affect the essential unity. The apostles were all of them Jews; nevertheless, it is on the twelve stones inscribed with their twelve names that the heavenly city is builded. It is quite true that there are Scriptures which treat simply of hopes and promises for Israel; these, too, shall be accomplished fully; but the acknowledgment that some portions of Holy Writ are such, does not at all warrant the avoidance of the force of any part of the Christian Scriptures. It is easy to see who are addressed--whenever the Lord or an inspired apostle speaks to believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, they are treated as part of the one Church. There are in the New Testament personal addresses, corporate addresses, and teaching which might have to do with mere temporary or local circumstances. Just so do we find in the Pentateuch directions to Moses as an individual, precepts for guidance while in the desert, and ordinances to be obeyed in the land. There is no difficulty in distinguishing these things, unless, indeed, we choose to raise it for ourselves.

If the application of the Jewish theory of interpretation of definite New Testament prophecies be carefully examined, it will be found to refute itself; for it will give to Jews as Jews what most certainly belongs to the Church of Christ, and it will assume that Jews in their unbelief are found using the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ as a teacher. Thus, when Matthew 24 has been used as teaching how we are to expect the Lord, it has been repeatedly said that it is entirely “Jewish”. Let this be granted. But what then? Who are to use it, or to take heed to its warnings? No one can acknowledge Jesus there as a teacher without owning Him as the Christ: “Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (Verse 5). The persons who will use the warnings, and who will expect the manifest appearing of Christ, as here spoken of, must be believers in His divine mission, and thus their profession must simply be that of believers in His name; in other words, they must be a part of the Church of the first-born, to which all belong who now accept the Lord Jesus as He is set forth by God.

An undefined term becomes an easy mode of explaining away distinct statements which cannot be reconciled to a theory; because in this manner no meaning whatever is assigned to the passages whose testimony has to be avoided. This has been the case with the word “Jewish” in connection with the Scriptures which teach the manifest appearing of the Lord in glory. In this manner the three first Gospels have been called Jewish, whenever any portion of their teaching was felt as a difficulty. So, too, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and those of James and Peter.

And yet how very much of the most blessed teaching for the Church is contained in these so-called Jewish portions of the New Testament.

In order to avoid applications of certain Scriptures to us, doctrines have been called Jewish also: thus it has been said that Covenant, Priesthood, and Mediation, are altogether Jewish. To this it has been added that the Church, “the body of Christ”, stands altogether above everything of the kind; even “above dispensation” (whatever this may mean). It would have been difficult to suppose that these opinions would have found any acceptance, if such were not the known fact. What if the expression the New Testament, or Covenant, stands in opposition to the Old Covenant with Israel? It does not make the New Covenant a merely Jewish thing. Just as the Lord Jesus said the night before He suffered, “This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28); so, also, did the Apostle Paul teach as parts of His words, and as applied to converted Gentiles, “This cup is the New Testament in my blood” (1 Corinthians 11:25). [9] We might as well say that “the remission of sins” is Jewish, and that the shedding of the blood of Christ is Jewish: we might as well affirm that these have no relation to us, as explain away Covenant and its connected truths. [10]

--------------------

[9] I have heard it maintained that the Lord's Supper, as instituted and as recorded in the Gospels, is so simply “Jewish”, that the command, “This do in remembrance of me”, would be no warrant to us for observing it, if the Apostle Paul had not received of the Lord that which also he delivered to the Corinthians, and to other Churches gathered from among the Gentiles! What is this but building up a new wall of partition against believers who are Jews by nature?

[10] See Appendix A