I have been on a journey these last few months to address the changing nature of the Pentecostal identity within The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, to which I belong. It is in the throes of reconfiguring its confessional statement, hoping to domesticate its Pentecostal foot soldiers and lay a new foundation – one that is broader in its theology, more therapeutically individualistic and happily more in step with Canadian generic evangelicalism. The feeling seems to be that doing so will compensate for its failing and stagnant churches, its diminishing brand loyalty, and that ultimately (fingers-crossed) it will re-energize preaching within their churches.
Credential holders are told frequently that the revision of our core identity is merely a “refreshing.” However, as the evidence accumulates this is much, much more than that.
Here in Part Five I continue my previous focus on the 3rd of four telling shortcomings of the proposed Statement of Essential Truths (SOET 2022), scheduled for a vote this month (May 2022) in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
(3) The Commission has successfully excised Dispensationalism. This is not a wild pitch but a carefully thought-out strategy that softens the ‘Acts 2’ position, premillennialism, rapture timing, Israel / Church distinction and most matters of eschatology― and surprisingly, all without the advantage of scholarly discussion papers or vigorous debate from the credential holders.
On January 9, 1909, Ernest Henry Shackleton (England) and his party endured tremendous hardship but succeeded in planting the British Union Jack just 97 miles from the South Pole. Later, when the news came on December 14, 1911 that Amundsen (Norway) and Scott (England) had reached the North Pole . . . Shackleton decided on a new challenge — be the 1st to cross the Antarctic continent on foot – from the Weddell Sea to the Ross Sea. Almost 5,000 people responded to his newspaper ad.
Setting out in 1914, the expedition would ultimately fail and the problems started almost immediately when Shackleton’s ship HMS Endurance got stuck deep in pack ice in the Weddell Sea. Locked in ice for 281 days, when the ship was crushed and sank, the 28 men made their way to Elephant Island, living in a 20-foot boat, turned upside down.
With few supplies and little hope of being rescued, Shackleton left with 5 men in a boat to seek help from a whaling station 800 miles away. The story of survival that followed is almost unimaginable. Shackleton did return to his men on Elephant Island — 105 days later.
When the men were asked what kept them alive those 105 days, Frank Wild and his men replied, "We never gave up hope. Whenever the sea was clear of ice, we rolled up our sleeping bags and reminded each other, “The boss may come today.”
The ‘Left Behind’ series takes a lot of flak. The fact the books are fictional novels, up there alongside Stephen King’s demonic monsters, J. R. Tolkien’s dark Lord Sauron and Dean Koontz’s creepy ‘Demon Seed’ seems to have been lost.
For centuries, Christians over the world have anticipated that “The boss may come today” . . . and the coming of the Lord has often been written about in Christian novels ... the most popular being the ‘Left Behind’ series, books now relegated to the ash heap by more discerning, informed, sophisticated Pentecostals with better eschatological taste buds it seems.
“The boss may come today" and though it would be a serious mistake to speak with dogmatic certainty about the exact time of his coming, since “... no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark. 13:32), it seems clear that a good many preachers have surrendered their theological ground to the Methodists, Reformed, Roman Catholic or Orthodox traditions who opt to interpret the rapture as a spiritual significance idea.
Most Pentecostals do not preach much on it either but there must be valid reasons. It could be that it is because (a) Jesus said he was coming back in the 1st century AD and here we are in the 21st. with still no cloud formation suggesting it is soon – so why bother or (b) because our preachers simply do not believe it anymore!
Like many, I wish the self-styled, misguided, evangelical, end-time experts who keep foolishly predicting dates for the literal return of Christ for His Church, would just stop it ... and start handling the Bible with more integrity. Still, every time these date setters are wrong (which is ALL the time, EVERY time), they undermine the credibility of the Bible in the minds of people who have heard it all before and it lessens people’s expectancy that the Lord could return at any time.
For the uninitiated, the Rapture is the name given to a supernatural event where Jesus Christ descends from Heaven for all Born-Again Christians — both the living and the dead — and takes them to heaven with Him. There they will stay while God pours out his anger on the earth in successive waves of judgment called the Tribulation – with its Seal, Trumpet, and Bowl judgments (cf. Isaiah 24; Daniel 9:22-27; Matthew 24:15, 21, Revelation 6-19).
The Tribulation is a very real, 7-year period that Daniel 12:1 says will be unlike anything this world has ever seen or will ever see again. Daniel 12:1 "… and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time." This period of Tribulation goes by many descriptive names:
Jeremiah 30:7 calls it the Time of Jacob's Trouble
Zephaniah 1:15 ─ The Day of Wrath
1 Thessalonians 5:2 ─ The Day of the Lord
Revelation 3:10 ─ The Hour of Trial
Revelation 6:16 ─ The Wrath of the Lamb
Now I mention the Tribulation period here because while classical Pentecostals have to this moment distinguished between the Rapture of the Church, the 2nd. Coming of Christ and God’s intentions for the Tribulation — the times ‘they-are-a-changing’ in the PAOC as the expression goes. A more homogenized religious culture – one that distances itself from its traditional Pentecostal identity and among other things, embraces a more timid, emotionally soothing brand of eschatology, is what the denominations leadership is pressing intentionally hard for.
While almost all Christians fundamentally agree that there will be a rapture for believers — a translation from mortality to immortality— the sticking point is much greater than simply ‘timing.’
A Rapture?
Within the dispensational system there lies an eschatological expectancy, one that through the years fired Pentecostals to evangelize the lost at every step, whether sharing the “Good News” of heaven ... the bad news about hell ... or the blessed hope of Christ’s soon return for his church.
The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC), subscribes to a pre or mid-tribulation rapture, as expressed in its current documents, but those halcyon days appear to be fading faster than a wiener dog on a five mile morning walk. For example, SOET 2022 has already excised the word “Rapture”.
The hope of the Rapture before the Tribulation seems destined to be replaced with the hope of survival through the Tribulation. I expect that obituary to be written sometime in May of 2022, courtesy of those who seem just plainly tired of charts ... those who do not genuinely believe in immanency (‘at-any- moment’) but pretend to ... and still others who are challenged by the effort needed to study “last things”.
My money however is on a single coming of Christ with the Church hanging around through the entire dread and disaster of the Tribulation so folks can participate in this “once-in-a-lifetime” spectacular event . . . and later “form a welcoming party that will escort the Lord on the last leg of his descent to earth,” in the style of post-tribulationist, Robert Gundry. Sounds exciting!
Critics of the Rapture like to argue that the English word is not found in the Bible. I have 3 responses: (1) the word ‘Bible’ cannot be found in the Bible, [nor can ‘Trinity” or “Millennium” for that matter] so what’s your point? (2) God's Word was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, so we can truthfully say that no English words are found in the Bible and (3) the question is – “Which Bible are we talking about?” Are we talking about the Masoretic text (MT), the Septuagint (LXX), the Syriac Peshitta (SP) or the Latin Vulgate? In fact, the Latin Vulgate (4th cent) the main bible of the medieval Western church up to the Reformation, does use the word raeptius (rapture; “caught up, snatch, seize, pluck, drag away, plunder”) and it is a translation of the Greek New Testament word harpazo (13x in NT; a word Paul selected under inspiration, I might add) which means ‘caught or snatched up’ and it IS found in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 — which is probably the most detailed passage about the Rapture in the Bible.
“For when a king drives into a city, those who are in honor go out to meet him; but the condemned await the judge within … as He descends, we go forth to meet Him …”
Chrysostom Homily on 1 Thessalonians, VIII. 4th c. 2
In that familiar I Thessalonians 4 passage, Paul is writing to a church that was restless (v. 11):
“Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders.”
“Live,” says Paul, “so that the unbelievers will see in your lives the difference between order and confusion ... idleness and diligence ... sponging off others and independence.” It is in this context of restlessness, that Paul mentions the return of Christ. He says in v. 13, “Folks, I don’t want you to be ignorant about those who have died or grieve like those who have no hope.” Why? Because, when Jesus returns for His church, those who have died in Christ will have the chief place, the leading role; because they will go before those who are alive.
Then Paul begins to fill in the details of what will happen next (I Thessalonians 4)
(a) Christ Himself will return (4:16)
(b) A resurrection will occur (4:16) – for the dead shall be raised 1st
(c) A rapture will occur (4:17) – for the living will be snatched up and their mortal bodies changed says Paul in I Corinthians 15:53
(d) A reunion will take place (4:17) – for we will be caught up “with them” (our loved ones who have died).
Believing in imminent, but ‘not imminent’ is a lesson in
theological double-speak, for if events must happen before His coming, then His coming is hardly imminent.
In John 14:3 Jesus said, “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself, that where I am, you may be also.” Imminence is part of the verb form “I will come,” (ἔρχομαι, erchomai), a present indicative middle form. When used in verse 3 alongside “I will receive,” παραλήμψομαι, paralempsomai), a future indicative middle, then erchomai is a futuristic use of the present tense that strongly implies imminence; not a coming for judgment — but deliverance. If Christ’s coming is only a possibility before the tribulation, then the tribulation could begin before the event . . . and imminence’ disappears. That would mean the ‘blessed hope” (Titus 2:13) would have to be scratched! 1
I sometimes wonder if the delay of the Parousia is not a
theological embarrassment to Pentecostals, so they look to trade in their position for something more ‘in’ with the times.
Not surprisingly, Paul never seems concerned about the supposed ‘delay’ in Christ’s coming (I Thessalonians 4:13-18). Nor does it compel him to shift from imminence to some contrived system of ‘realized eschatology” — where the full kingdom reign of God is realized in or through the ministry of Jesus in our present history.
I Corinthians 15:51 says “We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed.” The only qualification is faith is Jesus Christ. You can decide whether you support an “at-any-moment” hope or prefer the spun-out nuances that allow you to take in the fireworks show before the grand event.
Funny memory. I was so aware of immanency - that Jesus could indeed come at any moment - that I once confessed to my SS teacher I had stolen Madame Boulangers underwear from off her clothesline. I don’t remember the exact color, but size-wise as an 8-year old I think it could have doubled as a blanket on my small bed. Can’t tell you exactly why I stole it. Like the forbidden fruit in the Garden – it was just … hanging there.
A Gap?
Rapture critics like to argue that without the dispensational gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th week (Daniel 9:24-27) the framework for a 7-year tribulation, the rapture and the destiny of the Jewish people in the plan of God all disappear, just like that! In other words, “If only dispensationalists would just admit that there is no gap and therefore no ‘secret’ rapture . . . or separate program for the Jews for that matter, then we could be friends.” A growing number of those critics are within my own ‘tribe’ – the PAOC. But wait a minute here. Those who subscribe to a pre-tribulation rapture do not use the phrase ‘secret’ rapture; nor do they use that term to characterize their position. Only sassy, cheeky critics do. But I digress!
Are dispensationalists imagining a gap in Daniel 9:24-27 or is there serious textual evidence to show that a hiatus does exist and that this parenthesis in time serves an important eschatological purpose in God’s economy?
Before opponents of dispensationalism within the PAOC start spiking their football in the end-zone, let me disrupt the celebration.
First, numbers count! I realize that taking a more literal approach (Antiochian School) hermeneutically, as opposed to an allegorical one (Alexandrian School) when looking at prophecy might send some into anaphylactic shock, but seriously — why shouldn’t numbers count? Imagine a preacher on his anniversary giving an allegorical interpretation as to how long he has been married? Fancy the fallout? Clearly . . .
Daniel 9 opens with the prophet realizing from Jeremiah’s prophecy (25:11-12; 29:10-14) that Israel’s punishment captivity is 70 literal years;
The angel Gabriel in Daniel 9 gives a literal explanation;
The prophecy given to the prophet in 9:24-27 is connected to the literal 70 literal years, making the 70 weeks of years literal as well;
It would be strange to make the definite numbers 7, 62 and 1 indefinite lengths, rather than literal;
There is overwhelming consensus that the “seventy sevens” refers to years, given that this is what Daniel was contemplating in Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10-14, as evident in Daniel 9:2. So Gabriel has in mind seventy weeks of years, or 490 literal years.
While taking Scripture for its plain, straightforward manner, I also respect and acknowledge the role Structure (Literary) . . . Syntax (Grammatical) ... and Semantics (Lexical) play in a developing exegesis.
Second, Israel counts! God makes it clear to Daniel that this period of prophetic destiny is for Israel and Jerusalem (“for your people and your holy city”; v. 24). Likewise, notice the “weeks” are Jew-specific sabbatical year cycles as well. Wood notes:
“That this concern is to be with the city, as well as the people, militates against the idea that the 490 years carry reference only to Christ’s first coming and not to His second. It is difficult to see how the physical city of Jerusalem was involved in the deliverance from sin which Christ then effected but it will be in the deliverance from the destructive oppression which the Antichrist will bring prior to Christ’s second coming.”
[Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), p. 248]
For many however, Israel does not count! Amillennialists argue that the passage is mere figurative language, predicting the nature, timing and consequences of Christ’s work at His first coming. Those in the ‘Replacement theology,’ fold understand that Israel’s role in the history of redemption expired with Christ’s 1st coming and the arrival of the church — formally called economic supersessionism. Others within this same ‘family,’ called punitive supersessionists, prefer to focus on Israel’s crime of rejecting Christ, which necessarily led to their rejection.
Martin Luther was a punitive supersessionist and anti-Semite.
He wrote “. . . the Jews, surely rejected by God, are no longer his people, and neither is he any longer their God.” Interestingly,
Adolf Hitler later referred to Luther as “a great warrior,
a true statesman, and a great reformer.” Wow!
“On the Jews and Their Lies,” in Luther’s Works 47:138-39; Mein Kampf, 1925,
More recently, New Covenant Theology has jumped on the bandwagon, declaring Israel “no longer has a place as the special people of God.” Anecdotally, this last one appears to be gaining traction in the PAOC as well, if the increasing number of Calvinists within our denomination is any proof. In all these examples, Israel’s role as the people of God is diminished and/or the Church supersedes them as the “new Israel” and becomes the sole inheritor of God’s covenant blessings. I wonder if CNN would call this a ‘cultural misappropriation’ of the Jewish scriptures by Christians?
Still, there is nothing in the context of Daniel 9 to suggest some New Testament “Israel of God” entity. Likewise, the six predicted goal clauses that follow in Daniel 9:24-27 are uniquely connected to Israel and Jerusalem, hardly the Church. God’s program as it relates to the Jewish people is presently on hold but will be fulfilled in its entirety at a future time.
Third, gaps are not contrived! The idea that there are never any gaps in any time periods in Scripture and therefore dispensationalists have manufactured a gap between the 69 and 70th week is utter nonsense.
(a) We know that Israel entered the land of Promise approximately 1400 BC and in 605 BC the first of three deportations to Babylon began, leaving the Jews in the land for some 800 years.
When Adam fell, bringing forth food from the land would be difficult (Gen. 3: 17-18). When Cain the farmer sinned, it became impossible, for the land would no longer yield its strength (Gen. 4:12). Yielding her strength means she is labouring to produce. Therefore, God in his wisdom later required a Sabbath for the land, just as he did for the people. Israel ignored this requirement (Leviticus 23:1-5; cf. 2 Chronicles 36:20-21), accumulated a Sabbath deficit of seventy missed Sabbaths which then triggered God’s inevitable sanctions. With Israel disobedient for 490 (70 x 7) of the 800 years and with some 310 years still remaining, clearly multiple gaps of time ARE possible in the sequence of years, including the 490 here. Critics conveniently ignore this fact.
In the film Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye says to God “I know.
I know. We are the chosen people. But, once in a while, can’t
You choose someone else?” It seems some PAOC pastors
have taken those words to heart.
(b) We should not assume that the 70th week is forced to start immediately after the 69th or that it is already fulfilled, as Preterists conclude.
Consider: The Hebrew preposition “until” (עד ֙ad) is a clear grammatical indicator of a break between the 69th week and the start of the 70th week (v. 25).
“So you are to know and understand that from the [1] issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until [2] Messiah the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks . . . “[emphasis and numeric mine]
The Enhanced Brown, Driver and Biggs Hebrew lexicon gives עד the following meaning:” as far as, even to, up to, until, while.” It is clear that the period of time in mind (v. 25) is from the 1st event to the 2nd event . . . from the issuing of the decree until (or, “as far as, even to, up to”)the Messiah appears — a period of 483 years (49 + 434) or 69 sabbatical year cycles, not after! Nothing is said about the Messiah’s death until v. 26. Since his crucifixion occurs only after the 69th week concludes but before the 70th week, a chronological interruption (gap) logically must exist. Consequently the 70th week remains a future time.
Consider: Using a simple conjunction, combined with a preposition, the Hebrew text says “and after” (אַחַר ֙achar) or better still “then after” the Anointed One will be cut off (v. 26). It cannot be claimed here however that this act itself concludes or closes off the 62 weeks, only that “then after” (in the post 69th week) a number of importance events occur: Messiah shows up ... he is “cut off” ... Jerusalem and its Temple will be destroyed (70 AD) ... wars and desolations (pl.) will take place.
“Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.”
How long after the seven and sixty-two weeks these events take place, we are not told. Since nowhere are we informed that these 2 events close the 69th week or start the 70th week – they surely exist in the interval between. It is only after these intervening events that the last remaining week appears (v. 27). Achar (‘after’) corroborates the importance of “until” (עד ֙ad) by fixing a time indicator shared by two separate events.
Consider: While there is undoubtedly a chronological unity in the 7, 62 and 1 weeks, it does not mean that it must be a consecutive unity . . . because if it were then that would mean that the Messiah was “cut off” [crucified] during the 70th sabbatical year cycle ― not something a ‘normal’ reading of the text would permit. In the end, it seems, not surprisingly, that Preterists struggle both with the math and the grammar!
The critics of dispensationalism seem to believe that if they can demonstrate that the 490 years or 70 weeks of Daniel do not have to be taken with chronological or arithmetic precision, then dispensationalism as a theological system will have been successfully weakened. However, as textual, numerical and grammatical care demonstrate, a gap of time between the 69th and 70th week in Daniel 9:24-27 is hardly imagined ... contrived ... or drummed-up.
Just because 2,000 years have passed is irrelevant to the doctrine
of Christ’s imminent return. His coming remains imminent.
It could happen ‘at-any-moment.’ If SOET believed this – it would
say so. Instead, you are left to guess!
When I taught theology students, it was not unusual for a student to submit an assignment … offer some lame excuse and surprisingly enough -- fully expect to not lose marks. My response? Your lack of planning does not represent a crisis in my life. Just maybe the same holds true here. To God, our anxiety is of secondary importance to being ready.
Our current SOFET (2014), considered by some to be deficient, nevertheless says “The rapture, the blessed hope of the church, is the imminent coming of the Lord in the air ...” Grammatically, a comma indicates a pause between the ending of an introductory word, phrase or clause, and the beginning of the main part of the sentence. So even if we were to remove the phrase “the blessed hope of the church” - we have a sentence that is grammatically complete without the missing words and astonishingly clear, strong, and definite: “The rapture is the imminent coming of the Lord in the air.” No if, but’s or ands or hesitancy! No guess work necessary, as it should be.
On the other hand, the proposed “refreshed”, 2022 SOET version says: “Our great hope is for the imminent return of Christ in the air...” OK – now re-read the phrase one more time to cement it in your mind. Two points here:
First, the 2022 position on Christ’s immanency is weak and therefore flawed. Are we to understand the phrase (“Our great hope is for”) in the same way we might say “Our great hope is for sunshine this weekend” or “Our great hope is for the kids to return to school without having to wear a mask?” I mean, is this about keeping fingers crossed? Sure, we might have a great hope – but that hardly guarantees good weather or maskless children in school ... or in this context “the imminent return of Christ in the air.” It is both possible and plausible that someone read the proposed statement “Our great hope is for ...” and understand it to be ‘hoping’ for immanency – rather than ‘declaring’ immanency as the 2014 SOFET so clearly affirms? 2
“Sure, our great hope is for the imminent return of Christ in the air.. ... [I am optimistic ... I am expecting ... I am anticipating his imminent return, BUT if it doesn’t happen ‘at-any-moment’ ... I mean, if Jesus delays ... or if I have to go through much ... most ... all of the tribulation then I am OK with that too. Either way it’s fine by me.]”
SOET 2022 is not an improvement on SOET 2014 and those who subscribe to a Pre-wrath or Post-tribulation have reason to celebrate this wonderful accommodating change to Pentecostal eschatology.
Now before you disregard my thoughts here, I remind you of what Adam Stewart, in his book The New Canadian Pentecostals (2015) wrote about the TSC and its documents.
“A traditional Pentecostal who read these documents could easily see as reaffirmation of the traditional understanding of these values, while a Pentecostal practitioner influenced by generic evangelicalism would be free to see in these documents a license to broaden their interpretation of those historic commitments.” (p. 168; emphasis mine).
Later, Stewart writes, “If the tradition, however, contains elements that hinder .... then these must be either removed, or, more likely, sufficiently sanitized.” (p. 169; emphasis mine).
Again, these are Stewarts words, not mine! A less rigorous Pentecostal identity is where we are headed.
Second, since the TSC is so committed to using Biblical Theology (BT) as its foundational basis for SOET 2022 – I am surprised to see that they removed that familiar Titus 2:13 phrase “the blessed hope” from the 2014 document. I mean, it cannot get more ‘biblical’ than using the actual words (τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα) right out of the Bible, can it? It begs the question of ‘Why’? The answer seems obvious enough: To the intended purpose of relaxing our eschatological identity.
There are a lot of competing theological loyalties fighting for approval within the PAOC. so I understand that talk of dispensationalism (or Kenosis, Infralapsarianism, Hypostatic Union, Calvinism, to name a few others) is not everyone’s cup of tea. But then if you are a pastor – you signed up for it so no complaining!
If we take the overall decline in doctrinal interest and the influential rise of existential idealism and add to the mix the discipline required to study eschatology, the popularity of Reform theology, the revival of post-tribulationalism, coupled with the PAOC’s emerging reductionist approach to our governing theological documents ... it is difficult to see whether dispensationalism is resilient enough to fight the headwinds within the denomination or if it simply flat-lines – a victim of its own genius. For sure the hybrid 2022 SOET draft proposal seems eager to pull the plug. “OnlySaying ...”
1 My profs would be pleased to see their language training did not fall on deaf ears.
2 To amuse myself, I conducted an unscientific exercise. I put the current SOFET 2014 and proposed SOET 2022 sentences on immanency on a single 81/2 x 11 piece of paper and asked 8 different people if they saw any differences between the two sentences and if so, what might it be. To make things more difficult, none of the people were Pentecostal and none were aware of a SOET or SOFET document. One said there was no difference between the sentences. Another said simply, “I don’t know.” But get this, six said they believed that the words “the blessed hope” and “our great hope” were saying different things ... with the second phrase suggesting “hesitancy” or “hopefulness” or “trusting it will happen – but not confident expectation.” One person suggested that “the blessed hope” phrase had “no wiggle-room”. I secretly chuckled! Yes, it was unscientific! I know.
Comments