Thinklings Book Club Discussion Eight: Chapters 13 and 14



Highlights and Reflections

1. The first thing I have to note is that these two chapters have been the most enjoyable for me to read. Oddly, however, I have found that, of all the readings, I have the least to say about this one.

2. Even though I abandoned pretribulational rapturism more than ten years ago, I am always refreshed by clear and unabashed statements like this one from Hoekema:

There is, however, no sound Scriptural basis for the position that the Second Coming of Christ must be divided into . . . two phases. (p.165)

It?s just not there.
For my fuller thoughts on pretribulationism, please see the series Debunking Tim LaHaye posted last year at Mysterium Tremendum.

3. From p.168:

What [1 Thessalonians 4:16-17] clearly teaches is that at the time of the Lord?s return all the believing dead (the ?dead in Christ?) will be raised, and all believers who are still alive will be transformed and glorified (see 1 Cor. 15:51-52); then these two groups will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. What these words do not teach is that after this meeting in the air the Lord will reverse his direction and go back to heaven, taking the raised and transformed members of the church with him.

4. The highlight of Chapter 13, for me, was this lengthy passage from p.167 arguing for a posttribulational parousia:

. . . Paul?s description of the revelation of the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2 implies that the appearance of this man will occasion great persecution and tribulation for the people of God. Paul?s purpose in this chapter is to warn his readers, some of whom thought that the day of the Lord had already come (v.2), that that day would not come unless the man of lawlessness were revealed first, along with the tribulation that would accompany his appearing. What, now, would be the point of Paul?s warning if these believers would be removed from the earth before the tribulation? Since the church at Thessalonica was composed mostly of Gentile believers (Acts 17:4), one cannot say that Paul is here writing only to Jewish Christians. As a matter of fact, the opening words of 2 Thessalonians 2 clearly indicate that the events described in this chapter, which include the appearance of the antichrist and the great tribulation, will precede the rapture of the church: ?Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy . . . saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don?t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed . . .? (vv.1-3, NIV). It is interesting to note that the Greek word translated above as ?our being gathered to him? (episynag?g?) is the noun form of the verb used of the rapture in Matthew 24:31, ?they will gather (episynag?) his elect . . . from the end of heaven to the other.? It is clear that the rapture of the church, as described in this passage, does not precede but follows the great tribulation.

5. I love that in Chapter 14, Hoekema takes care to differentiate between dispensational premillennialism and historic premillennialism. Most writers, when surveying the alternatives, don?t make that distinction. I don?t think I?m a historic premillennialist anymore, but I was for a long time after leaving pretribulationism, and I still have a lot of affection for that view. And I still share some of its tenets ? posttribulationism, single-event parousia, etc.

6. An important note on amillennialism:

The term amillennialism is not a very happy one. It suggests that amillennialists either do not believe in any millennium or that they simply ignore the first six verses of Revelation 20, which speak of a millennial reign. Neither of these two statements is correct. Though it is true that amillennialists do not believe in a literal thousand-year earthly reign which will follow the return of Christ, the term amillennialism is not an accurate description of their view. Jay E. Adams, in his book The Time is at Hand, has suggested that the term amillennialism be replaced by the expression realized millennialism. (p.173)

That?s a helpful clarification, but Hoekema wisely just sticks with the traditional terminology. The concept of amillennialism would require unpacking anyway, so whatever you call it, you?d still need to explain it. And if you?re going to have to explain it anyway, you might as well use the most common ? and the shortest ? term available.
In the same way, I think the concept behind the L in TULIP is probably best labeled still Limited Atonement, despite some newfangled suggestions meant to soften it. Even with the new replacement phrases, the concept still requires explanation (and, typically, defense), so it?s best to just rock it old school.

7. Hmmm, here?s a reflection. I went seven pages in Chapter 14 without underlining anything or making a note in a margin. But that?s not to say I found the reading unremarkable. I was probably just too engaged to slow down.

8. Interesting historical note on p.183:

The amillennial understanding of Revelation 20:1-6 as describing the reigning of the souls of deceased believers with Christ in heaven has had good standing in the church since the days of Augustine.

Now, I?m not an advocate of reverse chronological snobbery ? that anything ?new? is ipso facto wrong ? but I think it an important consideration to know just how far back one?s theology may be traced.
Despite their attempts to find patristic evidences for it, dispensational pretribulationism seems only about as old as the Scofield Bible, although it probably started a bit before that with Darby in the very late nineteenth century.

9. Looks like more fun next week in Chapter 15, "A Critique of Dispensational Premillennialism." ;-)

Questions for Reflection and/or Discussion

1. On p.171, Hoekema mentions, ?Jehovah?s Witnesses claim that Christ returned in 1914, in an invisible way.? I had heard of this before, but the question only occurred to me during this reading: What do the J.W.?s say Jesus did? What do they say this return caused or affected? Anybody know?

2. Care to share a favorite and/or quizzical quote or passage from the reading?
---

Next week's reading for Monday (5/30) is Chapter 15 (approx. 29 pages).