CHAPTER FOUR
According to LaHaye, the pre-Trib positions on Scripture and the church are the keys to understanding prophecy. "First, one must interpret the Bible literally unless the context provides a good reason to do otherwise. Second, we must understand that Israel and the church are distinct! They had different beginnings, purposes, commissions, and they have different futures." 2 LaHaye goes on to assert that these "two facts of Scripture" must be recognized or "all discussion and argument is fruitless."
We have already pointed out that the pre-Trib approach to Scripture is anything but literal. But what of this distinction between Israel and the church? This is the issue which will be explored as we evaluate the next major pre-Trib argument.
At first glance, you might wonder what this has to do with the pre-Trib rapture. But as you will see, if it weren't for this supposed distinction, the pre-Trib rapture would literally disappear. Let me explain. There is a long standing dispute in theology over the relationship between Israel and the church. Many believe the saints of the Old Testament period and the New Testament believers together constitute the one people of God. In sharp contrast, a group known as dispensationalists believe God is working with two distinct and separate bodies—Israel and the church. "There is a separate plan for each of these two peoples. Israel is said to be an earthly people, while the church represents a heavenly body. National Israel's expectation is an earthly kingdom; the church's hope is eternal bliss in heaven." 4
This severe dichotomy results from the way dispensationalists define the church. They claim, "The church did not begin until the day of Pentecost and will be removed from this world at the rapture which preceeds the Second Coming of Christ." 5 That means, by their definition all Old Testament saints are forever barred from the church. This includes Abraham, of whom the Scripture says we are sons if we are in the faith (see Galatians 3:7). It also includes Moses, the prophets, and even David, the man after God's own heart. In addition, under dispensationalism these saints are likewise barred from heaven, being relegated instead to an eternal existence on earth. Concerning their different eternal destinies, Chafer writes, "It should be observed that though Judaism and Christianity have much in common, they never merge the one into the other. Having each its own eschatology reaching into eternity... The word of God distinguishes between earth and heaven even after they are created new. Similarly and as clearly it distinguishes between God's consistent and eternal earthly purpose, which is the substance of Judaism; and His consistent and eternal heavenly purpose which is the substance of Christianity, and it is illogical and fanciful to contend that Judaism and Christianity ever merge as it would be to contend that heaven and earth cease to exist as separate spheres." 6
You might ask, why is it necessary to exclude these revered saints from the church? To answer, it would appear that the Old Testament saints are merely innocent bystanders—casualties caught in the cross-fire of another conflict. The real target is a group known as the Tribulation saints. The Bible reveals that a great host of people will come to faith in Jesus during the Tribulation. The pre-Tribulationist's problem is that if these believers are part of the church, the pre-Trib rapture makes no sense; it would amount to nothing more than replacing one set of believers with another. Noted pre-Trib scholar, John Walvoord, apparently concurs for he writes, "It is safe to say that pretribulationism depends on a particular definition of the church...If the term church includes saints of all ages, then it is self-evident that the church will go through the Tribulation, as all agree there will be saints in this time of trouble. If, however, the term church applies only to a certain body of saints, namely, the saints of the present dispensation, then the possibility of the translation of the church before the Tribulation is possible and even probable." 7
Now we begin to see why the supposed distinction is so important to the pre-Trib position. The only way to preserve the pre-Trib rapture is to exclude the "Tribulation saints" from the church. How is this accomplished? By imposing an artificial and narrow definition—that is, including only those believers between Pentecost and the rapture (which they assume is pre-Trib). The unfortunate side effect for barring these future believers is that all the beloved Old Testament believers are shut out as well! No doubt, this teaching makes many uncomfortable, but if the Old Testament saints are allowed in the church, the door must also be opened for the "Tribulation saints." And, as has been shown, if they get in, the game is up for the pre-Trib rapture. That, my friends, is the long and short of how the distinction between Israel and the church came to be an argument for the pre-Trib rapture.
So, realizing we should not base interpretations on what the Bible doesn't say, we look instead to see what it does say. Right away, we see that Tribulation saints have a great deal in common with the church.
1. Like the church, they "keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus" (Revelation 12:17).
2. They resemble the church in that their "citizenship is in heaven" (see Philippians 3:20). From the Revelation, we learn that these who come out of the great tribulation are not restricted to earth as pre-Tribbers teach. Rather, they are clearly located in heaven. They "are before the throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in the temple..." (Revelation 7:15).
3. Like the church, they are called saints. "And it was given to him [Antichrist] to make war with the saints and to overcome them..." (Revelation 13:7).
4. Perhaps the strongest similarity, though, is that their names, like those of the church, are recorded in the Lamb's book of life. "And all who dwell on the earth will worship him [Antichrist], everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain" (Revelation 13:8).
When you consider all the similarities which are indicated, it is puzzling that pre-Tribulationists are so adamant in their view that they are dissimilar—a determination based solely on what is not indicated in Scripture.
1. They have different originators. Pre-Tribulationists say the Lord God brought Israel into being through Abraham and Sarah; the church, however, was founded by Jesus Christ. We respond by asking, was Jesus acting on His own initiative when He founded the church? Jesus testified that was not the case: "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 6:38). With this in mind, it can easily be argued that the originator of Israel and the founder of the church are the same, i.e., the Father.
2. They have different foundations. We are told, "Israel was not founded on the finished work of Christ on the cross but on God's promises to her, which are still in force and will yet be fulfilled." 9 The underlying premise here is that Jesus' death on the cross has no bearing on Israel, either now or in the future. If that is true, it follows that Israel and the church must always remain distinct entities.
Pre-Tribulationists teach that when the kingdom was announced by Christ and John the Baptist, it was "a legitimate offer to Israel of the promised earthly Davidic kingdom, designed particularly for Israel." 10 When they rejected that offer, Jesus was forced to go the cross (what we might call, plan B), and Israel's promised kingdom was postponed until the Second coming of Christ. To grasp the weakness of this interpretation, consider the outcome if Israel had accepted the offer. At that time, a kingdom would have been established in which people were saved through legal obedience. According to dispensationalist, S. D. Gordon, "God has a plan of atonement by which men who were willing could be saved from sin and its effect. That plan is given in the Old Hebrew code. To the tabernacle of temple, under prescribed regulations, a man could bring some animal which he owned...It represented him." 11
Taken to its logical conclusion, this means the cross would not have been necessary for salvation had Israel accepted Jesus as their Messiah. Yet, Scripture expressly states it was always necessary for Him to die. The Old Testament sacrifices were merely "a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin." (Hebrews 10:3-4).
Nevertheless, pre-Tribbers cling to this line of reasoning, insisting Jesus' death on the cross was strictly for the church and had nothing to do with Israel. Moreover, they hold His death does not even affect Israel in the age to come! According to Chafer, "In this age, God is dealing with men on the ground of His grace as it is in Christ. His dealings with men in the coming age are based on a very different relationship. At that time the King will rule with a rod of iron. There is no word of the cross, or of grace, in the kingdom teachings." 12
Scripture, however, contradicts this view, presenting Jesus' work on the cross as the event which put the new covenant in force. To explain, when the Israelites broke the old (Sinai) covenant, God brought all the curses He had promised to bear on the nation (see Leviticus 26). Then, as the Southern Kingdom was about to be carried into captivity, Jeremiah prophesied a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:27). That covenant was made effectual by none other than Jesus, the Christ. "He takes away the first [covenant] in order to establish the second" (Hebrews 10:9). This was accomplished through His death on the cross. "And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death [Christ's] has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." (Hebrews 9:15). This means Jesus' death on the cross was not just for the church; it was also an integral part of God's dealings with Israel.
3. They have different purposes. According to LaHaye, Israel was to be "the torchbearer of God's faithfulness to a nation that worshiped Him." 13 He adds that Israel was not given the great commission as was the church. In response, we submit that the purposes were identical. In Exodus 19:6 we see that Israel was supposed to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." How, we ask, is that different from the purpose which Peter ascribed to the church? "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a people for God's own possession,that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." (I Peter 2:9). It would appear the only difference is that under the new covenant we have an additional resource—the indwelling Holy Spirit. That means the results will be different than those obtained by Israel; but the purpose is the same.
4. Their prophetic futures are different. LaHaye contends that the church is looking for Jesus to take them to the Father's house in heaven. By contrast, Israel seeks nationhood and an earthly Jerusalem. Israel, we are told, plans to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem; the church, however, has no use for an earthly temple. Finally, as the bride of Christ, the church is anticipating the "Marriage of the Lamb" in heaven." Israel, on the other hand, will reside on earth through all eternity.
The question is, does Scripture suggest the redeemed of "Israel" will have a final destination which is different from that of the redeemed of the church? There are two passages which seem to suggest that is not the case. The first is found in Romans 11. There, Paul was warning the Gentile church not to be arrogant toward unbelieving Israel. To make his point, he used the analogy of an olive tree. Its branches represented both believing and unbelieving Israelites. The bad branches, those who did not believe, were broken off, leaving only the believing Israelites. Then, branches from a wild olive tree were grafted in. These represented believing Gentiles. That occurrence is what prompted Paul's warning. "But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant toward the branches, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you" (Romans 11:17- 18).
He then suggested that if the Israelites do not continue in their unbelief, they could be grafted back into the tree. "For God is able to graft them in again." He further prophesied that this very thing will one day occur! "For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in you own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved..." (Romans 11:25-26). The picture, then, is not one of Israel and the church remaining separate, but one in which they will finally be joined together as part of the same tree.
But you say (and rightly so), doctrine should not be build on an analogy. There is, however, an explicit passage which indicates the future destination of the church is no different than Israel's. It is found in the second chapter of Ephesians. There Paul presents what might be called a "before and after" view of the status of Gentile believers. He writes, "Remember that you [Gentiles] were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." He goes on to explain that Christ "made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall..." (Ephesians 2:13,14).
The picture here is not one of the church going off in a different direction from Israel. Rather, it is that Gentile believers are now allowed to participate in all that was promised for Israel. Prior to Christ's death, this was unthinkable. Gentiles had no access to God, nor was there any possibility they would partake in any of Israel's promises. No doubt, their separation was driven home in that they were never allowed to enter the Temple proper. A massive stone "dividing wall" barred their entrance from the Gentile court. Inscribed on that wall, in Latin and Greek, was a warning forbidding foreigners to enter—under pain of death. But praise be to God, Christ broke down that wall (figuratively speaking). Now, as bona fide partakers in the commonwealth of Israel, we who are Gentile believers are no longer excluded from those promises.
Upon close examination, we conclude dispensationalism's sole basis for
the "distinction" between Israel and the church is its own peculiar definition—i.e.,
only believers between pentecost and the pre-Trib rapture. That means this
argument for the pre-Trib rapture is derived from a definition which assumes
the pre-Trib rapture. This, of course, is circular reasoning, which means
the whole argument (Reason # 4) should be deemed worthless.
Notes on Chapter 4
Last Updated October 12, 1998 by Larry Simmons