An article in a recent issue of the Orlando Sentinel noted that the Left Behind series of novels had moved beyond the realm of Christian readers and was enjoying success in the secular world. Total sales are expected to exceed 30 million copies by the end of the year, with the inevitable video and movie to follow. My first reaction to this news was one of satisfaction; I’ve always admired Tim LaHaye for his work in personality typing and human sexuality. I hadn’t read his new books on a pretribulation rapture, but I figured the public could always use a good scare. It was only after researching dispensationalist eschatology that I decided that Mr. LaHaye and his speculations will probably end up doing more harm than good.
First, a few definitions:
Tribulation – refers to the “great tribulation” of Rev. 7:14.
Dispensationalism – the belief that God tests man according to different dispensations or standards throughout history, resulting in human failure in each case.
Eschatology – from the Greek eschaton, or End; the doctrine of end times.
Rapture – from the Latin rapio, meaning to seize or carry away.
Pretribulationists contend that Jesus will return to the Earth in a secret, hidden rapture, and carry away his faithful Church either 3 ½ or seven years before his final return. Millions of people, Christians, will simply disappear. Those left behind will be the unbelieving majority, left to fend for themselves. In the interim period, a great Tribulation will fall on the world in judgment for not believing and obeying the Gospel. Thus, the Church will be spared the agony of this time, which precedes the destruction of the world.
There are many popular teachers who espouse this view, and it is widely accepted in fundamentalist circles. Contemporary figures who hold to a pretribulationist view include Charles Stanley, Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Hal Lindsey, Jerry Falwell, and the above-mentioned Tim LaHaye. The chief vehicle for its spread, however, has been the Scofield Reference Bible; an annotated version of the Scriptures popular among evangelicals since the turn of the century and still carried in many Christian book stores.
The question before us is this: is the pretribulationist view correct? If you study the writings of the early Church Fathers, look at the Creeds, examine the writings of the post-Nicene and medieval Church, read the Reformers or anybody prior to the 19th century, you will find nobody advocating this perspective. Nor will you find it in the Bible, although tortured attempts are made to inject it into the pages of Scripture. The fact is, the first person to mention such a possibility was a certain Margaret Macdonald, of Port Glasgow, Scotland, in March of 1830. During prophetic trances, she outlined the basics of a two-stage return of Christ. Her ruminations were taken by two men, Edward Irving, a Scots Presbyterian, and John Darby, an English priest in the Anglican Church, who systematized them and disseminated them to an eager audience. Through the media of books, newspapers, and Plymouth Brethren meetings conducted by the Rev. Mr. Darby, these views gained popularity. Today they are accepted without inquiry by many evangelicals, who are ignorant of their recent and highly controversial provenance.
Aside from the blatant eisegesis (injecting our meaning into the words of Scripture) conducted by pretrib advocates, we need to look at the theological implications of their position. What they contend is that God would never allow his Church, the Bride of Christ, to undergo tribulation. This is, of course, at odds with what we know of God from the Scriptures and our own experience. While God does not inflict his wrath upon us, he doesn’t always spare his elect from the wrath of the Enemy, godless men, nor a fallen natural order. In fact, the unjust suffering of his saints is often the vehicle he uses to “complete what is behind of the afflictions of Christ.” It is in our willingness to suffer in this transitory life that makes real and manifest the Kingdom of God to which we owe true allegiance. Darbyists ignore this fundamental truth, and hang their schemes on a superficial, carnal version of Christian triumphalism which is at odds with both Scripture and experience.
My purpose is not to offer a comprehensive eschatology, but to point out that the pretribulationist interpretation is faulty in and of itself. It is based upon a futurist interpretation of the Revelation of St. John, contending that it is not a letter to seven historic churches in Asia, but to the Church of 2000 whatever. The dominant view of the larger Church, however, is that the proper interpretation is not futurist, but preterit, or historic. It is a letter of encouragement sent to these seven churches to give a God’s eye view of events during a time of intense persecution and uncertainty. It depicts the removal of the Old Covenant and the institution of the New, with Christ on the throne. The Israel of God’s devotion is the Church, not a racial or political group. Although there is conflict in heaven and on Earth, the Lord Jesus is in charge, and we are assured of victory now, not just in the future. We do not know when Christ will return, but we do know this: he will come once, not twice. Whatever happens in the meantime, good or bad, it will happen to all. There is no question that there will be a raising of the dead in Christ and a rescue of those who still live in Him; problems come when we start to predict that earthly history will then continue after that most blessed event, whether good or bad.
I’ve read detailed statements statements Mr. LaHaye has written defending his eschatological views. I am unimpressed. While I applaud his ability to cross over to the secular world and engage the unchurched public with a message of impending judgment, I wonder if he carried anything Biblical in the crossing. It seems to me that in making the jump, the most important thing Left Behind was his Bible.
