Tag: eschatology

John 14:1-3 and the Rapture (Part 3)

John 14:1-3 and the Rapture (Part 3)

In Part 2 of this series, we presented four options for understanding what Jesus meant at John 14:1-3:

We also suggested a grading scale for evaluating these options:

  • Grade A: Explicit teaching.
  • Grade B: Implicit teaching.
  • Grade C: A principal or logical conclusion—an inference.
  • Grade D: A guess or speculation.
  • Grade E: Poor or non-existent support.

See the other articles in the “rapture series” here. See this entire article on “John 14:1-3 and the Rapture” as a single PDF here.

Now, let’s look at Option 1:

Option 1 can only be maintained by heavily freighting John’s words with presuppositions from elsewhere. This position is almost universally proposed by dispensational premillennialists.

  • It requires Jesus to return twice; (a) once for believers to transport them to heaven, and (b) again to imprison Satan and establish His kingdom (the event historically referred to as the second coming). Unfortunately, John 14:1-3 itself does not explicitly or implicitly support a two-stage return, nor does 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 which we already examined.
  • It requires us to see a hard distinction been (a) the ethnic people of Israel, and (b) the Jews and Gentiles which comprise “the church.” Because of this distinction, advocates read the Old Testament prophesies about the tribulation as a time of trouble specifically for the ethnic people of Israel—the “church” is not involved. Therefore, Jesus must transport the church away beforehand, and so this passage is about that escape. However, this passage and its context says nothing about that.

Option 1 advocates offer several arguments for their position:

  1. If this passage were about Jesus’ second coming, then He would have mentioned the cataclysmic events of Matthew 24,[1] so He must be talking about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.

Jesus already discussed those events, and nobody repeats every detail of a subject whenever a topic comes up. John’s gospel is famous for covering different ground than the other three,[2] he wrote 20 or 30 years later than Matthew,[3] and John 14 occurs in a different place in the timeline of Jesus’ ministry. In short, this is a weak argument from silence.

  1. Matthew 24 never mentions “my Father’s house,” but John 14:1-3 does.[4] Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.

This wrongly assumes “my Father’s house” must refer to a fixed place “up there,” in heaven. It’s also another weak argument from silence, for the reasons listed above.

  1. The persecution at John 15 is not characteristic of the tribulation.[5] Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.

However, in John 15 Jesus is not speaking about the tribulation but a different subject entirely. This objection falls.

  1. In John 14:1-3, Jesus never mentions a return with a trumpet blast accompanied by angels who will gather the elect from the four corners of the earth (Mt 24:30-31). Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.[6]

Again, this argument assumes that each biblical author will repeat everything another author says about the same topic. This is not the way human communication works. There is no place in scripture where any author incorporates everything everyone else has said on a particular subject. John was not writing a prophecy encyclopedia nor was Jesus lecturing on the topic—John was memorializing Jesus’ farewell address.

  1. If John 14:1-3 is about the second coming, that means believers will endure the great tribulation. But the tribulation is for the ethnic people of Israel, not the church. Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.[7]

Perhaps this is true, but neither this passage nor its context says anything about that. This is an objection from complete silence. If “the church” (as dispensationalists understand it) is not snatched away from earth before the tribulation, then it will be here during this terrible time. So, one writer suggests it would have been “cruel” of Jesus to not mention the tribulation at John 14:1-3 if He intended “the church” to endure it—that, if true, Jesus had “kept” this information from them.[8] A case can be made (and has been made over the centuries) that Matthew 24 already explains everything—just not along dispensationalist lines.

Arguments from silence are weak—and so is this one.

  1. The disciples have a heavenly hope for union with Christ, not an earthly one.[9] Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.

This is a conclusion, not an argument. The hope of all believers is community with God—Abraham was “looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God,” (Heb 11:10). This is the heavenly country (that is, the “country” with heavenly attributes[10]) that arrives at Rev 21-22, which contains the city which God has prepared for all believers (Heb 11:16). Community with God in renovated physical bodies (1 Cor 15:50-55) in a new heaven and a new earth (Rev 22)—that is our future.

  1. John 14:1-3 requires the saints “to dwell for a meaningful time with Christ in His Father’s house.”[11] Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.

Again, this makes the mistake of assuming “my Father’s house” must be a fixed place “up there” in heaven. This is incorrect. It also overlooks the solution that Jesus in John 14:1-3 simply refers to believers being in the Father’s presence (i.e., His “house”) upon their deaths.

  1. John 14:1-3 parallels 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, which is about the pre-tribulational rapture. Therefore, John 14:1-3 is about the pre-tribulational rapture.[12]

Unfortunately, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 doesn’t explicitly or implicitly teach any such thing, as I’ve discussed.  

  1. The “Father’s house” is in heaven, not on earth.[13] Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.

If “the Father’s house” truly cannot be here on earth, then by this logic Jesus’ parents did not find Him in His Father’s “house” when He was 12 years old (Lk 2:49), and the Christian community is not a “spiritual house” (1 Pet 2:5) or God’s “building” (1 Cor 3:9) or His “temple” (1 Cor 3:16-17), and God’s “tent” or “dwelling place” will not be here on earth with His people (Rev 21:3), and the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb will not be the new Jerusalem’s “temple” (Rev 21:22). Fortunately, the “Father’s house” is a figurative shorthand that refers to “the Father’s presence” in various contexts.

  1. John 14:1-3 is about believers going to heaven, whereas at the second coming Jesus is returning to earth. Therefore John 14:1-3 is about something else—the pre-tribulational rapture.[14]

This is a reasonable argument. However, it’s undercut by two weaknesses. First, once again “my Father’s house” is not tied to a fixed place “up there,” but is a figurative reference to God’s personal presence wherever He might be. Second, just because the text suggests Jesus transports believers away from here, it doesn’t give a blank check to a complicated two-stage return for Christ that’s dependent on speculation from elsewhere in scripture. There is a much simpler option—that believers “go to heaven” when they die.[15]

All told, evidence supports a “D” rating for John 14:1-3 being about the pre-tribulational rapture. It’s a perspective build entirely on guesswork from elsewhere. It swamps the text and freights it with a load its words cannot reasonably bear. This doesn’t mean the pre-tribulational rapture is false—it just means it isn’t in this passage.

Arguments from silence can be helpful supports that prop up explicit and implicit bible teaching from elsewhere. They’re backing vocals that ought never be trotted out to carry the entire concert. So it is with John 14:1-3.

In the next and last article, we’ll look at the other three options to understand what Jesus meant at John 14:1-3.

[1] “… the wars and rumors of wars; the famines, pestilences and earthquakes; the great tribulation; the false prophets, etc. of which there is not a word in all of the Upper Room Discourse,” (Carl Armerding, “That Blessed Hope,” in Bibliotheca Sacra, 111:142 (April 1954), p. 150).

[2] See, for example, I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), pp. 491f.

[3] David deSilva tentatively suggests a date in the early 70s for Matthew (An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2018), p. 215). N.T. Wright and Michael Bird offer up a date between 80-100 (The New Testament in Its World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019), p. 579), while Grant Osbourne suggests a date in the mid-to-late 60s (Matthew, in ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), pp. 43-44). John’s Gospel is typically dated in the late 90s, shading to perhaps very, very early in the second century (cp. deSilva, Introduction, pp. 343-344).

[4] Armerding, “Blessed Hope,” p. 150.

[5] Armerding, “Blessed Hope,” p. 150.

[6] Armerding, “Blessed Hope,” p. 151.

[7] Armerding, “Blessed Hope,” p. 151. “And it is this purpose which distinguishes the coming of the Lord as promised in John 14 from His coming as the Son of man as predicted in Matthew 24.”

[8] Jonathan Pratt, “The Case for the Pre-tribulational Rapture,” in Dispensationalism Revisited: A Twenty-First Century Restatement (Plymouth: Central Seminary Press, 2023), p. 251.

[9] John Walvoord, “The Future Work of Christ Part I: The Coming of Christ for His Church,” in Bibliotheca Sacra, 123:489 (January 1966), p. 13). “This was an obvious contradiction of their previous hope that Christ was going to reign on earth and quite different in its general character. It indicated that their hope was heavenly rather than earthly and that they were going to be taken out of the earth to heaven rather than for Christ to come to the earth to be with them.”

“In making the pronouncement in John 14, Christ is holding before His disciples an entirely different hope than that which was promised to Israel as a nation. It is the hope of the church in contrast to the hope of the Jewish nation. The hope of the church is to be taken to heaven; the hope of Israel is Christ returning to reign over the earth,” (Walvoord, The Rapture Question, revised and enlarged (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), p. 71).

[10] In the sentence, “heavenly” is an attributive genitive: νῦν δὲ κρείττονος ὀρέγονται τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἐπουρανίου.

[11] Richard Mayhue, “Why A Pretribulational Rapture?” in Masters Seminary Journal, TMSJ 13:2 (Fall 2002), p. 246.

[12] Armerding, “Blessed Hope,” pp. 151-152; Mayhue, “Pretribulational Rapture,” p. 246; Pratt, “The Case for the Pre-tribulational Rapture,” in Dispensationalism Revisited, pp. 250-251.

[13] Walvoord, The Rapture Question, p. 71. “Christ returns to the earthly scene to take the disciples from earth to heaven. This is in absolute contrast to what takes place when Christ returns to establish His kingdom on earth.”

[14] Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 5 (reprint; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1976), p. 164.  

[15] Walvoord dismisses this as “spiritualizing,” which is a common slur in the dispensationalist lexicon (Rapture Question, p. 71).

John 14:1-3 and the Rapture (Part 2)

John 14:1-3 and the Rapture (Part 2)

In the first article, we set out to study what Jesus meant at John 14:1-3. Some Christians believe this passage speaks about the pre-tribulational rapture of the church to heaven, clearing the way for the tribulation here on earth. Is that right?

We began by looking at the context around Jesus’ words, which is His long goodbye talk at John 13:33 to 16:33. In this article, we’ll finish up the context, lay out four possible ways to understand Jesus’ words at John 14:1-3, then propose a “grading scale” to weigh these options. The next two articles in this series will examine these four positions in detail.

See the other articles in the “rapture series” here. See this entire article on “John 14:1-3 and the Rapture” as a single PDF here.

1c: Convo on Phillip’s implicit question (vv. 14:8-21)

Philip, perplexed, asks to see the Father. Jesus explains that Father and Son (and Spirit) mutually indwell one another in a mysterious way (Jn 14:10-11). This interwoven nature helps explain why the one God can eternally exist as three co-equal and co-eternal Persons.[1] This is why to “see” Jesus is to “see” the Father—to be with Jesus by means of trusting His Good News is to be “in God’s presence.”

But still—Jesus is physically leaving! He must leave so He can wage His divine campaign against the kingdom of darkness from on high through us (Jn 14:12).[2] Where does this leave us, then?

Well, Jesus promises to not leave us as orphans. The Father will send “another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth,” (Jn 14:16-17). Unlike those outside God’s family, we will know this Spirit because He’ll reside with us and be inside us (Jn 14:17).[3] And so He won’t abandon us as orphans: “I will come to you” (Jn 14:18). On that day—that is, the day when the Advocate comes to dwell inside us—we will participate God’s inner life because we’ll be part of this mutual indwelling. “On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you,” (Jn 14:20).

1d: Convo on Judas (not Iscariot’s) question (vv. 14:22-31)

When the Spirit takes residence inside us, Father and Son come along with Him: “we will come to them and make our home with them,” (Jn 14:23).

And yet, despite all this talk about being both absent and somehow “with us” at the same time, the fact is that Jesus is physically leaving us. Sure, the Spirit will be His proxy in the interim and, as we’ve seen, Father and Son will also tag along—but there is no physical, tangible “God with us” after the ascension.

Jesus realizes this will be a problem, because He returns to the theme and says it’s best that He leaves (Jn 14:28). If they love Him (and, by extension, love the victory over sin and Satan that His ministry is all about), then they should be glad that He’s headed back to the Father’s throne room. The scriptures “show” us the three Persons who comprise the One God by highlighting the “distinct and harmonious offices in the great work of redemption”[4] that each performs. In this case, Jesus casts a spotlight on the Father’s role in planning this divine rescue plan: “the Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28). That is, as our vicarious surrogate and representative, Jesus is carrying out the Father’s plan—and that plan has Him leaving here and returning to the Father’s personal presence. By telling them about His departure He’s simply preparing them for this physical separation beforehand, so they’ll trust Him when it happens (Jn 14:29).

1e: Convo about the divine helper (vv. 15:26 to 16:15)

Jesus casts the Spirit’s role, and He and the Father’s spiritual presence within us via the Spirit, as an aid for evangelism (Jn 15:26-27). They must understand this, or else they might fall away from the faith (Jn 16:1). Bad times are coming, and true believers must stick with Him—this is Jesus’ point throughout John 15 (see esp. Jn 15:9-10). “I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them,” (Jn 16:4).

Jesus has carefully meted out more information over time. He didn’t mention His long absence and the community’s mission beforehand “because I was with you, but now I am going to him who sent me,” (Jn 16:4-5). This is a physical departure for another place, returning to His words at John 14:2-4.

Though both Phillip and Thomas have asked Jesus where He’s going (Jn 13:36, 14:5), Jesus knows their questions are actually grief-stricken exclamations borne of shock (Jn 16:5-6). I must go, Jesus explains, because if I don’t, then the Advocate won’t arrive and carry out His mission through you all (Jn 16:7-11). But, when the Spirit arrives, He’ll guide believers into all truth—i.e., they’ll understand it all soon enough (Jn 16:13-14).

“Jesus went on to say, ‘In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,’” (Jn 16:16). His meaning is unclear, but it’s best to see Jesus as speaking about the resurrection on Easter morning and the 40 days of instruction which follow.[5]

1f: Convo about the resurrection reunion (vv. 16:16-28)

The disciples are once again confused—the concept of Jesus’ death and resurrection makes no sense to them (Jn 16:17-18).

Jesus ignores their questions about the “why” and “how” of His departure, and instead reassures them that “it’ll be worth it all” when He returns (Jn 16:20-23). Their joy at beholding Jesus’ glorified and resurrected person, coupled with the power of the Holy Spirit poured out from on high at Pentecost, will turbo-charge their zeal to take His Good News to Judea, Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. Therefore, their joy will be irrepressible and complete (Jn 16:22, 24).

During the 40 days between His resurrection and ascension, Jesus will no longer speak to them figuratively— “I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father,” (Jn 16:25). Indeed, Luke tells us: “He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God,” (Acts 1:3).

Jesus then ends His long farewell address by pivoting back to where the discussion began—to His long-term departure, not simply the interval between Good Friday and Easter morning: “I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father,” (Jn 16:28).

Throughout the farewell address, Jesus refers to His departure and return in at least three different contexts; (a) His physical departure to the Father’s presence and eventual physical return, (b) His physical departure to the Father and His spiritual return via the Holy Spirit, and (c) His physical departure by death and His physical return on Easter morning. He dips in and out of these contexts repeatedly; first one, then the other, then still another. This means the reader cannot assume an “obvious” reading of John 14:2-4, but must follow the train of Jesus’ thought throughout the entire farewell address to make a reliable conclusion.

2: What does Jesus mean at John 14:1-3?

This much is clear:

  • Jesus speaks of a physical departure to a place where the disciples cannot follow (Jn 13:33). He identifies His destination as “to the One who sent me,” (Jn 7:33; cp. “just as I told the Jews” at Jn 13:33). The One who sent Him was God (Jn 1:14, 18).
  • Peter asks why they cannot follow Jesus to this destination (Jn 13:36-37).
  • Jesus responds by asking the disciples to trust Him (Jn 14:1). The discussion still centers on Jesus’ physical departure.
  • His destination is the Father’s personal presence, which he figuratively refers to as “my Father’s house.” Assuming the likeness of a kindly innkeeper, Jesus says He’s headed off to prepare “rooms” for all believers and will one day return to bring Christians to His Father’s “house.”

It seems there are four possible options for understanding John 14:2-3, and they each rely on different definitions of “my Father’s house.”

Table 1

2a: A grade scale for bible study

I suggest the following grading scale to evaluate the strength of a passage’s teaching:[6]

  • Grade A: Explicit teaching. The passage either (a) makes some direct statement in proper context, or (b) directly teaches on the specific issue (e.g., justification by faith, Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus as the only way of salvation, the virgin birth, etc.). Hold closely and aggressively to doctrines with Grade A support.
  • Grade B: Implicit teaching. Though there may not be a specific statement in context, or a direct passage about the subject using the summary terms the Church has developed over time, there is only one responsible conclusion (e.g., doctrine of the Trinity, two-nature Christology, baptism of professing believers only). Hold closely and aggressively to doctrines with Grade B support.
  • Grade C: A principal or logical conclusion—an inference. The issue is the application of a general principle from scripture in context, and/or a logical conclusion or inference from the data in proper context. “Because A, then it makes sense that B, and so we have C.” It isn’t the only conclusion possible, but it is a reasonable one (e.g., presence of apostolic sign gifts today, the regulative principle of worship, music styles in worship). Agree to disagree on doctrines with Grade C support, because the evidence is not conclusive for one position or the other.
  • Grade D: A guess or speculation. No explicit or implicit scriptural support, evidence falls short of a persuasive conclusion from the data, and it’s built on shaky foundations—“because A, then it makes sense that B, and therefore it could mean C, and so D.” It’s an educated guess based on circumstantial evidence (e.g., who wrote the Book of Hebrews). Hold very loosely to issues with Grade D support—never force your guess on another believer.
  • Grade E: Poor or non-existent support. No explicit or implicit evidence, no logical conclusion or inference from data, and cannot be taken seriously even as a guess. The passage doesn’t support the issue at hand. Ditch passages with Grade E support.

In the next article, we’ll look at Option 1 from the table, above.

[1] This is called “perichoresis,” which Erickson helpfully defines as: “Indwelling or mutual interpenetration. An ancient teaching that understands the Trinity as consisting of three persons, so closely bound together that the life of each flows through each of the others,” (Concise Dictionary, s.v., “perichoresis,” p. 152).

[2] Calvin, John, p. 2:90. Alvah Hovey, Commentary on John, in American Commentary (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 286.

“A very wonderful promise! But has it been fulfilled? We think it has. For if we look at the wonders of the Day of Pentecost, together with the events that followed in the rapid spread of the gospel during the apostolic age, it does not seem extravagant to regard them as greater than any which took place during the ministry of Christ. And if we compare the spiritual results of the three most fruitful years of the ministry of Paul, of Luther, of Whitefield, or of Spurgeon, with the spiritual results of Christ’s preaching and miracles for three years, we shall not deem his promise vain. And if it be urged against the latter instances that miracles are wanting, it may be replied that supernatural works in the realm of spirit are superior, rather than inferior, to those in the world of sense—that to raise a soul from death unto life is really a greater act than to raise a dead body from the grave.”

[3] Gk: ὅτι παρʼ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται.

[4] 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith, Article II. 

[5] This is Chrysostom’s interpretation and it’s followed by many modern interpreters (“Homily LXXIX,” in NPNF1, vol. 14, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. G. T. Stupart (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), p. 291).

There are two other reasonable options to understand Jn 16:16f.

First is that Jesus speaking of the coming of the Spirit—they will soon not see Him any longer, but nevertheless they will “see” Him by the illumination of the Spirit. This hinges on the two different words for “see” which John uses, and the conclusion that if John were speaking of them physically “seeing” Jesus soon, he would have used the same word for “sight” in the sentence. But he didn’t. So, there must be some distinction between the two words, and the latter can be interpreted as a mental or spiritual perception (BDAG, s.v., sense A.4). John Calvin is an eloquent champion for this view (Commentary on the Gospel According to John, vol. 2 (reprint; Bellingham: Logos, 2010), p. 147). More recently, Edward Klink advances this proposal (John, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016; Kindle ed.), loc. 18998f). This interpretation is plausible but seems too cute by half. Jesus’ insistence on them seeing Him again and being filled with joy (Jn 16:20f) seem to indicate something more than spiritual enlightenment.

A second option is that Jesus is speaking of His second coming. But His audience never saw the second coming. It seems hollow if Jesus assured them all that they’d soon see Him, but He really meant that the Christians alive at His second coming would see Him.

[6] I am indebted to Paul Henebury’s “Rules of Affinity” as the inspiration for this grading scale. I did not use his grading scale or his descriptions, but I did take his general concept.

John 14:1-3 and the Rapture (Part 1)

John 14:1-3 and the Rapture (Part 1)

Many American Christians have been raised in a church culture that stresses that Jesus will return to “rapture” or snatch away “the church” before the Great Tribulation. They believe “the church” is a different people than ethnic Israel, with a complementary but distinct future.[1] Because this great tribulation is “a time of trouble for Jacob” (Jer 30:7), it is not for “the church.” Therefore, the rapture is the point where “the church” slips out the door just before this tribulation begins.

They believe this rapture will involve (a) resurrection of all believers who died since Pentecost, and (b) a simultaneous snatching away of all believers still alive, all to (c) meet the Lord in the air for transport to heaven while tribulation rages here. Later, Jesus will return from heaven with “the church” to end this great tribulation—this is the second coming.

This is part of a “pre-tribulational” (i.e., Jesus will return before the tribulation), and “premillennial” (i.e., Jesus will establish His kingdom to trigger the millennium) framework called dispensationalism.

Many of these Christians point to John 14:1-3 as proof of the rapture of “the church.” This article will consider what Jesus says at John 14:1-3. First, we’ll examine the entire context of Jesus’ farewell talk at Jn 13:33 to 16:33. Second, we’ll examine four common interpretations about what Jesus said at Jn 14:1-3. Third, we’ll propose a solution.

See the other articles in the “rapture series” here. See this entire article on “John 14:1-3 and the Rapture” as a single PDF here.

1: The long convo—Jesus says goodbye

It’s silly to interpret something without context. You watch a video clip of something that looks terrible, but the whole clip shows it in it’s true light. It’s the same with the bible. So, to get what Jesus says at John 14:1-3, we must consider everything He says during a very long talk after the last supper.

Here’s the outline—and this is “kind of a big deal” because Jesus constantly talks about different ways in which He’ll “come back” and reunite them to the Father. Skip this if you want, but you might want to refer to it later.

  • Jn 13:33-35: Jesus’ announcement about His physical departure, and therefore the necessity of brotherly love as the mark of the true Christian community
    • Jn 13:36 – 14:4: Dialogue on Peter’s question.
      • Believers must trust Jesus. He will physically return to the Father’s personal presence, and eventually bring believers into His Father’s presence, too. Yet, they already know “the way”!
    • Jn 14:5-7: Dialogue on Thomas’ question.
      • Believers are, in a real sense, in the Father’s presence right now by means of trusting in Jesus’ Good News—He is “the way” to the Father’s “house.”
    • Jn 14:8-21: Dialogue on Philip’s implicit question.
      • Jesus and the Father mutually indwell one another, and this is why when you “see” one you “see” the other. Jesus must return to the Father’s presence to direct His campaign against the kingdom of darkness from on high. Meanwhile, He sends believers the Holy Spirit so we aren’t left as orphans. Jesus will reveal Himself to (i.e., be “seen” by) those who love the Father, by means of the Spirit.
    • Jn 14:22-31: Dialogue on Judas (not Iscariot’s) question
      • Jesus will only show Himself to those who love Him, which means those who obey His teaching. The Spirit, through whom Jesus is “with us,” brings believers peace and teaches them. Jesus warns the disciples about all this beforehand, so they’re prepared for the day.
  • Jn 15-16: Jesus and the disciples “walk and talk” on the streets of Jerusalem
    • Jn 15:1-25: Be sure to stick with Jesus.
      • Fruit is the mark of a true Jesus follower, and the defining fruit is brotherly love.
    • Jn 15:26 – 16:15: The work of the Spirit in the New Covenant.
      • Jesus must physically return to the Father and “pass the baton” (as it were) to the Spirit. He will be their Advocate and teacher, and so they’ll be able to endure.
    • Jn 16:16-28: Jesus on His resurrection reunion.
      • The disciples will see Him “after a little while,” (Jn 16:16) and then their grief will turn to joy (Jn 16:20, 22). At that time, Jesus will speak plainly to them about the Father (Jn 16:25).
    • Jn 16:29-33: Farewell address ends

1a: The mic drop—Jesus says goodbye (vv. 13:33-35)

Our passage opens after Judas has bolted from the Last Supper and fled into the night. He’s on his way to betray Jesus to the Jewish authorities (Jn 13:27-30).

Jesus, perhaps taking a deep breath as He sees the walls closing in on Him, explains that both He and God will be “glorified” by what’s about to happen. It’s so certain that Jesus speaks as if His arrest, torture, and execution are already a done deal: “Now the Son of Man is glorified and God is glorified in him,” (Jn 13:31). The word “glorify” here is a churchy term, and it means to be held in honor, or clothed in splendor.[2] Basically, Jesus will be honored triumphantly,[3] and so too will God.

Jesus then explains: “My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come,” (Jn 13:33).

Where is Jesus going? Clearly, it’s back to the Father’s side in heaven (cp. Jn 17:1ff). Now, heaven is not a physical location “up there” in the clouds. Satellites go “up there.” Manned space missions go “up there.” Heaven is not in outer space—it’s best understood as a different dimension where God dwells.[4] It’s the place from which Jesus came (Jn 3:13; 17:1f) and to which He returned at His ascension: “he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence,” (Heb 9:24). It’s the place where God dwells (“Our Father in heaven …” Mt 6:4). It’s the place where believer’s inheritances are kept for them (1 Pet 1:4-5; cp. Mt 6:20). Heaven is God’s throne room (Mt 5:34). Perhaps, then, we should see “the kingdom of heaven” as meaning something like “the kingdom of God’s presence” which has “come near” in Jesus (Mk 1:15)—His reign.

Because heaven in our context is God’s holy presence, then we should remember that God is not a stationary rock—He moves. In fact, the Christian story ends with this declaration: “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them,” (Rev 21:3). The story moves from (a) crude representations of God’s throne room under the figures of the tabernacle (Ex 25:9), to (b) the New Testament explanation that these figures taught us in advance about Christ’s sacrifice (Heb 9:1 – 10:18), and finally (c) to Father and Son sharing a throne here on earth, in a new creation (Rev 21:1 – 22:5).

The Apostle John sees “the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,” (Rev 22:12). The celestial city represents the pure community of God’s presence just as Babylon is the community of evil and wickedness (Rev 17-18), and one day it will no longer be just “the Jerusalem that is above” (Gal 4:26)—it will be here. No longer will our citizenship in “Mount Zion … the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb 12:22) be an abstraction that we can’t see and touch—it will be here.

More than a place, this “heaven” here on earth is also a state of being. There are no tears, no pain, no sorrow, no sin— “nothing impure will ever enter it … no longer will there be any curse,” (Rev 21:27; 22:3). “There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away,” (Rev 21:4). One writer says: “Heaven is the life willed for us originally in creation by God the Father, lived for us by the Son, and finally enabled by the Spirit.”[5] Isaiah speaks of a “new heavens and a new earth” with very physical and earthly descriptions of perfect fellowship in an ideal society (Isa 65:17-25). No old age, no infant mortality, endless crops of plenty, satisfaction from work, blessedness from the Lord, perfect fellowship with Him and each other—it’s all there.

Belinda Carlisle was right— “heaven” will indeed be a place on earth, because heaven is God’s personal presence which brings blessedness and community with Him. This is why the Apostle Peter, casting his mind on promises like these, wrote: “… in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells,” (2 Pet 3:13).

God has long promised to re-create the fellowship and community our first parents ruined (Zech 2:10; Ezek 48:35), and by the end of the story He will have made good on that promise. This means that “heaven” is not static. New York City doesn’t move, nor does London—but “heaven” does, because “heaven” is where the Lord is.

So, what does Jesus mean in John 13:33 when He says: “Where I am going, you cannot come?” He means (a) that He’s soon returning to the Father’s personal presence (“I am coming to you now …” Jn 17:3), and that (b) the disciples cannot yet come with Him. Why not? Because they’re still alive, and so will remain here. To be absent from the physical body is to be physically present with the Lord in that other place (2 Cor 5:8). But, for now, we who are alive must wait.

1b: Convo on Peter’s question (vv. 13:36 to 14:4)

Peter and the others then ignore Jesus’ urgent pleas for them to show love to one another (Jn 13:34-35), and instead press Him about His departure (Jn 13:36-37)—what’s that all about?

Simon Peter asked him, “Lord, where are you going?”

Jesus replied, “Where I am going, you cannot follow now, but you will follow later.”

Peter asked, “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.”

How could He leave? What’s going on? Where is He going? After an incredulous aside to Peter (Jn 13:38), Jesus murmurs some comforting words: “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me,” (Jn 14:1). The word might be better translated as trust (not “believe”), but the point is that Jesus’ departure is not an abandonment.

My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going (John 14:2-4).[6]

This “house” is figurative imagery to express the place where the Father lives—i.e., His personal presence.[7] This is why Jesus referred to the temple, that grand and living object lesson, as “my Father’s house” (Lk 2:49; Jn 2:16)—because the Father lived inside.[8] This is why the Apostle Paul says the Christian community is God’s “house” (1 Cor 3:6; 1 Tim 3:15)—because God’s Spirit dwells in our midst. It’s why the writer of the letter to the Hebrews explained “we are his house,” (Heb 3:6). The temple is God’s “house” (Ps 69:9, cp. Jn 2:17; Lk 19:46).

But “my Father’s house” is not a physical structure anchored to a particular place. God does not live at 777 Eternity Drive. Instead, “my Father’s house” is a figurative reference to God’s personal presence. In the same way, the real throne room in heaven to which Jesus returns is “my Father’s house” because God is there.

We’ve seen that there is no physical house, and there are no real rooms. These are metaphors. Jesus is saying that He won’t abandon them. Adopting the imagery of a friendly innkeeper, Jesus promises that He’s leaving to prepare “rooms” for each one of them in the Father’s personal presence (i.e., “my Father’s house”). And one day Jesus will come back and bring them face to face with God so they can all be there with Him together. In fact,[9] they already know how to get to the Father’s house themselves (Jn 14:4).

We continue looking at Jesus’ farewell talk in the next article.

[1] See Charles Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953),ch. 7. Ryrie’s book should be titled The Basis of the Dispensational Faith, because premillennialism is not necessarily dispensationalism.

C. I. Scofield wrote: “Comparing, then, what is said in Scripture concerning Israel and the Church, he finds that in origin, calling, promise, worship, principles of conduct, and future destiny—all is contrast,” (Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (reprint; Philadelphia: Philadelphia School of the Bible, 1921), p. 11). Scofield’s student, Lewis S. Chafer, lists 24 contrasts between Israel and the Church (Systematic Theology, vol. 4 (reprint; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1976), ch. 3)!

[2] See BDAG, s.v., sense 2; LSJ, s.v., sense 2.  

[3] Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “glory (v.1), sense 1,” July 2023, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/4382797103.

[4] See (a) Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), pp. 1125-1133, (b) Alvah Hovey, Biblical Eschatology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1888), pp. 156-160.

[5] Thomas Oden, Life in the Spirit: Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (San Francisco, HarperCollins, 1992), p. 460.

[6] The Greek here is pretty straightforward. Any mysteries in this verse aren’t hidden here: Gk: ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου μοναὶ πολλαί εἰσιν εἰ δὲ (emphasis) μή, εἶπον ἂν ὑμῖν ὅτι πορεύομαι ἑτοιμάσαι τόπον ὑμῖν; καὶ (additive) ἐὰν πορευθῶ καὶ ἑτοιμάσω τόπον ὑμῖν, πάλιν ἔρχομαι καὶ παραλήμψομαι ὑμᾶς πρὸς ἐμαυτόν, ἵνα (purpose + subjunctive) ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ (adjunctive) ὑμεῖς ἦτε (subjunctive = paired with ἵνα) καὶ (emphasis) ὅπου (obj. gen.) [ἐγὼ] ὑπάγω οἴδατε (intensive perfect) τὴν ὁδόν (direct obj.).

“In my Father’s house are many rooms. Surely, if this weren’t true, would I have told you all that I am leaving to prepare a place for you? And, if I am leaving to prepare a place for you all, I will come again and take you along with me, so that you will also be where I am. In fact, you already know the way to the place I am going.”

[7] BDAG, s.v., sense 1b.  

[8] Although God never indwelt the second temple, you get the point.   

[9] The NIV drops the conjunction in the phrase: καὶ ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω οἴδατε τὴν ὁδόν. The conjunction is likely ascensive or perhaps emphatic—the result is the same; the previous thought is focused and further developed.

1 Thessalonians 4 and the Rapture

1 Thessalonians 4 and the Rapture

Many American Christians have questions about something called “the rapture.” These questions are often tied to a particular flavor of premillennialism called “dispensationalism.” According to this framework, “the rapture” means “the idea that Christ will remove the church from the world prior to the great tribulation.”[1] They believe the rapture is before the Great Tribulation, so it is “pre-tribulational.” This teaching relies heavily on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, along with other supporting passages. This article will evaluate whether this passage teaches a pre-tribulational rapture.

Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13).

Paul begins a new subject at 1 Thessalonians 4:13.[2] Maybe the church had written to Paul with this question, or maybe Timothy had relayed it in person (1 Thess 3:6f). Regardless, Paul doesn’t want the church in Thessalonica to be upset and grieve, as if they had no hope.

Why are they upset? We don’t know how the issue came up, but wrong ideas seem to taken root in the congregation about Jesus’ return. This isn’t surprising, because Paul didn’t spend much time with them before he was run out of town (Acts 17:1-9).

What is this hope that ought to stop them from grieving? Paul explains:

For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. (1 Thessalonians 4:14).

Paul explains[3] that, because Jesus has died and rose again, in the same way[4] God will bring with Jesus those who have died (“fallen asleep”) while in union with Him. So, anyone who believes that Jesus is the hinge upon which God’s single plan to rescue us and this world turns—that is, any believer—will be resurrected and be with Jesus forever. This means there is hope, whether the believer is alive or dead.

According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep (1 Thessalonians 4:15).

In fact, the believers who are alive when Jesus returns will not be “first in line” to see Him. The dead believers will not be left behind. What does this mean? Paul explains …[5]

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thessalonians 4:16).

The reason dead Christians won’t miss anything is because Jesus Himself will come from heaven and resurrect “the dead in Christ” first. Jesus will come very publicly, very loudly—accompanied with both a piercing battle cry[6] and the sound of a blasting trumpet. So, the dead believers will be resurrected first—but what about the believers who are still alive when Christ returns?

After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever (1 Thessalonians 4:17).[7]

After the dead in Christ are resurrected in the same way Jesus was (i.e., miraculously), those who are still alive will be caught up, snatched, or suddenly seized away[8] into the clouds to meet Jesus in the air as He returns. The word Paul uses, which the NIV translates as “meet,” suggests an advance reception for an arriving dignitary.[9] This happens right after the resurrection of the dead believers, so that together they will meet Jesus in the air as one group. And so, Paul concludes, in this way all believers will be with the Lord for all time.

The point is that dead believers have reason to hope. They will miss nothing. So, when Paul makes his conclusion at the end of v.17, he’s drawing those strands together. He’s answering a question about whether the dead in Christ will miss out when Jesus returns. The answer is no, both dead and living believers will meet the Lord together in the air. In this manner, all believers will be with Jesus forever.

Therefore encourage one another with these words (1 Thessalonians 4:18).

So, does 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 teach that the Lord will remove the church from the earth before the Great Tribulation? No, it does not. The passage isn’t about the rapture at all. It’s about how those who are in relationship with Jesus, whether alive or dead, always have hope that they’ll be with Him forever when He returns. To be sure, the passage contains the rapture, but that isn’t the same thing as being about the rapture.

Paul doesn’t directly answer the question about rapture timing. He doesn’t address that issue at all. He simply says that, when Jesus returns, both dead and living believers will meet Him in the air as one group and be with the Lord forever.

  • Two-stage return for Jesus. Does the group (a) then ascend back to heaven with Jesus, (b) clearing the way for the Great Tribulation on the people of Israel, and then (c) return to earth with Jesus afterwards?
  • Single return for Jesus. Or does the group simply fall in behind Jesus in the air as He continues His return—in which case this meeting is like a divine triumphal entry in which they met Him “half way”?

You must bring in other passages to make the case for a pre-tribulational rapture, which sees a two-stage return for Jesus. I’ll examine the most common support passages in follow-up articles. But the evidence in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 does not explicitly support any particular timing for the rapture. The closest Paul comes is the word he uses for this “meeting” with the Lord in the air (v. 17), which suggests a public welcome for Christ when He returns to His holy city.[10] In other words, there is a hint of support here for a single return for Jesus.

[1] Millard J. Erickson, The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, revised ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), s.v. “Rapture, Pretribulational view of the,” p. 167.

[2] The NIV omits the transitional conjunction δὲ.

[3] The conjunction at the beginning of v.14 is explanatory (γὰρ).

[4] The adverb of manner at v. 14b (οὕτως) explains that our dying and rising again will happen in the same way as Jesus.’

[5] The conjunction at the beginning of v.17 (ὅτι) is explanatory.

[6] BDAG, s.v., “κέλευσμα,” p. 538; LSJ, s.v., p. 936.

[7] Gk: ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες (nom. apposition) οἱ περιλειπόμενοι (nom. apposition) ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα (paired with ἡμεῖς) ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ (conclusion) οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα.

“And then we—those who are alive and are still here—will be snatched away together with them into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so, in this way we’ll be with the Lord for all time.”

[8] BDAG, s.v., “ἁρπάζω,” sense 2, p. 134; LSJ, s.v., sense 2, p. 246.

[9] See (a) BDAG, s.v. “ἀπάντησιν,” p. 97, (b) LSJ, s.v., (c) Erik Peterson, TDNT, s.v., p. 1.380–381. See also the context of the usage at Mt 25:6 and Acts 28:15.

[10] “According to 1 Th. 4:17, at the second coming of the Lord, there will be a rapture εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα. The word ἀπάντησις (also ὑπάντησις, DG) is to be understood as a tech. term for a civic custom of antiquity whereby a public welcome was accorded by a city to important visitors. Similarly, when Christians leave the gates of the world, they will welcome Christ in the ἀήρ, acclaiming Him as κύριος,” (Peterson, TDNT, s.v. “ἀπάντησις,”p. 1:380-381).

What is Providence?

What is Providence?

Providence is what Christians call “God governing things to turn out like He decided.” Either God is trying really hard to make something work, or He directs and controls reality. The scriptures tell us the second option is the right one. But, how does this work? This bible study considers what the scriptures have to say about this issue, and why it matters for your life.

Here are three resources that you might find helpful when considering this topic:

  1. Thomas Watson, “A Body of Divinity,” pp. 89-95.
  2. 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, ch. 5.
  3. 1618 Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 13.

How to Interpret Prophecy: A Guide for the Perplexed

How to Interpret Prophecy: A Guide for the Perplexed

I recently completed a massive project which I want to share with you all. I’ve produced a series of nine short videos explaining how to interpret biblical prophecy in a responsible way. Interpreting prophecy is hard! There’s often too much drama, too much speculation, and too much passion invested based on poor methods. This nine-part video series aims to address this problem. I’ve also written a 39-page booklet to accompany this video series, which goes into more detail.

I hope this project is of some use to Christians who are looking for a sane approach to prophecy that avoids the date-setting, “ripped from the headlines” approach which has characterized too much of the genre.

If you’re an “ordinary” Christian looking for a solid book to understand prophecy, perhaps the best I can recommend is an older work by R.B. Girdlestone, The Grammar of Prophecy: An Attempt to Discover the Method Underlying the Prophetic Scriptures. It’s a short book, and Girdlestone was an Anglican minister from an earlier era, but this is an excellent work on the subject. For my money, it’s the best thing a Christian can buy.

The videos are below, and here is the accompanying booklet. If you want more information about a subject I mention, please refer to the booklet.

Beyond sawdust theology

Beyond sawdust theology

I’m studying for the sermon tomorrow, which is titled “Singing the Ballot Blues: What Should a Christian Think About Voting?” I’m browsing through some systematic theologies to read what they have to say about hope in the context of eschatology.

Hope in a better time. Hope in a better king. Hope in a better place. Hope in a better future. Hope in a restoration of all things. Hope in judgment, mercy and holiness.

Hope that there’s something better than this place, and the 2020 election.

I’m disappointed at what I find.

I generally find sawdust.

I find sterile treatises trying to plot the timeline of events in the last days. I see dry, scholastic discussions about eschatology. I see lots of dogma, but no heart. No soul. No excitement. I see academia at its worst, and no joy in the age to come.

Ironically, I find the most joy, the most hope, the most irrepressible, starry-eyed vision of Jesus Christ’s return in European theologians commonly considered “liberal” or otherwise “neo-orthodox” by many conservative evangelicals.

So, I shall quote Jurgen Moltmann for a taste of this joy and hope. I think you’ll enjoy it (The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology, trans. Margaret Kohl [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997; Kindle ed.], KL 67-97):

Eschatology is always thought to deal with the end, the last day, the last word, the last act: God has the last word. But if eschatology were that and only that, it would be better to turn one’s back on it altogether; for ‘the last things’ spoil one’s taste for the penultimate ones, and the dreamed of, or hoped for, end of history robs us of our freedom among history’s many possibilities, and our tolerance for all the things in history that are unfinished and provisional.

We can no longer put up with earthly, limited and vulnerable life, and in our eschatological finality we destroy life’s fragile beauty. The person who presses forward to the end of life misses life itself. If eschatology were no more than religion’s `final solution’ to all the questions, a solution allowing it to have the last word, it would undoubtedly be a particularly unpleasant form of theological dogmatism, if not psychological terrorism. And it has in fact been used in just this way by a number of apocalyptic arm-twisters among our contemporaries.

Isn’t this right? Aren’t Revelation, and Isaiah’s visions, and Micah’s prophesies about so much more than “the end?” Aren’t they, in fact, about a new and better and oh so glorious new beginning?

But Christian eschatology has nothing to do with apocalyptic `final solutions’ of this kind, for its subject is not ‘the end’ at all. On the contrary, what it is about is the new creation of all things. Christian eschatology is the remembered hope of the raising of the crucified Christ, so it talks about beginning afresh in the deadly end. ‘The end of Christ – after all that was his true beginning’, said Ernst Bloch. Christian eschatology follows this christological pattern in all its personal, historical and cosmic dimensions: in the end is the beginning.

This has to be one of the most beautiful things I’ve read. Revelation 22 is not the end. It’s the end of the beginning. I don’t know if Moltmann was deliberately channeling Winston Churchill here, but it works. And, he’s right.

That is how Dietrich Bonhoeffer took leave of his fellow prisoner, Payne Best, in Flossenburg concentration camp, as he went to his execution: `This is the end – for me the beginning of life.’ That is how John on Patmos saw the Last judgment of the world – not as annihilation, a universal conflagration, or death in a cosmic winter. He saw it as the first day of the new creation of all things: `See, I am making all things new’ (Rev. 21.5).

If we perceive it in remembrance of the hope of Christ, what is called the end of history is also simply the end of temporal history and the beginning of the eternal history of life. Christ can only be called `the end of history’ in the sense that he is the pioneer and leader of the life that lives eternally. Wherever life is perceived and lived in community and fellowship with Christ, a new beginning is discovered hidden in every end.

Amen and amen. What a vision. What a taste of the future that’s so much better than the sawdust scholasticism that characterizes too many Reformed systematic theologies. We need more of this.

I will close with Emil Brunner, the Swiss theologian, as he discusses hope:

When God in Christ says to man: ‘I love you,’ He says to him: ‘I have loved you from eternity and will love you to eternity.’ A love that does not long to be boundless is not love at all. Every laying down of limits is a denial of love, the proof of its lack of seriousness.

The Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith, and the Consummation, Dogmatics vol. 3, trans. David Cairns (Philidelphia: Westminster, 1960), 344.

Love is the object of our existence. It’s what God created us for – community based on love with Him and one another. This is why Brunner sees the Church as the brotherhood of faith. So, our hope is a total restoration of those relationships by perfect communion with God in eternity.

Brunner continues:

Hope is the certainty that this love lasts for ever and that it will not rest until is possesses us wholly. It does not possess us wholly so long as we are imprisoned in the ‘body of death’ and determined by the ‘form of this world.’ God’s glorifying of Himself which is identical with His self-communication in love only reaches its goal by dissolving this form of the world and transforming the world into the form of glory.

Ibid.

So, the Cross is the beginning of the end, just as Moltmann says. It’s where the Son accomplished the redemption of everything, even as we wait here for it to happen. “As an expectant mother carries within her the child that is to be born, and awaits with certainty the event of its birth, so faith carries the future within it. This future the believer expects wholly and solely from the coming of Jesus Christ,” (Ibid, p. 342).

So, Brunner writes, the Cross is where the world as God meant it to be becomes visible:

In the justification of the sinner the world that has become a stumbling-block to faith for the unbelieving man is also justified. In spite of all the cruelty and senselessness of the world, faith sees it as the creation transfigured in the fulfillment of the divine purpose, restored and approaching its consummation. the Cross as the eschatological turning point is the only theodicy possible and permitted for the Christian – the hope of the Consummation which the Creator and Redeemer God will Himself accomplish.

Ibid, p. 355.

This is the kind of hope we need. Not more end-times charts. Not more arguments about the minutiae, no matter how well-intentioned. We need some good, old-fashioned common ground to celebrate and rejoice about the hope all Christians have. This is theology with heart. With soul. With love.

Again, we could all do with some more of this.

The Five Kingdoms in Daniel 2 and 7

*I will be adding some charts to this paper sometime in the future to help explain things a bit more clearly*

Introduction

This paper presents a comparison between the two prophesies in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. They are complementary accounts of God’s program for His people, presented in two separate visions. There are any number of ways to contrast these two prophesies; this paper exposits each vision separately on its own merit in preparation for a side by side comparison of key events, presented in a chart following the exposition.

The picture which emerges is one where God will triumph over the Antichrist, fulfill His covenant promises to Israel and establish a kingdom for His children which will endure forever. The manifold designs and wicked aims of Satan cannot stand against God, who is sovereign over His entire creation. This message is one of hope given to a people under penalty of sin; God was not through with them yet.

It is also the hope of the Gentiles who number themselves among God’s people, a circumstance not even revealed when Daniel recorded these prophesies. It is a reassuring message of God’s supremacy, trustworthiness and glory. As one scholar observed, “in this present world of injustice, wars, and crime, it is reassuring to know that Christ is coming; and when he comes, all of the evils of this age will end (Miller, 1994, 102).

Daniel 2

The Dream

This vision of God’s program from the fall of Jerusalem until the millennial reign of Christ is very brief and lacks the greater detail of Dan 7. Nevertheless, it presents a complete program. Leon Wood (1973) sees specific significance in this one united image, especially when viewed from God’s perspective. “Before God, history is a whole, made up of variations of the same basic aspirations and activities of mankind involved,” (68).

Archer (1985) remarked matter-of-factly that “this section represents the foreordained succession of world powers that are to dominate the Near East till the final victory of the Messiah in the last days,” (46). The image represents five different kingdoms, four from men and the final from God, which together comprise God’s program from the fall of Jerusalem onward.

2:31-32

A great, mighty and frightening image appeared in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (v. 31). The image was quite imposing and dwarfed Nebuchadnezzar himself; its very appearance was frightening. “Even Nebuchadnezzar, the ultimate ruler (Dan 2:38), recognized this as something greater than himself,” (Walvoord, 2012, 77). It was one single image with multiple composite parts; a head of fine gold (v.32), chest and arms of silver (v.32), a torso and thighs of bronze (v.32), legs of iron (v.33) and feet of both iron and clay (v.33).

There is symbolism in the metals which comprise the image. The preciousness and weight of the metals deteriorates from the head of gold to the feet of mixed clay and iron, while increasing in hardness (Walvoord, 78).

2:34-35

The stone strikes the statue at its weakest and most brittle point, the feet, breaking them into pieces (Dan 2:34). The entire image then disintegrates at once, the pieces are carried away like chaff before the wind (Dan 2:35). Not a trace is found, and the stone becomes a mountain which fills the entire earth.

The Interpretation

This is a prophesy for Israel specifically, and the focus is on the Mediterranean area, which comprises the Biblical concept of “world.” Pentecost (1985) observed that Daniel’s interpretation reveals “the course of Gentile kingdoms which in turn would rule over the land of Palestine and the people of Israel,” (1335).

2:36-38

Nebuchadnezzar is the head of gold (Dan 2:38), and all this power and glory is given to him by God Himself. Nebuchadnezzar, alone among the three kingdoms of men which are to come after, is identified specifically. He embodies Babylon. “After him, its power diminished rapidly. It was far more his kingdom, than he was its king. The same was not true of any ruler of the succeeding empires,” (Wood, 67). The phrase “king of kings” is even used of Nebuchadnezzar again in Eze 26:7; he truly was a supreme monarch who was above all the kings of his generation (Walvoord, 79). This power was given to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:38), emphasizing God’s complete sovereignty over human affairs in His own creation.

2:39

Moving down the statue, two more kingdoms are in view. An inferior kingdom, comprising a chest and arms of silver, will come after Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:39a). This is Medo-Persia, which conquered Babylon in 539 B.C. Silver is less valuable than gold, symbolizing the inferiority of the second kingdom. The inferiority is not with respect to territory; Medo-Persia conquered far more area than Babylon did. Peter Steveson (2008) places the inferiority in the rulers; “it will be inferior in that the Medo-Persian ruler will have less power than Nebuchadnezzar,” (34). Likewise, Wood (68) agrees and remarks the inferiority “can have referred only to quality of government.”

The king was not supreme in this second kingdom in the same manner Nebuchadnezzar was in Babylon. “History certainly confirms that the Medo-Persian Empire, and the empire of Alexander that followed, lacked the central authority and fine organization of the Babylon Empire . . . the inferiority of the succeeding empires does not prevent them from wide geographic control, for he [Daniel] specifically stated that the third kingdom will ‘rule over all the earth,’” (Walvoord, 80-81). The arms signify a division in the kingdom – the inclusion of Media and Persia (Steveson, 35).

Yet another inferior kingdom will come after this, the torso and thighs of the statue fashioned of bronze, which will rule over all the earth (Dan 2:39b). This is Greece, which conquered Medo-Persia between 334 – 330 B.C. Greece did indeed extend its military reach farther than the other three kingdoms, all the way from Egypt, Europe and eastward to India. This kingdom was even more inferior from Nebuchadnezzar’s point of view, in that its political system was more republican than monarchy (Archer, 47).

2:40

A fourth kingdom will come after this, comprising the iron legs of the great image. It has two distinct properties; (1) it is strong as iron and (2) it will crush and shatter all opposition. Iron is less precious than gold, silver or bronze, but is stronger. This is precisely what characterized Roman conquest as it swallowed up and engulfed the Greeks; “Rome in its cruel conquest swallowed up the lands and peoples that had been parts of the three previous empires and assimilated those lands and peoples into itself,” (Pentecost, 1335).

2:41-43

Rome regressed into a weaker nation of clay and iron, a mark of progressive weakness and deterioration. The composite nature of the empire signifies a divided kingdom in its later years, hobbled with increasingly frailty. It is significant that the iron legs were not a composite mixed with clay, but the feet were. “It follows that this element of brittleness would be true of the Roman Empire only in its later period, rather than its former,” (Wood, 69). This refers to the moral decay and decline of the Roman Empire, not a future revival.

The two legs represent a political division, which occurred in the mid-fourth century as the Empire split into East and West. Daniel later identified the toes of the image as ten individual kingdoms (Dan 7:7, 20), therefore it is likely the legs also signify a political schism (Steveson, 38).

2:44-45

Daniel’s narrative telescopes at this point, segueing into prophetic future events at the time of the Antichrist.[1] The “days of those kings” when God sets up his millennial kingdom (Dan 2:44) cannot refer to the time of the four kingdoms already mentioned, because Dan 7:24 explicitly mentioned ten kings would reign at the time of the Antichrist. As noted previously, Dan 7 is a much fuller explanation of a different vision containing the same, expanded message. Nor does this refer to a future revival of the old Roman Empire. “This empire has continued to exist in various forms since it began. Daniel here speaks of this empire in its final form. This will be a union of ten strong and weak governments . . . all under the control of the Antichrist,” (Steveson, 41-42).

God will accomplish several things at this time, (1) He will establish His kingdom (Dan 2:44a) which will never pass away, (2) He will destroy the ten kingdoms.God destroys the whole image at once and the end of them all is sure and certain (v.45b). The stone is nothing less than Christ, smiting all vestiges of the preceding kingdoms. “The stone is part and parcel of the sovereignty of God . . . the symbolism clearly indicates an origination with God rather than human beings,” (Walvoord, 89). God will be faithful to His covenants with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the nation of Israel and David – He will establish His kingdom, which “shall never be destroyed” and “shall stand forever,” (Dan 2:44).

Though less comprehensive than the vision from Dan 7, there are a number of reasons to support that Christ will establish a future kingdom.

First, the conquest and destruction of the kingdoms is violent and abrupt, not peaceful and gradual, as amillennialists argue (Steveson, 43). The stone struck the image’s feet and broke the entire image into pieces, suddenly and abruptly (Dan 2:34-35). Those opposed to the premillennial interpretation of the text deny a literal, future destruction of these ten kingdoms. Generally, they see the fall of the old Roman Empire as fulfillment of Christ striking the image (Dan 2:34-35). However, Christ and Christianity did not destroy the Roman Empire. It continued on for centuries afterward. Furthermore, its destruction was gradual and drawn-out, not sudden as Dan 2:35 depicts. Christ did indeed come in the days of the Roman Empire, but He did not destroy it (Pentecost, 1336).

Second, Daniel’s prophesy clearly indicates Christ will return again “in the days of those kings,” before defeating them and establishing His kingdom (Dan 2:44).  Daniel’s subsequent vision in Dan 7:7-28 supports this point. However, during Christ’s time on earth the Roman Empiredid not have 10 kings at once. Therefore, the time of the ten kingdom (“ten toes”) is still future.

Third, the church today has not, and is not, conquering the world’s kingdoms. Indeed, as Walvoord notes, “for the past century or more the church has been an ebbing tide in the affairs of the world, and there has been no progress whatsoever in the church’s gaining control of the world politically. If the image represents Gentile political power, it is very much still standing,” (89).

Fourth, Christ will rule over a theocracy. “The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people . . . it shall stand forever,” (Dan 2:44). Pentecost observed, “the church is not a kingdom with a political realm, but the future Millennium will be,” (1336).

Daniel 7

The First Three Beasts

7:1-2

Most commentators agree Daniel presented a summary of his dream; “the essential points of significance,” (Wood, 180). Steveson argues the significance of “wind” is that trouble and tribulation will come from all directions (117). Wood agrees, and notes “winds stand for various forces which play upon the nations, serving to bring strife and trouble,” (180).

Walvoord sees the winds here as God’s sovereign power in conflict with sinful humanity. He argues wind always represents God’s sovereign power, which Walvoord maintains is the whole focus of the Book of Daniel. He went on to observe, “Gentile history is the record of God striving with the nations and ultimately bringing them into subjection when Christ returns to reign,” (189).

The dream was given to Daniel to provide comfort to the exiles, lest they believe God was through with them. “God was not through with them, however, and He desired that they know He was not. An effective way to do this was to reveal the historical future which God had in mind for them,” (Wood, 178). God will defeat the Antichrist. He is sovereign and Israel will have a kingdom.

The “great sea” is typically used in Scripture to refer to the Mediterranean. This strongly implies the prophesy involves only the Mediterranean world (Pentecost, 1350). This is a point Steveson also emphasizes later (134).

7:3

The beasts each represent successive nations, different from one another. The sea in question, the Mediterranean, symbolically represents the nations of Biblical prophecy (Pentecost, 116). Daniel later confirms that the beasts were nations, or kings, of the earth (Dan 7:17).

7:4

The first empire is Babylon, under Nebuchadnezzar. This is not really a matter of serious dispute. Walvoord observed, “there is more unanimity on the identification of the first beast of chapter 7 than on any other point in this chapter,” (189). Images of lions have been found in the ruins of Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar is represented elsewhere in Scripture as a lion (Jer 4:7) and an eagle (Jer 49:22). The wings being plucked off the lion can symbolize either the empire’s rapid deterioration after Nebuchadnezzar’s death, or his insanity (Pentecost, 1350). The transformation from a lion to a more human-like figure represents Nebuchadnezzar’s changed disposition after his seven years of insanity. The fact that he “was lifted up” signifies that he did not change himself; God did it for Him (Miller, 197).

7:5

The second empire is Medo-Persia. Wood observed two points worth noting (183); (1) The lop-sided shape of the animal indicates the Persians had vastly more influence than the Medes in the alliance, and (2) The beast was lop-sided because the beast had one foot in the air, as if to lurch forward, symbolizing the rapid military advance of the Medo-Persian empire.

The ribs the beast was munching on symbolize Lydia, Egypt and Babylon (Walvoord, 193). Archer remarked it was “hopeless” to explain away the identification of Medo-Persia with the second beast (86).

7:6

The third empire is Greece, characterized by extraordinary swiftness of conquest. The wings suggest speed and swiftness. The four heads symbolize the four generals who ruled Alexander’s dominion after his death (Steveson, 123).[2]  “The lightening character of his conquests is without precedent in the ancient world, and this is fully in keeping with the image of speed embodied in the leopard and the four wings on its back,” (Walvoord, 194).

The Fourth Beast

7:7

The fourth beast is Rome, which follows Greece in the chronology of great Mediterranean empires. Wood remarked the most outstanding feature of this fourth beast was its strength, and the emphasis given to this last beast indicates it has far greater significance for Daniel’s vision (183). This beast is characterized by “extensive conquest involving enormous destruction of people and property,” (Wood, 186). It is no accident Daniel describes the beast in such stark terms, such as “terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong.” Rome differed from the previous three empires – it had staying power. Daniel noted the permanence of this beast’s conquests, “it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet.”

Conquest was made at wide range and with the greatest strength and ferocity. Her conquests were more permanent too; for whereas the other empires had been satisfied with only a loose confederation of countries seized, Rome consolidated and organized for lasting control (Wood, 186).

Daniel saw all ten horns at the same time on this fourth beast. This means the empire comprises ten different kingdoms.  Most commentators emphasize the contemporaneous nature of these kingdoms. This is extremely important – Daniel was not speaking of a different empire; he was clearly describing features of the fourth beast.

Is this a re-constituted Roman Empire or merely 10 kingdoms formed from the political ashes of the old? Commentators are divided on the issue. Wood alone sees a reconstituted Roman Empire. “The correct view can only be that there will be a time still future when the Roman Empire will be restored, so that these representations can be true in the manner depicted,” (187). He noted that symbolism shows the horns growing from the fourth beast’s head while it is still alive, demonstrating the Roman Empire must be reconstituted at some future date (200).

Archer is not dogmatic, merely labeling this as a “latter day ten-state federation,” (87).  Walvoord agrees, “ten actual kingdoms will exist simultaneously in the future tribulation period,” (200).

Pentacost disagrees, “when the hordes from the north conquered the Roman Empire in the fifth century a.d., they did not unite to form another empire. Instead individual nations emerged out of the old Roman Empire. Some of those nations and others stemming from them have continued till the present day. The present Age, then, is the 10-horned era of the fourth beast,” (1354). Steveson, as seen in the discussion on Dan 2:43, agrees with Pentecost (41-42, 126).

Many scholars, of varying theology, dispute the literal, premillennial interpretation given above. The crux of the matter was captured perfectly by Walvoord; it comes down to whether one’s hermeneutic is literal or not.

Interpreters who agree that the Roman Empire is in view differ in their explanations about how the ten horns relate to Rome. Amillennial scholars . . . tend to spiritualize both the number ten and the number three, and thus escape the necessity of finding any literal fulfillment. Both of them find literal fulfillment impossible because no ten kings reigned simultaneously in the Roman period . . . Premillenialists offer another view, providing literal fulfillment: ten actual kingdoms will exist simultaneously in the future tribulation period (200).

7:8

There are ten contemporaneous kingdoms. One kingdom, insignificant and unthreatening, rises dramatically and absorbs three others. This last kingdom emerges later, from among the ten others. Most conservative commentators identify this last ruler as the Antichrist. This last ruler was noted for his intelligence and his blasphemous claims.

7:9-10

God will judge the nations, and the court of judgment Daniel sees (Dan 7:10) is nothing less than the Great White Throne judgment (Steveson, 128). The phrase “ancient of days” (Daniel 7:9) suggests God’s eternal nature. His clothing and appearance illustrates His purity and holiness. The flames about the throne demonstrate His righteous judgment. “The fire not only represents the blindingly brilliant manifestation of God’s splendor but also the fierce heat of His judgment on sin and all those opposed to His supreme authority,” (Archer, 89). The wheels of the throne suggest God’s omnipresence and mobility (Steveson, 129);He sees all men’s works and will judge correctly. Reference to the books being opened (Daniel 7:10) is a further reference is Rev 20:12 and the Great White Throne judgment (Pentecost, 1351).

7:11-12

Daniel’s attention is diverted from this awesome vision of God’s final judgment because of the blasphemous words (Dan 7:8) the Antichrist was speaking (Dan 7:11a). The beast is slain and burned with fire (Dan 7:11b). The other three kingdoms pictured in this vision had been defeated by military might and their legacies lived on to some extent; “their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time,” (Dan 7:12). This last kingdom, which rose out of the political ashes of the Roman Empire, will be conquered only by divine judgment and the defeat will be final, total and absolute. The Antichrist is defeated (Rev 19:20) and Christ establishes the MillennialKingdom; “the end [of the fourth kingdom] here is complete as God brings the empire under the absolute authority of Jesus Christ in His reign over the earth,” (Steveson, 130).

There is a clear parallel here with Daniel 2:34-35, where the stone which represents Christ’s kingdom strikes Nebuchadnezzar’s image. The image was destroyed at the same time, “then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces,” (Dan 2:35a). Returning to Dan 7:11-12, “each of the three previous empires would be continued, by this reduplication of self in people and culture, in their respective successors; but the fourth would not be,” (Wood, 192). The last vestiges of the previous three empires are destroyed along with the fourth – once and for all.

7:13-14

After the destruction of the Antichrist, Jesus will rule and reign. The covenants promised to Israel will have their literal fulfillment. Compare Dan 7:14 to 2 Sam 7:16, where the prophet Nathan explained God’s covenant with David; “And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.” What Daniel describes in Dan 7:13-14 is the millennial reign of Christ (Pentecost, 1351) and the ultimate victory over Satan. All believers, including all those who have trusted in Christ throughout history as well as believing Jews at the time of Christ’s return, will receive this kingdom (Dan 7:18). “The final outcome of human history will be a return of Adam’s race under the rule of the divine Son of Man to loving obedience and subjection to the sovereignty of God, never again to fall away from Him,” (Archer, 91).

7:15-18

This is a short summary statement from the angel Daniel asks the “truth” from. It is very straightforward; four kings will arise, but God will inevitably triumph in the end. There has been considerable debate among conservative scholars over what the “saints of the Most High” means. Pentecost adamantly states these are believing Jews, not the church. “The existence of the church in the present Age was nowhere revealed in the Old Testament,” (1352). Walvoord sees this as including the saved of all ages (212),as does Steveson (133), in light of later NT teachings that all saints will rule with the Lord (Matt 19:28; 1 Cor 6:2). Wood also sees both groups (196). In light of later NT clarification and the revealed mystery of the church age (Eph 3:2-7), this is the more likely interpretation.

7:19-22

As Gabriel provides the interpretation of this vision to Daniel, some additional facts come out. The Antichrist will persecute the saints, overcome the nation of Israel and eventually himself be judged by God. These “saints” are primarily Jews, “Since the Antichrist will oppose especially the Jews in Palestine during the latter half of the tribulation, the primary reference must be to them,” (198).

The Interpretation

7:23

The fourth beast will have absolute dominion over the Biblical world. Steveson, drawing from Dan 11:40-44, strongly emphasizes that Daniel has in mind the Biblical world only;

The focus of prophesy is on the Biblical world, the world ruled by the Romans. While this ‘little horn’ (7:8) rules only in the Mediterranean world, he will certainly have worldwide influence (Rev 13:7-8) . . . Nothing in this context gives Antichrist dominion over the whole world. He controls the nations that have come from the old Roman Empire (Steveson, 134-135).

Archer agrees, “the whole earth refers, not to all known parts of the inhabited earth, but rather to the entire territory of the Near and Middle East,” (93). It is the Biblical world, not the whole world that is in view in the prophesy.

7:24

Gabriel clearly identifies the horns with individual kingdoms which rise from the ashes of the old Roman Empire. Again, as Wood reminds us, this fourth kingdom is unique in that it has two periods of existence, one of old time and another of future time (199). Dan 7:24 is future prophesy; the ten kings reign simultaneously before the Antichrist rises and subdues three of them (Walvoord, 215). These conditions have not yet come about.

7:25

The Antichrist’s program is now brought into focus, and Gabriel expands on Daniel’s original vision from Dan 7:8. The Antichrist is blasphemous against God, will persecute the believers and institute his own system of laws during the first half of the tribulation (Pentecost, 1354). He simply must substitute God’s laws for his own, it is critical to his sinister designs. “Antichrist will not be able to accept worship of man without changing the worship of the true God. He does that by either by letting the festival times point to him as God or by substituting other festivities that honor him.” Steveson went on to suggest this will take the form of a new calendar devoid of any and all Christian reference (137). Miller has perhaps the best explanation as he suggests “Antichrist will go beyond what anyone has done before in his attempt to create a thoroughly secular world,” (214). The “time, times, and half a time” refers to the second half of the seven year tribulation (Walvoord, 216 and Wood, 201-202).

7:26-27

This is the explanation of Dan 7:9-12. The Antichrist will be overthrown once and for all; Antichrist will “be consumed and destroyed to the end.”

Summary and Comparison

As noted before, Daniel 7 contains much more material than Dan 2. The two visions are complementary accounts of the same program God has been bringing about from before the foundations of the world. This chart lays out God’s program from both prophesies, with the supporting verses from each chapter.

Event

Chapter 2

Chapter 7

Rise of four successive earthly kingdoms

2:37-43

7:2

These kingdoms will be defeated. God’s people, of all ages, will rule and reign with Him forever

2:44-45

7:17-18

Rise of Babylon

2:32a, 36-38

7:4

God is sovereign over all human affairs

2:37-38

Rise of Medo-Persia

2:32b; 39a

7:5

Rise of Greece

2:32c

7:6

Greece will rule over whole of Biblical world

2:39b

Rise of Rome, more terrifying and stronger than all others.

2:33a, 40

7:7-8, 23

Rome will have a political division into East and West – significance of “legs”

2:33a

Rome will deteriorate and weaken over time

2:33b; 41-43

Future rise of 10 contemporaneous kingdoms from political ashes of Roman Empire

2:44

7:7c; 24a

Rise of Antichrist during time of these 10 kingdoms

7:8, 24b

Antichrist subdues three of these 10 kingdoms

7:8b, 24b

Antichrist is a man, intelligent and blasphemous

7:8c; 20

Antichrist persecutes and harasses Israel, bringing worship to himself and secularizing the world in a manner never seen before

7:25a-c

Antichrist will make war against Israel during second half of tribulation and prevail for a time, until God judges him and Christ establishes His kingdom

7:21-22; 25d

Great White Throne judgment

7:9-10; 26a

Antichrist destroyed, along with his kingdom and residual of previous three kingdoms

2:35a; 44b-45a

7:11-12; 26b

Millennial Reign established

2:35b; 44a

7:13-14; 27

The preceding exposition of both prophecies was done to justify the interpretations presented in the chart above. Comparing both Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, it is clear God provided a comprehensive picture of eschatology for the ever faithful Daniel and his fellow exiles in their time of need. It is also the promise that, after the four kingdoms of men, God will establish His kingdom, free from sin. It is a marvelous portrait of God’s sovereignty, a comfort in a time of storm for all of God’s people past, present and future, until He calls His children home.

Bibliography

Archer, Jr., Gleason L. Daniel. The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 7. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.

Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. The New American Commentary, vol. 18. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

Pentecost, Dwight J. Daniel. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, vol. 1. John Walvoord and Roy Zuck, eds. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985.

Steveson, Peter A. Daniel. Greenville: BJU, 2008.

Walvoord, John. Daniel. Charles Dyer and Philip Rawley, eds. Chicago: Moody, 2012.

Wood, Leon. Daniel. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973.

[1]. There is disagreement among conservative scholars over where the narrative telescopes. Pentecost (1336), Steveson (41-42) and Walvoord (89) argue for the break at Dan 2:44. Wood breaks ranks with his conservative colleagues, and argues extensively for a break at Daniel 2:42 instead (70-71).

[2]. Steveson noted Alexander did indeed have more than four generals, but four in particular gained prominence and power after his death.