1/20/17

Imminency: stumbling block or stepping stone?


In the realm of Bible prophecy studies, the idea of "imminency" suggests two conjoined ideas, namely: a) none can know the time of the Rapture; and, b) the Rapture could occur at any moment.  A well known Bible teacher recently referred to that as the "Imminency Rule" (here, @time mark 6:15+).  References to "imminency," or the "Imminency Rule," most often appear in connection with arguments intended to defend a pre-Tribulation view of the Rapture; for reasons which I will shortly explain.  But if there may be found anything in Scripture which could lead some to believe that the Bible does entail the so-called "Imminency Rule," yet, it appears to me that the notion of "imminency" has not been rightly understood.  I further perceive that mistaken inferences related to imminency serve not as a stepping stone to a correct interpretation of Bible prophecy, but rather as a stumbling block to that.

Where does the notion of imminency come from, in Scripture?  The following passage contains the two or three verses which are prominently supposed to teach those two ideas, above mentioned (-none can know the time of the Rapture; and, -the Rapture could occur at any moment), which ideas are connoted by the term "imminency:"
"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.  But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.  Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.  Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.  But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.  Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh."  (Matthew 24:36-44)
Notwithstanding the seemingly plain meaning and implications of the phrases highlighted in red, above; yet, the fact that those words appear in the context (which I was careful to include a portion of that) of Jesus's rather lengthy discourse in which he revealed a number of different events and circumstances which he instructed his disciples (including us) to watch for, in connection with the near-approaching time of his return ~ is somehow often overlooked.

The twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew consists of fifty-one (51) verses.  In the beginning (v. 3) of that lengthy chapter, certain of Jesus's disciples asked him the question: "What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"  Jesus's answer to that muli-part question occupies most of the remaining forty-eight verses in that chapter.  Does anyone then suppose that a couple of verses taken out of their context, that is, out of Jesus's full reply, should be allowed to stand alone as if those two verses constitute a complete doctrine in themselves?  Nevertheless, it is not unfair to say that that is in fact what has been done with respect to the so-called "Imminency Rule."  (I mean no disrespect to the individual who evidently coined that term.  The idea of the Imminency Rule, if not that exact term, is a common one amongst those who study and teach Bible prophecy.)

I do not mean to suggest that Jesus spoke those words to no purpose.  I only mean that we must take care how we go about to rightly understand what Jesus meant.  Let's take a closer look at those two above-highlighted verses of special interest.  Here's the first:
"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."
God doesn't mince words; the Holy Ghost uses words with precision and purpose.  Jesus then said, with reference to his future "coming," that no one but the Father, only, "knoweth" that "day and hour."  Jesus himself, evidently, did not then know.  But he spoke those words at a time prior to his crucifixion ~ which is to say, at a time prior to his glorification and exaltation to sit in the throne of God, as the "head over all things to the church" (Ephesians 1:22).  The Bible plainly teaches that Jesus (as a man) "increased in wisdom" (Luke 2:52).  Jesus began his human existence as all do, which is to say, as an infant.  Even though he was the eternal Son of God, yet, he took upon himself human nature, Scripture attests.  In other words, at the time when Jesus spoke those words ("..of that day and hour knoweth no man"), he necessarily included even himself ~ at that time.  But that word, "knoweth," does not mean that such knowledge would forever be kept from all men.  Jesus was and yet is a man, a human being.  But, today, he is exalted "above all heavens" (Ephesians 4:10).  In sum, he knows.  Now, he full well knows the time of his return.

Yet there is more.  Shortly before Jesus ascended to heaven, he told his disciples:
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.  He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.  All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."  (John 16:12-15)
Thus we see that things are very different with Jesus, today, than they were on that day when he told his disciples, "..of that day and hour knoweth no man."  Then, only the Father knew (and he did know).  But Jesus said, "All things that the Father hath are mine."  Moreover, he also promised that the Holy Ghost "shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

The so-called "Imminency Rule" appears already to be giving way to deeper understanding.

Now, let's examine the latter portion of the passage quoted at the head of this essay; as here reiterated:
"Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.  But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up."  

The word "watch" appears three times, in the above quote.  The instance of that which appears in blue color, is translated from the Greek word fulakh/ (phulake, foo-lak-ay´), which means: "a guarding or (concretely, guard), the act, the person; figuratively, the place, the condition, or (specially), the time (as a division of day or night), literally or figuratively."  Whereas, where the word "watch" appears in red color, above, is translated from a different Greek word: grhgoreu/w (gregoreuo, gray-gor-yoo´-o), which means: "to keep awake, i.e. watch (literally or figuratively): — be vigilant, wake, (be) watch(-ful)."

In ancient times ~ when there were no mechanical time-keeping devices (watches), day and night were divided not into seconds or minutes nor even into discrete hours such as we understand those.  But their ordinary divisions of time consisted of larger (roughly 3-hour) blocks of time, which could be rather easily distinguished one from another, by the appearance of atmospheric conditions.

What Jesus meant (in the above-quoted passage), was, that if the person who was in charge of protecting the house had known in what portion of the night, that is to say, in what block of time (fulakh), the thief was going to come, he would have stayed awake (grhgoreu/w) during that time, in order to protect his household.  It were irrational to suppose that Jesus was suggesting that the (hypothetical) housekeeper should have stayed awake all night long ~ each and every night, in order to prevent his house from being robbed.  Rather, Jesus was trying to convey the idea that ~ we are to be watchful, especially during that time period when we have many good reasons to believe that Jesus shall then appear.

So much for the idea of "imminency" ~ as that is conventionally construed.

Still there is more.

What are we to do with the more prolific sayings of Jesus? ~ some of which appear within that same twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew ~ to the effect:
"So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors." (Matthew 24:33)
When (not if).  Ye shall see (not may see).  All these things (what things?)  Know (not guess).

Jesus there indicated that some, at least, "shall see". . . certain things.  And when they do see "these things," then they shall "know" that the time of Christ's return is "near, even at the doors."  That doesn't sound anything like "imminency," to me; except, perhaps, in an explicitly narrow sense of that word.

But what are "these things" which Jesus said his disciples would (should) be capable to "see" (discern, perceive)?  They are of course those things which Jesus described in the preceding verses in that same chapter (Matthew 24).  They are the direct, one-to-one correlatives of (five of) the Seven Seals in the Revelation, viz.: 1) spiritual deception of a certain kind; 2) an epoch of unprecedented warfare; 3) an epoch of unprecedented famine; etc. (see my book, The Seven Seals in Prophecy and in Historyhere).

The so-called “Imminency Rule," in effect, stipulates that the time of the Rapture “cannot be known relative to any event or sequence of events” (my definition).  In keeping with the Imminency Rule, logical consistency would require that questions related to the occurrence (timing) of the Rapture must also then be immune to any and all considerations pertaining to the events of the Tribulation, irregardless of whether the sequence of those events were known beforehand.

I firmly believe in the pre-Tribulational Rapture.  However, I am convinced that the idea of “imminency” ~ which pre-Tribulationalists almost universally rely upon as a primary defense of that position, serves instead as a huge stumbling block to withstand against the ability to present a far more substantive and meaningful defense of the pre-Tribulation position than what has hitherto been presented by others (than myself, in my book just mentioned).

The notional objection involving "imminency," effectually rules out all possible discussion involving the question of what may be known, from Scripture, concerning the relative timing of the Rapture prior to the Tribulation; a subject about which the Bible actually has a great deal to say (though those truths remain buried beneath a mountain of pre-suppositions, conjecture, and not least important, a number of false and misleading dogmas).

The foregoing is but the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, concerning a refutation of the (conventionally understood) idea of imminency and the supposed relationship of that to the Rapture.  But this is, after all, a blog and not a book.  The interested Reader is invited to study my book and/or to post comments/questions, below; and, above all, to more carefully study the Bible.


No comments:

Post a Comment