Basic HTML Version
676
one is followed by the glorification of the saints, and the other by the judgment of the nations
and the establishment of the kingdom. This construction of the doctrine of the second coming
is very convenient for the dispensationalists, since it enables them to defend the view that the
coming of the Lord is imminent, but is not warranted by Scripture and carries with it un-
Scriptural implications. In II Thess. 2:1,2,8 the terms parousia and “day of the Lord” are used
interchangeably, and according to II Thess. 1:7-10 the revelation mentioned in verse 7
synchronizes with the parousia which brings the glorification of the saints of which the 10th
verse speaks. Matt. 24:29-31 represents the coming of the Lord at which the elect are gathered
together as following immediately after the great tribulation mentioned in the context, while
according to the theory under consideration it should occur before the tribulation. And. finally,
according to this theory the Church will not pass through the great tribulation, which is
represented in Matt. 24:4-26 as synchronizing with the great apostasy, but the representation
of Scripture in Matt. 24:22; Luke 21:36; II Thess. 2:3; I Tim. 4:1-3; II Tim. 3:1-5; Rev. 7:14 is quite
different. On the basis of Scripture it should be maintained that the second coming of the Lord
will be a single event. Happily, some Premillenarians do not agree with this doctrine of a
twofold second coming of Christ, and speak of it as an unwarranted novelty. Says Frost: “It is
not generally known, and yet it is an indisputable fact that the doctrine of a pretribulation
resurrection and rapture is a modern interpretation — I am tempted to say, a modern
invention.”[The Second Coming of Christ, p. 203.] According to him it dates from the day of
Irving and Darby. Another Premillenarian, namely, Alexander Reese, puts up a very strong
argument against this whole idea in his work on The Approaching Advent of Christ.
B. GREAT EVENTS PRECEDING THE PAROUSIA.
According to Scripture several important events must occur before the return of the Lord, and
therefore it cannot be called imminent. In the light of Scripture it cannot be maintained that
there are no predicted events which must still come to pass before the second coming. As
might be expected in view of what was said in the preceding, Frost, in spite of his
dispensationalism, rejects the doctrine of imminence. He prefers to speak of the coming of
Christ as “impending.” Support for the doctrine of the imminence of the return of Christ is
found in Scripture statements to the effect that Christ is coming after “a very little while,” Heb.
10:37; or “quickly,” Rev. 22:7; in exhortations to watch and wait for His coming, Matt. 24:42;
25:13; Rev. 16:15; and in the fact that Scripture condemns the person who saith, “My Lord
tarrieth” (or, “delayeth his coming”), Matt. 24:48. Jesus did indeed teach that His coming was
near, but this is not the same as teaching that it was imminent. In the first place it should be
borne in mind that in speaking of His coming, He does not always have in mind the
eschatological coming. Sometimes He refers to His coming in spiritual power on the day of
Pentecost; sometimes to His coming in judgment in the destruction of Jerusalem. In the second